GR 184789; (February, 2015) (Digest)
G.R. No. 184789 , February 23, 2015
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Beverly Alagarme y Citoy, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Beverly Alagarme was charged with violations of Section 5 (illegal sale) and Section 11 (illegal possession) of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation on March 14, 2005, on Guiho Street, Barangay Cembo, Makati City. PO1 Percival Mendoza acted as the poseur-buyer and used marked money to purchase ₱200.00 worth of shabu from Alagarme. Upon consummation of the sale, the team arrested her. The police recovered the marked money and another plastic sachet from her. The seized items were marked inside the vehicle with the initials “PCM” and “PCM-1.” The items were brought to the SAID-SOTF office and later to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where they tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Alagarme denied the charges, claiming she was framed while buying rice and that she was a househelper. The Regional Trial Court convicted her, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. The case was elevated to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Did the Court of Appeals err in finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 ?
RULING
No, the Court of Appeals did not err; however, the Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the appellant. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, which is crucial in proving the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt. The apprehending team did not comply with the procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165, which requires the immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or her representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The prosecution offered no justifiable ground for this non-compliance and failed to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The marking of the items inside the vehicle, without the required witnesses, and the lack of evidence on the handling of the items after marking until laboratory examination, created reasonable doubt on the identity of the evidence presented in court. Consequently, the presumption of innocence prevails, and the appellant is acquitted.