4/16/2021 E-Library - Information At Your Fingertips: Printer Friendly items to Chief Inspector dela Cruz-Alviar for examination. The test results revealed that the confiscated items tested positive for shabu.[15] The defense, on the other hand, presented Abdulah as its sole witness.[16] She denied selling drugs, insisting that she was merely sleeping in her house during the incident. She further testified that EB is her nephew's wife.[17] By escaping the Department of Social Welfare and Development, under whose custody she had been placed, EB was considered to have waived her right to present evidence. [18] On November 29, 2016, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision[19] convicting Abdulah and EB of the crime charged, thus: WHEREFORE, the Court finds CICL EB and accused SAMIAH ABDULLAH (sic) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sec. 5, Article II, of R.A. 9165. Considering the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority, CICL EB is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of SIX (6) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of reclusion temporal as maximum and to pay the fine of Php500,000.00. As regards accused SAMIAH ABDULLAH (sic), she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Accused Samiah Abdullar (sic) and CICL EB shall be credited in full of their preventive imprisonment they already served in confinement. The methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) submitted as evidence in this case is hereby ordered to be transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal. SO ORDERED.[20] (Emphasis in the original) Aggrieved, Abdulah appealed to the Court of Appeals.[21] In her Brief, Abdulah argued that the Regional Trial Court erred when it rendered conviction despite the apprehending officers' failure to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.[22] She noted that the inventory and photographs were taken only at the barangay hall, without the presence of representatives from the media and the National Prosecution Service.[23] The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, maintained that noncompliance with the chain of custody rule does not render the confiscated items inadmissible. It insisted that the determination of a person's guilt is based on the prosecution's ability to safeguard the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.[24] https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocsfriendly/1/66117 3/12