PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs.

RANILO DE LA CRUZ Y LIZING,

appellant. G.R. No. 177222, SECOND DIVISION, October 29, 2008, TINGA, J.:

Facts:

Appellant Mark Dela Cruz was found guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 9165 after he allegedly sold prohibited drugs to the poseur-buyer. The
prohibited drugs were handed to appellant by companions identified to be an alias
Amay and an alias Tabo. Appellant denied the charge and said that he was arrested
after refusing to give information about Amay, whom the police were after. His testimony
was corroborated by other witnesses.

Lower court gave weight to the testimony by the poseur-buyer and upheld the
presumption of regularity in the operation conducted by the officers.

Appellant appealed, questioning the identity of the shabu allegedly confiscated from him
in view of Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165 (inventory of seized drugs) and Section 21 (3)
of the same law(certification of the forensic laboratory examination results).

Ruling:

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities
of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale
of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled
with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.

Citing jurisprudence, the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody
of the seized drugs raised doubt as to its origins.

The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by
evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be. TheCourt believed that the prosecution failed to clearly establish the
chain of custody of the seized plastic sachets, containing shabu from the time they were
first allegedly received until they were brought to the police investigator. There were no
records to show that the procedural requirements in Section 21 were complied with.

The presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the constitutional right of presumption
of evidence in view of the circumstances. “The presumption of regularity is merely just
that--a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by
the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.”

The appellant was acquitted