GR 227868; (January, 2021) (Digest)
G.R. No. 227868, January 20, 2021
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Ely Policarpio y Natividad alias “Dagul,” Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Ely Policarpio was charged with Violation of Section 261(q) of the Omnibus Election Code (COMELEC Gun Ban) and Violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for unlawful possession of shabu and drug paraphernalia. The charges stemmed from a search conducted on April 12, 2007, at his house in Santiago City by PDEA agents implementing Search Warrant No. 0085. The search yielded nine plastic sachets of shabu, drug paraphernalia, and a .45 caliber pistol. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Policarpio guilty of all charges. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed his conviction for the drug charges but acquitted him of the COMELEC gun ban violation. The Supreme Court initially dismissed Policarpio’s appeal via a Resolution dated April 5, 2017, but this Resolution resolves his Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming accused-appellant’s conviction for violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, despite alleged irregularities in the implementation of the search warrant and the custody of the seized items.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the Motion for Reconsideration, REVERSED and SET ASIDE its April 5, 2017 Resolution, and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Ely Policarpio of Violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs and paraphernalia, and failed to comply with the witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Specifically, the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were not conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media, and the Department of Justice, as required. The prosecution also did not provide justifiable grounds for this non-compliance. These lapses cast reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized items, which is fatal to the prosecution’s case.