GR 225780 2018 PDF
GR 225780 2018 PDF
~ ~D
:fflaniln
DEC 2 f 2018
FIRST DIVISION
Present:
BERSAMIN, C.J.,
-versus - DEL CASTILLO,
PERLAS-BERNABE,*
TIJAM,and
GESMUNDO, ** JJ.
DECISION
• Designated Additional Member per October 8, 2018 raffle vice J. Jardeleza who recused due to prior action
as Solicitor General.
•• Per Special Order No. 2607 dated October l 0, 2018.
1 CA rollo, pp. 111-122; penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales and concurred in by Associate Justices
3
Id. at 1.
4
Records (Criminal Case No. L-9633), p. I.
5
Records (Criminal Case No. L-9632), p. 35 and Records (Criminal Case No. L-9633), p. 35.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 225780
The buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. The civilian asset
waited for the appellant while the rest of the team positioned themselves
about five to six meters away. Appellant arrived riding his tricycle and
stopped in front of the civilian asset. The drug transaction then took place.
Appellant handed to the civilian asset a plastic sachet suspected to contain
shabu while the latter handed the 1!500.00 marked money. After the
exchange, the civilian asset raised his left hand, which was the pre-arranged
signal for the buy-bust team that the sale of drugs had been consummated.
PSI Malojo-Todeiio received the requests for examination and th: .h.
sachets of shabu marked as MDS 1 and MDS2. After examination, th/~
Decision 4 G.R. No. 225780
For ·his defense, appellant denied the accusation against him and
claimed that he was framed-up. Appellant alleged that a person, who turned
out to be the civilian asset, boarded his tricycle and told him to go to
Primicias Street. On the way, appellant noticed a car following his tricycle.
When they arrived at Primicias Street, five to six police officers got out of
the car and proceeded to arrest him and brought him to the police station
where he was interrogated. Later on, SPO I Delos Santos and PO I Vidal
brought him back to Primicias Street where Kagawad Cuesta and Kagawad
Disini were waiting. The police officers then took pictures of him inside the
tricycle. SPO I Delos Santos pulled out a sachet from his own pocket and
asked appellant to point at it while being photographed. Thereafter, he was
brought back to the police station.
6
Records (Criminal Case No. L-9632), p. 23.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 225780
SO ORDERED. 7
I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
FOR VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOTWITHSTANDING THE
PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE WITH CERTAINTY THE
CORPUS DELICTI OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED. 9
SO ORDERED. 10~
7
Id. at 88.
8
CA rollo, pp. 30-41.
9
Id. at 30.
10
Id. at 122.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 225780
Issue
The issue in this case is whether appellant was guilty of illegal sale
and possession of shabu. According to appellant, the RTC erred in
convicting him of the offenses charged in view of the prosecution's failure to
prove the identity of the civilian asset who acted as the poseur-buyer.
Appellant also claims that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken
chain of custody of the seized drugs. Finally, appellant argues that the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail
over the presumption of his innocence.
Our Ruling
The Court finds the appeal meritorious and hereby acquits the
appellant for failure of the prosecution to justify the arresting officers' non-
compliance with the three-witness rule under Section 21 12 of RA 9165.
11
Id. at 129-131.
12
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner:
(!) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall
be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
xx xx
13
People v. Alberto, 625 Phil. 545, 554 (2010).
Decision 7 G.R. No. 225780
possession was not authorized by law[;] and (c) the accused was freely and
consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs." 14 In both
cases, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established
with moral certainty since the drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus
delicti of the crime. 15 Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the
identity and integrity of the seized drug on account of the possibility of
switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence, the prosecution must be
able to show an unbroken chain of custody and account for each link in the
chain from the moment the drugs are seized until its presentation in court as
evidence of the crime.
14
Reyes v. Court ofAppeals, 686 Phil. 137, 148 (2012).
15
People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
16
AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE 'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002'," approved July 15, 2014.
17
Section 21 (1) and (2) Article II of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
18
Section21,Article II ofRA9165, as amended by RA 10640.
19
GR. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, 820 SCRA204, 215.
20
Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 ::;tates: "Provided, further,
that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items"
21
People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
Decision 8 G.R. No. 225780
22
Records (Criminal Case No. L-9632), p. 78.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 225780
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
~~lice
/'"
(Ch official le.ave)
ESTELAM. PERLAS-BERNABE NOEL ZTIJAM
Associate Justice As
CERTIFICATION
,
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.