People v. Verdadero
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Norberto Verdadero y Pimentel was charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The charges stemmed from an alleged buy-bust operation conducted on September 27, 2017, in Barangay Ganduz, Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs (one sachet of shabu) and illegal possession of dangerous drugs (six sachets of shabu). The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. The accused-appellant elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused-appellant sought reversal of the CA's decision, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, and whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drugs.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and acquitted the accused-appellant Norberto Verdadero y Pimentel of the crimes charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court ordered his immediate release from detention unless lawfully held for another cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court of Appeals correctly found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, and whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drugs: The Court found the appeal meritorious. In criminal cases, an appeal opens the entire case for review. To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment. For illegal possession, the prosecution must establish that the accused possessed a dangerous drug without legal authority and that the possession was conscious and voluntary. Crucially, the identity of the seized drug must be established with moral certainty, which requires an unbroken chain of custody. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The marking of the seized items, which is the first stage in the chain of custody, must be done immediately upon confiscation, at the place of confiscation, and in the presence of the offender. In this case, it was undisputed that the poseur-buyer failed to mark the seized items immediately upon confiscation. The marking was done during the inventory at the police station, not at the place of seizure. No justifiable ground was proffered to excuse this deviation from the established procedure. The prosecution's reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was insufficient without evidence proving the proper preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Since the first link of the chain of custody was not established, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were seriously compromised, warranting acquittal.
Main Doctrine
The failure of law enforcement officers to immediately mark seized dangerous drugs at the place of confiscation and in the presence of the offender, without justifiable ground, compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt.