[ G.R. No. 242692, July 13, 2020 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DAVID JAMES PIS-AN Y DIPUTADO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
CONCURRING OPINION
CAGUIOA, J.:
I concur with the ponencia that the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs).
I write this concurring opinion to stress that, as exemplified in this case, the mandatory requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165 are not unreasonable and are in fact, not difficult to follow.
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears not only the burden of proving the elements of the offense under RA No. 9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.1 While it is true that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors,2 the law nevertheless also requires strict compliance with procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights are safeguarded.
In this connection, Section 21,3 Article II of RA No. 9165, lays down the procedure that police operatives must follow to maintain the integrity of the confiscated drugs used as evidence. The provision requires that: (1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Further, in order to preserve the evidentiary value and integrity of the corpus delicti, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody. The four (4) links that should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item are as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the seized illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the same illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked seized illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.4
These mandatory and strict requirements of the law are set in place as safeguards against the possible tampering, alteration or substitution of the seized drugs and to prevent other possible abuses by police officers because with "the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of, or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great."5
In this case, the prosecution was able to prove all the links in the chain of custody.1âшphi1 The police officers were likewise able to strictly comply with the requirements laid down in Section 21. The police officers immediately conducted the physical inventory, marking, and photography of the seized items in the presence of the accused-appellant, a representative from the media, a representative of the DOJ, and a barangay official at the place where the accused-appellant was arrested.6 Thereafter, PO2 Eugene A. Calumba delivered the confiscated drugs to PCInsp. Josephine Suico Llena for laboratory examination.7 Later, confirmatory tests on all 14 heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets would yielded a positive finding for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or more commonly known as shabu.8
As sufficiently shown above, the police officers were able to meticulously and competently follow the procedure laid out in Section 21 – from the arrest of the accused-appellant and the seizure, marking, photography, and inventory of the seized illegal drugs in the presence of the three (3) mandatory witnesses, to the turnover of the illegal drugs seized to the investigator and then to the forensic chemist, until its final turnover to the Court.
On a final note, I would like to take this opportunity to emphasize that this case shows the reasonableness and practicality of the mandatory provisions of RA No. 9165 and thus defeats the usual flimsy excuses of police officers for non-compliance with the strict requirements of the law. The buy-bust conducted here is an exemplar of how the law can be easily followed and more impOiiantly, it shows that if police officers diligently perform their duties and obligations and remain conscientious and steadfast in their adherence to the rule of law, justice will be rightfully served.
Based on these premises, I vote to AFFIRM the conviction of the accused-appellant.
Footnotes
1 People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441, 451 (2013).
2 People v. Mantalaba, 669 Phil. 461, 471 (2011).
3 The said section reads as follows:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essenlial Chemicals. Instrumems/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemical, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after sizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
4 People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94-95 (2014), citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
5 People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 471 (2007), citing People v. Tan, 401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000).
6 Ponencia, p. 6.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 6-7.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
