MANILA, Philippines – A drug pusher was acquitted by the Court of Appeals over lapses in the handling of evidence by authorities.
In an 18-page decision, the Special 6th division acquitted Michael Madera after the prosecution failed to prove that the shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) presented in court was the same illegal drug confiscated by police from Madera in a buy bust operation.
The appeals court said that while the confiscated drugs were presented, records showed that the prosecution failed to prove that the chain of custody of this same drug was unbroken.
Under the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1 Series of 2002, a chain of custody is the “duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence and final disposition.”
In this case, however, the appeals court said that while there were witnesses who were able to narrate the incident, there was no record that the shabu presented in court was the same drug confiscated from Madera.
Madera was arrested in a buy-bust operation in Makati in 2004. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and asked to pay a fine of P500,000 by the Makati City regional trial court Branch 64 in 2008.
Citing Supreme Court’s decisions, the appeals court said it was essential that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item be preserved.
“Sadly, in the instant case, the records are barren of any information as to the compliance of the police officers with the basic mandate of the law,” the appeals court said.
The appeals court also said that while the police enjoyed a presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty, “the constitutional presumption of innocence assumes primacy over the presumption of regularity.”
“After a meticulous and judicious examination of the recorded evidence, we resolve to acquit appellant on the basis that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt,” the appeals court said.