PEOPLE V. ARELLAGA Y
SABADO
G.R. No. 231769, August
24, 2020
SECOND DIVISION, HERNANDO
J.
RA 9165, Illegal
Sale, Chain of Custody Rule, Illegal Possession
Doctrine: Failure to explain the absence of the required three-witness rule or justify the deviation from the mandatory procedure outlined in Section 21 Article II of RA 9165 will create a reasonable doubt on the identity of the seized drugs, which will results to acquittal; as the integrity of the corpus delicti had been compromised.
Sabado was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution's version was supported by the testimonies of two police officers, PO2 Reynold Reyes and PO3 Niño Baladjay, who conducted the buy-bust operation. They testified that the appellant sold a sachet of shabu to the poseur buyer, and upon his arrest, three more sachets were found in his possession.
On the other hand, the defense
presented the appellant's testimony and his stepdaughter, Nica Andrea Cruz's
account of the incident. They claimed that the police officers unlawfully
entered their house, conducted a warrantless search, and allegedly stole
personal items. During the trial, the defense raised issues concerning
the chain of custody rule and the integrity of the evidence presented by the
prosecution.
Whether the prosecution has sufficiently complied
with the chain of custody rule for the seized drugs.
NO. The Supreme Court emphasize the importance of chain of custody rule to preserve the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, as they constitute the corpus delicti of the offense. The chain of custody rule requires the presence of three witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the confiscated drugs, as stated in Section 21 of RA 9165.
However, the prosecution in this case failed to clearly establish compliance with the requirements of Section 21, particularly the three-witness rule. There were no three witnesses during the inventory and photograph taking of the drugs, and no justifiable grounds were shown for their absence. The Court has held that the presence of the required number of witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory, is mandatory. Their presence would provide certainty about the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drugs and refute any defense of frame-up. However, the buy-bust team in this case only had one witness which is insufficient under Section 21.
Due to the prosecution's failure to
prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and their inability to
comply with the necessary procedures under RA 9165, the Court acquitted Sabado.
No comments:
Post a Comment