5.) PEOPLE vs. SUMILI
5.) PEOPLE vs. SUMILI
5.) PEOPLE vs. SUMILI
vs.
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
The Facts
On June 30, 2006, an Information6 was filed before the RTC charging Sumili
of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, viz.:
That, on or about June 7, 2006, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without having
been authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell one (1) sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerousdrug commonly known as Shabufor the amount of ₱200.00.
Contrary to and in violation of Sec. 5, ART. II, RA 9165, otherwise known as
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
At around 5:10 in the afternoon of the same day, the buy-bust team headed
to the target area. Upon arrival, the poseur-buyer approached Sumili’s
house to buy shabu. After Sumili let the poseur-buyer in, the latter gave the
pre-arranged signal that the sale has been consummated. Almost
immediately, the buy-bust team stormed the house but Sumili escaped by
jumping through the window, throwing the marked money at the roof
beside his house. The poseur-buyer turnedover the sachet of suspected
shabuto SPO2 Englatiera, who marked the same with "DC-1," representing
the initials of SPO2 Cabahug.9 SPO2 Englatiera then prepared a request for
laboratory examination and instructed Non-Uniform Personnel Carlito Ong
(NUP Ong) to bring the sachet together with the request to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination. However, NUP Ong failed to do so on the same
day as the PNP Crime Laboratory was already closed.10 It was only on June
9, 2006, or two (2) days after the buy-bust operation, that NUP Ong was able
to bring and turn-over the seized sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory.11
Upon examination, it was confirmed thatsaid sachet contained 0.32 grams
of methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.12
In his defense, Sumili denied selling shabu. He and his daughter claimed
that he was a fishball vendor, and that on the date and time of the incident,
he was at the market buying ingredients. When he returned to his
residence, his wife told him that policemen were looking for him.13 The
RTC Ruling
In a Decision14 dated August 10, 2009, the RTC found Sumili guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and
accordingly, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay a
fine in the amount of ₱500,000.00.15
The RTC found that a buy-bust operation indeed occurred where Sumili
sold the seized sachet to the poseur-buyer. In this regard, it gave credence
to the straightforward and categorical testimonies of prosecution witnesses
detailing how the police officers received information that Sumili was
selling shabu, investigated and confirmed that he indeed was selling shabu,
conducted the buy-bust operation, recovered, marked, and transmitted the
seized item from Sumilito the PNP Crime Laboratory, and that the
laboratory results yielded positive for shabu. Conversely, it did not give
weight to the defense testimonies which merely deniedthe existence of the
buy-bust operation and insisted that Sumili was not selling drugs.16
The CA Ruling
Finally, the CA opined that Sumili failed to rebut by clear and convincing
evidence the presumption ofregularity in the performance of official duties
enjoyed by the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation.22
Aggrieved, Sumili filed the instant appeal.23
The issue for the Court’s resolution is whether Sumili’s conviction for
violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld.
As may be gleaned from the established facts, the buy-bust operation was
conducted on June 7, 2006. When SPO2 Englatieraseized the sachet from
Sumili, he marked the same with the initials "DC-1" and, later, he returned
to the police station to prepare the request for the examination of the
sachet’s contents. Thereafter, he ordered NUP Ong to bring the sachet as
well as the request to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. However,
NUP Ong failed to do so within 24 hours after the buy-bust operation as he
only delivered the sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory on June 9, 2006, or
two (2) days after the buy-bust operation.No other than SPO2 Englatiera
and NUP Ong attested to these facts intheir respective testimonies, to wit:32
Prosecutor Celso Sarsaba (Pros. Sarsaba): Who prepared this request for
laboratory examination?
Q: Was [NUP Ong] able to bring the request for laboratory examination
together with the sachet of shabu to the crime laboratory on that same
day?
Q: Why?
A: Because it was already 5:00 o’clock (sic) sir I think it was Friday sir, the
laboratory was already closed.
xxxx
Pros. Sarsaba: And how about the one sachet of shabu allegedly bought
from the accused, who was in possession of that shabu at that time?
Q: And when did you bring this request for laboratory [examination] to the
[PNP] crime laboratory, on what date?
xxxx
To justify the delay inthe turn-over of the corpus delicti, SPO2 Englatiera
and NUP Ong insist that the PNP Crime Laboratory was already closed on
June 7, 2006, and since it was a Friday, the delivery of the seized sachet was
only done on June 9, 2006. However, contrary to their claims, June 7, 2006
is not a Friday, but a Wednesday.34 Thus, if the PNP Crime Laboratory was
indeed closed on June 7, 2006, the delivery of the seized sachet could have
easily been done on the next day, or on June 8, 2006, instead of doing it two
(2) days after the buy-bust operation. This glaring fact, coupled with the
absence in the records as to who among the apprehending officers had
actual custody of the seized sachet from the time it was prepared for turn-
over until its delivery to the PNP Crime Laboratory, presents a substantial
and unexplained gap in the chain of custody of the alleged shabu seized
from Sumili. Undoubtedly, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus
delicti had been compromised.
In sum, since the identity of the prohibited drugs had not been established
by proof beyond reasonable doubt, Sumili's conviction must be
immediately set aside.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 29, 2014
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01075 is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE, and accordingly, accused-appellant Dennis Sumili is
ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his
immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held for any other reason.
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice