G.R. No. 241602 - ROMEO ASIS Y BRIONES, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of nineteen (19) years, eleven (11) months, and twenty-nine (29) days, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. [13] The RTC found that the prosecution, through the testimonial and documentary evidence it presented, had established beyond reasonable doubt that petitioner indeed kept shabu within the confines of his home. Relatedly, the RTC also opined that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu seized from petitioner's house were preserved. [14] Aggrieved, petitioner appealed [15] to the CA. In a Decision [16] dated February 22, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling with modification, adjusting the period of imprisonment imposed on petitioner to twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and one (1) day, as maximum. [17] It held that the prosecution had proven the existence of all the elements of the crime charged, and that, despite the absence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative during the conduct of the search and the eventual inventory and photography of the seized item, its integrity and evidentiary value were nevertheless preserved. [18] Undaunted, petitioner moved for reconsideration [19] but was denied in a Resolution [20] dated August 16, 2018; hence, this petition seeking that his petition be overturned. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. In cases for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [21] 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. [22] 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. [23] 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. [24] 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." [25] 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. [26] The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in