Title
People vs. Cadidia
Case
G.R. No. 191263
Decision Date
Oct 16, 2013
A woman was convicted of transporting drugs after airport frisking revealed shabu hidden in her underwear; her appeal was denied due to credible witness testimonies and proper chain of custody.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 191263)

Charges and Relevant Law

Cadidia was charged with a violation of Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This law penalizes the sale, trade, administration, dispensing, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs, imposing a penalty of life imprisonment and substantial fines upon conviction.

Factual Background

On July 31, 2002, while Cadidia was preparing to board a flight to Butuan City, she was frisked by Trayvilla, who noticed unusual bulges in Cadidia's buttocks. After she expressed skepticism regarding Cadidia's explanation that the bulge was due to a sanitary napkin, Trayvilla and Bagsican took Cadidia to a comfort room, where they discovered two plastic sachets containing shabu concealed within her underwear. The items were duly turned over to their supervisor, SPO3 Appang.

Defense Claims

During her testimony, Cadidia contended that her apprehension was based on prejudice due to her being Muslim, suggesting that the officers suspected her of carrying jewelry or illicit goods without substantive evidence. She denied ownership of the seized sachets, which were claimed to have been planted by the friskers, and asserted that they asked for money in exchange for her release.

Trial Court Proceedings

The trial court convicted Cadidia on April 7, 2008, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a monetary fine of PHP 500,000. The court found her guilty based on the testimonies of Trayvilla and Bagsican, which corroborated the details of her apprehension and the subsequent recovery of the illegal drugs.

Appeal and Arguments

On appeal, Cadidia raised several arguments contesting the trial court's ruling. She argued that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses contained inconsistencies, specifically regarding who instructed her to remove the contents of her underwear and the handling of the seized items. She further challenged the prosecution's ability to maintain the chain of custody for the confiscated drugs, contending that this failure undermined the evidence against her.

Appellate Court Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling, noting that the alleged inconsistencies were minor and did not detract from the overall credibility of the prosecution's case. The appellate court emphasized that both Trayvilla and Bagsican were credible witnesses, and their testimonies aligned with one another concerning the event's material details. Furthermore,

...continue reading

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