GR 174481 So; (February, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 174481 , February 10, 2016
The People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Cristy Dimaano y Tipdas, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Cristy Dimaano was apprehended at the Manila Domestic Airport after a routine frisk by Non-Uniformed Personnel Florence Bilugot revealed a bulging object near her buttocks. Upon inspection in a restroom, a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance was found concealed in her underwear. Dimaano allegedly identified the substance as shabu and stated she was merely asked to bring it. The prosecution charged her with the attempted transport of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 . The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals convicted her, ruling that the chain of custody over the seized drugs was intact and that her presence at the departure area sufficiently established intent to transport.
ISSUE
Did the prosecution establish the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt, considering alleged procedural lapses in the chain of custody under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 ?
RULING
No. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Brion voted for acquittal. He argued that the prosecution fatally failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial in drug cases. Material inconsistencies existed from the outset: the apprehending officer testified to seizing one plastic sachet, while the receiving officer testified to receiving two. More critically, the prosecution did not establish compliance with the mandatory procedures under Section 21. There was no showing that the seized items were physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused or the required witnesses (a representative from the media, the DOJ, and an elected official) immediately after seizure. Marking, the vital starting point of the custodial link, was done by various officers at different times without proper justification for the deviations. The dissent emphasized that the burden to justify non-compliance rests with the prosecution, not the court. Without proof that the substance presented in court was the very same item seized from the accused, the integrity of the corpus delicti was compromised. Consequently, the constitutional presumption of innocence must prevail, warranting Dimaano’s acquittal.