GR 232293; (December, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 232293 , December 09, 2020
EVELYN ABADINES CUICO, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Petitioner Evelyn Abadines Cuico was charged with violating Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (Possession of Drug Paraphernalia). The prosecution alleged that during a foot patrol in Cebu City on June 15, 2011, police officers saw Cuico inside a shanty holding a disposable syringe. They accosted her and seized a total of twenty-four disposable syringes and three empty ampoules of Nubain (Nalbuphine Hydrochloride). The police marked the items and conducted an inventory. Cuico denied the charge, claiming she was merely attending a video karera machine and was framed by the arresting officers.
The Regional Trial Court convicted Cuico, giving credence to the police testimony and finding her defense of denial weak. The court held that the syringes and empty ampoules were intended for drug use, noting some syringes were unsealed and the ampoules were empty. It ruled that laboratory examination was unnecessary. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the seized items were drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of R.A. No. 9165 .
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the appellate court’s decision and ACQUITTED Evelyn Abadines Cuico. The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for possession of drug paraphernalia, the prosecution must prove two elements: (1) possession or control of the item, and (2) that the item is fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, or introducing a dangerous drug into the body. The Court found the second element unproven.
The legal logic is clear: mere possession of an object like a syringe is not criminal per se. The prosecution must establish the criminal intent—that the object was specifically intended for use with dangerous drugs. Here, the prosecution relied solely on the police officer’s presumption, based on his experience, that the syringes were for injecting Nubain. The Court held this insufficient. The empty ampoules and syringes were ordinary items capable of legitimate medical use. Without forensic examination confirming the presence of dangerous drug residue, there was no conclusive evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence and establish the items’ specific illegal purpose. The failure to conduct a laboratory test, which was mandatory to prove the character of the paraphernalia, created reasonable doubt. Consequently, the prosecution did not meet the required quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt.