G.R. No. 186455 November 19, 2014
People of the Philippines, Petitioner, vs. Rosalinda Casabuena, Respondent.

FACTS

The prosecution charged Rosalinda Casabuena with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 . The information alleged that on February 4, 2004, in Laoag City, she sold 0.0139 gram of shabu contained in one plastic sachet to poseur-buyer Armando Joaquin in a buy-bust operation. The prosecution presented witnesses SPO1 Rovimanuel Balolong, P/Sr. Insp. Mary Ann Nilo Cayabyab, Armando Joaquin, and SPO2 Loreto Ancheta. Their testimonies established that a buy-bust team was formed based on a tip from informant Armando Joaquin, who acted as the poseur-buyer. Armando entered Casabuena’s house, bought shabu from her for ₱200, and then gave a pre-arranged signal. The police team entered, recovered the shabu and marked money, and arrested Casabuena. The seized item was turned over to the evidence custodian, SPO2 Ancheta, and later examined by P/Sr. Insp. Cayabyab, who confirmed it contained 0.0139 gram of shabu. The defense, through Casabuena and Reynante Abian, presented a different version, claiming Armando attempted to give money to Casabuena while she was about to bathe, which she refused, and that the police forcibly entered her bathroom, arrested her without finding any money or drugs, and that no confiscation receipt was signed. The Regional Trial Court found Casabuena guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, particularly in establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti in compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court ACQUITTED the appellant, Rosalinda Casabuena. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drug, thereby failing to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The required procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that immediately after seizure, the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or her representative, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground for non-compliance with these witness requirements. Testimonies revealed that the inventory was not done at the place of seizure or the police station but was marked only upon arrival at the police station without the required witnesses present. Furthermore, the prosecution did not sufficiently account for the handling of the evidence between the seizure by SPO1 Balolong and its turnover to SPO2 Ancheta, creating a gap in the chain. The failure to adhere to the prescribed procedure, without justifiable reason, compromised the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. Consequently, the elements of the crime were not proven beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal.