CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ PEOPLE V. BARBA, G.R. NO. 182420, JULY 23, 2009
PEOPLE V. BARBA,
G.R. NO. 182420, JULY 23, 2009
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
A conviction
cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug.
FACTS
The illegal drugs
were seized from Barba, PO2 Rabina marked the plastic sachets with his
initials. PO1 Almacen marked the tooter in the same manner. The seized aluminum
foil was marked “AA,” presumably after PO2 Arnulfo Aguillon but there is no
testimony on this. Once at the police station, the drugs and paraphernalia were
then made the subject of a Request for Examination issued by Inspector Bauto.
The specimens were then turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory Office where
Forensic Chemist Jabonillo made his conclusion that the sachets and the
aluminum foil contained shabu. During trial, he testified that the specimen he
examined was the same one he brought to the court. Exhibit “G” or Chemistry
Report No. D-086-2003 was also presented as evidence to show that the seized
items were positive for dangerous drugs.
ISSUE
Is the chain of
custody presented by the prosecution complete?
RULING
No.
The court held
that e prohibited drug is an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime
of possession or selling of regulated/prohibited drug; proof of its identity,
existence, and presentation in court are crucial. A 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.
Here, the court
held that the chain of custody presented by the prosecution in this case
suffers from incompleteness. Pieced together, the prosecution’s evidence,
however, does not supply all the links needed in the chain of custody rule. The
records do not tell us what happened after the seized items were brought to the
police station and after these were tested at the forensic laboratory. Doubt is
now formed as to the integrity of the evidence.