G.R. No. 245486 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RONALD JAIME DE MOTOR Y DANTES AND LYNIEL TORINO Y RAMOS, ACCUSED; RONALD JAIME DE MOTOR Y DANTES, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly sentenced him as follows: ( a ) in Criminal Case No. 0461-2012, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00; and ( b ) in Criminal Case No. 0462-2012, to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. [13] The trial court gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses and ruled that all the respective elements of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs had been sufficiently proved. [14] Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed [15] to the CA, arguing that he should be acquitted on account of the inconsistent and improbable testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and in view of the arresting officer's non-­compliance with the chain of custody rule since a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) was not present to witness the inventory and photography of the purported drugs. [16] In a Decision [17] dated September 4, 2018, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC. [18] It found that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses pertained to trivial matters and minor details, and further held that the rule on chain of custody had been substantially complied with. [19] Hence, this appeal seeking that accused-appellant's conviction be overturned. The Court's Ruling The appeal is meritorious. In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [20] it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. [21] Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal. [22] To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. [23] As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia , that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In this regard, case law recognizes that "[m]arking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." [24] Hence, the failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody. [25] The law further requires that the said inventor