Asiatico v. People

G.R. No. 195005 (September 12, 2011)

Supreme Court upheld Rosana Asiatico's drug conviction, affirming lower courts' findings.

Facts:

Petitioner Rosana Asiatico y Sta. Maria (Rosana) and her co-accused Aldrin Estrella y Sta. Maria (Aldrin) were charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The specific charge against Rosana, as stated in the Information for Criminal Case No. MC-05-8917-D, alleged that on January 19, 2005, in Mandaluyong City, she unlawfully possessed a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.05 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," without the necessary authorization.

During the trial, the prosecution presented several police officers, including Police Senior Inspector Isidro Carino, who was the forensic chemist, although his testimony was later dispensed with by stipulation. The prosecution's case was based on a buy-bust operation initiated after an informant reported illegal drug activities involving Rosana and Aldrin. The operation was executed by a police team, with PO1 Sadjid Angara acting as the poseur-buyer. The operation led to the arrest of both accused after they attempted to sell shabu.

In contrast, the defense claimed that Rosana and Aldrin were at Rosana's house preparing dinner when armed policemen forcibly entered and searched their home, accusing them of drug dealing. They denied the allegations and stated that they only saw the drugs at the police station.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both Rosana and Aldrin guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to twelve years and one day of imprisonment, along with a fine of PhP 300,000 each. Rosana appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's ruling.

Legal Issues:

  1. Whether the CA erred in affirming Rosana's conviction despite the prosecution's failure to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.
  2. Whether the CA erred in affirming Rosana's conviction despite the prosecution's failure to establish the chain of custody of the alleged confiscated drugs.

Arguments:

  • Petitioner’s Argument: Rosana contended that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, arguing that the presumption of innocence was not overcome. She also claimed that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs, which should render the evidence inadmissible.

  • Respondent’s Argument: The prosecution maintained that the elements of illegal possession were established, as Rosana was found in possession of shabu without any lawful authority. They argued that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved, and the chain of custody was adequately demonstrated through the testimonies of the arresting officers.

Court’s Decision and Legal Reasoning:

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, ruling that the factual findings of the appellate court, which upheld those of the RTC, were binding unless shown to be arbitrary or erroneous. The Court found that the prosecution had established the elements of illegal possession of drugs, as Rosana was found with 0.05 grams of shabu and had no authority to possess it. The Court reiterated that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi, which Rosana failed to rebut.

Regarding the chain of custody, the Court noted that while a perfect chain is not always required, what is crucial is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The testimonies of the police officers demonstrated substantial compliance with the law, and the integrity of the drugs was preserved throughout the process.

However, the Court modified the penalties imposed, stating that the sentence should comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL). The Court determined that the proper indeterminate penalty for Rosana should be twelve years and one day as the minimum, and fourteen years and eight months as the maximum, while affirming the fine of PhP 300,000.

Significant Legal Principles Established:

  1. The presumption of innocence remains until the prosecution proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
  2. The mere possession of illegal drugs is sufficient to establish prima facie evidence of knowledge of possession.
  3. The chain of custody of seized drugs does not require a perfect sequence but must demonstrate substantial compliance to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the items.
  4. Sentences under special laws must comply with the Indeterminate Sentence Law, requiring an indeterminate penalty.