G.R. No. 208093 February 20, 2017
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee vs. SALIM ISMAEL y RADANG, Accused-Appellant

FACTS

Accused-appellant Salim Ismael was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on August 25, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Zamboanga City where SPO1 Santiago, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased one plastic sachet of shabu from Ismael using a marked ₱100 bill. Upon arrest, a body search yielded two more plastic sachets from Ismael’s pocket. The seized items were turned over at the police station and later examined, testing positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The defense presented a starkly different version. Ismael denied the charges, claiming he was merely buying cellphone load when he was apprehended. He alleged that the police officers arrested him without cause, brought him to a secluded area, and forced him to hold the drugs for photographing before taking him to the station. He insisted the evidence was planted and that the procedural requirements for handling seized drugs were not followed.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Salim Ismael. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti of the offenses. The Court found glaring gaps in the handling of the evidence. The testifying officers gave conflicting accounts regarding who had custody of the drugs immediately after seizure and who marked them. SPO1 Santiago claimed he kept the items, while SPO1 Rodriguez stated he was the one who marked them at the arrest site. This inconsistency created reasonable doubt about the integrity and identity of the evidence allegedly seized from the appellant.
Furthermore, the prosecution did not offer any justifiable explanation for its non-compliance with the strict procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 , which mandates the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of specific witnesses. The police conducted the inventory only at the station without the required witnesses from the media, the Department of Justice, or any elected public official. These lapses in procedure, coupled with the contradictory testimonies, fatally compromised the identity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, the presumption of innocence prevailed, and the appellant was acquitted based on reasonable doubt.