View full case

PEOPLE v. ROMY LIM Y MIRANDA

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Romy Lim was charged with illegal possession and sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in violation of Republic Act No. 9165. The incidents happened on October 19, 2010, in Cagayan de Oro City.

The prosecution's version of events began with Intelligence Officer (IO) 1 Albert Orellan and his team receiving information from a confidential informant about a certain "Romy" involved in the sale of prohibited drugs. They conducted a buy-bust operation. Lim was sitting on the sofa while watching television. The CI introduced IO1 Carin as a shabu buyer, and Lim instructed Gorres to retrieve shabu from the bedroom. Gorres handed a small medicine box containing shabu to Lim, who then gave it to IO1 Carin in exchange for the buy-bust money.

IO1 Orellan found the buy-bust money and a transparent rectangular plastic box in Lim's pocket, which contained a plastic sachet of white substance. Lim and Gorres were arrested and subjected to a body search.

On October 19, 2010, the buy-bust team composed of IO1 Orellan, IO1 Carin, and IO1 Soriano conducted a buy-bust operation in Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City. The operation targeted Romy Lim and Eldie Gorres for their alleged involvement in the sale and possession of illegal drugs. During the operation, the poseur-buyer handed the buy-bust money to Lim in exchange for a plastic sachet believed to contain shabu. After the exchange, the team immediately arrested both Lim and Gorres.

The buy-bust team then brought Lim and Gorres to the PDEA Regional Office, where they "booked" the accused and prepared the necessary documents for the laboratory examination of the seized items and for the filing of the case. The following day, IO1 Orellan and IO1 Carin delivered Lim, Gorres, and the drug specimens to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 10. PSI Caceres, a Forensic Chemist, received the letter-requests and the two sachets of shabu. She conducted tests on the suspects' urine samples, and based on her examination, only Lim tested positive for shabu. The two sachets of shabu were also found to be positive after an examination.

Lim claimed that on the night of the arrests, he was sleeping in his bedroom, while Gorres was watching television. When men in civilian clothing forcibly entered their house, they pointed firearms at Gorres, handcuffed him, and inquired about the shabu. They were then brought to the PDEA Regional Office and the crime laboratory.

After trial, the RTC found Lim guilty of illegal possession and sale of shabu and sentenced him to imprisonment. Gorres was acquitted due to lack of sufficient evidence. On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC's decision.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 21(1), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, for the custody and disposition of confiscated illegal drugs, were followed during the operation and the subsequent handling of evidence.

  2. Whether the non-compliance with the mandatory witness requirement during the physical inventory and photograph of seized items can be justified, and whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved despite the non-compliance.

RULING:

  1. No, the mandatory procedures were not followed. The Court found that there was non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21(1), Article II of RA No. 9165 as well as its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Specifically, there was an absence of an elected public official, media representative, and a representative from the Department of Justice during the physical inventory and photography of the seized items.

  2. No, the non-compliance with the mandatory witness requirement cannot be justified based on the presented facts, and thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised. The Court concluded that the reasons presented by the buy-bust team for not securing the mandatory witnesses were unacceptable. There was no genuine and sufficient attempt to comply with the legal requirements, and the steps taken to ensure the preservation of the integrity of the evidence were found lacking.

PRINCIPLES:

  1. Chain of Custody The principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior to its admission into evidence. Every link in the chain of custody must be established to ensure that the seized item is what it is claimed to be and has not been exchanged, contaminated, or tampered with.

  2. Mandatory Witness Requirement Section 21(1), Article II of RA No. 9165 and its IRR mandate the presence of an elected public official, a DOJ representative, and a media representative during the physical inventory and photograph of seized drugs to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence.

  3. Strict Adherence Requirement Strict compliance with the mandatory procedures is required to uphold the integrity of confiscated items. Any deviations must be adequately justified, showing earnest efforts to comply and steps taken to preserve the evidence.

  4. Reasonable Doubt in Drug-Related Cases In cases with non-compliance to mandatory requirements and absence of sufficient justification by the prosecution, the accused must be acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt.

  5. Precedents on Non-Compliance Non-observance of the standardized procedures must be coupled with a reasonable justification, properly detailed in the officers’ sworn statements, and must convince the court that efforts to comply with the procedures were genuine and that under the circumstances, deviations were reasonable.