G.R. No. 232940 - DENNIS LOAYON Y LUIS, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate 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. [11] The RTC found that the prosecution had established all the elements of the crime charged, noting that the policemen had no ill motive to inculpate Loayon and build a trumped-up charge against him. It also found that the policemen substantially complied with the chain of custody rule, thereby preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized from Loayon. [12] Aggrieved, Loayon appealed to the CA. In a Decision [13] dated March 6, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It held that the policemen's positive identification of Loayon as the possessor of the seized plastic sachet, which he threw away while he was being chased, shall prevail over the latter's bare denials, which was uncorroborated by other evidence. Moreover, it observed that the prosecution was able to prove the crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized item. [14] Undaunted, Loayon moved for reconsideration, [15] but the same was denied in a Resolution [16] dated July 13, 2017; hence, this petition. [17] The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [18] 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. [19] 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. [20] 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. [21] 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. [22] 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." [23] 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. [24] The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if pri