Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=84258:60001&amp;catid=1594&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 22:32:14+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 208685, March 09, 2015 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODRIGO CASACOP Y DE CASTRO, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RODRIGO CASACOP Y DE CASTRO, Accused-Appellant.
Failure to observe the chain of custody required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 or failure to sufficiently explain the reason for non-observance of the chain of custody creates reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the corpus delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs.
That on or about July 24, 2002, in.the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused Rodrigo Casacop y de Castro without being authorized/permitted by law did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur buyer for one hundred peso bill (P100.00) one (1) small heat-sealed transparent sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing zero point zero four (0.04) gram, a regulated drug.
WHEREFORE, the Court hereby sentences accused RODRIGO CASACOP y DE CASTRO to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00.
The 0.04 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride "shabu" is confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government. Atty. Jaarmy Bolus Romero, Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to immediately transmit the 0.04 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride "shabu" to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 93 on November 10, 2008 is AFFIRMED.
Casacop filed the Notice of Appeal21 on January 9, 2013.
The issue for resolution is whether the guilt of accused-appellant Rodrigo Casacop for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
We grant the appeal and acquit accused-appellant Rodrigo Casacop y De Castro.
SECTION 21. . . .
The arguments of the parties in this case show that from the start of the buy-bust operation, there was failure to observe the chain of custody.
The first link that must be proven is the seizure and marking of the seized item.
So what did your asset do, if any?
He approached the house of the accused to buy shabu, Sir.
And what happened after he approached the house of the accused purposely to buy dangerous drug?
I saw the accused run out of his house and made transaction to [sic] our poseur buyer, Sir.
How far were you again[,] Mr. Witness[,] when you noticed that the accused came out of his house and approached your asset?
More or less seven (7) meters, Sir.
And what happened next as soon as the accused went out of his house and approached your asset?
The transaction was between accused-appellant and the poseur-buyer, while POl Bautista watched the transaction a few meters away.
His statement that he saw "accused[-appellant] hand over something" creates reasonable doubt whether the item given by the poseur-buyer to POl Bautista is the same "something" that accused-appellant allegedly gave the poseur-buyer.
From the time the transaction took place to the time accused-appellant was arrested, there is nothing on record to show how the integrity of the seized item was preserved.
How about the item that was given by the accused to your asset, what happened to that item?
It was handed over to me by our asset and I put the marking, Sir.
Will you please describe to us that item that was handed over to you by your asset, the very same item that the accused gave to your asset in exchange for the marked money?
A small heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white substance suspected as shabu, Sir.
You said you made marking on that sachet?
What else did you do[,] if any?
The prosecution did not, at the very least, identify the person who turned the seized sachet over to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory when it was submitted for examination.73 Hence, there is another break in the chain of custody.
However, the Court of Appeals' and the trial court's Decisions state that the contents of the sachet were examined by Police Inspector Donna Villa Huelgas.75 This leads us to doubt whether the corpus delicti was established.
Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21, therefore, ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in four (4) respects: first, the nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them. Compliance with this requirement forecloses opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any manner.
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.
Applying People v. Holgado, the buy-bust team in this case should have been more meticulous in complying with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 to preserve the integrity of the seized shabu. There is a greater possibility of tampering or contaminating the corpus delicti, since 0.04 grams of shabu is a miniscule amount. Worse, the buy-bust team did not even try to explain the reason for non-compliance with Section 21.
Non-presentation of the poseur-buyer also defeats the case of the plaintiff-appellee. The testimony of the poseur-buyer is not "merely corroborative of the apprehending officers-eyewitnesses' testimonies[,]"79 as plaintiff-appellee alleges. The poseur-buyer had personal knowledge of the transaction since he conducted the actual transaction. PO1 Bautista was merely an observer from several meters away. Further, the amount involved is so small that the reason for not presenting the poseur-buyer does not square with such a miniscule amount.
Before you conducted this buy-bust operation[,] Mr. Witness[,] do you remember if you prepared [a] pre-operation report?
After you confiscated the alleged marked money from the accused, did you prepare an inventory [,] Mr. Witness?
As far as I can recall, no Sir.
Do you remember[,] Mr. Witness[,] if you were authorized by your Chief of Police to conduct this buy bust operation?
And who was the Chief of Police at that time?
It was Police Supt. Reyes, Sir.
Was this authority in writing, Mr. Witness?
So you mean to say it was a mere verbal instruction?
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated November 27, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 03793 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Rodrigo Casacop y De Castro is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of Philippine National Police and the Director General of Philippine Drugs Enforcement Agency for their information.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride presented as evidence to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
15 CA rollo, pp. 54-55.
20Rollo, p. 15. The Court of Appeals Decision was penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybanez and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (Chair) and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes of the Fourteenth Division.
21 CA rollo, pp. 113-114.
41 CA rollo, p. 71.
47 317 Phil. 518, 524 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, Third Division].
48 CA rollo, pp. 72-73.
56 SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (PI00,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (PI00,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
57People v. Almodiel, G.R. No. 200951, September 5, 2012, 680 SCRA 306, 316 [Per J. Carpio, Second Division].
17 [Per J. Reyes, First Division]. See also People v. Adrid, G.R. No. 201845, March 6, 2013, 692 SCRA 683, 697 [Per J. Velasco, Jr., Third Division].
60 CA rollo, p. 76.
62 G.R. No. 189277, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 336 [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
63 Id. at 351-352, citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
64 CA rollo, p. 80.
71 G.R. No. 184758, April 21, 2014 [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
73 CA rollo, p. 48.
75 Id. at 54; Rollo, p. 13.
76 G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
77 Id. at 10, citing People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 403 (2010) [Per J. Perez, Second Division] and People v. Navarrete, G.R. No. 185211, June 6, 2011, 650 SCRA 607, 618 [Per J. Carpio Morales, Third Division].
79 CA rollo, pp. 72-73; See also People v. Abbu, 317 Phil. 518, 524 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, Third Division].
80 CA rollo, p. 10.
82People v. Ong, 476 Phil. 553, 572 (2004) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
83 476 Phil. 553 (2004) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].
85 G.R. No. 205821, October 1 2014 [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
88 G.R. No. 207992, August 11, 2014 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.