People vs. Gamboa (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MANUEL GAMBOA

G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Facts: During a buy-bust operation, PO2 Nieva asked appellant if he could buy P200.00 worth of shabu, handing as payment the buy-bust money. In turn, appellant gave PO2 Nieva a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO2 Nieva removed his bull cap, prompting the back-up officers to rush towards the scene and arrest appellant. Subsequently, they recovered another plastic sachet and the buy-bust money. PO2 Nieva immediately marked the two (2) plastic sachets and inventoried the items at the place of arrest in the presence of appellant and a media representative named Rene Crisostomo. Photographs of the confiscated items were also taken by PO3 Benitez during the marking and inventory. Thereafter, PO2 Nieva brought appellant and the seized drugs to the police station where PO3 Benitez prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination.

Issue: Whether or not the CA correctly upheld appellant’s conviction for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.

Ruling: No, the police officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from appellant.

Under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same.

An examination of the records reveals that the same was not done in the presence of any elected public official, as well as a representative from the DOJ. In fact, such lapse was admitted by PO2 Nieva. Thus, for failure of the prosecution to provide justifiable grounds or show that special circumstances exist which would excuse their transgression, the Court is constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from appellant have been compromised.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for the sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the State carries the heavy burden of proving the integrity of the corpus delicti failing in which, renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA, which affirmed the Decision of the RTC finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.