Title
People vs. Binasing y Disalungan
Case
G.R. No. 221439
Decision Date
Jul 4, 2018
Appellant acquitted due to non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, procedural lapses, and conflicting testimonies, casting doubt on evidence integrity.
drug charges
procedural safeguards
conflicting testimonies
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 221439)

Facts:

  • Background of the Case
    • The case involves the People of the Philippines as plaintiff-appellee and Rashid Binasing y Disalungan as accused-appellant in a criminal proceeding for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
    • The appellant was charged with having sold, traded, delivered, and given away two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) during a buy-bust operation.
    • The offense allegedly occurred on or about September 28, 2010 at Vamenta Subdivision, Barra, Opol, Misamis Oriental, Philippines.
  • Factual Antecedents and Prosecution’s Version
    • The charge originated from an Information alleging that the appellant, without authority, sold the dangerous drugs to a poseur-buyer during a coordinated buy-bust operation.
    • A civilian informant (CI) reported that the accused was selling shabu, which prompted SPO3 Allan Payla to conduct surveillance in coordination with other police officers and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
    • The buy-bust operation was executed involving a team composed of SPO3 Payla, SPO1 Roy Sabaldana, PI Labor, and others, where:
      • The CI was given four 50-peso bills dusted with ultraviolet fluorescent powder as buy-bust money.
      • The CI signaled the occurrence of the drug transaction after the accused left his house with a sachet containing the substance.
    • Immediately following the transaction, the police team apprehended the accused, recovered the plastic sachets (one handed by the CI and another found on the accused during a frisk), and secured the buy-bust money.
    • The seized sachets were marked as ASP-1 and ASP-2 by SPO3 Payla.
      • ASP-1 was identified as received from the CI.
      • ASP-2 was recovered from the accused by SPO1 Sabaldana.
    • The items were delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where forensic examination confirmed the presence of shabu.
    • Additionally, the accused tested positive for the presence of green ultraviolet fluorescent powder on his hands.
  • Appellant’s Version of Events
    • The appellant testified that he was inside his house watching a movie with his wife and Ibrahim Sultan when six men, claiming to be police officers, forced their entry.
    • According to his version, the men alleged they could purchase shabu from him and conducted a search of the premises, which yielded no incriminating evidence.
    • Subsequently, he and Sultan were taken to the police station.
    • Sultan was later released, while the accused was pressured to hand over P100,000.00; when unable to, he was arrested.
    • The appellant corroborated his account by presenting Sultan as a witness.
  • Proceedings and Prior Decisions
    • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 25, rendered a judgment on September 26, 2012, finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing him to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of One Million Pesos.
    • The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision in its June 30, 2015 ruling in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01089-MIN.
    • The present appeal was raised by the appellant against the CA decision.
  • Procedural Lapse and Non-compliance with RA 9165
    • The issue centers on the failure of the apprehending team to comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, which mandates:
      • Immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.
      • The marking, inventory, and photographic documentation should occur at the scene of the seizure or as close as practicable.
    • Testimonies revealed that:
      • SPO3 Payla stated that the marking and inventory were done in their office, citing safety concerns due to the location being a “Muslim area.”
      • SPO1 Sabaldana testified that the physical inventory was conducted at the accused’s residence.
    • The conflicting accounts and lack of presence of insulating witnesses cast doubt on whether the procedures were followed as required, thereby undermining the integrity of the evidence.

Issues:

  • Procedural Non-compliance
    • Whether the apprehending team’s failure to strictly comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards provided under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 (i.e., physical inventory, marking, and photographing of seized items in the presence of insulating witnesses) affects the integrity of the seized evidence.
    • Whether such non-compliance, without any justifiable explanation, creates reasonable doubt on the evidence presented against the accused.
  • Conflicting Testimonies
    • Whether the irreconcilable discrepancies among the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses regarding material facts (such as the location of the physical inventory and the details of the buy-bust operation) are sufficient to diminish the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
    • Whether these inconsistencies contribute to the failure of the prosecution to conclusively establish the corpus delicti.
  • Impact on Conviction
    • Whether the aforementioned procedural lapses and conflicting testimonies warrant the reversal of the conviction and ultimately lead to the acquittal of the accused based on reasonable doubt.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms