PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANASTACIO HEMENTIZA Y DELA CRUZ

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANASTACIO HEMENTIZA Y DELA CRUZ

G.R. No. 227398        March 22, 2017

 

MENDOZA, J.

 

FACTS:

On May 25, 2003, at around 1:15 o'clock in the morning, Palconit, SPO2 Gerry Abalos, PO2 Manuel Bayeng, and PO3 Russel Medina, conducted a buy-bust operation at Barangay Sta. Cruz, Antipolo City. A confidential informant told them that a certain Anastacio was peddling drugs in the area. A buy-bust team was formed with Abalos as the team leader and Palconit as the poseur-buyer. Abalos marked two P100.00 bills for the operation. After briefing and coordination with the local police, the team was dispatched to Barangay Sta. Cruz. Upon arrival, the CI pointed to their target person. Palconit approached accused-appellant and asked if he could buy shabu. After receiving the marked money, accused-appellant handed to Palconit one small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing shabu. At that point, Palconit scratched his head to signal that the sale was consummated, and the rest of the team rushed to the scene. Abalos introduced themselves as police officers and immediately frisked accused-appellant. Abalos recovered the marked money and two other plastic sachets containing shabu from the left pocket of accused-appellant's pants. Thereafter, accused-appellant and the seized items were brought to the PDEA Office in Barangay San Roque, Antipolo City. The seized items were turned over to the case investigator who prepared the corresponding request for laboratory examination. Thereafter, Palconit brought the seized items to the crime laboratory. After examination, Fabros issued a report confirming that the crystalline substance in the sachets were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

 

The RTC held that the failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated did not automatically render accused-appellant's arrest illegal or the items seized from him as inadmissible for it was shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved by the apprehending officers. The accused was found guilty. This was affirmed by the CA upon appeal.

 

ISSUE:

Whether the failure to conduct the required physical inventory and photograph renders the items seized inadmissible as evidence.

 

RULING:

In the case at bench, the prosecution failed to demonstrate substantial compliance by the apprehending officers with the safeguards provided by R.A. No. 9165 as regards the rule on chain of custody. To begin with, the records are bereft of any showing that an inventory of the seized items was made. Neither does it appear on record that the apprehending team photographed the contraband in accordance with law.

 

In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.

 

In fine, the Court holds that the totality of the evidence presented does not support a finding of guilt with the certainty that criminal cases require. The procedural lapses committed by the apprehending team show glaring gaps in the chain of custody, creating a reasonable doubt on whether the shabu seized from accused-appellant was the same shabu that were brought to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis, and eventually offered in court as evidence. Hence, the corpus delicti has not been adequately proven.