11. People of the Philippines vs. Salonga G.R. No.

194948 By RV September 2, 2013

Facts: Freddy Salonga was arrested and charged with violations of the dangerous drugs act in a buy-bust operation. PO2 Bernardo Suarez acted as poseur-buyer, marked the seized sachets with his own initials, and personally prepared the letter-request for laboratory examination. The sachets were delivered to the crime lab and personally received by P/S Insp. Annalee R. Forro, the Forensic Chemical Officer. Said sachets were tested positive for meth. Freddy Salonga, however, insisted that it was his brother that they were looking for and not him. Even the people and the police asset who accompanied the buy-bust squad corroborated his testimony. The RTC, however, didnt believe him because the officers enjoyed the presumption of regularity, that Salongas testimony was self-serving, and that his witnesses werent credible. The CA concurred. They found him guilty. Issue and Answer: Did the RTC and CA err in finding the accused guilty? Yes. The accused is acquitted. The Court adopts the chain of custody rule, a method of authenticating evidence which 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 to be. In the case in question, the chain of custody was broken: 1. It was not clear from the evidence that the marking was made in the presence of the accused or his representatives. 2. The prosecution failed to duly accomplish the Certificate of Inventory and to take photos of the seized items pursuant to the above-stated provision. 3. The conflicting testimony and glaring inconsistencies cast doubt on the integrity of the handling of the seized drugs. Insp. Forro claimed receiving the drugs personally but the documentation on the evidence said that they were received by someone else. 4. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot be invoked by the prosecution where the procedure was tainted with material lapses. All this created reasonable doubt.