G.R. No. 191263; October 16, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. HADJI SOCOR CADIDIA, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

On July 31, 2002, at around 6:30 a.m., accused-appellant Hadji Socor Cadidia was at the Manila Domestic Airport Terminal I in Pasay City to board a flight to Butuan City. Non-Uniformed PNP personnel Marilyn Trayvilla, a female frisker, frisked Cadidia upon entry to the departure area and noticed something unusual and thick in the area of Cadidia’s buttocks. Cadidia claimed it was her sanitary napkin. Not convinced, Trayvilla and her co-employee Leilani M. Bagsican brought Cadidia to a comfort room. Upon checking, they discovered two plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance inside Cadidia’s underwear/sanitary napkin. The items were confiscated and turned over to their supervisor, SPO3 Musalli I. Appang. The specimens were later referred to Forensic Chemist Elisa G. Reyes, who confirmed through Chemistry Report No. D-364-02 that the substances were methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) with a total weight of 146.77 grams. An Information was filed charging Cadidia with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal transport of dangerous drugs). Cadidia pleaded not guilty. At trial, the prosecution presented Trayvilla, Bagsican, and SPO3 Appang. The defense presented Cadidia, who testified that the friskers accused her of carrying shabu, found nothing upon frisking, but then demanded money. She claimed she called relatives to raise ₱200,000.00, but they only brought ₱6,000.00, which the officers rejected. Defense witness Haaji Mohamad Domrang corroborated her story about being asked for money. The Regional Trial Court convicted Cadidia. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Cadidia appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Hadji Socor Cadidia for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the decision of the Court of Appeals convicting accused-appellant Hadji Socor Cadidia.
The Court held that all elements of illegal transport of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the identity of the accused as the transporter; (2) the identity of the drug; and (3) the act of transportation. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were consistent, credible, and constituted an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs. The defense of frame-up and extortion was rejected for being inherently weak and unsupported by clear and convincing evidence. The Court found no ill motive for the arresting officers to falsely accuse Cadidia. The procedural requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of certain witnesses were not strictly complied with at the time of seizure. However, the Court ruled that such non-compliance did not render the arrest illegal or the items inadmissible, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were duly preserved. The chain of custody was established from the seizure by Trayvilla and Bagsican, to their turnover to SPO3 Appang, then to the investigation office, and finally to the crime laboratory for examination. The defense failed to present evidence of tampering, bad faith, or ill will on the part of the apprehending officers. The guilt of the accused-appellant was thus established beyond reasonable doubt.