THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 205472, January 25, 2016
AMADO I. SARAUM,1Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court (Rules) seeks to reverse the Decision2 dated September 8, 2011 and Resolution3 dated December 19, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR No. 01199, which affirmed the judgment of conviction against petitioner Amado I. Saraum (Saraum) rendered by the Regional Trial Court (ATC), Branch 57, Cebu City, in Criminal Case No. CBU-77737.
Saraum was charged with violation of Section 12, Article II (Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
That on or about the 17th day of August, 2006, at about 12:45 A.M., in the City of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, with deliberate intent, and without being authorized by law, did then and there have in his possession the following:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryIn his arraignment, Saraum, with the assistance of a counsel, pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.5 Trial ensued. Meantime, Saraum was released on bail.61 = One (1) lighter
2 = One (1) rolled tissue paper
3 = One (1) aluminum tin foil
which are instruments and/or equipments (sic) fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting, or introducing, any dangerous drug into the body.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of six (6) months and one (1) day to two (2) years and to pay a fine of Php20,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.On appeal, the CA sustained the judgment of conviction; hence, this petition.
The drug paraphernalias (sic) are ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
SO ORDERED.8ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
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 Mallillin v. People,22 the Court discussed how the chain of custody of seized items should be established, thus:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken lo ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.23ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryWhile the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.24 Thus, failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused person's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.25
x x x Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the courts. x x xThe most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.27 In this case, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug paraphernalia had not been compromised because it established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized items from the time they were first discovered until they were brought to the court for examination. Even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the drug paraphernalia, this will not render Saraum's arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. There is substantial compliance by the police as to the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items. The succession of events established by evidence and the overall handling of the seized items by specified individuals all show that the evidence seized were the same evidence subsequently identified and testified to in open court.
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight - evidentiary merit or probative value to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.26ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Endnotes:
* Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated October 13, 2014.
1Rollo, pp. 73-74, 84.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Gabriel T. Ingles concurring, rollo, pp. 53-59.
3Rollo, pp. 67-68.
4 Records, p. 1.
5Id. at 22.
6Id. at 19.
7Rollo, pp. 34-36.
8Id. at 35-36.
9 See People v. Bontuyan, G.R. No. 206912, September 10, 2014, 735 SCRA 49, 59-60.
10People v. Mariano, 698 Phil. 772, 785 (2012), as cited in Avila v. People, G.R. No. 195934, November 27, 2013 (Third Division Resolution) and People v. Saulo, G.R. No. 201450, April 7, 2014 (First Division Resolution).
11 Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;12Ambre v. People, 692 Phil. 681, 694 (2012) and Zalameda v. People, 614 Phil. 710, 729 (2009).
b) When an offense has just been committed, and lie has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
13 TSN, July 9, 2008, pp. 15-16.
14Id. at 9; TSN, February 27, 2008, pp. 17-18, 20-23.
15Zalameda v. People, supra note 12, at 729.
16 TSN, July 9, 2008, p. 22.
17 The requirements are imposed by Section 21, paragraph 1, Article 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, whose pertinent portion reads as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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:(1) 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;To implement the requirements of Republic Act No. 9165, Section 21 (a). Article II of the IRR relevantly states:
x x x xx x x x18People v. Alivio, et al., 664 Phil. 565, 576-577 (2011).
(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 the 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 (See People v. Bartolame, G.R. No. 191726, February 6, 2013, 690 SCRA 159, 175-176).
19People v. Campomanes, et al., 641 Phil. 610, 622 (2010).
20Id. at 623.
21People v. Alivio, et al., supra note 18, at 577-578.
22 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
23Mallillin v. People, supra at 587.
24Ambre v. People, supra note 12, at 695.
25Zalameda v. People, supra note 12, at 741.
26Id. at 741-742.
27Id. at 741; and Ambre v. People, supra note 12, at 695.
28 See People v. Posada, et al., 684 Phil. 20, 34 (2012).
29 See People v. Bontuyan, supra note 9, at 64.
30People v. Mariano, supra note 10, at 785; Ambre v. People, supra note 12, at 697; People v. Villahermosa, 665 Phil. 399, 418 (2011); and Zalameda v. People, supra note 12, at 733.
31Zalameda v. People, supra note 12, at 733.
32Id.; People v. Mariano, supra note 10; People v. Villahermosa, supra note 30; and People v. Saulo, supra note 10.
33People v. Villahermosa, supra note 30, at 420; People v. Campomanes, et al., supra note 19, at 621; and People v. Canaya, G.R. No. 212173, February 25, 2015 (Third Division Resolution).
34People v. Villahermosa, supra note 30, at 420.