GR 228890; (April, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 228890. April 18, 2018.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. BASHER TOMAWIS Y ALI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
The accused-appellant, Basher Tomawis y Ali, was charged with violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The prosecution’s narrative, led by PDEA agents, detailed a buy-bust operation at Starmall Alabang on August 21, 2008. Agent IO1 Mabel Alejandro acted as the poseur-buyer and testified that she exchanged marked money for 12.74 grams of shabu with Tomawis. Following the transaction and arrest, the team proceeded to the PDEA office in Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City, where an inventory of the seized drugs was conducted in the presence of barangay officials. The defense presented a starkly different account, claiming Tomawis was a victim of a frame-up. He testified that he was arbitrarily accosted by armed men at the mall, forcibly taken, and his money was stolen. He alleged he was coerced into pointing to the evidence during the inventory out of fear.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of the accused-appellant for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING
The Supreme Court ACQUITTED accused-appellant Basher Tomawis y Ali. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, which is crucial to proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The buy-bust team committed unjustified deviations from the mandatory procedures under Section 21 of RA 9165. The inventory and photographing of the seized items were not conducted at the place of arrest or at the nearest police station but at a barangay hall in a different city, without any explanation for this transfer. More critically, the prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses—a representative from the Department of Justice and the media—during the inventory. The presence of only barangay officials was insufficient. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence and cannot cure these substantial procedural lapses. The broken chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones allegedly seized from Tomawis. Consequently, his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.