Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Ismael y Radang
Case
G.R. No. 208093
Decision Date
Feb 20, 2017
Salim Ismael y Radang was acquitted by the Supreme Court due to prosecution's failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs, violating RA 9165's procedural safeguards.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 208093)

Charges and Applicable Law

Salim was charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165: illegal sale of shabu (Criminal Case No. 5021) and illegal possession of shabu (Criminal Case No. 5022). The law requires establishing the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of sale, consideration, and actual delivery for illegal sale; and possession, lack of lawful authority, and awareness of possession for illegal possession.

Facts of the Case and Arrest Scenario

On August 25, 2003, a confidential informant informed the police that Salim was selling shabu near the Muslim cemetery in Barangay Talabaan, Zamboanga City. A buy-bust operation was conducted with SPO1 Santiago acting as poseur buyer. Salim allegedly sold a sachet of white crystalline substance (later identified as shabu) in exchange for marked money. Upon arrest, two additional sachets were found in Salim’s pocket.

Prosecution's Evidence and Chain of Custody

The prosecution presented testimonies from police officers involved in the buy-bust operation and subsequent seizure of the drugs. The seized items were turned over to a desk officer and then to a police investigator, PO2 Tan, who marked the items with his initials. The forensic chemist later confirmed the seized substances as methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Defense's Version

Salim denied selling or possessing shabu and claimed he was arrested unjustly while going home after buying cellphone load. He further denied any encounter prior to his arrest and asserted that the drugs were presented for the first time during trial.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals

The RTC convicted Salim of illegal sale and possession of shabu, giving full credence to the prosecution’s witnesses and rejecting the defense’s frame-up claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, emphasizing that the elements of illegal sale and possession were proven beyond reasonable doubt and that the seized drugs’ integrity was preserved.

Issues on Chain of Custody and Compliance with RA 9165 Section 21

The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution complied with the strict chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, requiring immediate marking, inventory, and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of the accused or their representative and other prescribed persons to preserve integrity and evidentiary value.

Deficiencies in Evidence Handling and Chain of Custody Breaks

The testimonies revealed that the seized drugs were not marked immediately upon seizure from Salim. Instead, the drugs were turned over first to a desk officer (PO3 Napalcruz), who was not presented in court, creating a critical gap in the chain of custody. The marking occurred only after the drugs reached PO2 Tan at the police station, violating the requirement for prompt marking in the presence of the accused. Additionally, no physical inventory or photographs were made, nor was any explanation given for these omissions.

Contradictions in Witness Testimonies Regarding Receipt of Seized Drugs

PO2 Tan gave conflicting statements about who turned over the seized items to him: during direct examination, he said the desk officer turned them over, while during cross-examination, he claimed SPO1 Santiago and SPO1 Rodriguez personally handed the drugs to him. This inconsistency further undermined the integrity of the chain of custody.

Impact of Chain of Custody Violations on Prosecution’s Case

Due to the flawed handling of evidence, there was no assurance against possible switching, planting, or contamination of the seized drugs. The prosecut

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.