G.R. No. 235980 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. JOSEPH PONTIJOS LIBRE @ "JOYJOY" AND LEONILA PUEBLAS LIBRE @ "INDAY NILAY," ACCUSED, LEONILA PUEBLAS LIBRE @ "INDAY NILAY," ACCUSED-.

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00 each. [21] The RTC found that the prosecution had successfully established all the elements of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. Further, it pointed out that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official function must prevail over the mere denials of the accused, more so considering that they did not assail the genuineness of the chain of custody form nor of the inventory, as well as the accuracy of the photographs. [22] Aggrieved, the accused appealed [23] to the CA. The CA Ruling In a Decision [24] dated August 28, 2015, the CA affirmed the accused's conviction in toto , [25] finding that all the elements constituting the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs were present. [26] Moreover, it observed that the integrity and identity of the seized shabu were preserved and the chain of custody thereof was unbroken. [27] Unperturbed, the accused moved for reconsideration, [28] which was, however, denied in a Resolution [29] dated February 2, 2017; hence, this appeal filed by one of the accused, i.e. , Leonila. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the conviction of the accused for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld. The Court's Ruling The appeal is meritorious. At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. [30] "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law." [31] In this case, the accused were charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, [32] Article II of RA 9165. In order to properly secure the conviction of an accused charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, jurisprudence requires that the prosecution must prove the following: ( a ) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and ( b ) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. [33] Of these elements, proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti of the crime, are crucial. [34] Consequently, the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody over the same by accounting for each link in the chain of custody from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti , in order to prove its identity beyond reasonable doubt. [35] Considering the importance of ensuring that the dangerous drugs seized from an accused is the same as that presented in court, Section 21,