G.R. No. 233336 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. DON EMILIO CARIÑO Y AGUSTIN A.K.A. "DON EMILIO CARIÑO AGUSTIN,"[*] ACCUSED-.

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him as follows: ( a ) in Criminal Case No. 21107, he was sentenced 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. 21108, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of twelve (12) years, and one (1) day, as minimum, to twelve (12) years, ten (10) months, and one (1) day, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. [13] The RTC found that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that Cariño was arrested after he was caught in flagrante delicto to be selling shabu , and that after his arrest, another sachet containing shabu was recovered from him. [14] Cariño moved for reconsideration but the same was denied in an Order [15] dated March 20, 2014. Aggrieved, he appealed [16] to the CA. In a Decision [17] dated March 17, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It held that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crimes charged against Cariño, and that the conduct of inventory prior to the arrival of the witnesses, among others, did not tarnish the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. [18] Hence, this appeal seeking that Cariño'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, [19] 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. [20] 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. [21] 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. [22] 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. [23] In this regard, case law recognizes that "marking 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 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