People v. Salonga
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Rosemarie R. Salonga was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (drug pushing) and possession/use of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that on July 31, 2002, in Quezon City, PO1 Teresita Reyes, acting as poseur-buyer, purchased 0.06 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride from Salonga for P200.00. PO1 Reyes claimed to have received two small plastic sachets in exchange for the marked bills. Upon signaling the consummation of the transaction, Salonga was apprehended by SPO2 Nebres, who allegedly recovered the buy-bust money. The two sachets were marked "TBR-RRS." The charge for possession/use involved 0.07 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 80, Quezon City, conducted a joint trial. The RTC acquitted Salonga of the drug possession charge due to insufficient evidence, as the officer who allegedly recovered the sachets could not testify. However, the RTC convicted Salonga for drug pushing, finding PO1 Reyes' testimony sufficient to establish the elements of the offense. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. Salonga appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Accused-appellant argued that the courts below erred in finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt and in concluding that the chain of custody was complied with. She contended that no buy-bust operation occurred and that the shabu was planted. She also questioned the chain of custody, asserting that the first link was not shown and that the marking of the confiscated drug was not done at the seizure scene.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court a quo gravely erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Whether the Court a quo gravely erred in finding that the procedure for the custody and control of prohibited drugs was complied with.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and acquitted accused-appellant Rosemarie R. Salonga on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court ordered her immediate release unless lawfully held for another cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Court a quo gravely erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged: The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt due to significant lapses in the handling of the seized evidence. While the testimony of a lone witness can be sufficient for conviction, it must be credible and believable. In this case, PO1 Reyes' testimony was marred by inconsistencies and major lapses in procedure that were not adequately explained. The Court noted that the prosecution's sole witness could not accurately recall the reasons for these lapses. Furthermore, SPO2 Nebres, who was involved in the recovery of some sachets, was already deceased and could not clarify PO1 Reyes' contradictory statements. The Court emphasized that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were compromised by these procedural irregularities, thus failing to establish the corpus delicti with the required certainty. On the issue of whether the Court a quo gravely erred in finding that the procedure for the custody and control of prohibited drugs was complied with: The Court held that the buy-bust team failed to comply with Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, which requires the marking, inventory, and photographing of seized evidence in the presence of the accused or their representative, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. Specifically, the team failed to mark the seized drugs immediately at the buy-bust scene, did not conduct an inventory, and did not take photographs. PO1 Reyes provided conflicting reasons for these omissions: first, that the photographer was absent, and later, that the camera was broken. She also stated that the team leader "did not bother to make an inventory." The Court found these excuses flimsy and contradictory, failing to provide a justifiable ground for non-compliance. The death of SPO1 Arcoy and SPO2 Nebres further prevented clarification of these lapses. The Court reiterated that while non-compliance is not always fatal, it is permissible only if justifiable grounds exist and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. In this case, these conditions were not met, casting serious doubt on the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
Main Doctrine
Non-compliance with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically regarding the marking, inventory, and photographing of seized illegal drugs, without justifiable grounds, and which casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items, warrants acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt, even if the defense presented is weak.