G.R. No. 189980 - People vs. Alcuizar

The case involves the conviction of Alberto Bacus Alcuizar (appellant) for illegal possession of dangerous drugs (shabu) pursuant to Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.
The appellant was charged in four criminal cases covering illegal sale, maintaining a drug den, illegal possession of shabu, and illegal possession of dangerous drug paraphernalia.
The criminal proceedings were bifurcated: Criminal Cases Nos. CBU-66343 and CBU-66344 were handled by RTC Branch 15, while Cases Nos. CBU-66345 and CBU-66346 were jointly tried in RTC Branch 17 of Cebu City.

On June 15, 2003, law enforcement officers conducted a buy-bust operation at Sitio Awayan, Carcar, Cebu, where SPO1 Meliton Agadier witnessed the exchange of marked money for a deck of shabu.
After the sale, the appellant fled but was eventually arrested at his parents’ house.
A search warrant had been secured prior to the operation, and a subsequent search of the appellant’s house led to the recovery of various items:

Multiple heat-sealed plastic packets and packs containing white crystalline substances.
Additional paraphernalia such as strips of tin foil, disposable lighters, a tooter, and an improvised lamp.

The seized items underwent laboratory examination resulting in a Forensic Chemistry Report that confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).

The prosecution’s evidence relied on the physical recovery of the shabu inside the appellant’s house, with a presumption of possession due to the drugs being found in a place occupied by him.
Several lapses were noted in the chain-of-custody:

The failure to mark the seized items immediately upon confiscation (marking was done later at the police station).
The absence of photographs of the seized items, despite a requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165.
The inventory receipt was prepared but not provided to the appellant or his family members as mandated.

Testimonies from SPO1 Agadier and a barangay tanod raised doubts regarding the precise moments and procedures in which the seized drugs were transferred and documented.

Convicting the appellant in Criminal Case No. CBU-66345 for illegal possession of shabu.
Acquitting him in Criminal Case No. CBU-66346 for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.

Relying on the evidentiary presumption that drugs found in one’s residence indicate possession.
Dismissing the appellant’s defense of denial and the claim of planted evidence due to lack of supporting proof.

The appellant contended that the chain-of-custody of the shabu was unreliable and that the failure to adhere to prescribed procedures (e.g., immediate marking and providing inventory receipts) should nullify the conviction.
He claimed that the conviction might amount to double jeopardy and that crucial evidence, including officers’ improper motive and procedural lapses, was not properly considered.
The central contention was that without clear and unbroken custody, the integrity of the corpus delicti (i.e., the seized shabu) could not be guaranteed beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the prosecution was able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant was in lawful possession of the illegal drugs found in his house.

Focus on whether the drugs recovered could be conclusively linked to the appellant given the procedural lapses.

Whether the failure to mark the evidence immediately upon seizure and to provide a copy of the inventory receipt undermined the integrity of the chain-of-custody.
Whether the gaps in the chain-of-custody and inconsistencies in the evidence handling procedures create reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
Whether any errors in the handling and documentation of evidence (including testimonies on the evidence transfer) violated the appellant’s rights and should lead to his acquittal.