G.R. No. 249990 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. RANILO S. SUAREZ, 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. [9] It ruled that the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove all the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, and that the integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved. It gave credence to the clear and convincing testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, and hence, should prevail over the accused-appellant's uncorroborated and self-serving defenses of denial and frame-up. [10] Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed [11] to the CA. In a Decision [12] dated February 13, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. It ruled that the prosecution substantially complied with the statutory requirement for the admissibility of the seized item, as it found that the chain of custody was continuous, and that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved. It held that the fact that the marking was only made inside the vehicle does not automatically impair the evidentiary value of the seized item since to be able to create a first line in the chain of custody requirement, what is only required is that the marking be made in the presence of accused-appellant and upon immediate confiscation, as in this case. Moreover, it gave credence to the testimony of IO2 Ortoyo that she preserved the integrity of the seized item by keeping the same in her locker at the PDEA office, where she was the only one who had access, as well as to her explanation that the required witnesses were only available the following day. Finally, it did not give credence to accused­-appellant's defenses of frame-up and alibi since he failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence to prove the same. [13] Hence, this instant appeal. The Issue Before the Court The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld accused-appellant's conviction for the crime charged. The Court's Ruling The appeal is meritorious. In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [14] 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. [15] 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. [16] To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs 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. [17] 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 con