PEOPLE v. ISMAEL

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee vs. SALIM ISMAEL y RADANG, accused-appellant.

G.R. No. 208093

February 20, 2017

Facts:

On August 25, 2003, a confidential informant reported to SPO4 Araneta, Chief of the Intelligence Division of the Culianan Police Station in Zamboanga City, that Ismael Salim was engaged in selling shabu at Barangay Talabaan near the Muslim cemetery. After verifying the report, SPO4 Araneta formed a buy-bust team. It was then agreed that SPO1 Santiago would act as poseur buyer with SPO1 Rodriguez as back up.

Upon arrival at Barangay Talabaan, SPO1 Santiago, the confidential informant and SPO1 Rodriguez alighted from their vehicle then walked towards appellant and told the latter that he wanted to buy shabu. He then gave appellant the ₱100.00 marked money and the latter took from his left pocket one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance which he handed over to SPO1 Santiago. Upon seeing the exchange, SPO1 Rodriguez, rushed in and arrested appellant. The police officers then brought appellant to the Culianan Police Station. At the station, the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance subject of the buy-bust operation, the two plastic sachets also containing white crystalline substance, and marked money were respectively turned over by SPO1 Santiago and SPO1 Rodriguez to, PO3 Napalcruz, who likewise turned these over to the Duty Investigator, PO2 Tan, the latter then placed his initial on the items recovered from appellant. Appellant on the other hand denied both charges.

The RTC finds the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Sections 5 and 11,Article II of RA 9165, and sentenced the accused to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment. Appellant appealed to the CA, but the CA affirmed in toto the RTC's Judgment.

Issue:

Whether or not the court a quo gravely erred in convicting accused- appellant when his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Held:

Yes. In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."

It is clear from the testimonies that SPO1 Rodriguez and SPO1 Santiago did not mark the seized drugs immediately after they were confiscated from appellant. At this stage in the chain, there was already a significant break such that there can be no assurance against switching, planting, or contamination. The Court has previously held that, "failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt."

The arresting officers also failed to show that the marking of the seized drugs was done in the presence of the appellant to assure that the identity and integrity of the drugs were properly preserved. They likewise failed to make an inventory and take photographs of the seized drugs. These break in the chain tainted the integrity of the seized drugs presented in court.

Wherefore, the SC reversed and set aside the decision of the CA. Accordingly, appellant Salim R. Ismael is acquitted based on reasonable doubt.