People v. Sipin, GR 224290

People v. Sipin, GR 224290

 
FACTS:

• Vicente Sipin was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs and pleaded not guilty. 
• After trial, the court finds the appellant guilty. The trial court found no evidence to prove his defenses of denial and frame-up, and rejected appellant’s claim that the police officers merely got mad at him for his refusal to send a text message in the event that he sees Jun Bisaya’s notorious group. 
• Aggrieved by the decision, appellant filed an appeal through PAO. The PAO argued that the trial court erred in giving full weight and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, relying on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in favor of the police officers, and on the appellant’s failure to impute ill motive on them. 
• The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of merit, and affirmed the RTC’s Decision. The CA agreed with the trial court that the integrity of the seized items were duly preserved because the prosecution has presented and offered in court the key witnesses who had established the chain of custody of the seized drugs from their confiscation from appellant, to their marking and forwarding to the crime laboratory for examination. 
• As aptly pointed out by the PAO, there is an unreconciled conflict between the testimonies of PO1 Diocena and PO1 Gorospe as to who actually gave PO1 Diocena the specimens before they were brought to the crime laboratory for examination. Investigating Officer PO1 Gorospe testified that he gave PO1 Diocena the specimens for laboratory examination, whereas PO1 Diocena stated that it was PO1 Raagas who gave him the specimens for delivery to the crime laboratory. 
• Serious inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers also broke the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs from the time they were seized from appellant until they were presented in court, thereby undermining the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence. People vs. Sipin , 866 SCRA 73, G.R. No. 224290 June 11, 2018
• The failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody was compounded by the police officers’ noncompliance with the procedure for the custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs as set forth in Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 People vs. Sipin , 866 SCRA 73, G.R. No. 224290 June 11, 2018

 
ISSUE: 
Whether or not Sipin is guilty of violation of possession of illegal drugs.  
 
RULING: 
No. Sipin was acquitted and ordered to be released immediately. 
 Invocation of the disputable presumptions that the police officers regularly performed their official duty and that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, will not suffice to uphold appellant’s conviction. 
 
The burden of proving the guilt of an accused rests on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.37 When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right, irrespective of the reputation of the accused who enjoys the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is shown.38 For failure of the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt the unbroken chain of custody of the drugs seized from appellant, and to prove as a fact any justifiable reason for noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR, appellant must be acquitted of the crimes charged.
When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right, irrespective of the reputation of the accused who enjoys the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is shown.