PIEDAD

CASE NO. 19
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs
People vs. Arellaga, GR No. 231796

FACTS: Accused-Appellant Arellaga assails the Sept 10, 2016 CA decision which affirmed the
decision of the RTC finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of section 5 and 11
of RA 9165 for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The drugs that was caught in the
possession of the appellant was “Shabu” with a total net weight of 0.090 gram which was tested
positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. There were two versions that
was presented during trial, on the Prosecution’s side, appellant was caught selling “Shabu”
during a buy bust operation conducted by PO3 Baladjay and PO2 Reyes. However, the defense
would argue through the testimony of appellant and his Step-Daughter (Nica), that allegedly
those police officer barged in to their house and allegedly threatened and robbed them of
personal items. Since the RTC and CA ruled against the appellant, he now argues that such
findings were erroneous because the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the
requirements of Sec 21, Art II of RA 9165. That the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs through an unbroken chain of custody. Lastly,
appellant asserts that the RTC erred in not appreciating his defense of denial and extortion.

ISSUE: W/N appellant is guilty of illegal sale and possession of shabu

RULING & MP: NO. With regard to the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the
following elements must be established: “(1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs;
(2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously
aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. In illegal drugs cases, the drugs seized from
the accused constitute the “corpus delicti” of the offense (meaning crime must be proved to have
occurred before a person can be convicted of committing that crime). Thus, it is of utmost
importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be clearly shown to have been
duly preserved with moral certainty. This means that on top of the elements of possession or
illegal sale, the fact that the substance illegally sold or possessed is, in the first instance, the very
substance adduced in court must likewise be established with the same exacting degree of
certainty as that required in sustaining a conviction. The chain of custody rule performs this
function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are
removed, to which in this case, was not observed correctly by the police officers because they
failed to establish the three (3) witness rule (witness from a representative of, media, DOJ, and
elected public official) during the inventory and photograph taking. This was done so that the
Court would not doubt if there is a possibility of planting of evidence and/or contamination of
seized drugs. Such flaw compromises the evidentiary value, and posits doubt to the guilt of the
appellant. Hence, the appellant was acquitted.