Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
On the other hand, in illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a Act No. 9165, which implements said provision, reads:
prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. Similarly, in this case, (a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond doubt. immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph
the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the and be given a copy thereof; Provided, further that non-compliance with these
substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. officers/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over
said items.
While buy-bust operations have been proven to be an effective way to flush out
illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy- Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR offers some flexibility in complying with the
bust operation is susceptible to police abuse. Thus, courts have been mandated express requirements. Indeed, the evident purpose of the procedure is the
to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt of or innocence of the
accused. Thus, the proviso stating that non-compliance with the stipulated
Taking the aforementioned into consideration, specific procedures relating to the procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such
seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down under the Implementing Rules seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the integrity and
and Regulations (IRR) for Republic Act No. 9165 and it is the prosecutions evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
burden to adduce evidence that these procedures have been complied with in officers.
proving the elements of the offense.
In People v. Sanchez,11 we clarified that this saving clause applies only where the In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated
prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that
justifiable grounds. the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced
doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that
Accused-appellant claims that no physical inventory and no photographing of the the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.
1avvphi1
drugs took place. Non-compliance by the police operatives with the foregoing
requirements in the instant case is fatal to the prosecutions case. Although the The Court made a similar ruling in People v. Kimura, where the Narcom
prosecution recognized its failure to coordinate with the PDEA because of the operatives failed to place markings on the seized marijuana at the time the
urgency of the situation, it ignored the issue of specifically identifying the accused was arrested and to observe the procedure and take custody of the
prohibited drug at the point of confiscation. There is absolutely nothing in the drug.
records to show that the inventory and photography requirements, or their
credible substitute to prove integrity and evidentiary value, were ever followed. More recently, in Zarraga v. People, the Court held that the material
inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were
In People v. Lim,12 this Court held: made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as
to the identity of the corpus delicti. The Court thus acquitted the accused due to
xxx any apprehending team having initial custody and control of said drugs the prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu.
and/or paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure and confiscation, have
the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the To reiterate, the flexibility offered by the IRR of Republic Act No. 9165 is coupled
accused, if there be any, and or his representative, who shall be required to sign with the proviso that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items must
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents be preserved.
to comply with such a requirement raises a doubt whether what was submitted
for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from Thus, in Malillin v. People,16 the Court explained that the "chain of custody"
the appellants. It negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts
performed by the PAOC-TF agents. concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. The chain of evidence is
constructed by proper exhibit handling, storage, labeling and recording, and must
In Bondad, Jr. v. People,13 where the prosecution did not inventory and exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in
photograph the confiscated evidence, this Court acquitted therein accused evidence.17 Failure to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory
reasoning that failure to comply with the aforesaid requirements of the law examination was the same one allegedly seized from accused is fatal to the
compromised the identity of the items seized. prosecutions case. There can be no crime of illegal possession or illegal sale of
a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated
In People v. Ruiz,14 this Court acquitted accused due to the failure of the was the same specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug.18
prosecution to comply with the procedures under Republic Act No. 9165 and its
IRR as no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized PO1 Pineda testified that it was their confidential agent who purchased the shabu
items was taken under the circumstances required. from accused-appellant and that he only retrieved it from said informant. He
further testified that he marked the retrieved sachet of shabu together with the
In People v. Orteza,15 the Court explained the implications of the failure to comply two other sachets of shabu that were allegedly seized from the accused, but it
with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to wit:
was not certain when and where the said marking was done nor who had JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
specifically received and had custody of the specimens thereafter. Associate Justice
The Court also observes that the prosecution did not present the poseur-buyer
who had personal knowledge of the transaction. The lone prosecution witness
was at least four meters away from where accused-appellant and the poseur-
buyer were. From this distance, it was impossible for him to hear the
conversation between accused-appellant and the poseur-buyer.
The foregoing facts and circumstances create doubt as to whether the sachets of
shabu allegedly seized from accused-appellant were the same ones that were
released to Camp Crame and submitted for laboratory examination. We therefore
find that this failure to establish the evidences chain of custody is damaging to
the prosecutions case.19
In sum, the totality of the evidence presented in the instant case failed to support
accused-appellants conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II,
Republic Act No. 9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt all the elements of the offense.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished 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 within five days from receipt of this
Decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished the Director
General, Philippine National Police, and the Director General, Philippine Drugs
Enforcement Agency, for their information.
SO ORDERED.