People v. Dennis Sumili

University of the Philippines College of Law
Topic Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Case No. G.R. No. 212160, 4 February 2015
Case Name People v. Dennis Sumili
Ponente Perlas-Bernabe, J.
RELEVANT FACTS
Sumili is charged with a violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
According to the prosecution, on June 7, 2006, the PDEA Iligan City Sub-Office received a report from a confidential
informant that Sumili was selling shabu. After verifying such report, SPO2 Englatiera organized a team for a buy-
bust operation.
At around 5:10pm of the same day, the buy-bust operation was conducted. After the sale between the poseur-buyer
and Sumili was consummated, the buy-bust team stormed the house but Sumili escaped. The poseur-buyer turned
over the sachet of suspected shabu to SPO2 Englatiera, who marked the same with “DC-1”. He then prepared a
request for laboratory examination and instructed Non-Uniform Personnel Carlito Ong to bring the sachet together
with the request to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. However, NUP Ong failed to do so on the same day
as the PNP Crime Laboratory was already closed. It was only on June 9, 2006, or 2 days after the buy-bust
operation, that NUP Ong was able to bring and turn-over the seized sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Upon
examination, it was confirmed that said sachet contained 0.32 grams of shabu.
The RTC found Sumili guilty. The CA affirmed the conviction. The CA also held that despite the police officers’
noncompliance with the procedure enshrined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the identity and integrity of the
corpus delicti, or the seized drug itself, was nevertheless preserved.
ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI
Issue Ratio
W/N conviction for To convict an accused for the crime of sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must
violation of Section establish the concurrence of the following elements:
5, Article II of RA (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and
9165 should be (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.
upheld – NO
Sec. 21 of RA 9165 provides for the “chain of custody rule” outlining the procedure that
the apprehending officers should follow in handling the seized drugs, to preserve its
integrity and evidentiary value. It requires that:
(a) the apprehending team that has initial custody over the seized drugs immediately
conduct an inventory and take photographs of the same in the presence of the
accused or the person from whom such items were seized, or the accused’s or
the person’s representative or counsel, a representative from the media, the
Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall then sign the
copies of the inventory; and
(b) the seized drugs be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours
from its confiscation for examination purposes.
While the “chain of custody rule” demands utmost compliance from the aforesaid officers,
Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165, as well as jurisprudence nevertheless provide that
noncompliance with the requirements of this rule will not automatically render the
seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, so long as:
(a) there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance; AND
(b) the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
Hence, any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not
affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items.
University of the Philippines College of Law
ITC: The prosecution failed to establish the identity of the substance allegedly confiscated
from Sumili due to unjustified gaps in the chain of custody.
• The buy-bust operation was conducted on June 7, 2006. SPO2 Englatiera seized
the sachet from Sumili, marked the same with the initials "DC-1" and returned to
the police station to prepare the request for the examination of the sachet’s
contents.
• He then ordered NUP Ong to bring the sachet as well as the request to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for examination. However, NUP Ong failed to do so within 24
hours after the buy-bust operation as he only delivered the sachet to the PNP
Crime Laboratory on June 9, 2006, or 2 days after the buy-bust operation.
To justify the delay in the turn-over of the corpus delicti, the police officers insist that the
PNP Crime Laboratory was already closed on June 7, 2006, and since it was a Friday,
the delivery of the seized sachet was only done on June 9, 2006. However, contrary to
their claims, June 7, 2006 is not a Friday, but a Wednesday. Thus, if the PNP Crime
Laboratory was indeed closed on June 7, 2006, the delivery of the seized sachet could
have easily been done on the next day, instead of doing it 2 days after the buy-bust
operation.
This glaring fact, coupled with the absence in the records as to who among the
apprehending officers had actual custody of the seized sachet from the time it was
prepared for turn-over until its delivery to the PNP Crime Laboratory, presents a
substantial and unexplained gap in the chain of custody of the alleged shabu seized from
Sumili. Undoubtedly, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been
compromised.
In criminal prosecutions involving illegal drugs, the presentation of the drugs which
constitute the corpus delicti of the crime calls for the necessity of proving with moral
certainty that they are the same seized items. Failing in which, the acquittal of the accused
on the ground of reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right, as in this case.
In sum, since the identity of the prohibited drugs had not been established by proof
beyond reasonable doubt, Sumili's conviction must be immediately set aside.
RULING
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 29, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR HC No. 01075 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and accordingly, accused-appellant Dennis Sumili is
ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau
of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held for any other reason.
SO ORDERED.

People v. Dennis Sumili

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Dennis Sumili

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Dennis Sumili

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

University of the Philippines College of Law

Topic Crimes Relative to Opium and Other Prohibited Drugs

Sumili is charged with a violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.

ISSUE AND RATIO DECIDENDI

You might also like