G.R. No. 185460 -

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused EDWIN FAJARDO y Dadula in Criminal Case No. Q-02-114130 and REYNALDO CORALDE y Fernandez in Criminal Case No. Q-02-114131 GUILTY each of the offense of Section 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165 violation and each accused is hereby sentenced to imprisonment of Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day as Minimum to Twelve (12) Years and Six (6) Months as Maximum and each to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00). As for GERRY MALABANAN y Nitural, he is hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. Q-02-114132 of the offense of Section 12, Art. II, R.A. 9165 as it was not established by the arresting policemen that indeed drugs or paraphernalia were recovered from his possession, and moreover, he appears to be a mere visitor there to help Mrs. Coralde in her scheduling of operation at EAMC where he works. The drugs involved in these cases are hereby ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition upon finality of this judgment. The PDEA is requested to take good care in the storage of these shabus within its premises. [17] The Court of Appeals, on appeal, affirmed the RTC decision. The Court of Appeals sustained the conviction of petitioners. It found the prosecutions version more credible and relied on the presumption of regularity on the part of the police officers and on the absence of any ill- motive on their part. The Court of Appeals justified the validity of the warrantless arrest under the plain view doctrine. Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the appellate court. The instant petition raises the lone issue of whether the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of petitioners. Petitioners primarily assail the identity of the shabu as evidence of the corpus delicti in light of non-compliance with the chain of custody rule. Petitioners argue that they were not in possession of the plastic sachets apparently containing shabu . The prosecution merely sought to establish that petitioners were caught in possession of a lighter, tooter and aluminum foil, all of which were neither examined by the forensic chemist nor found to be positive for traces of shabu . On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General relied on the straightforward and positive testimony of the prosecution witnesses that petitioners were caught in possession of shabu . In view of the interrelated issues presented, a joint discussion is in order. In order for prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, there must be proof that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sust