Scribd
Upload
64 views

People vs. Anita Miranda Y Beltran

The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had fully complied with Section 21(1) of RA 9165 regarding the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. A buy-bust operation resulted in the arrest of Anita Miranda y Beltran for selling shabu. The undercover officer exchanged marked money for a plastic sachet containing a white substance later confirmed to be shabu. The chain of custody of the seized drugs was established from the buy-bust until presentation in court. This ensured the identity and integrity of the evidence against the appellant.

Uploaded by

Mark Alexander Fenid
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
64 views

People vs. Anita Miranda Y Beltran

The Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had fully complied with Section 21(1) of RA 9165 regarding the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. A buy-bust operation resulted in the arrest of Anita Miranda y Beltran for selling shabu. The undercover officer exchanged marked money for a plastic sachet containing a white substance later confirmed to be shabu. The chain of custody of the seized drugs was established from the buy-bust until presentation in court. This ensured the identity and integrity of the evidence against the appellant.

Uploaded by

Mark Alexander Fenid
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

PEOPLE VS.

ANITA MIRANDA y BELTRAN


G.R. No. 205639, January 18, 2016, Justice Peralta

“It is material in every prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug that the
drug, which is the corpus delicti, be presented as evidence in court. Hence, the
identity of the prohibited drug must be established without any doubt. Even more
than this, what must also be established is the fact that the substance bought during
the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain
of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.”

FACTS:
The prosecution's evidence established that after surveillance conducted outside
appellant's house located in Barangay Ibaba West, Calapan City, it was confirmed
that she was engaged in the illegal sale of shabu. Thus, at 12:00 noon of May 6,
2005, the police formed a buy-bust team designating PO2 Mariel D. Rodil ( PO2
Rodil) to act as the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Noel Buhay (SPO1 Buhay) and PO2 Ritchie
Chan (PO2 Chan) as the arresting officers and the other team members as back up.
Marked and given to PO2 Rodil were four (4) one hundred peso bills. At 2:00 p.m.,
the buy-bust team arrived in Barangay Ibaba West and PO2 Rodil proceeded to
appellant's house, while the rest of the team hid somewhere near appellant's house.
PO2 Rodil saw appellant outside her house and after a brief conversation, told her
that she was buying shabu worth P400.00. Appellant then went inside her house and
upon her return, handed to PO2 Rodil one (1) transparent plastic sachet containing
white crystalline substance. After PO2 Rodil gave appellant the marked money as
payment, she then made a missed call to PO2 Chan's cell phone as a pre-arranged
signal. SPO1 Buhay and PO2 Chan effected appellant's arrest. PO2 Chan got the
marked money from appellant, while PO2 Rodil held on to the plastic sachet
containing white crystalline substance. The team then informed Arnel Almazan,
Barangay Councilor of Barangay Ibaba West, about the operation and they all
brought appellant to the Calapan Police Station. Both the inventory of the seized
item and the taking of appellant's photos were made at the police station. PO2 Rodil
marked the seized item and submitted the same for laboratory examination on the
same day. The Forensic Chemist, Police Inspector Rhea Fe DC Alviar (PI Alviar)
confirmed the specimen submitted positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride
(shabu).

Appellant denied selling illegal drugs saying that at 2:00 p.m. of May 6, 2005, she
was at home watching TV when the police officers entered her house, frisked her
and searched her house. She was later brought to the Calapan Police Station where
she was asked to point to the shabu placed on top of a table; and that she was also
subjected to a drug test.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the prosecution evidence showed full compliance with Section 21(1)
of Republic Act (RA) 9165 on the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized,
and/or surrendered dangerous drugs.
RULING:
YES. Section 21(1) of Republic Act (RA) 9165 on the custody and disposition of
confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous drugs was complied. It is
material in every prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug that the drug,
which is the corpus delicti, be presented as evidence in court. Hence, the identity of
the prohibited drug must be established without any doubt. Even more than this,
what must also be established is the fact that the substance bought during the buy-
bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain of
custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

Chain of custody, as defined under Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board


Regulation No. 1, series of 2002, which implements RA 9165, states: Chain of
Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such
record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and
time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use
in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

In this case, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to establish the crucial
links in the chain of custody of the seized sachet of shabu. After PO2 Rodil received
the plastic sachet of white crystalline substance from appellant, she was in
possession of the shabu up to the time appellant was brought to the police station for
investigation. With the buy-bust team and appellant at the police station were the Kill
Droga Provincial President, Nicanor Ocampo, Sr. and Barangay Councilor Almazan.

PO2 Rodil made an inventory of the seized item which was attested by Ocampo.
She also marked the seized item with her initials "MDR". Appellant's photos were
also taken pointing to the plastic sachet. PO2 Rodil prepared and signed the request
for laboratory examination and brought the letter request and the seized item to the
Regional Crime Laboratory Office-4B Mimiropa, Suqui, Calapan City for qualitative
analysis. The specimen was received at the laboratory at 5:00 p.m. of the same day.
PI Alviar examined the white crystalline substance contained in a heat-sealed plastic
transparent plastic sachet with marking "MDR" on the same right and issued
Chemistry Report wherein she stated that the specimen was tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The staple-sealed plastic sachet sealed
with masking tape with the same marking, was offered in evidence and identified in
court by PI Alviar.

There is no doubt that the sachet of shabu, which was bought and confiscated from
appellant, brought to the police station, and was submitted to the crime laboratory for
a qualitative examination, was the very same shabu presented and identified in
court. The police had sufficiently preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized item, thus, complying with the prescribed procedure in the custody and
control of the confiscated drugs.

You might also like