G.R. No. 242817 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. MICHAEL ROXAS Y CAMARILLO, ACCUSED-.

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 the prosecution, through the testimonial and documentary evidence it presented, had established beyond reasonable doubt that Roxas indeed sold a plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride , a dangerous drug, for a consideration of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to the poseur-buyer, resulting in his arrest. The RTC found that the failure of the police officers to immediately inventory and photograph the seized drug, and the absence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) personnel during the inventory-taking, did not render the subject drug inadmissible because the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drug were duly preserved. [13] On the other hand, the RTC found Roxas's defense of denial as inherently weak which cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the prosecution's witnesses. [14] Aggrieved, Roxas appealed [15] to the CA. In a Decision [16] dated December 29, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling in toto . [17] It held that Roxas was caught in flagrante delicto of selling 2.34 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu during the buy-bust operation. [18] Furthermore, the CA ruled that the integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized from Roxas were preserved. [19] Hence, this appeal [20] seeking that Roxas'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, [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 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. [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 "marking 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