GR 237209; (April, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 237209, April 10, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Mohamad Dampak y Disalo @ “Lando” and Jamil Dampak y Mimbabawag @ “Jamil,” Accused, Catherine Romo Rosa y Ostoy @ “Lyn,” Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) conducted a buy-bust operation in Muntinlupa City on February 20, 2010, based on information from a confidential informant regarding a drug deal with a certain “Omar.” The team, with Special Investigator Rolan Fernandez as poseur-buyer, proceeded to a specified house. Inside, accused-appellant Catherine Romorosa, alias “Lyn,” handed two plastic sachets of white crystalline substance to Fernandez in exchange for marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, the team arrested Romorosa and two male companions, Mohamad and Jamil Dampak, who were found in possession of additional sachets.
The team immediately left the scene due to a gathering crowd and proceeded to the NBI office. There, SI Fernandez marked the seized items. The sachets from Romorosa were later confirmed by forensic chemist Edwin Purificando to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Romorosa was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Regional Trial Court convicted her, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution successfully proved the accused-appellant’s guilt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Catherine Romorosa. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti. The Court emphasized that in buy-bust operations, the procedure for the custody and disposition of seized drugs under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be strictly followed to preserve their integrity.
The buy-bust team committed unjustified deviations from the mandated procedure. The marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized items were not conducted immediately at the place of arrest but only later at the NBI office. While the team cited security concerns due to a gathering crowd, they failed to offer any compelling reason why these required witnesses—a representative from the media, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official—could not have been present. The absence of these insulating witnesses during the inventory, coupled with the delayed conduct of the essential safeguards, created doubt about the identity of the drugs presented in court. Without proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, Romorosa’s guilt cannot be sustained beyond reasonable doubt.