FACTS:

Petitioners Arnel Calahi, Enrique Calahi, and Nicasio Rivera were charged with the illegal possession and use of dangerous drugs under Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No. 6425. The charge stemmed from an incident wherein the petitioners were caught in the act of sniffing shabu inside an XLT passenger type jeepney. Nicasio Rivera was further caught in possession of shabu weighing 0.36 grams without any authority of law. The petitioners pleaded not guilty during their arraignment.

The prosecution presented the testimonies of the members of the PNP CIDG who served a search warrant and caught the petitioners in the act of sniffing shabu inside the jeepney. They arrested the petitioners and confiscated the white crystalline substance found with them. The confiscated substance was subjected to laboratory examination and found to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

The defense, on the other hand claimed that they went to the location to inquire about a baptism and were falsely accused by the police. They denied the allegations of possessing and using shabu. They were subsequently released on bail.

The RTC convicted the petitioners based on the more credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC, holding that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioners violated Section 16, Article III of R.A. No. 6425.

The petitioners then filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court on the following issues: (1) whether the absence of inventory and photograph of the seized items affected the continuity of custody and the integrity of the evidence; and (2) whether the penalty imposed was proper.

The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the violation of the regulation regarding the inventory and photograph of seized items is a matter between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting officers and does not affect the admissibility of the evidence. They further argued that absent proof to the contrary, the arresting officers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the prosecution established the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs.

2. Whether the failure to mark the seized items creates a gap in the chain of custody.

3. Whether there was a gap in the chain of custody of the seized items.

4. Whether the failure to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on their authenticity and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

5. Whether the lack of due marking upon confiscation renders the identity of the seized drug highly questionable.

6. Whether the non-compliance with the regulation on marking of seized drugs is fatal to the prosecution and renders the arrest illegal and the seized items inadmissible in evidence.

7. Whether or not the identity and integrity of the confiscated drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

1. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs. The chain of custody rule requires proof of every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to the time it is presented in court and offered into evidence. In this case, there was a gap in the initial stage of the chain of custody because there was no showing that the seized items were marked upon seizure.

2. The Court held that the failure to mark the seized items creates a gap in the chain of custody. It is important to mark the seized items to establish their identity and to ensure that the original item has not been exchanged, altered, or tampered with. Without the proper marking, there is no guarantee that the seized item offered in court is the same as the one seized from the accused.

3. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners and acquitted them.

4. The non-compliance with the regulation on marking of seized drugs is fatal to the prosecution. In this case, the lack of marking tarnished the identity and integrity of the confiscated shabu and rebutted the presumption of regularity. Furthermore, the contrasting laboratory findings between the remaining shabu and the shabu residue contained in the aluminum foil submitted for examination raised doubt on the identity of the confiscated shabu.

5. The Supreme Court acquitted the petitioners of the crime charged against them due to the prosecution's failure to prove the identity and integrity of the confiscated drugs beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found it perturbing that there were differing laboratory findings as to the confiscated drugs, raising serious doubt as to the petitioners' guilt. Therefore, the Court found that the acquittal of the petitioners based on reasonable doubt was in order.

PRINCIPLES:

• Failure to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on their authenticity and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties.

• Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, and it is vital that the seized contraband is immediately marked.

• The corpus delicti, or the substance or object constituting the crime, must be presented as evidence in court and should be identified with unwavering exactitude.

• The lack of due marking upon confiscation renders the identity of the seized drugs highly questionable and cannot satisfy the standard of proof required in criminal cases.

• It is vital that the identity and integrity of the confiscated drug is shown to have been duly preserved.

• Seized drugs and paraphernalia should be marked upon confiscation to preserve their identity and integrity.

• The non-compliance with the regulation on marking of seized drugs can be fatal to the prosecution and render the arrest illegal and the seized items inadmissible in evidence.

• The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty may not apply when there are doubts on the integrity and identity of the seized items.

• Laboratory findings and examinations play a crucial role in determining the nature and composition of confiscated drugs and paraphernalia.

• The prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense.

• An accused in a criminal prosecution is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.

• When the prosecution fails to overcome the presumption of innocence by failing to present the required amount of evidence, the defense need not even present evidence on its behalf.