People v. Binasing
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Rashid Binasing y Disalungan, was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs). The prosecution alleged that on September 28, 2010, during a buy-bust operation, the accused sold two sachets of shabu to a poseur-buyer in exchange for marked money. The apprehending team arrested the accused and recovered another sachet of shabu from his pocket. The seized items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P1,000,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. The accused-appellant elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appellant questioned his conviction, primarily citing the apprehending team's failure to comply with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165 and alleging conflicting testimonies from the prosecution's witnesses.
Issue(s)
Whether the apprehending team's non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 renders the seizure of the alleged dangerous drugs void and invalid. Whether the conflicting testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses on material facts create reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, acquitting the appellant based on reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
On the non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165: The Court reiterated that Section 21 of RA 9165 mandates the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused or his representative, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. While non-compliance does not ipso facto invalidate the seizure if there is a justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, the prosecution must offer an explanation for the lapses. In this case, the marking, physical inventory, and photograph of the seized items were not done in the presence of the required insulating witnesses. The explanation offered by SPO3 Payla for conducting the inventory and marking in their office – fear for safety due to the area being a Muslim community and the presence of surrounding people – was deemed insufficient to justify the non-compliance. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the seized substance from the accused were the same substances offered in court, thus failing to properly establish the integrity of the corpus delicti. On the conflicting testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses: The Court found irreconcilable inconsistencies on material facts among the prosecution's witnesses. Specifically, SPO3 Payla testified that the marking and physical inventory were done at their office, while SPO1 Sabaldana testified that the Seizure Receipt was made at the residence of the suspect. Furthermore, the witnesses provided different accounts of the pre-arranged signal used by the civilian informant (CI) – SPO3 Payla stated it was removing his hat and nodding, SPO1 Sabaldana said it was raising his left hand, and PI Labor testified it was waving his hands twice. These discrepancies on crucial details undermined the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses and cast doubt on the veracity of their testimonies.
Main Doctrine
Non-compliance with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically the conduct of physical inventory and photography of seized items in the presence of the accused and insulating witnesses, without justifiable ground and a clear explanation of how the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, creates reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused. Conflicting testimonies on material facts further erode the prosecution's case.