People v. De Leon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Nova De Leon y Weves was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, for allegedly selling one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride to a police poseur-buyer. The alleged sale occurred on May 31, 2009, in Parañaque City. The prosecution presented SPO1 Luminog Lumabao as the poseur-buyer and SPO1 Ricky Macaraeg as a back-up operative. SPO1 Lumabao testified that an informant reported De Leon's illegal drug activities, leading to a buy-bust operation. He claimed to have purchased Php 200.00 worth of shabu from De Leon, who then handed him a sachet. He gave a pre-arranged signal, and De Leon was arrested. The buy-bust money was recovered, but no other illegal drugs were found in her possession. The marking, inventory, and photographing of the sachet were done at the Barangay Hall in the presence of a Barangay Tanod, but without representatives from the DOJ or media. SPO1 Lumabao admitted to not including the buy-bust money in the inventory and marking the sachet at the Barangay Hall due to rain. De Leon, in her defense, claimed she was at home when police entered, asked for a certain "Bolaret Mayuga," and when she denied knowing the person, she was brought to the police station, threatened, and asked for money in exchange for her liberty, which she refused, leading to her arrest and charge. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Parañaque City, Branch 259, convicted Nova De Leon y Weves for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of Php 500,000.00. The RTC found substantial compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 and that the integrity of the seized drug was preserved. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, holding that the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of illegal sale and that police officers are presumed to have performed their duties regularly. The CA also found a valid justification for non-compliance with Section 21 and that the chain of custody was adequately shown. The Petition: Accused-appellant De Leon appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning whether her guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether accused-appellant De Leon's guilt for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering the procedural requirements for the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and acquitted accused-appellant Nova De Leon y Weves of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. She was ordered immediately released from detention unless lawfully held for another cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether accused-appellant De Leon's guilt for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt: The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused-appellant De Leon beyond reasonable doubt because the buy-bust team failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 regarding the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs. Specifically, the inventory and photographing were not conducted at the place of arrest, the marking of the seized sachet was not done immediately upon seizure, and the mandatory three-witness rule was violated. The Court found that these lapses cast doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti, and the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance or prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Therefore, due to the failure to prove the corpus delicti and overcome the presumption of innocence, the accused-appellant must be acquitted.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution must prove the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, including the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. Failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of RA 9165, particularly the mandatory presence of witnesses during inventory and photographing, and the proper marking of evidence, without justifiable grounds, renders the corpus delicti unreliable and warrants acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused when there are clear lapses in procedure.