People vs.

Mark Dela Cruz

October 08, 2008

Facts:
Appellant Mark Dela Cruz was found guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
(R.A.) No. 9165 after he allegedly sold prohibited drugs to the poseur-buyer. The prohibited
drugs were handed to appellant by companions identified to be an alias Amay and an alias
Tabo. Appellant denied the charge and said that he was arrested after refusing to give
information about Amay, whom the police were after. His testimony was corroborated by
other witnesses.

Lower court gave weight to the testimony by the poseur-buyer and upheld the presumption
of regularity in the operation conducted by the officers.

Appellant appealed, questioning the identity of the shabu allegedly confiscated from him in
view of Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165 (inventory of seized drugs) and Section 21 (3) of the
same law(certification of the forensic laboratory examination results).

Ruling:

The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of
the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti.

Citing jurisprudence, the failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of
the seized drugs raised doubt as to its origins.

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. TheCourt believed that the prosecution failed to clearly establish the chain of custody of
the seized plastic sachets, containing shabu from the time they were first allegedly received
until they were brought to the police investigator. There were no records to show that the
procedural requirements in Section 21 were complied with.

The presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the constitutional right of presumption of
evidence in view of the circumstances. “The presumption of regularity is merely just that--a
mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence
cannot be regarded as binding truth.”

The appellant was acquitted.