G.R. No. 238299 - EMMANUELITO LIMBO Y PAGUIO, 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 of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. [14] It found the prosecution to have sufficiently proved all the elements of the crime based on the testimony of PO3 Amodia, which was shown to be credible. It also found that the failure to physically inventory and photograph the sachets seized from petitioner in the manner prescribed by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 was justified considering the attempt to comply with the same and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence had been properly preserved. [15] Aggrieved, petitioner appealed [16] to the CA. In a Decision [17] dated May 22, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. [18] It likewise found that all the elements of the crime charged were proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the deviation from the requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 was justified. [19] Dissatisfied, petitioner moved for reconsideration, [20] which was, however, denied in a Resolution [21] dated March 20, 2018; hence, this petition. The Court's Ruling The petition is meritorious. In cases of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, [22] 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. [23] 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. [24] 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. [25] 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." [26] 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. [27] 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, [28] a representative from the media AND