GR 238174; (February, 2020) (Digest)
G.R. No. 238174 , February 05, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Gaida Kamad y Pakay, Accused-Appellant.
FACTS
An Information dated March 8, 2010, charged accused-appellant Gaida Kamad y Pakay with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on March 5, 2010, in Taguig City, a buy-bust operation was conducted where PO2 Benedict Balas, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased one plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of shabu from the accused-appellant for a marked P500.00 bill. Upon consummation of the sale, the accused-appellant was arrested. A commotion at the scene prompted the team to immediately bring her and the seized item to the police station. The seized substance was examined and yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense presented a different version, claiming the accused-appellant, a 60-year-old water vendor, was arbitrarily arrested by unidentified armed men while she was refilling a water drum, and no buy-bust operation occurred. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused-appellant guilty and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision.
ISSUE
Whether or not the accused-appellant’s conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs should be upheld.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused-appellant.
The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs and did not comply with the procedural safeguards under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 , as amended. For a conviction, it is crucial that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti are preserved. The law requires that immediately after seizure, a physical inventory and photographing of the seized items be conducted in the presence of the accused or her representative, and at least three witnesses: an elected public official, a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media, and if practicable, a representative from the Department of Justice. The prosecution did not present any of these required witnesses during the inventory. The police officers merely claimed that the inventory was done at the police station in the presence of the accused-appellant, but they offered no justifiable ground for the absence of the mandatory witnesses. The saving clause under the law, which excuses non-compliance if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, cannot be invoked when there is a blatant disregard of the prescribed procedure without any plausible explanation. The unjustified failure to secure the required witnesses compromised the integrity of the seized drug, creating reasonable doubt as to its identity. Consequently, the accused-appellant’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.