Está en la página 1de 2

People Vs Nita G.R. No.

186459, September 01, 2010 Facts: Nita the appellant was charge and Convicted by the RTC of Pasig in violation of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. From the evidence for the prosecution, the following version is culled: On the night of May 13, 2003, at around 7:30 p.m., a confidential informant reported that one alias "Aruba" was selling shabu. A buy-bust operation then was conducted. The operation was cooperated by the PDEA and was recorded in the police blotter. At around 8:00 PM in the evening, the team commenced their operation at the residence of the appellant. Upon giving the 200 pesos to the appellant, and at the signal of the buyer, the team close in. The appellant was brought to the hospital for physical check-up. At around 8:33 PM of the same night, the substance was brought to laboratory for examination. The substance inside the sachet weighs 0.03 grams and was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Hence, the filing of the Information against appellant. The court found the appellant guilty for violation of RA 9165 beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Php500,000.00. The appellant appeal the case however it was denied. In her present appeal, appellant claims, in the main, that there was failure to follow the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, hence, it compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized item. Appellant claims that there was no inventory and photographing of the specimen which render unnecessary and the reading of the testimony of police officer confirms this failure to follow such requirement. Issue: WON the prosecution established integrity of the evidence. Ruling: Failing to comply with the provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily doom the case for the prosecution. The People v. Pringas enlightens that non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefore, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. However, as reflected in the time of the operation, allegedly, it was 8:30 PM where they confiscated the sachet and it is highly improbable that the Crime Lab receive the same at 8:33 or mere three minute interval after the seizure, given that appellant was after his arrest first brought to a hospital for physical check-up. Doubt is thus engendered on whether the object evidence subjected to laboratory examination and presented in court is the same as that allegedly "sold" by appellant. In fine, the prosecution failed to prove the integrity and evidentiary value of the 0.03 gram specimen. Exh. C - We object to its admission as well as the purpose for which they are being offered for being planted evidence, your honor.

The prosecution failed to discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the burden of the evidence did not shift to the defense to thus leave it unnecessary to pass upon the defense evidence even if it were considered weak. Verdict: WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed decision is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant, Nita Eugenio y Pejer, is ACQUITED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/red.loreno.jr Email: red.loreno@gmail.com

También podría gustarte