Primary Holding

The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of Nida and Desiree Guillermo beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, primarily due to inconsistencies and irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the chain of custody of the seized evidence.

Background

Nida and Desiree Guillermo were arrested in a buy-bust operation for allegedly selling shabu to a poseur-buyer. They were charged with violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. 9165. The prosecution presented the testimony of the arresting officers and the forensic chemist, while the defense presented testimonies denying the drug sale and alleging irregularities in the arrest and post-arrest procedures.

Facts

• 1. A buy-bust operation was planned based on information about drug activities of alias "Nida."
• 2. IO1 Grace Tactac was designated as poseur-buyer, and IO2 Lorenzo Advincula as back-up.
• 3. Marked money using genuine 500-peso bills sandwiched in boodle money was prepared.
• 4. The initial meeting place was Tropical Hut, then changed to a 7-11 store.
• 5. Nida arrived with Desiree, who handed a blue paper bag containing shabu to IO1 Tactac.
• 6. IO1 Tactac gave the pre-arranged signal, and IO2 Advincula arrested both Nida and Desiree.
• 7. Inventory and marking of seized items were conducted at the PDEA office, not at the place of arrest.
• 8. The drug test on the accused yielded negative results.
• 9. Defense presented a different account, claiming they were mistakenly arrested and framed.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) argued that the integrity of the seized drugs was maintained despite inventory at the PDEA office.
• 2. Testimony of IO1 Tactac established the illegal sale and identified the accused as the sellers.
• 3. The prosecution argued that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were duly proven.
• 4. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties should be applied to the police officers.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The accused argued that the buy-bust team failed to comply with R.A. 9165 regarding the handling of seized items, particularly the marking and inventory at the crime scene.
• 2. No proper inventory and photograph were taken in the presence of required witnesses at the place of seizure.
• 3. The prosecution failed to prove the actual sale of drugs, including agreement on quantity.
• 4. IO1 Tactac's testimony on handling seized items was insufficient and lacked detail.
• 5. Chain of custody was broken, and procedural lapses were not justified.

Issues

• 1. Whether the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• 2. Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs were preserved, particularly concerning the chain of custody requirements under R.A. 9165.
• 3. Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties should apply in this case.

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the accused, finding reasonable doubt.
• 2. The Court questioned the credibility of the buy-bust operation, particularly the boodle money scenario which was deemed unbelievable.
• 3. The prosecution failed to establish the agreement on the specific quantity of drugs to be sold, making the sale dubious.
• 4. There were serious lapses in the chain of custody, including failure to mark and inventory items at the place of arrest and lack of a DOJ representative during inventory.
• 5. The prosecution did not properly justify the non-compliance with procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
• 6. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti (dangerous drugs) were not preserved, rendering the evidence insufficient for conviction.
• 7. The presumption of regularity could not be applied due to the clear procedural lapses.

Doctrines

• 1. Chain of Custody: The process of documenting the handling of evidence to ensure its integrity and admissibility; failure to adhere to this rule casts doubt on the evidence.
• 2. Corpus Delicti: The body of the crime, in drug cases referring to the dangerous drug itself; its identity and integrity must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• 3. Presumption of Innocence: The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt; the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
• 4. Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties: This presumption can be invoked for law enforcement officers, but it cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence and does not apply when there are clear lapses in procedure.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "Be it noted that evidence to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible witness, but must be credible in itself, such as the common experience and observation of mankind can prove as probable under the circumstances."
• 2. "Q Who provided to you this plastic bag? A I supposed the arresting officers who submitted those evidence in our office, Your Honor." (Clarificatory question to FC Seville regarding who brought the seized items for examination).
• 3. "pakawalan na lang natin sila kasi hindi naman sila yung mga taong may hawak nito." (Desiree's testimony about hearing a male person saying they should be released because they were not the intended targets).
• 4. "dapat hinuli natin yung talagang totoong involved diyan at hindi ang dalawang iyan" (Nida's testimony about hearing IO1 Tactac say they should have arrested the real culprits, not them).

Precedents Cited

• 1. People v. Garrucho, 789 Phil. 163, 171 (2016): Cited to emphasize the essential elements for a successful prosecution of illegal drug sale: identity of buyer, seller, object, consideration, delivery, and payment.
• 2. People v. Andaya, 745 Phil. 237, 247 (2014): Cited to reiterate that the burden of proving illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt rests with the State.
• 3. People v. Sota, G.R. No. 203121, November 29, 2017, 847 SCRA 113: Cited to underscore the necessity for evidence to be credible not just from the witness but also inherently.
• 4. People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 356: Cited to highlight the essentiality of establishing the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty as part of corpus delicti.
• 5. People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, 867 SCRA 548: Cited regarding the consequence of failing to prove the integrity of corpus delicti, rendering evidence insufficient for conviction.
• 6. People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487: Cited to explain that the presumption of regularity applies only when officers comply with standard conduct of official duty as provided by law.
• 7. People v. Ramos, 791 Phil. 162, 175 (2016): Cited to reiterate that presumption of regularity cannot constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt and cannot remedy major flaws in preserving evidence integrity.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165: Violation for Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
• 2. Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165: Conspiracy to Commit Drug Offenses.
• 3. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165: Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Property or Proceeds Derived from Unlawful Acts.
• 4. Article II, Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165, Section 21(a): Procedural guidelines for chain of custody and inventory requirements.