G.R. No. 200877 November 12, 2014 (3) cash money amounting to ₱90.

00, believed to be
proceeds of his illegal activities.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,vs.
CHARVE JOHN LAGAHIT, Accused-Appellant. Thereafter, the appellant was brought to the barangay
hall and was later transferred to the Mabolo Police
Two separate Informations were filed against appellant Station. All the seized items remained with PO3 Lawas,
for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Jr. until they reached the police station. Upon arrival
Act No. 9165, for allegedly (a) selling 0.49 gram of thereat, Barangay Tanod Nicor marked the four sticks
marijuana; and (b) being in illegal possession of 0.88 of handrolled marijuana cigarettes subject of the sale
gram of marijuana. transaction, while the other eight sticks of handrolled
The trial court found that the elements for the crimes marijuana cigarettes recovered from the possession
of illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana were ofthe appellant during his arrest were marked by PO3
sufficiently established by the evidence of the Lawas, Jr. These marked pieces of evidence, together
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court with a Request for Laboratory Examination of the same,
held that appellant’s weak testimony cannot prevail were brought by PO3 Lawas, Jr. to the PNP Crime
over the straight forward, frank, and honest testimony Laboratory.26 The qualitative examination conducted
ofPO3 Lawas, Jr., a police officer, who was just doing on the specimens yielded positive result for marijuana,
his duty. a dangerous drug.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals, affirmed the guilty From the foregoing set of facts, there was no mention
verdict and the sentence imposed by the trial court. how the four sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes,
which were the subject of the sale transaction, came
A careful perusal of the records shows that after the into the hands of PO3 Lawas, Jr. from the trusted
exchange of the buy-bust money and the four sticks of informant. PO3 Lawas, Jr.’s testimony was lacking as to
handrolled marijuana cigarettes between the trusted when, where and how the said four sticks of handrolled
informant and the appellant, the former gave the pre- marijuana cigarettes sold by the appellant to the
arranged signal to PO3 Lawas, Jr. and the two barangay trusted informant were turned over to him by the
tanod by taking off his bull cap. Immediately, latter. In the same manner, PO3 Lawas,Jr. failed to state
thereafter, PO3 Lawas, Jr. and the two barangay tanod, that he actually seized the sold four sticks of handrolled
who were positioned on the opposite side of the street, marijuana cigarettes. Considering that PO3 Lawas, Jr.
moved towards the other side, where the appellant was not the poseur-buyer and he was not even with
and the trusted informant were, in order to apprehend the poseur buyer during the sale transaction as he was
the former. But, before they could do so, another on the opposite side of the road, the turning over to
person already approached the appellant and walked him by the trusted informant of the four sticks of
with him towards the opposite side of the road. PO3 handrolled marijuana cigarettes sold by the appellant
Lawas, Jr. and the two barangay tanod then followed was the supposed first link in the chain of custody.
them until they apprehended the appellant and whose Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to establish the
companion managed to escape. PO3 Lawas, Jr. same. This Court cannot overlook this evidentiary gap
handcuffed the appellant and bodily searched him as it involves the identification of the sold four sticks of
leading to the recovery of the following: (1) eight more handrolled marijuana cigarettes.
sticks of handrolled marijuana cigarettes from the
latter’s pocket; (2) ₱20.00 peso bill marked money; and
ISSUE: Whether or not the absence of proof of corpus Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No.
delicti translates to conclude that no valid conviction 1, Series of 2002, that implements the Comprehensive
for the crime of illegal sale of marijuana. Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines "chain of
custody" as follows:
HELD:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized
YES. The Supreme Court Held that held that in every movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or
marijuana, the following essential elements must be laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
duly established: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it. destruction. Such record of movements and custody of
Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be seized item shall include the identity and signature of
proved to have actually taken place coupled with the the person who held temporary custody of the seized
presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti, that item, the date and time when such transfer of custody
is, the actual commission by someone of the particular were made in the course of safekeeping and use in
crime charged. court as evidence, and the final disposition.
On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case of In the absence of the aforesaid link in the chain of
illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following custody, doubt arises if, indeed, the recovered four
elements must be established: (1) the accused is in sticks of handrolled marijuanacigarettes that PO3
possession of an item or object which is identified to be Lawas, Jr. brought to the barangay hall and then to the
a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized Mabolo Police Station; subsequently marked by
by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously Barangay Tanod Nicor; later brought to the crime
possessed the drug. laboratory; and examined by the forensic chemist,
The prohibited drug is an integral part of the corpus which yielded positive for marijuana, were the same
delicti of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession drugs actually sold by the appellant to the trusted
of dangerous drugs; proof of its identity, existence, and informant.
presentation in court is crucial. A conviction cannot be Given the foregoing circumstances, it is beyond any
sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity cavil of doubt that the prosecution miserably failed to
of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be specifically identify the four sticks of handrolled
established with moral certainty. Apart from showing marijuana cigarettes that were actually sold at the buy-
that the elements of possession or sale are present, the bust as among those that were presented in court. This
fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in evidentiary situation effectively translates to the
the first place is the same substance offered in court as absence of proof of corpus delicti, and cannot but lead
exhibit must likewise be established with the same this Court to conclude that no valid conviction for the
degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty crime of illegal sale of marijuana can result.
verdict. The chain of custody requirement performs this
function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts
concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.