G.R. No. 225747 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JEFFERSON MEDINA Y CRUZ, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. [12] The RTC found that a consummated sale indeed occurred between the poseur buyer and Medina. In this relation, it brushed aside the defense's claim that Medina was not one of the target persons of the operation since the prosecution was able to clearly and convincingly establish all the elements of the crime charged. Finally, it gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who are presumed to have regularly performed their duties in the absence of proof to the contrary. [13] Aggrieved, Medina appealed [14] to the CA. In a Decision [15] dated September 24, 2015, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It held that the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime charged, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item have been properly preserved. [16] Hence, this appeal seeking that Medina'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 "[m]arking 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 in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: ( a ) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, [23] "a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; [24] or ( b ) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA l 0640, "an elected pub