FACTS:

Junie Malillin filed a Petition for Review against the decision of the Court of Appeals that affirmed his conviction for illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. A team of police officers conducted a search in his residence based on a search warrant. The search yielded two sachets of shabu and five empty sachets with remnants of the substance. Junie was charged with illegal possession of drugs under RA No. 9165. The prosecution presented witnesses who testified on the circumstances of the search and seizure. However, the defense alleged irregularities in the search conducted by the police operatives. Junie testified that during the search, one of the officers accused his wife of hiding something in her underwear, prompting a separate search of her person. The search yielded nothing, and Junie was asked to leave the room to buy cigarettes. When he returned, he was called by one of the officers to the bedroom.

In another case, the petitioner was charged with illegal possession of prohibited drugs. During the search of his house, a police officer allegedly found a sachet of shabu under the pillow on the bed. The petitioner claimed that he was framed by the said officer as he was asked to leave the house to buy cigarettes while the search was conducted. This claim was backed by testimonies from other witnesses who asserted that the petitioner was not present during the search. The trial court found the petitioner guilty and imposed a prison sentence of twelve years and one day to twenty years. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision but modified the prison sentence. The petitioner then filed a petition for review challenging the irregularities in the search and the sufficiency of the evidence.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the identity of the prohibited drugs was properly established beyond doubt

2. Whether or not the chain of custody requirement was complied with

3. Whether the prosecution was able to establish the identity of the seized items.

4. Whether the search and seizure conducted in the case was regular.

5. Whether the officer acquiring initial custody of the seized drugs complied with the post-seizure procedures.

6. Whether the officer delivered the seized items to the court as required by the search warrant.

7. Whether the deviation from standard and normal police procedure in the implementation of the warrant and post-seizure custody of the evidence affects the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty.

8. Whether the lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from the petitioner, coupled with irregularity in the manner by which the same were placed under police custody, militates a finding of guilt.

RULING:

1. The court ruled that the identity of the prohibited drugs was not properly established beyond doubt. The testimony and evidence presented by the prosecution were incomplete and insufficient to conclusively establish that the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from the petitioner were the same items tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence.

2. The court also ruled that the chain of custody requirement was not complied with. The testimony and evidence presented did not provide a complete and unbroken chain of custody of the seized items, raising doubts as to whether the original items were exchanged with another or were contaminated or tampered with.

3. The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the seized items due to the absence of crucial testimony and insufficient explanation for such failure. The court cannot determine if the exhibits were the same items handed over to the officer during seizure, as there is no reasonable guaranty of exhibit integrity.

4. The search and seizure conducted were not regular due to the series of irregularities committed by the police officers. The testimony of the accused and other witnesses contradict the prosecution's claim of regularity in the exercise of duty.

5. The officer acquiring initial custody of the seized drugs did not comply with the post-seizure procedures, specifically with Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165. He deviated from conducting the photographing and physical inventory of the items at the place of seizure.

6. The officer failed to deliver the seized items to the court as required by the search warrant and Rule 126, Section 12 of the Rules of Court. The approval by the court before police officers can retain possession of the seized property is necessary, and the failure to comply with this requirement defeats the purpose of the law.

7. The presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is not absolute and can be overcome by contrary evidence. The blind reliance on this presumption by the trial court and the Court of Appeals is misplaced, especially considering the deviations from standard and normal procedure by the police officer. The presumption of regularity does not prevail over the presumption of innocence which is only overturned by proof beyond reasonable doubt.

8. The lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from the petitioner, as well as the irregularity in the manner of their custody before being presented in court, strongly militate against a finding of guilt. In light of the presumption of innocence and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioner is acquitted on reasonable doubt and ordered to be immediately released.

PRINCIPLES:

• The identity of the prohibited drug must be established beyond doubt in prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs.

• The chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

• The chain of custody rule requires evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.

• An unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive, readily identifiable, or is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination, substitution, or exchange.

• Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable and are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature.

• A more stringent chain of custody standard must be applied for narcotics cases to render it improbable that the original item has been exchanged, contaminated, or tampered with.

• The prosecution has the burden of establishing the identity of seized items, and failure to offer sufficient explanation for the absence of crucial testimony can lead to doubts about exhibit integrity.

• In order for a search and seizure to be considered regular, it must comply with procedural requirements and the conduct of the police officers should not raise doubts about the necessity and integrity of the search.

• The officer acquiring initial custody of seized drugs must comply with the post-seizure procedures outlined in the law, such as conducting photographing and physical inventory at the place of seizure.

• The approval by the court before police officers can retain possession of seized property is necessary to prevent substitution or tampering with the items. Failure to deliver seized items to the court as required by the search warrant is a violation of the mandatory requirements of the law.

• The burden of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution, relying on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.

• The law presumes the innocence of the accused unless and until the contrary is shown.

• In dubio pro reo – in cases where there is doubt as to the culpability of the accused, acquittal on reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right.