G.R. No. 232249 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. WILT SAM BANGALAN Y MAMBA, 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 P400,000.00. [9] The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the said crime, and further ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were preserved. On the other hand, it rejected Bangalan's defense of denial and frame-up for being unsubstantiated. [10] Aggrieved, Bangalan appealed [11] the RTC ruling to the CA. In a Decision [12] dated February 3, 2017, the CA affirmed with modification the RTC ruling, increasing the fine payable to P500,000.00. [13] Among others, the CA observed that while there were slight deviations from the chain of custody rule, the same did not compromise the corpus delicti. [14] Hence, this appeal [15] seeking that Bangalan's conviction be overturned. The Court's Ruling The appeal is meritorious. In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [16] 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. [17] 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. [18] 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. [19] 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. [20] 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, [21] "a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; [22] or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." [23] The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." [24] As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." [25] This is because "[t]he law has been crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment." [26]