PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS.

GAJIR ACUB Y
ARAKANI A.K.A. "ASAW," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
2019-06-10 | G.R. No. 220456

People v. Acub

Ponente: J. Leonen

Facts:

Accused appelant Gajir Acub y Arakani a.k.a. “Asaw” (Acub) was convicted by both the RTC and the CA (on
appeal) for the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs (shabu) in violation of Sec. 5 of RA 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, sentencing him the penalty of life imprisonment, a fine of
P500,000; which the CA severed by adding a non-parolable clause.

However, the presentation of the facts of the case between the prosecution and defense were hugely
constrasting. The prosecution describes the events as a legitimate buy bust operation wherein Acub was
caught in the possession and in the completed sale of shabu. On the other hand, the defense asserts that
the events that unfolded amounted to: 1) illegal harassment (no shabu was retrieved from Acub and
neither search warrant nor warrant of arrest was served yet he was forced to come to the police precint),
2) illegal search (no search warrant was presented when the police officers searched Acub’s house for
shabu), and 3) planted evidence on the part of police officers who failed the secure any shabu either from
Acub himself or from the accused’s house.

Further, the team of police officers who allegedly conducted a buy bust operation was not able to comply
with Sec. 21 of RA 10640 or the manner of custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and or
surrendered drugs and or drug paraphernalia prior to the filing of a criminal case. A fact that was neither
opposed nor justified by the prosecution. Moreover, said non-compliance was excused or overruled by
both the RTC and the CA with due regard to the exception / saving clause provided by law in said provision.
To wit:

Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
1. The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized
items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an
elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media
who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where
the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the

Page 1 of 2
 apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures:
Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as
long as the integrity and. the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved
by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and
custody over said items;

xxx

Both the RTC and the CA deemed that the chain of evidence remained unbroken while the CA added that
said non compliance with Sec. 21 is immaterial as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu
were properly preserved.

Hence, accused appelant appeal to the SC.

Issue:

Whether accused Acub’s guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite noncompliance with the
required procedure under Sec. 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

Held / Ruling:

No.

The general rule in applying said Sec. 21 is of the nature of strict compliance for the reason behind such
provision is to protect the weak and unwary from the grave mischiefs of planting or substitution of
evidence and the unlawful and malicious prosecution of such victims.

On the other hand, the exception to the rule of Sec. 21 necessitates two requisites:
1) The noncompliance was justifiable
2) The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized were preserved

The prosecution not only failed to prove that such noncompliance was justified, it never, as a matter of
fact, provided any justifiable ground for the arresting officers’ failure to inventory and photograph the
seized sachet in the presence of accused appellant, an elected public official, and representatives from
the National Prosecution Service or the media. Thus, this silence of the prosecution as to its
noncompliance with Sec. 21 gave rise to: 1) a substantial gap in the chain of custody (of evidence); 2)
undeniable evidence of irregularity; and 3) and most crucially, a reasonable doubt on the criminal liability
of the accused.

CA decision reversed and set aside. Accused appelant Acub acquitted. Acub is ordered immediately
released from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.

Page 2 of 2