G.R. No. 223682 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. ONNI ADDIN Y MADDAN, ACCUSED-.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY , judgment is rendered finding the accused ONNI ADDIN Y MADDAN, GUILTY as charged for selling a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine hydrochloride) in violation of Section 5, RA [No.] 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00. The sachet of shabu involved in this case is ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru DDB for disposal as per RA [No.] 9165. SO ORDERED . [30] Aggrieved, Addin appealed [31] before the CA and raised the following Issues: 1) WAS THERE COMPLIANCE WITH THE MANDATORY PROCEDURES IN DRUG OPERATIONS AND ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF CHAIN OF CUSTODY? 2) IS NON-COMPLIANCE THEREWITH A GROUND FOR ACQUITTAL? 3) ARE THERE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSISTENT WITH INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED? 4) WAS THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT? [32] The Ruling of the Court of Appeals The CA, in its assailed May 28, 2015 Decision, [33] affirmed the RTC's ruling which found Addin guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. [34] It noted that the disputed issue was not actually the sale and delivery of the illegal drugs but the purported non-compliance by the arresting officers with Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, or the chain of custody rule. [35] Contrary to the assertion by the defense, the appellate court found that the chain of custody was not broken. [36] It emphasized that based on the testimonies, the evidence confiscated from the accused at the time of the buy-bust operation was the same one tested, introduced and testified to; hence, the integrity of the evidence was preserved. [37] Thus, the dispositve portion of the CA's Decision reads: WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED . The Decision dated June 25, 2012 of the Quezon City Regional Trial (RTC), Branch 103 in Criminal Case No. Q-10-16544 convicting accused-appeallant [Addin] for the illegal sale of the dangerous drugs, is AFFIRMED in toto . SO ORDERED . [38] Discounted Addin then elevated [39] his case before Us raising the issue of whether or not Addin is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Accused-appellant Addin avers that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the seized item as it was not proven that the marking of the sachet was done in Addin's presence and the other witnesses required under the rules. [40] He posits that the saving clause under Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 does not apply since the prosecution did not have justifiable grounds for non-compliance and the integrity of the seized item could not be proven based on the chain of custody rule. [41] Apart from this, Addin alleges that the Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 should be strictly complied with. [42] He also contends that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by the police officers should not apply in this case. [43] In view of these, he asserts that the equipoise rule should be applied. [44] Conversely, the Republic, thro