G.R. No. 238617 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. ALVIN BAMBICO Y CARVAJAL, ACCUSED-.

Ruling

accordingly, penalized him as follows: ( a ) in Criminal Case No. 11-1208-MN, to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00; and ( b ) in Criminal Case No. 11-1209-MN, 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 pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. [11] The RTC found that the prosecution, through its testimonial and documentary evidence, had established beyond reasonable doubt that Bambico indeed sold one (1) plastic sachet containing dangerous drugs to the poseur-buyer, resulting in his arrest, and that during the search incidental thereto, he was discovered to be in possession of two (2) more plastic sachets of dangerous drugs. On the other hand, the RTC found untenable Bambico's defense of denial for being uncorroborated and thus, self-serving. [12] Aggrieved, Bambico appealed [13] to the CA. In a Decision [14] dated September 28, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. [15] It held that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crimes charged against Bambico, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved due to the arresting officers' substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule. [16] Hence, this appeal seeking that Bambico'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, [17] 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. [18] 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. [19] 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. [20] 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 "marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team." [21] 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. [22] The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done