G.R. NO. 218253, June 20, 2018
Del Castillo, J.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
-versus -
EVELYN SEGUIENTE y RAMIREZ,
Accused-Appellant.
Issue: Whether the court a quo gravely erred in convicting herein accused-appellant despite the failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ruling: Yes.
Requisites of Illegal Sale of Drugs
In a prosecution for the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, "the prosecution needs to prove sufficiently the identity of the buyer, seller, object and consideration; and, the delivery of the thing sold and the payment thereof. What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the substance seized as evidence."
Requisites of Illegal Possession of Drugs
On the other hand, to prove "illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and, (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug." As found by the courts below, all the foregoing elements were proved beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant was caught in possession of shabu, a dangerous drug. She failed to show that she was authorized to possess the same. By her mere possession of the drug, there is already a prima facie evidence of knowledge which she failed to rebut.
According to the appellant, the marking of the items seized was not done in her presence. The physical inventory and taking of photographs was likewise not conducted in her presence and the persons mentioned in the law. The inventory receipt contained only the signature of the Intelligence Operative. The police operatives did not offer any explanation on their non-compliance with these requirements. She argues that these non-compliance made the legitimacy of the alleged buy-bust operation doubtful.
Chain of Custody
The procedure set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is intended precisely to ensure the identity and integrity of dangerous drugs seized. This provision requires that upon seizure of illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof (c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or confiscated and (d) a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official (e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.
As ruled in People v. Salonga, the marking "must always be done in the presence of the accused or his representative."
Another procedural lapse committed by the arresting team was their non-compliance with the photograph and physical inventory requirements under RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR).
Another crucial deviation from the procedure required by law was the failure to take photographs of the seized items.
Indeed, Section 2l(a) of the IRR, as amended by RA 10640, provides a saving clause in the procedure outline under Section 21 (1) of RA 9165. However, before this saving clause to apply, the prosecution is bound to recognize the procedural lapses, provide justifiable grounds for its non-compliance and thereafter to establish the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized.
In the present case, the prosecution offered no explanation on why the procedure was not followed or whether there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so.
Appeal is granted. Appellant is acquitted.
Please click to read FULL TEXT here.
No comments:
Post a Comment