G.R. No. 223141 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JAY SUAREZ Y CABUSO, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the RTC sentenced appellant to suffer the penalties of: a) life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 75-2010; and b) imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and a fine of P300,000.00 for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 76-2010. [24] Appellant thereafter appealed the RTC Decision before the CA. Ruling of the Court of Appeals In its Decision dated March 23, 2015, the CA affirmed the assailed RTC Decision in toto. It upheld the RTC's findings that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish all the elements of the crimes charged. [25] The CA noted, too, that the chain of custody over the seized marijuana was sufficiently established by the prosecution, viz.: Certainly, the links in the case at bar were duly established. First, PO1 Tan seized the marijuana from appellant. Second, PO1 Tan and PO1 Mateo testified that they personally marked the plastic sachets of marijuana they confiscated before handing the same to their lead investigator, SPO2 delos Reyes. Third , SPO[2] delos Reyes rendered his testimony to establish the third link in the chain of custody when he testified that he prepared a request for laboratory examination. Fourth, Forensic Chemist, Arlyn Dascil, testified that she is the forensic chemist assigned to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Olongapo City. She examined the specimens subject of the instant case which yielded positive result for marijuana and x x x that upon request of the Office of the Prosecutor, the specimens subject of the instant case were handed by the evidence custodian of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Olongapo City to the Office of the Prosecutor. [26] Aggrieved, appellant filed the present appeal. The Issues Appellant raises the following issues for the Court's resolution: First , whether the CA committed an error when it disregarded the inconsistency in the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses as to the place of marking of the seized items; [27] Second, whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs had been preserved, considering the arresting officers' failure to mark the seized items immediately at the place of arrest; [28] And third, whether the chain of custody over the seized items was sufficiently established, given the prosecution's failure to present a detailed account as regards the handling of said items from the time they were confiscated up to their presentation in court during the trial. [29] The Court's Ruling For prosecutions involving dangerous drugs, we have consistently held that "the dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt." [30] In other words, "the identity of the dangerous drug [must] be established beyond reasonable doubt." [31] "Such proof requires an unwavering exac