People v. Nazareno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The Information charged appellant Allan Nazareno with the sale of two (2) sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution presented evidence that a buy-bust operation was conducted where PO2 Dino Magno, acting as the poseur-buyer, purchased two sachets of shabu from appellant for ₱200.00. After the transaction, PO2 Magno gave a pre-arranged signal, and appellant was arrested by the backup team. PO3 Rene Enterina frisked appellant and recovered the marked money. The sachets were turned over to SPO2 Vivencio Lluisma, and later sent for laboratory examination, which confirmed the contents to be shabu. The defense, however, presented a different version, with appellant testifying that he was roused from sleep by police officers and brought to the station, where he was shown the sachets and told to get a lawyer. A witness, Lolita Pasco, corroborated seeing appellant being pulled by a police officer and made to board a patrol car. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iligan City, Branch 6, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision. Appellant elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and erred in giving weight to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. He contended that the sale of shabu was not sufficiently proven and that the sachets of shabu were not sufficiently linked to him.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, specifically the existence of the corpus delicti. Whether the police officers complied with the proper procedure in the custody of seized drugs.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court. Appellant Allan Nazareno y Caburtan was acquitted of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt and ordered immediately released from custody, unless held for other lawful cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court held that while the identity of the appellant as the seller was established by the testimonies of the police officers, the prosecution failed to prove the existence of the corpus delicti. The Court reiterated that in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is material to prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited or regulated drug. The delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction. However, the failure to properly establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs casts doubt on their identity. On Issue 2: The Court found that the records were bereft of proof that the police officers complied with the proper procedure in the custody of seized drugs as specified in People v. Lim. Specifically, PO2 Magno immediately turned over the two sachets to SPO2 Lluisma without marking them. PO2 Magno admitted he was not able to mark the sachets and had no knowledge whether an inventory was conducted or if the sachets were turned over to an evidence custodian. P/S Insp. Bernido, the forensic chemist, testified that the sachets were already marked "A-01" and "A-02" and had the suspect's name written on the plastic bag when she received them, but she had no knowledge as to who actually marked them. The prosecution also failed to present SPO2 Lluisma, who was in the best position to testify on what transpired after the drugs were turned over to him, and did not explain his non-appearance despite being subpoenaed. This deviation from standard procedure, similar to cases like People v. Laxa and Zarraga v. People, created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution failed to establish the existence of the corpus delicti in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs due to non-compliance with the proper procedure in the custody of seized drugs, specifically the failure to immediately mark, inventory, and photograph the confiscated items in the presence of the accused, thereby creating reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti.