Supreme Court acquits man charged for shabu possession

CEBU, Philippines – The Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City and acquitted a resident of Barangay Mambaling who was earlier convicted and sentenced to 12 years imprisonment for possession of shabu six years ago.

The High Court's third division chaired by Associate Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales ordered the immediate release from jail of Julius Gadiana, a resident of Sitio Tromar in Barangay Mambaling, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

RTC Branch 15 Judge Fortunato de Gracia sentenced Gadiana to suffer imprisonment of up to 12 years and one day and a fine of P300,000 after he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for possession of two small packs of shabu when he was arrested last February 7, 2004.

When the accused appealed the decision before the Court of Appeals, the appellate court affirmed the RTC decision and modified the maximum penalty by increasing it to 14 years imprisonment.

The arresting officers namely PO1 Julius Busico, PO3 Joseph Dinauanao and PO2 Erwin Ferrer claimed that they personally saw Gadiana holding the two packs of shabu while they were patrolling at Sitio Tromar.

Busico testified that it was he who recovered the shabu from Gadiana and it was Ferrer who prepared the letter request for examination of the confiscated white crystalline powder to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service.

During the trial, Busico said that Ferrer was the one who took the shabu packs to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was found positive of shabu, the street name of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The Supreme Court justices attacked the failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody of the subject substance.

"It requires that testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item is seized up to the time it is offered in evidence. When nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated is the same specimen examined and established to be prohibited drug, there can be no crime of illegal possession of a prohibited drug," the Supreme Court decision reads. (FREEMAN)