Mallillin v. People G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008 Ponente: Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna

 

FACTS

Junie Mallillin y Lopez was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 after police officers conducted a search of his residence and allegedly recovered two plastic sachets containing shabu and five empty sachets with traces of shabu.

Mallillin denied ownership and possession of the drugs. He claimed that the police officers had planted the sachets in his residence. His testimony was corroborated by witnesses who were present during the search and who testified regarding the circumstances surrounding the alleged discovery of the drugs.

The RTC nevertheless found Mallillin guilty. It held that the presence of the dangerous drugs in his house constituted prima facie evidence of possession and animus possidendi. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

Mallillin appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing, among others, that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs allegedly recovered from his residence.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs through an unbroken chain of custody from their seizure until their presentation in court.

HELD

The Supreme Court GRANTED the appeal and ACQUITTED Mallillin. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with the required degree of certainty.

The Court explained that the dangerous drug itself is the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is not enough for the prosecution to prove that the accused possessed an illegal drug. It must also prove that the substance allegedly possessed by the accused is the same substance presented and identified in court.

The Court held that the chain of custody rule requires evidence sufficient to establish that the exhibit presented in court is the very same item seized from the accused. Every link in the chain must be accounted for, including how and from whom the item was received, where it was kept, what happened to it while in the possession of each person, and its condition when it was received and delivered to the next person.

The Court identified the four links in the chain of custody: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked drug from the forensic chemist to the court.

The prosecution must establish these links with moral certainty because dangerous drugs are fungible and readily susceptible to alteration, substitution, or tampering. The Court emphasized that the identity of the drug must be established with the same unwavering exactitude required to establish the guilt of the accused.

The Court therefore held that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to establish an unbroken chain of custody and to prove that the dangerous drugs presented in court were the same drugs allegedly recovered from Mallillin. The resulting doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti required his acquittal.