View full case

PEOPLE v. LINA ACHIENG NOAH

FACTS:

Lina Achieng Noah (Noah) was convicted for violating Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for the illegal transportation of dangerous drugs. On April 16, 2012, an Information was filed against Noah for transporting 5,941.9 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride without authority of law. Noah pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Customs Examiner Marius Landicho examined Noah's luggage and found suspiciously padded and tampered stitches in a smaller bag inside her trolley bag. Further examination of the bag revealed seven rectangular packages wrapped in vacuum-sealed aluminum foil containing white crystalline substance, testing positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Noah denied transporting the illegal drugs and claimed that the luggage was given to her in Cameroon by an unidentified man. The Regional Trial Court found Noah guilty beyond reasonable doubt, citing the lawful search and arrest, presumption of animus possidendi, and compliance with Republic Act No. 9165. Noah was sentenced to life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.

The case involves Lina Achieng Noah who was convicted for violation of Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Noah appealed the decision but it was denied by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals held that Noah's act of transporting the seized shabu (a dangerous drug) to the Philippines fell under Section 5 of the law and since her act was malum prohibitum (wrong due to prohibition), its mere commission constituted the offense. The Court of Appeals also ruled that the search was valid despite being warrantless as it was considered a customs search. Noah then filed a Notice of Appeal and the case was elevated to the Supreme Court. Noah argues that there were gaps in the chain of custody of the evidence against her, raising doubts on the authenticity of the seized shabu. The Office of the Solicitor General counters that the prosecution sufficiently proved the identity and integrity of the seized items. The main issue for the Supreme Court to resolve is whether Noah's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt and whether the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drug. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the guilt of the accused for violation of Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. Whether the prosecution established the unbroken chain of custody of the drug seized from the accused-appellant.

  3. Whether or not there was compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

  4. Whether there was an unbroken chain of custody of the seized shabu from the time of its discovery up to its presentation in court.

RULING:

  1. The Appeal must be dismissed. The court held that to sustain a conviction for the crime of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs, the transportation and the identity and integrity of the seized drugs must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Proof of ownership of the dangerous drug seized is immaterial. What is important is that the prosecution prove the act of transporting as well as the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. Chain of custody is necessary to ensure that there would be no unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence.

  2. The Supreme Court ruled that there was compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The four links of the chain of custody were established, namely: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drugs by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized drugs to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover of the drugs to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover of the marked drugs to the court.

  3. Yes, there was an unbroken chain of custody of the seized shabu. The prosecution established that there were proper procedures followed in handling and preserving the seized shabu, as well as in documenting its chain of custody. There were witnesses present during the marking, inventory, and testing of the seized items. It was also proven that the shabu presented in court was the same one seized from the accused. Therefore, the accused was found guilty of illegally transporting the shabu.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The transportation and the identity and integrity of the seized drugs must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in a conviction for the crime of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs.

  • Proof of ownership of the seized drugs is immaterial.

  • Chain of custody ensures that there would be no unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence and is necessary to preserve the integrity of the confiscated items.

  • Chain of custody requires a record of movements and custody of seized items, including the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody, the date and time of transfer of custody, and the final disposition.

  • An unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule is dictated by the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration, or tampering.

  • Compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 ensures the integrity of the seized items and strengthens the credibility of the evidence. Non-compliance with these requirements may result in the acquittal of the accused.

  • Proof of ownership and intent are not essential elements of the crime of transporting illegal drugs. The act of transporting illegal drugs is a malum prohibitum offense.

  • The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items in order to prove their authenticity and integrity as evidence.

  • Compliance with the procedures in handling and documenting the seized items is essential to ensure the admissibility of evidence.

  • Testimonies of witnesses, as well as documentary evidence such as inventory reports, can corroborate the chain of custody of the seized items.

  • The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction.