GR 205889; (February, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 205889 , February 4, 2015.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. SANDER DACUMA Y LUNSOD, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Two Informations were filed against accused-appellant Sander Dacuma for illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) on July 15, 2003, in Carigara, Leyte. He pleaded not guilty. The prosecution’s version, based on the testimony of PO2 Frederick Cabaltera, was that a buy-bust operation was conducted. PO2 Cabaltera, as poseur-buyer, bought four plastic sachets of shabu from Dacuma for ₱600.00 using marked money. Upon consummation of the sale, back-up officers arrested Dacuma. He was later body-searched at the police station in the presence of barangay officials, leading to the recovery of three more sachets of shabu and the marked money. The defense claimed Dacuma was merely asked by a friend to return money to a person who turned out to be PO2 Parena, and he was subsequently framed. The Regional Trial Court convicted Dacuma for illegal sale but dismissed the charge for illegal possession. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the accused. The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to non-compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. The Court found that the apprehending officers did not immediately mark the seized drugs at the place of arrest or at the nearest police station, as required. The marking was done only at the police station, and there was no evidence showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for this procedural lapse. Consequently, the identity of the corpus delicti was compromised, creating reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. The decision of the Court of Appeals was reversed and set aside.