Reasonable Doubt

Hole of Justice

By Peter Jimenea

Acquittal re; Reasonable Doubt

After the raid in the drug-lair of a suspect-drug-pusher, the shabu confiscated was delivered to the custodian of evidence as per instruction by the raiders to one not a participant in the operation. This doubtful chain in the custody of the prohibited drug as evidence is vital to the case.  

As mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody as a rule requires the presentation of the seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support the finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. Moreso, on how and from whom it was received including as much as possible, a description of the condition in which it was delivered to the next in the chain.

Petitioner defenses of denial and frame-up are conceded inherently weak and commonly used in drug related cases. However, the law stressed that conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of his defense but on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution.

How then was the one able to get hold of the substance when he was neither a party to nor present during the operation? Who entrusted the substance to him assuming that somebody requested him to submit it for safekeeping? These are the lingering questions that must be answered convincingly and satisfactorily so as to ensure that there had been no substitution, tampering or contamination of the sachet of shabu allegedly taken from the petitioner.

And why did the one who delivered the item to the custodian of evidence never presented to testify on this case? Thus, there was no evidence to prove that what was turned over to the evidence custodian and later presented to the court was the same substance recovered from the petitioner.

The failure to establish the chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution’s case. There can be no crime of illegal possession of prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same specimen examined and established to be prohibited drug.

In People v. Casimiro citing People v. Mapa, the Court acquitted the accused for failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti. Equally true in Zarraga v. People, the Court also acquitted the accused in view of the prosecution’s failure to indubitably show the identity of shabu.

At this juncture, it must be stressed that the corpus delicti in illegal drugs cases constitutes the drug itself. This means that the proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential. The Court’s ruling on People v. Gutierrez on chain of custody rule is instructive.

Thus, based on the foregoing, the Court’s considered view is that the quantum of evidence needed to convict, that is proof beyond reasonable doubt, has not been adequately established by the prosecution. Presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself override the Constitutional rights of the accused to be presumed innocent unless overcome by strong, clear and compelling evidence.

While as a rule the Court desist from disturbing the findings and conclusions of the trial court especially with respect to the credibility of witnesses, it bows to the superior and immutable rule that the guilt of the accused  must be proved beyond reasonable doubt because the law presumes that the accused is innocent unless and until proven otherwise.

WHEREFORE, the petition is granted and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.- G.R. CR 29985 dated July 27, 2007 affirming in toto  the Decision of the RTC in Crim. Case No. 11489-13, and its Resolution dated December 11,2007 denying the motion for reconsideration are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner is ACQUITTED on ground of reasonable doubt. (610 SCRA 636).