CASE DIGEST

Case: People vs. Manuel Lim Ching

G.R. No.: 223556
Date: October 9, 2017

Facts:
The appellant pleaded not guilty for the four (4) information filed before the court
charging Manuel Lim Ching of violations of section 11, 12, 5 and 6 of Article II of RA 9165 of known
as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act of 2002. On June 29. 2003 at about 4:00 pm in
Barangay Jose Abad Santos, Catarman, Northern Samar, and the appellant was caught through a
buy-bust operation by poser-buyer P01 Mauro Ubaldo Lim. He was caught in possession with 2
sachets of shabu with estimated weight of 0.2 grams each worth 300 pesos and another 5 sachet
shabu with an estimated weight of 5.3 grams.
During the operation, he tried to escape to his house but the police ran after him and was
finally conrenered in his own home where it was found that the home itself may have been used
as a drug den as evidenced by several drug paraphernalia found in the premises.

Issue:
Whether or not the eppellant is guilty in violation of the Comperehensive Dangerous Drug
Act of 2002 or RA 9165 beyond reasonable doubt.

Ruling:
No. In people vs. Gamboa, the court explained that when police officers do not turn over
dangerous drugs to laboratory within 24 hours from seizure, they must identify its custodian and
the latter must be called to testify. The custodian must state the security measures in place to
ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items were preserved.
The drugs and paraphernalia were seized during the operation on June 29, 2003 but were
delivered to the PDEA and PNP crime laboratory only ten (10) days later.
Therefore, the breaches of the procedure contained in section 21 Article II of RA 9165
committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained, militate against a finding
of guilty beyond reasonable doubt as the integrity and evidentiary value of corpus delicti had
been compromised.