FACTS:

This case involves the appeal of Jehar Reyes, who was found guilty by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for the illegal sale of drugs under Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution presented witnesses, including police officers involved in a buy-bust operation conducted at Reyes' residence. During the operation, three plastic packs containing white crystalline substance were recovered from Reyes, as well as the buy-bust money. Reyes denied the charges, claiming that he was sleeping at his sister's house at the time of the incident. The RTC found Reyes guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

The facts established that a buy-bust operation was conducted by police officers, who acted as the poseur-buyers. Prior to the operation, surveillance confirmed that Reyes was engaged in the sale of drugs. During the buy-bust operation, the poseur-buyer approached Reyes and exchanged money for a plastic pack of drugs. The accused was then arrested, and two more packs of drugs and the buy-bust money were recovered from him. The seized items were marked and sent to the laboratory for examination, which confirmed that they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The accused denied the charges, alleging that several men entered his sister's house without a search warrant but did not find any contraband or receive money from him. However, the Prosecution failed to establish that there was actual delivery and payment made by the poseur-buyer. Therefore, the essential elements of the offense charged were not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused cannot be convicted for the illegal sale of drugs.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the State erred in charging the accused with illegal sale of 1.44 grams of shabu.

2. Whether the essential elements of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were competently and clearly established by the Prosecution.

3. Whether the accused can be found guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs when no information had been filed to charge such offense.

4. Whether the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt due to substantial lapses in preserving the chain of custody.

5. Was the chain of custody preserved in this case?

6. Did the failure to comply with the requirements for preserving the chain of custody create a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused?

7. Whether the presumption of innocence outweighs the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty.

8. Whether the hint of irregularity in the procedures of the law enforcement agents can be considered as affirmative evidence of irregularity.

RULING:

1. The State erred in charging the accused with illegal sale of 1.44 grams of shabu. The elements of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were only established with regard to the shabu contained in the pack marked JR-B. There was no delivery or payment concerning the shabu in the packs marked JR-1 and JR-2. Therefore, the accused should be separately charged with the illegal possession of dangerous drugs for the shabu in packs JR-1 and JR-2.

2. The accused cannot be found guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 because no information had been filed to charge such offense. The accused can only be found guilty of the offense charged, which is the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. The accused is acquitted of the crime of violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 charged.

3. The guilt of the accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt because there were substantial lapses in preserving the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs. The prosecution failed to comply with the requirement of proving the corpus delicti, which includes establishing the chain of custody. The substantial gaps in the chain of custody raised doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court. It is emphasized that the chain of custody is crucial in drug-related prosecutions and it must be clearly and competently shown to ensure the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.

4. The chain of custody was not preserved in the manner required by law. There were serious lapses committed by the arresting officers that put into doubt the integrity of the evidence presented against the accused. The confiscated items were not marked immediately after seizure, and there was inconsistency among the witnesses regarding who placed the markings. The accused did not witness the marking process as required by law. There was also a substantial gap in the chain of custody due to the absence of any representative of the media, Department of Justice (DOJ), or elected public official during the buy-bust operation and confiscation of the drugs. Lastly, the arresting officers did not prepare an inventory or take photographs of the confiscated items.

5. The failure to comply with the procedures for preserving the chain of custody created a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused. The unexplained procedural lapses by the buy-bust team, combined with the Defendants' denial and frame-up defenses, cast doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs presented as evidence of the accused's guilt.

6. The presumption of innocence is superior to the presumption of regularity of performance of official duty. The presumption of regularity stands only when no reason exists in the records to doubt the regularity of performance. However, even in such cases, the presumption of regularity cannot be stronger than the presumption of innocence. Trial courts are instructed to prioritize the presumption of innocence over the presumption of regularity.

7. The hint of irregularity in the procedures of law enforcement agents can be considered as affirmative evidence of irregularity. The regularity of performance of duty cannot be presumed in favor of the law enforcement agents when there are indications of serious procedural lapses in the records.

PRINCIPLES:

• In order to charge a person with and convict him for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the State must establish the concurrence of the elements, including the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money by the seller.

• The accused can be separately charged with the illegal possession of dangerous drugs if there was no delivery or corresponding payment for a specific transaction.

• A person should be tried and found guilty only of the offense charged in the information, or of the offense proved that is necessarily included in the offense charged.

• The chain of custody in drug-related prosecutions must be clearly and competently shown to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. The failure to establish the chain of custody can raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.

• The chain of custody of contraband must be properly preserved to ensure the integrity of the evidence and prevent switching, planting, or contamination.

• The marking of seized drugs must be done immediately after seizure, witnessed by the accused, and serve as a reference to the seizure.

• The presence of representatives from the media, DOJ, and elected public official during a buy-bust operation and at the time of confiscation is required to prevent planting of evidence and frame-ups.

• The failure to comply with the procedures for preserving the chain of custody may lead to the exclusion of evidence or the acquittal of the accused.

• Presumption of innocence until the contrary is proved.

• Presumption of regularity of performance of official duty can be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty.

• Presumption of regularity of performance must be based on an established basic fact, not plucked out from thin air.

• The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence.

• The benefit of the presumption of regularity of performance of duty is unwarranted when there are serious procedural lapses committed by law enforcement agents.