Title
Hedreyda y Lizarda vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 243313
Decision Date
Nov 27, 2019
Petitioner acquitted due to prosecution's failure to establish unbroken chain of custody and justify absence of required witnesses during drug inventory.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 243313)

Background of the Case

On January 7, 2014, an information was filed against the petitioner alleging that on January 3, 2014, in San Pedro, Laguna, she illegally possessed drugs without lawful authority. The prosecution indicated that the police had seized two small sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride from her during an operation based on a tip-off about drug activity in the area.

Prosecution's Version

Police Officer 2 Mateo F. Cailo provided testimony that he and another officer responded to reports of drug activity. Upon arriving at the location and conducting surveillance, they observed the petitioner allegedly with a sachet of shabu. After their interaction, they recovered additional illegal substances from her. Following proper documentation and a physical inventory, the drugs were sent to a crime laboratory, which confirmed the presence of methamphetamine.

Defense's Version

The petitioner claimed she was asleep in her house when the police entered and searched for her husband. She maintained her innocence, stating that the police did not respect her assertions that no drugs were present in her home and that they unlawfully seized items from her without proper procedure.

Trial Court's Judgment

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro City found the petitioner guilty, asserting that the prosecution had sufficiently proved its case and that procedural requirements under R.A. No. 9165 had been substantially complied with. The RTC sentenced her to a significant prison term and a hefty fine.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The petitioner appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA), which upheld the RTC's decision and ruled that any minor deviations in procedure did not undermine the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence presented.

Core Legal Issue

The main issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs should be upheld, focusing particularly on the validity of the chain of custody of the evidence against the petitioner.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Court emphasized that for a conviction under R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody for the evidence in question. This involves monitoring and safeguarding the integrity of the seized items from the point of seizure through to its presentation in court. Failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which mandates specific procedures regarding the handling of seized drugs, can significantly undermine the case if such lapses are not justified.

Procedural Compliance and Witness Requirement

At the time of the offense, compliance with the witness requirements during the inventory was critical. The earlier version of Section 21 mandated the presence of elected officials, media repres

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.