 |
|||
|
| |||
Our examination of the records shows that the chain of custody over the seized drugs had been broken, as shown by the following circumstances: first, there was no evidence to show when, where, and how these sachets of shabu were marked by PO1 Magora; second, there is an utter absence of evidence indicating the identities of the persons who took hold of the seized drugs from the time it was seized until it was handed to the investigator; third, the circumstances in which the investigating officer turned over the confiscated drugs to forensic chemist were not shown; and finally, the stipulation between the prosecution and the defense as to the forensic chemist's testimony did not establish how the confiscated drugs were handled while in his custody and before its presentation in court. As will be explained below, each of these circumstances amounted to a break in the links of the chain of custody. (a) First Link: the marking, inventory and photograph requirements In People v. Nuarin,35 we explained that a crucial step in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused.36 Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference.37 The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.38 The records of this case are bereft of any evidence showing that the apprehending officers properly marked the seized drugs. True, the CA in its decision found that the prosecution's lone witness, PO1 Magora, had marked the plastic sachets involved in the buy-bust.39 A review of the records reveal, however, that PO1 Magora merely identified the sachets containing shabu and indicated that he was the one who had marked the same, thus:
PO1 Magora's testimony above - which constitutes the totality of the prosecution's evidence regarding the marking and seizing of the illegal drugs - failed to disclose the details as to the procedure followed by the apprehending officers in marking the plastic sachets allegedly taken from Prudencio. In the absence of specifics on how, when, and where this marking was done and who witnessed the marking procedure, we cannot accept this marking as compliance with the chain of custody requirement. In this connection, Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes the proper procedure to be followed by the apprehending officers in the seizure and custody of illegal drugs, to wit:
The records likewise do not show that the police conducted an inventory and photographed the seized drugs.1âwphi1 While the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provides for a saving mechanism by which substantial compliance is permitted,41 it is only allowed "under justifiable grounds," and "as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team." In People v. Gonzales,42 we ruled that non compliance with the procedures delineated in R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR, to be excusable, must have to be justified by the State's agents themselves.43 In the present case, PO1 Magora never testified on the making of an inventory and taking of photographs, nor do the records disclose any inventory receipt or photographs of the seized drugs. This can only lead to the conclusion that none were made and emphasizes the first break in the chain of custody. (b) Second Link: Turnover of the PO1 Magora's testimony failed to establish that he turned over the drugs to a police investigator. He only testified that after they arrested Prudencio, the latter was brought to their police station and that requests for laboratory examination and for drug test were made.44 No detail was ever given on what happened to the seized drugs from the time they were taken from Prudencio to the time the results of the laboratory examinations came back as positive for the presence of shabu. Although the requests for laboratory examination and for the drug test were prepared and signed by P/Supt Viray,45 this did not establish his identity as the police investigator to whom PO1 Magora turned over the seized drugs.46 Thus, a gap exists between who had custody and possession of the shabu prior to, during, and immediately after the police investigation, and how the shabu was stored, preserved, labeled, and recorded from the time of its seizure up to its receipt by the forensic laboratory.47 (c) Third and Fourth Links: Turnover of the As mentioned previously, PO1 Magora's testimony never touched upon the details on how the seized drugs were turned over to the investigating officer, nor on how it was turned over to the forensic chemist, P/Sr. Insp. Sta. Maria, for laboratory examination. The only pieces of evidence representing the third link in the chain consisted of the letter-requests for laboratory examination and for drug test, and the corresponding chemistry reports issued by P/Sr. Insp. Sta. Maria. As to the fourth link, when P/Sr. Insp. Sta. Maria was called to the witness stand, the prosecution and the defense decided to enter into a stipulation regarding what P/Sr. Insp. Sta. Maria would be testifying on if he were presented. Yet, all they stipulated was that he would identify the request for laboratory examination, request for drug test, the subject sachets of shabu, and the chemistry reports. These pieces of evidence failed to identify the person who personally brought the seized shabu to the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. It also failed to identify who received the shabu at the crime laboratory and who exercised custody and possession before and after it was examined. Neither was there evidence to show how the seized shabu were handled, stored, and safeguarded pending its presentation in court. Notably, Section 6, Paragraph 8 of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 200348 requires laboratory personnel to document the chain of custody each time a specimen is handled or transferred until the specimen is disposed; it also requires the identification of the individuals participating in the chain. The records are silent regarding compliance with this regulation. Simply put, serious lapses in the handling of the seized shabu as well as the evidentiary gaps or breaks in the chain of custody are fatal to the prosecution's cause. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of the crimes charged, creating a reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.49 We again remind law enforcement authorities to exert greater effort in observing the rules and procedures governing the custody, control, and handling of seized drugs. We reiterate our pronouncement in Malillin v. People,50 where we explained how the chain of custody should be maintained and what constitutes sufficient compliance with the rule, viz:
