GR 240749; (December, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 240749 , December 11, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. GIOVANNI DE LUMEN Y LADLAGARAN AND MAURA ARANZASO Y MENDOZA, ACCUSED, GIOVANNI DE LUMEN Y LADLAGARAN, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS
Accused-appellant Giovanni de Lumen was charged with Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The Information alleged that on September 11, 2009, in Gen. Trias, Cavite, he and a co-accused were found in possession of one strip of aluminum foil, two disposable lighters, four aluminum tooters, and three transparent plastic sachets, which are paraphernalia for using dangerous drugs. The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation targeting co-accused Maura Aranzaso for illegal sale of drugs. During the operation, police officers arrested Maura and, upon entering her house, allegedly saw appellant and another person sniffing shabu and recovered the said paraphernalia. The defense claimed appellant was merely at Maura’s house to get a water container and was arrested without cause. The Regional Trial Court convicted appellant. The Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction but acquitted Maura. Appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing issues regarding the chain of custody and the legality of his arrest.
ISSUE
Whether the guilt of accused-appellant Giovanni de Lumen for Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia was proven beyond reasonable doubt, particularly focusing on whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved through a proper chain of custody.
RULING
The Supreme Court GRANTED the appeal, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals Decision, and ACQUITTED accused-appellant Giovanni de Lumen. The Court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drug paraphernalia, which is crucial for proving the corpus delicti given the items’ fungible and readily substitutable nature. The police officers’ testimonies did not provide details on how the seized items were stored, preserved, delivered to the laboratory, or who received them. There was also no evidence on how the items were presented in court. This failure to follow the mandated procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165 compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized paraphernalia, creating reasonable doubt as to appellant’s guilt.