636 Phil. 320
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
That on or about June 25, 2004 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale ZERO POINT ONE HUNDRED FORTY SIX (0.146) grams of white crystalline substance known as "shabu" placed in a transparent plastic sachet marked as "SSA" containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (underscoring supplied)
WHEREFORE, finding accused, Sapia Andongan y Sandigang, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, she is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
The specimen is forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to turn over with dispatch and upon receipt the said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in accordance with the law and rules.
SO ORDERED.[5]
Granting arguendo that the accused-appellant was a drug pusher peddling along Bambang St., how come only one (1) sachet containing 0.146 grams of shabu was confiscated from her by the five (5) police officers who arrested her? If the accused-appellant was indeed caught in a legitimate entrapment operation, then the policemen had every right and all the opportunity to search her person, even including the premises. The fact, however, is that the policemen could only present a single 0.146-gram sachet of shabu, the source of which was not even clearly established.[8] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR YAP: Q Upon receipt of the shabu, what did you do with that? WITNESS: A I introduced myself as (sic) police officer. Q Now, tell us you said shabu, how did you know that that it is shabu? A After submitting it to the Crime Lab. for examination, sir. Q At that time when you received the same, describe to us the physical appearance of what was given to you? (sic) A It is containing (sic) white crystalline substance, sir. Q What was the container? A Transparent plastic, sir. Q So, what was your conclusion upon examining the same? A I believe it was shabu, sir. Q What follows next? A I informed her of her violation, sir, then I appraised (sic) her constitutional rights. Q Then what did you do with the body of the accused? A After taking care (sic) into custody I saw SPO3 Del Rosario together with the team rushing for assistance, sir. Q What was recovered from the person of the accused? A After requesting to empty her pocket, sir, we recovered the marked money, sir. Q You mean the P500.00 bill? A Yes, sir. Q Now, where did you bring the accused as well as the specimen, the evidence you confiscated? A We brought the accused at (sic) the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Office then we made a request for laboratory exam. then we submitted the evidence recovered to the Crime Lab. for examination. x x x x Q Now, you mentioned also a transparent plastic sachet given to you by the accused. Could you still recognize the same if shown to you again? A Yes, sir. Q How were you able to recognize the same? A I put an initial marked in the evidence, sir. The initial is SSA, sir. Q What is the meaning of SSA? A The initial of the subject Sapia Andongan Sandigang. Q What was the time you made the marking on the specimen? A After bringing the suspect at (sic) the station. Q Who was present at that time? A SPO3 Del Rosario, sir. Q At the station? A Yes, sir.[10] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
As a method of authenticating evidence, 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. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.[11] (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
People v. Santos instructively tells us that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Without the presumption of regularity, the evidentiary gap in identifying the seized evidence from its turnover by the poseur-buyer, its handling and custody, until its turnover to the forensic laboratory for analysis, stands out in bold relief. This gap renders the case for the prosecution less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.[14](emphasis and underscoring supplied)
CROSS-EXAMINATION: Q When you first saw the accused in this case Sapia Andongan, where was she? A She was along Bambang, sir. Q What was she doing then at that time? A She was just standing, sir. Q Merely standing in Bambang. (sic) Was she beside of (sic) Bambang at 7:40 in the evening? A Yes, sir. Q Were there still people at the vicinity? A That's crossing the parking area. There were no people around at the parking area but on the other side of Sapia there were so many people there, sir. Q Then you approached the accused? A Yes, sir. x x x x Q And when you approached this accused, did you talk to the accused? A The informant introduced me as a prospective buyer, sir. Q The informant was with you when you approached? A Yes, sir. Q What did the informant do? How was (sic) the informant introduced (sic) you to the accused? A According to her - ako daw ay kukuha. Q And then, what was the response of the accused? A The subject asked me - ilan ang kukunin mo. (sic) Q That was the only words that were given by the accused to you? She did not inquire who you are? A I was already introduced as a prospective buyer, sir.[15] (emphasis supplied)