GR 206229; (February, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 206229 , February 4, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. AMY DASIGAN y OLIVA, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Amy Dasigan y Oliva was charged with illegal possession and illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Sections 11(3) and 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution’s evidence established that on December 9, 2006, a buy-bust operation was conducted in Bayabas, La Trinidad, Benguet. PO2 Arieltino Corpuz acted as poseur-buyer and purchased two plastic sachets of shabu from Dasigan for ₱2,000. Upon arrest, four additional sachets were recovered from Dasigan’s pocket. The seized items were marked with the initials of the arresting officers at the PDEA office, not immediately at the place of arrest. An inventory was conducted in the presence of a prosecutor, an elected official, a media representative, and the accused. The items were subsequently examined and confirmed to be shabu. The defense claimed the arrest was a frame-up, alleging Dasigan was forcibly taken from her home and that no buy-bust operation occurred.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, despite alleged irregularities in the chain of custody of the seized items.
RULING
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court acquitted Dasigan of illegal sale due to the prosecution’s failure to establish the chain of custody with regard to the two sachets allegedly sold. The buy-bust money was not presented as evidence, and the prosecution did not adequately explain its absence, creating reasonable doubt on whether the sale transpired. However, the Court upheld the conviction for illegal possession of the four sachets found in Dasigan’s pocket. The chain of custody for these items was preserved: they were immediately confiscated, marked at the PDEA office in the accused’s presence, inventoried before required witnesses, and properly submitted for laboratory examination. The defense of frame-up was deemed unsubstantiated. The Court imposed an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum, and a fine of ₱300,000 for illegal possession.