People v. Cadungog
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On July 31, 2008, at around 6:30 p.m., in Barangay Looc, Malabuyoc, Cebu, appellant Perigrina Cadungog allegedly sold two (2) heat-sealed plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.02 gram to PO1 Romeo D. Caacoy, Jr., a poseur buyer, for ₱500.00. The sale was part of a buy-bust operation coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). After the transaction, PO1 Caacoy arrested appellant, informed her of her constitutional rights, and recovered the marked ₱500.00 bill. PO1 Caacoy marked the sachets with "PC-1" and "PC-2," conducted an inventory, and prepared a Receipt of Property Seized, signed by himself, PO2 Antonio Icalina, and three neighbors. The seized items and appellant were brought to the police station. A letter-request was prepared, and the sachets were brought to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory for examination. PS/Insp. Ryan Sala confirmed the contents to be shabu. Procedural History: The Information dated August 1, 2008, charged appellant with Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Appellant pleaded not guilty. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Oslob, Cebu, Branch 62, in its Decision dated May 21, 2015, found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00. The RTC ruled that the prosecution proved the buy-bust operation and the chain of custody, despite non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 (no photographs taken). The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision in its Decision dated September 21, 2016. The Petition: Appellant appealed the CA's decision to the Supreme Court.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the guilt of the appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt, considering the requirements of proving the transaction, the corpus delicti, and the identification of the buyer and seller. Whether the apprehending officers complied with the procedural requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, particularly concerning the chain of custody and the presence of required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized items, and whether the non-compliance was justified.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and acquitted appellant Perigrina Cadungog on reasonable doubt. The Court ordered her immediate release from detention unless lawfully held for another cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Proof of Illegal Sale: The Court held that for a successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, the prosecution must prove (1) the transaction or sale, (2) the corpus delicti (illicit drug), and (3) the identification of the buyer and seller. On the Issue of Compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165: The Court noted that Section 21 of RA 9165 prescribes a procedure to ensure the existence and identity of the drug seized, requiring a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items in the presence of the accused or their representative, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The Court found that the police officers failed to comply with these mandatory procedures without justifiable grounds. Specifically, the marking of the seized items was not done immediately, no photographs were taken during the inventory, and the required witnesses were absent. The explanation offered by PO2 Icalina was deemed insufficient. The Court emphasized that non-compliance with Section 21, without a justifiable explanation, casts serious doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence when there is a clear showing of non-compliance with mandatory procedures. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of the crime charged, leading to her acquittal.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution must prove compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, including the proper chain of custody and preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Failure to comply with these requirements without justifiable grounds, particularly the presence of the required witnesses during inventory and photographing, creates reasonable doubt and warrants acquittal.