CA reverses ruling in drug conviction

CEBU, Philippines - Due to a technicality, the Court of Appeals in Cebu has reversed the decision of the trial court convicting a former dockworker for illegal possession of shabu.

Associate Justice Ramon Paul Hernando, in his ten-page decision said he found lapses on the part of the authorities regarding the custody and disposition of illegal drugs allegedly seized from the possession of accused-appellant Rolito Melchor.

“Manifestly, in this case, there exists a missing link in the chain of custody from the point when the seized item was confiscated up to the point when it was in transit to the police station. Thus, there arises a serious doubt as to whether the seized illegal drug presented as evidence was really the very article allegedly seized during the body search on appellant,” the decision read.

In 2006, the accused-appellant appealed his conviction before the court citing the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

On Feb. 10, 2006, the trial court convicted the accused-appellant for a violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. He was sentenced to 12 to 15 years in prison and to pay a fine of P300,000.

Based on the accounts of the prosecution, on Sept. 16, 2002 at about 10:30 a.m. they received a report that somebody at Plaza Independencia, Barangay San Roque, Cebu City, was carrying a handgun.

Acting on the report, they proceeded to the area and saw a man lying on a bamboo bench with gun tucked in front of his short pants.

With that, they said they asked the man, who was later identified as the accused-appellant, if he had a license. He had none and was arrested.

The authorities said they conducted a body search and recovered one sachet of shabu from the accused-appellant.

For his defense, the accused denied the allegation. He said while he was sleeping at Plaza Independencia someone disturbed him and just arrested him.

With the foregoing evidence, Hernando ruled in favor of the accused-appellant by granting his appeal.

He said the authorities failed to observe the basic requirement as to the custody of seized evidence by taking photographs while in the crime scene. Aside from that no inventory was conducted.

“In the present case, the apprehending officers did not observe even the most basic requirements of the foregoing prescribed procedure. They committed several lapses which engender doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized illegal drug,” the decision read.  (FREEMAN)