GR No 208093

People of the Philippines vs Salim Ismael

GR No 208093         February 20, 2017

Facts:

            Salim was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article 2 of RA No 9165 for selling and possessing shabu. A confidential informant reported to the police that a certain Salim was engaged in selling shabu near the Muslim cemetery of the city. Acting on said information, the police formed an entrapment unit for the buy-bust operations. After the successful operations, Salim was found to have sold shabu to the poseur-buyer and possessing two more plastic sachets of the said prohibited drug.

            RTC rendered its judgment finding Lopez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of having violated Sections 5 and 11 of Article 2 of the RA No 9165. The trial court gave full credence to the testimonies of the police who conducted the buy-bust operations against Salim. It also rejected the defense of frame-up as it is easily concocted and commonly used as a standard line of defense in similar prosecutions. The CA affirmed in toto the RTC’s judgment. It held that elements of both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs had been duly proven in the instant case.

         Salim appealed to SC contending that his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable ground because the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs allegedly seized from him and thus failed to comply with the strict requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165.

Issue:

          WON Salim was guilty beyond reasonable ground of the charges against him.

Held:

          The appeal is meritorious.

         To secure a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 Article 2 of RA 9165, prosecution must establish the following elements: 1) identity of the buyer and seller; and 2) delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused. On the other hand, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: 1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; 2) such possession was not authorized by law; and 3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.

After careful examination of the record of the case, SC found that the prosecution failed to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs in violation of Section 21, Article 2 of RA No 9165.

Based on evidence of prosecution, no markings were made immediately after the arrest of Salim. The same were allegedly turned over to the desk officer. The drugs were only marked at the police station. There was no inventory made or photographs taken of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, or in the presence of any representative from the media.

Due to apparent breaks in the chain of custody, it was possible that seized item subject to sale transaction was switched to the ones subject for illegal possession. It is important to distinguish as the punishment depends on their respective quantity or weight.