PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No.

214759

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

DINA CALATES y DELA CRUZ,

Accused-Appellant.

ISSUE

Whether or not the accused, Dina Calates y Dela Cruz is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).

FACTS

This is a case involving a violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 of the accused; however,
the accused points out that there are substantial gaps attended the chain of custody of the seized drug
which rendered the identity of the drug highly suspicious.

According to the prosecution, a buy-bust operation was done where the accused, Dina Calates y Dela Cruz
(Dina) was arrested and was accused of selling a small sachet of suspected or shabu to PO1 Sonido,
wherein she received a marked money in exchange.

On the other hand, the accused argues that she was cooking in her residence when a commotion took
place outside her house. Dina went outside pick up her son's slippers when Insp. Lorilla suddenly arrested
her and accused her of selling shabu.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Dina Calates guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the decision of the RTC.

RULING

The Court ruled that Dina is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The Court stated that in prosecutions for
violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the State bears the “burden of proving the corpus delicti, the body
of the crime.”

Procedural safeguards are prescribed by Congress to prevent abuse. Such procedural safeguards are
present in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 which covers the seizure, custody and disposition of the drug. The
Court finds that the prosecution failed to follow the safeguards. The Court also stated that “The proper
handling of the confiscated drug is paramount in order to ensure the chain of custody, a process essential
to preserving the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti.”

Therefore, due to the Court’s findings that the non-compliance with the procedural safeguards prescribed
by law left serious gaps in the chain of custody of the confiscated dangerous drug. Thus, resulting to the
failure of the Prosecution to establish her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

FACTS ORIGINAL DRAFT 1

This is a case involving a violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) of the accused; however, the accused points out that there are substantial
gaps attended the chain of custody of the seized drug which rendered the identity of the drug highly
suspicious.

According to the plaintiff, in the morning of April 22, 2003 in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, a buy-bust
operation was done on 27th Calamba Street, Purok Sigay, Barangay 2. Where the accused, Dina Calates y
Dela Cruz (Dina) was arrested and was accused of selling a small sachet of suspected methylamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu to PO1 Sonido, wherein she received a marked money in exchange. The marked
money was recovered and the sachet of shabu was marked "ASS" which stands for Alain S. Sonido.

On the other hand, the accused Dina Calates argues that in the morning of April 22, 2003, she was cooking
in her residence in 271 Calamba Extension, Bacolod City when a commotion took place outside her house
and they went outside together with her husband Joemar and a certain Luz, wherein they saw a person
getting arrested 15 meters away from their location. The accused went back to her house and when she
went outside again to pick up her son's slippers, Insp. Lorilla suddenly handcuffed her from behind and
accused her of selling shabu. Without a search warrant, the policemen searched Dina’s house and
recovered nothing. Dina was then brought to the police station.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Dina Calates guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and observed that the plaintiff “established all the elements of the
crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs defined and punished under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165”. The Court
of Appeals (CA) affirmed that decision of the RTC and noted that the plaintiff “had showed that the police
authorities had preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug confiscated from the
accused until its presentation as evidence in court.” And that “there had been no gap or missing link in
the chain of custody of the confiscated drug despite the fact that no inventory and pictures had been
taken; and that the lack of inventory and photographing was not fatal.”