People vs. Seguiente (2018)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs.  EVELYN SEGUIENTE

G.R. No. 218253, June 20, 2018

DEL CASTILLO, J.:

Facts: After receiving a tip from an informant, a team of police officers was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. When they proceeded to the target area, SPO1 Jacinto and the informant proceeded on foot leaving behind the back-up within viewing distance. SPO1 Jacinto and the informant approached appellant who was standing in front of a house. SPO1 Jacinto was introduced to appellant as a prospective buyer. Appellant asked SPO1 Jacinto how much shabu he wanted to buy and the latter replied Php100.00 worth. After SPO1 Jacinto gave the pre-arranged signal, PO1 Ismula arrested appellant. When frisked, PO1 Ismula found in appellant's possession another sachet of shabu. Thereafter, appellant was brought to the Zamboanga City Mobile Office where SPO1 Jacinto marked the sachet of shabu with his initials "STJ" while the sachet of shabu recovered from appellant's possession was marked by PO1 Ismula with his initials "JHI." The seized suspected sachets of shabu were shown positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu).

Upon conviction, appellant filed an appeal on the ground of failure to conduct a physical inventory and taking of the photograph of the seized drugs in her presence and of the persons mentioned in the law.

Issue: Whether or not the procedure laid down in RA 9165 was followed.

Ruling: No, the procedure laid down in RA 9165 was not followed.

The procedure set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires that upon seizure of illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof (c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or confiscated and (d) a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official (e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.

In this case, there was no mention whether the inventory was done in the presence of appellant or her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official. Further, they failed to take photographs of the seized items and the prosecution offered no explanation on why the procedure was not followed or whether there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so.

Ratio Decidendi: Any gap in the chain of custody renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Gist: This is an appeal from the Decision of the CA affirming the RTC, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession), Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.