PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SALIM ISMAEL

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee

vs.

SALIM ISMAEL y RADANG, Accused-Appellant

G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017
Del Castillo J

Salim was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 for selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). 

Elements of Illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165

(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and

(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused.

Elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs

[1] the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs;

[2] such possession was not authorized by law; and

[3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.

The dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. xxx In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.

SPO1 Rodriguez and SPO1 Santiago did not mark the seized drugs immediately after they were confiscated from appellant. No explanations were given why markings were not immediately made. At this stage in the chain, there was already a significant break such that there can be no assurance against switching, planting, or contamination. The Court has previously held that, "failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt."

Due to the apparent breaks in the chain of custody, it was possible that the seized item subject of the sale transaction was switched with the seized items subject of the illegal possession case. This is material considering that the imposable penalty for illegal possession of shabu depends on the quantity or weight of the seized drug.

Aside from the failure to mark the seized drugs immediately upon arrest, the arresting officers also failed to show that the marking of the seized drugs was done in the presence of the appellant. This requirement must not be brushed aside as a mere technicality. It must be shown that the marking was done in the presence of the accused to assure that the identity and integrity of the drugs were properly preserved. Failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to the prosecution's case.

The prosecution failed to:

(1) overcome the presumption of innocence which appellant enjoys;

(2) prove the corpus delicti of the crime;

(3) establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs; and

(4) offer any explanation why the provisions of Section 21, RA 9165 were not complied with.

The Court is thus constrained to acquit the appellant based on reasonable doubt.


Full Text: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/feb2017/gr_208093_2017.html