Facts:

The case involves Datu Not Abdul (appellant) who filed a Notice of Appeal on August 4, 2008, contesting the Decision dated July 14, 2008, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02783. The CA's decision upheld the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 61's ruling from March 5, 2007, which found Abdul guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, concerning the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The events leading to the case began on June 25, 2005, when Police Officer 2 Daniel E. Akia of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-Cordillera Administrative Region (PDEA-CAR) received a tip-off about Abdul's illegal drug activities. Following this, a buy-bust operation was organized, where Akia posed as a buyer. During the operation, Abdul was apprehended after handing over a plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to Akia in exchange for money. The police documented the operation...

Facts:

Background and Incident Details

On 25 June 2005, Police Officer 2 Daniel E. Akia (PO2 Akia) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-Cordillera Administrative Region (PDEA-CAR) received a tip from an informant about the illegal drug activities of Datu Not Abdul (appellant). A buy-bust operation was planned, with PO2 Akia posing as the buyer. The operation took place in San Vicente, Baguio City, where appellant allegedly sold a medium-sized, transparent, heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance (shabu) to PO2 Akia for ₱6,500. Upon realizing the money was fake, appellant was apprehended.

Arrest and Post-Operation Procedures

After the arrest, appellant was brought to the PDEA office, where an inventory of the seized item was conducted in the presence of representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, and the barangay council. The plastic sachet was marked with initials and forwarded to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory for analysis. The forensic chemist confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

Trial Proceedings

Appellant pleaded not guilty during arraignment. The prosecution presented testimonies from the arresting officers and submitted the seized drug and chemistry report as evidence. Appellant, in his defense, claimed he was framed and extorted by the police. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found appellant guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

• (Unlock)

Ratio:

The chain-of-custody rule is crucial in drug cases to ensure the integrity and identity of the seized drug. The Court noted the following evidentiary gaps:

1. Marking of the Drug: There was no clear evidence establishing when, where, and by whom the plastic sachet was marked, nor were the witnesses to the marking identified.
2. Custody After Confiscation: The testimonies of the arresting officers were inconsistent regarding who took custody of the drug after confiscation. PO2 Akia claimed he handed it to SPO4 Madlon, while SPO4 Madlon denied this, stating it was given to their team leader.
3. Transit and Storage: There was no evidence showing who transported the drug from the scene to the police station, who stored it, or who handled it before it was submitted to the laboratory.

These lapses raised reasonable doubt about the identity of the drug presented in court, as it could not be conclusively proven to be the same item seized from appellant. The Court emphasized that strict compliance with the chain-of-custody rule is essential to prevent tampering, alteration, or substitution of evidence.

The Court also reiterated that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, appellant was acquitted and ordered to be released immediately, unless detained for another lawful cause.