No Presumption of Regularity The courts a quo erroneously relied on the presumption of regularity accorded to public officers in the conduct of official duties. The procedural lapses pointed out above negate the existence of the presumption. The presumption stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance, the presumption of regularity will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused to be presumed innocent.52 Conclusion In sum, we hold that the lapses in procedure and breaks in the chain of custody led to the failure of the prosecution to adequately prove the corpus delicti of the crime charged. Taken all together, it raises doubts on whether the shabu presented in court were the exact same shabu taken from Prudencio at the time of his arrest. True enough, upon examination of the original records of this case, to where the sachets of shabu were still attached, all we found were empty plastic sachets.53 In these lights, Prudencio's acquittal must necessarily follow. The campaign against drugs deserves the full support and encouragement from this Court. However, compliance with the procedures laid down by law, such as that involving the chain of custody of the illegal drugs, must be complied with. This is necessary in order to remove all doubts about the legality of the actions of the police authorities, particularly in buy-bust operations where the standard defense has been denial and the alleged frame-up of the accused. It may not be amiss to suggest that, not only the police, but the prosecutors, as well, should be fully aware of the repercussions of the lapses in the chain of custody. WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the March 22, 2012 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 03748. Accused-appellant Ramil Prudencio y Bajamonde is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless otherwise legally confined for another cause. Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision. SO ORDERED. ARTURO D. BRION WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T. CARPIO
MARVIC M.V.F. LEONEN A T T E S T A T I O N I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. ANTONIO T. CARPIO C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division. MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO Footnotes * On leave. 1 Rollo. pp. 3-30 penned by Associate Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba and concurred in by Associate Justice Hakim S. Abudlwahid and Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison. 2 CA rollo, pp. 14-27; by Presiding Judge Victoria C. Fernandez-Bernardo. 3 Otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 4 Records, p. 30. 5 TSN, August 16, 2006, p. 4. 6 Id. at pp. 5-6. 7 Id. 8 TSN, August 23, 2006, p. 3. 9 Id. 10 Id. at pp. 3-4. 11 Id. 12 Id. 13 Id. 14 Id. at p. 5. 15 Id. 16 CA Decision, CA rollo, p. 8. 17 Supra note 9, at 6. 18 Records, pp. 65 & 67. 19 Id. at 64 & 66. 20 See Social Case Study Report, Records, pp. 111-114; See also the request for drug test dated February 16, 2006 made by P/Supt. Viray where he indicated the age of Prudencio as 17 years old, Records, p. 10, and the three informations charging him, Records, p. 2. 21 TSN, June 18, 2007, p. 3. 22 Ibid. See also TSN, November 19, 2007, p. 10. 23 Ibid. 24 Supra note 22, at 6-7. 25 TSN, November 19, 2007, pp. 13-14. 26 People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 647, 654. 27 People v. Remigio, G.R. No. 18277, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 336, citing People v. Alcuizar, G.R. No. 189980, April 06, 2011, 647 SCRA 431, 445. 28 Id., citing People v. Climaco, G.R. No. 199403, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 631, 641. 29 People v. Sabdula, G.R. No. 184758, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA 90, 98. 30 Id. at 99. 31 Defined under Rules and Regulations Implementing the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, § l(b). This section provides:
32 People v. Dahil, G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015, 745 SCRA 221, 233-234. 33 G.R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010, 610 SCRA 295. 34 Id. at 307-308. 35 G.R. No. 188698, July 22, 2015, 763 SCRA 504. 36 Id. at 511. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 39 Supra note 17. 40 Supra note 10, at 4-5. 41 Rules and Regulations Implementing the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, § 2 l(a). 42 G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 123. 43 Id. at 136. 44 Supra note 10, at 6. 45 Supra note 20. 46 See Sanchez v. People, G.R. No. 204589, November 19, 2014, 741SCRA294, 318. 47 See People v. Kamad, supra note 36. 48 Implementing Rules and Regulations Governing Accreditation of Drug Testing Laboratories in the Philippines. 49 People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259, 277. 50 G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619. 51 Id. at 632-633 [emphasis supplied]. 52 People v. Dahil, supra note 36, at 248, citing People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014, 727 SCRA 113, 116. 53 Records, p. 61. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation 
| |||
