People vs. Diputado (2017)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ROMMEL DIPUTADO

G.R. No. 213922, July 5, 2017 

TIJAM, J.:

Facts: The accusatory portion of the Information alleges that accused, with deliberate intent and without any justifiable motive, unlawfully and criminally sell to a PNP poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic packet containing 3.957 grams of shabu, a dangerous drug, in consideration of P24,000.00, without the authority to sell and distribute the same; that four (4) pieces of P20.00 marked bills which form part of the buy-bust money were recovered from the possession of the herein accused.

Accused-appellant claims that the seized illegal drug was not marked immediately after his arrest at the scene of the crime, neither was it marked at the house of the barangay captain where the seized illegal drug and the buy-bust money were allegedly initially recorded/listed by PO1 Lucilo Mayores.

Issue: Whether or not the integrity of the seized drug was established.

Ruling: No. In a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

The duty of the prosecution is not merely to present in evidence the seized illegal drugs. It is essential that the illegal drugs seized from the suspect is the very same substance offered in evidence in court as the identity of the drug must be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt.

In the present case, PO1 Estares testified that he did not mark the seized item immediately after the arrest of the accused-appellant at the place where the latter was arrested. It is also undisputed that PO1 Estares did not mark the seized item in the house of the barangay captain, 100 meters away from the place of the arrest, where the initial listing/recording of the seized item and the buy-bust money was conducted.

Ratio Decidendi: The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.

Gist: Challenged in this appeal is the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the RTC of Iloilo City, finding Rommel Diputado guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.