In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these require evidence that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting the object of the illegal transaction.
Further, considering the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise, there is a need to comply strictly with procedure in its seizure and custody. Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides such procedure:
The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, 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 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.
Evident from the records of this case, however, is the fact that the members of the buy-bust team did not comply with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Nothing in the testimony of Solero, Commander of Task Force Ubash, would show that the procedure was complied with. He even admitted that he has not seen the inventory of the confiscated drugs allegedly prepared by the police officers and that he only read a little of R.A. No. 9165:
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, did you prepare an inventory insofar as the apprehension of the shabu allegedly taken from the suspect?
A: That is the work of the Investigator, sir, we were just after the buy-bust operation.
Q: Was there any inventory prepared insofar as the operation is concerned?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where is that inventory?
A: At the Investigation Section, sir.
Q: Are you sure that there was indeed an inventory prepared?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So, you are telling this court that the shabu that was allegedly taken from Jay Lorena was endorsed to the Investigation Section?
A: To the desk officer on duty first for the recording.
Q: Do you know what is investigation, Mr. Witness?
A: The details, the money involved including the suspect.
Q: This case was filed in the year 2003 and I suppose you are already aware of Rep. Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And the persons who prepare the inventory are the persons who apprehended, are you aware of that?
A: Yes sir, but the desk officer is also a member of the police station.
Q: So, you turned over the shabu to the desk officer?
A: Yes sir, including the suspect.
Q: And to your own knowledge, there was an inventory prepared by the desk officer?
A: The Investigation Section, sir.
Q: And in that inventory, Insp. Del Socorro signed?
A: No, sir.
Q: Or the local elected official signed that inventory?
A: I did not see the inventory, sir.
Q: So, you are talking about a particular document which you have not seen?
A: But I know it was inventoried.
Q: Now, during the supposed buy-bust operation, upon apprehending Jay Lorena and the shabu that your group allegedly taken from him, was there any photograph taken?
A: None, sir.
Q: Was there any police officer from the Pasacao Police Station or even the Chief of Police himself instructed your group about the requirements prescribed under Rep. Act No. 9165?
A: None, sir.
Q: But personally you are aware of Rep. Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Have you read that?
A: A little.
Nonetheless, People v. Pringas teaches that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is not necessarily fatal. Its non-compliance will not automatically render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the handling of confiscated evidence. As provided in Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/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 chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, 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 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; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]
x x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Even so, for the saving clause to apply, it is important that the prosecution should explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. It must be shown that the illegal drug presented in court is the very same specimen seized from the accused. This function is performed by the "chain of custody" requirement to erase all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs by establishing its movement from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist and finally to the court. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines "chain of custody" as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means 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. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]
In this case, there was no compliance with the inventory and photographing of the seized dangerous drug and marked money immediately after the buy-bust operation. We have held that such non-compliance does not necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the dangerous drugs. There must, however, be justifiable grounds to warrant exception therefrom, and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/s. While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. Hence, every link must be accounted for.(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, versus JAY LORENA y LABAG, Appellant., G.R. No. 184954, 2011 Jan 10, 3rd Division)
CGRLAW & Associates
Campos Rueda Building, Unit 408
101 Export Drive, Makati City
Tel. No. 290 5898 Fax. No 889 5210
Mobile: +63 918 948 6092
email:atty.claudio.g.requino@live.com.ph
claude.requino@cgrlaw.tk
website: http://www.cgrlaw.tk/
This email and its attachments are intended solely for the use of the addressee. This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged attorney-client communication or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this message in error; any review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message and/or attachment is strictly prohibited. If you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this email and any attachments included to the addressee, you may not copy, deliver, or otherwise distribute this email and any attachments included to anyone else. If you have received this message in error, please notify us by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments from your system.
No comments:
Post a Comment