Special Penal Laws Update Part 50

–      People v. Partoza, G.R. No. 182418, May 8, 2009

 

PO3 Tougan testified that he marked the two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance in the police station.  However, he did not mark the seized drugs immediately after he arrested appellant in the latter’s presence.  Neither did he make an inventory and take a photograph of the confiscated items in the presence of appellant.  There was no representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected public official who participated in the operation and who were supposed to sign and inventory of seized items and be given copies thereof.  None of these statutory safeguards were observed.

While non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefore, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team, yet these conditions were not met in the case at bar.  No explanation was offered by PO3 Tougan for his failure to observe the rule.  Furthermore, while PO3 Tougan admitted to have in his possession the shabu from the time appellant was apprehended at the crime scene to the police station, records are bereft of proof on how the seized items were handled from the time they left the hands of PO3 Tougan.  PO3 Tougan mentioned a certain Inspector Manahan as the one who signed the request for laboratory examination.  He did not however relate to whom the custody of the drugs was turned over.  Furthermore, the evidence of the prosecution did not reveal the identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination and pending presentation in court.  The failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody is fatal to its cause.  All told, the identity of the corpus delicti in this case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

–      People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009

The Court finds that the prosecution failed to clearly establish the chain of custody of the seized plastic sachet containing shabu subject of the alleged sale.  PO2 Besona and PO3 Malicse did not adequately explain how the corpus delicti transferred hands from the time it was supposedly confiscated from appellant to the time it was presented in court as evidence.  PO2 Besona testified that he turned over the sachet of shabu to SPO3 Ocfemia when appellant was arrested.  No explanation was given, however, as to how the substance reached the crime laboratory for examination.  PO2 Besona did not mark the substance immediately after the apprehension of appellant.  While PO2 Besona claimed that it was marked by an investigator in his presence, he did not state at what precise point of the operation the marking took place.  Both the investigator who purportedly made the marking and SPO3 Ocfemia were not presented in court to testify on what transpired before and after the substance was turned over to them.  Additionally, nothing on record shows compliance by the buy-bust team with the procedural requirements of Section 21, paragraph 1 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165_with respect to custody and disposition of confiscated drugs.  There was no physical inventory and photograph of the items allegedly confiscated from appellant.  There was likewise no explanation offered for the failure to observe the rule.  The failure of the police to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized drugs raises doubt as to their origins, and negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers.

–      Sales v. People, G.R. No. 182296, April 7, 2009

 

Neither physical inventory nor photograph of the sachet and buy-bust money taken in the presence of petitioner, or her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, as required by law, was taken.  No justification whatsoever was proffered by the apprehending team for its failure to observe the legal safeguards.

–      Carino v. People, G.R. No. 178757, March 13, 2009

 

The prosecution has not shown that they had extended reasonable efforts to comply with the statutory requirements in handling the evidence.  From the testimonies of the members of the arresting team, it is clear that they immediately seized the plastic sachets, took custody thereof and brought the same to the police station.  It was at the police station—and not at the place where the item was seized from appellant—where the unnamed police investigator had placed the markings on the specimens.  Moreover the markings were placed not in the presence of petitioners as required by law.  These flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from petitioners, taken together with the failure of the key persons who handled the same to testify on the whereabouts of the exhibits before they were offered in evidence in court, militate against the prosecution’s cause because they not only cast doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti but also tend to negate, if not totally discredit, the claim of regularity in the conduct of official police operation advanced by the OSG.

–      People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009

 

Other than the markings made by PO1 Garcia and the police investigator (whose identity was not disclosed), no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules.  While there was testimony with respect to the marking of the seized items at the police station, no mention whatsoever was made on whether the marking had been done in the presence of Ruiz or his representatives.  There was likewise no mention that any representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official had been present during this inventory, or that any of these people had been required to sign the copies of the inventory.  In addition, while PO1 Garcia duly testified on the identity of the buyer and seller, on the consideration that supported the transaction, and on the manner the sale took place, -the prosecution’s evidence failed to establish the chain that would have shown that the marijuana presented in court was the very item seized from Ruiz at the time of his arrest.

–      People v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492, December 16, 2008

 

Board Regulation No. 1, series of 2002 defines chain of custody as “the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.”  It must be established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place.  The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

The prosecution evidence in the case at bar, however, does not suffice to afford such assurance.  Cinco, who, according to Velasco, took initial custody of the plastic sachet at the time of arrest and who allegedly marked the same with the initials “SOO” at the police station, was not even presented in court.  The same is true with respect to the laboratory for analysis and testing.  Aside from that, it was not reasonably explained why these same witnesses were not able to testify in court.  Furthermore, Velasco, the leader of the raiding team, admitted that as soon as appellant was arrested, Cinco had taken custody of the plastic sachet of shabu, placed it in his pocket and brought the same together with appellant to the police station.  It was at the police station –and not at the place where the item was seized from appellant –where according to him (Velasco), Cinco had placed the initials “SOO” on the specimen.  Velasco could not even remember whether or not the specimen had been properly inventoried and photographed at least in appellant’s presence.  Even more telling is the fact that, as elicited from Velasco himself during his cross-examination, no evidence custodian had been designated by the raiding team to safeguard the identity and integrity of the evidence supposedly seized from appellant.

–      Bondad v. People, G.R. No. 173804, December 10, 2008

 

Failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the inventory and photographing requirements of Section 21 RA 9165 compromised the identity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of the crimes charged.

–      People v. Magat, G.R. No. 179939, September 29, 2008

 

It is indisputable that the procedures for the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165_were not complied with. PO1 Santos admitted that he marked the two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance in the police station.  He did not mark the seized items immediately after he arrested appellant in the latter’s presence.  He also did not make an inventory and take a photograph of the confiscated materials in the presence of appellant.  Other that the three policemen, there were no other people who participated in the alleged buy-bust operation._There was no representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected public official who participated in the operation and who were supposed to sign an inventory of seized items and be given copies thereof.  None of the statutory safeguards were observed.  Although PO1 Santos had written his initials on the two plastic sachets submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory Office for examination, it was not indubitably shown by the prosecution that PO1 Santos immediately marked the seized drugs in the presence of appellant after their alleged confiscation.  There is doubt as to whether the substances seized from appellant were the same ones subjected to laboratory examination and presented in court.

R.A. No. 9165 had placed upon the law enforcers the duty to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs to ensure the integrity of the corpus delicti.  Thru proper exhibit handling, storage, labeling and recording, the identity of the seized drugs is insulated from doubt from their confiscation up to their presentation in court.  While the seized drugs may be admitted in evidence, it does not necessarily follow that the same should be given evidentiary weight if the procedure in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not complied with.  The Court stressed that the admissibility of the seized dangerous drugs in evidence should not be equated with its probative value in proving the corpus delicti.  The admissibility of evidence depends on its relevance and competence while the weight of evidence pertains to evidence already admitted and its tendency to convince and persuade.  All told, the corpus delecti in this case is not legally extant.

Share this:

Leave a Reply