PEOPLE VS ALCUIZAR decided him guilty of the illegal possession of shabu when it relied on the
presumption that when prohibited drugs are found in a house or building
FACTS:
Accused was charged with violation of Sec 5 (illegal sale), Sec 6
(maintaining a drug den), Sec 11 (illegal possession) and Sec 12 ( illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia) of R.A. 9165. The accused was found
guilty of illegal possession (Sec 11) of R.A. 9165 so this decision is the one
being appealed. He pleaded not guilty upon arraignment.
The antecedent facts are: On June 15, 2003 (2:00 pm at Awayan, Carcar,
Cebu): he was found in possession, custody and control of the ff: 26
heat-sealed packets containing total weight of 0.52 grams, 1 heat-sealed
plastic pack containing 10.26 grams of crystalline substance, 2 strips of foil
containing traces of white crystalline powder and 1 heat-sealed containing
0.02 gram positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
SPO1 Agadier who was the lone witness testified that he stood across a
store across the house of the appellant. He witnessed the poseur buyer
hand the marked money in exchange for one deck of shabu. So he
immediately pursued the appellant, who ran to his parent’s house where
he was eventually caught. After arrest, he and his team went back to the
house of appellant to conduct a search which yielded the seized items: 1
big pack f shabu, 2 packs containing 13 decks each of shabu, 3 disposable
lighters, a tooter, tin foil with traces of shabu residue and an improvised
lamp. A receipt of the seized items was prepared and the brgy captain, brgy
tanod and 2 photographers were asked to sign the receipt. The items were
initially in custody of SPO1 Navales which were turned over to SPO1
Agadier for marking , then turned over back to Navales after the former
prepared the request for laboratory examination. Navales then delivered
the items to and request to PNP crime lab which the latter issued a report
confirming that the specimen submitted are positive for shabu. RTC
belonging to and occupied by a particular person, such person in
possession of drugs in violation of law. CA affirmed decision of RTC.
ISSUE:
WON it was proven by the prosecution that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the evidence has been preserved.
RULING:
No. The Chain of Custody Rule requires the marking of the seized items
should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and
immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items
that enter the chain of evidence. The steps initiate the process of
protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches and of
protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based
on planting of evidence and allegations of robbery or theft. The dangerous
drug is the very corpus delicti which requires that the identity and integrity
must be shown to have been reserved. This requirement is from the unique
characteristic of drugs that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable,
and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution. Thus, evidence
must show that illegal drugs presented in court is the same illegal drug
actually recovered from the accused
However, in Sec 21(a): non-compliance with the prescribed procedures
does not necessarily result in the conclusion that the identity of the
seized drugs has been compromised so that an acquittal should follow as
long as the prosecution can demonstrate that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved.
GAPS in the chain of custody in the case at bar:
1. Vague recollection of SPO1 Agadier regarding the transfer of
custody of the shabu
2. Who made the request for the crime laboratory (Agadier said he
prepared it but the signature found was PSI Sanchez)
3. The brgy tanod who signed the receipt testified that they came late
during the operation, he did not witness the actual discovery of the
shabu. When they came, the shabu was already placed on the
table.
Therefore, it cannot be indicated who had the initial control and custody
of the shabu upon confiscation. Agadier (1) did not specify whether
Navales received the shabu while they were still in the appellant’s house or
at the police station; (2) not also clear who was in possession of the shabu
while in transit; (3) Navales did not testify to confirm Agadier’s statement.
In here, SPO1 Agadier only marked the seized items at the police station.
While the rule allows marking of evidence to be done in the nearest police
station, this contemplates a case of warrantless searches and seizures.
However, here the police officers were able to secure a search warrant
prior to the operation. Agadier was not able to justify why he did not
immediately mark the shabu notwithstanding that an inventory receipt was
even prepared. It was also pointed out that they also failed to leave or give
a copy of the inventory receipt to the accused or his family.The failure of
the police officers to mark the shabu immediately after seizure and the
vague recollection of SPO1 Agadier concerning the custody of the drugs
from the residence of the appellant up to the time submitted to crime lab
constitute a HUGE AND SIGNIFICANT GAP in the chain of custody which
substantially affects the identity of the corpus delicti of the crime.
Decision was reversed and set aside. Alcuzar was ACQUITTED.