FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 205889, February 04, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SANDER DACUMA Y LUNSOD, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
That on or about the 15th day of July, 2003, in the Municipality of Carigara, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and criminally sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute 0.11 gram [of] Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug without being authorized by law.3For Illegal Possession:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That on or about the 15th day of July, 2003, in the Municipality of Carigara, Province of Leyte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously had in his possession, control and custody three (3) small heat-sealed sachets of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu, a dangerous drug, with a total weight of 0.18 gram without the necessary permit or authority to possess the same.4On 10 November 2003, Dacuma pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged against him.5chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court found accused SANDER DACUMA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 4319, for VIOLATION OF SECTION 5 OF R.A. [NO.] 9165, otherwise known as THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, and sentenced to suffer the maximum penalty of Life Imprisonment, and to pay the fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500, 000.00); andThe trial court justified the guilty verdict against Dacuma. It was convinced that the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drug were sufficiently established by the prosecution with the necessary quantum of proof. It also recognized the presumption of performance of duties of the police officers in the absence of ill-motive against the accused. On the other hand, it dismissed the argument of self-serving alibi of frame-up as a lame defense to evade liability. Clear is the fact that the accused was caught red-handed as a result of a legitimate buy-bust operation.
Pay the Cost.
In Criminal Case No. 4320, the prosecution having failed to establish the quantum of proof to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for VIOLATION OF SECTION 11 OF R.A. [NO.] 9165, otherwise known as THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, the same is hereby DISMISSED, for insufficiency of evidence.8
SEC. 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 precursor 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:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrarySection 21(a) of the IRR of Republic Act No. 9165:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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.cralawred
SEC. 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 precursor 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 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.cralawredIn People v. Kamad,12 the Court enumerated the different links that the prosecution must establish to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized items: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turn over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turn over and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. These requirements are necessary in order to ensure that the confiscated drug are the same ones presented in court in order to dispel unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence.13chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
x x x Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus, it is vital that the seized contrabands are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.cralawredThe requirement of marking is not to be taken lightly as a mere procedural error. In the recent case of People v. Sabdula, failure to mark the plastic sachets confiscated during the buy-bust operation became the Court’s basis for acquittal.
How the apprehending team could have omitted such a basic and vital procedure in the initial handling of the seized drugs truly baffles and alarms us. We point out that succeeding handlers of the specimen would use the markings as reference. If at the first or the earliest reasonably available opportunity, the apprehending team did not mark the seized items, then there was nothing to identify it later on as it passed from hand to hand. Due to the procedural lapse in the first link of the chain of custody, serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the seized shabu that the prosecution introduced into evidence.In a number of cases,17 the Court sanctioned substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of custody, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team/officers. There is a liberality on minor deviations as long as there is no gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law. However, when serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items presented in evidence,18 liberality ceases and presumption of innocence takes precedence over substantial compliance.
We are not unaware that the seized plastic sachet already bore the markings "BC 02-01-04" when it was examined by Forensic Chemist Jabonillo. In the absence, however, of specifics on how, when and where this marking was done and who witnessed the marking procedure, we cannot accept this marking as compliance with the required chain of custody requirement. There was also no stipulation between the parties regarding the circumstances surrounding this marking. We note in this regard that it is not enough that the seized drug be marked; the marking must likewise be made in the presence of the apprehended violator. As earlier stated, the police did not at any time ever hint that they marked the seized drug.16
Endnotes:
1 Penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez with Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes, concurring. Rollo, pp. 5-18.
2 Presided by Presiding Judge Crisostomo L. Garrido. CA rollo, pp. 74-90.
3 Records, pp. 21-22.
4 Id. at 19-20.
5 Id. at 29-30.
6 TSN, 8 January 2004, pp. 2-11; TSN, 9 January 2004, pp. 2-7.
7 TSNs’, 30 July 2004 and 4 August 2004, pp. 1-22.
8 CA rollo, p. 90.
9People v. Llanita, G.R. No. 189817, 3 October 2012, 682 SCRA 288, 298 citing People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, 28 September 2011, 658 SCRA 305, 324 further citing People v. Manlangit, G.R. No. 189806, 12 January 2011, 639 SCRA 455, 463.
10People v. Llanita, id. at 298-299, citing People v. Gaspar, G.R. No. 192816, 6 July 2011, 653 SCRA 673, 686.
11 G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013, 689 SCRA 819, 831-832.
12 624 Phil. 289, 304 (2010), as cited in People v. Watamama, G.R. No. 194945, 30 July 2012, 677 SCRA 737, 741-742.
13People v. Sabdula, G.R. No. 184758, 21 April 2014.
14 Records, p. 57.
15 G.R. No. 194948, 2 September 2013, 704 SCRA 536, 545.
16 Supra note 13.
17People v. Llanita, supra note 9, at 306, citing People v. Ara, 623 Phil. 939, 960 (2009); People v. Lorena, G.R. No. 184954, 10 January 2011, 639 SCRA 139, 153; People v. Pringas, 558 Phil. 579, 593-594 (2007).
18People v. Bulotano, G.R. No. 190177, 11 June 2014, citing People v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 197371, 13 June 2012, 672 SCRA 604, 617 further citing People v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 324, 355.
19People v. Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, 19 January 2011, 640 SCRA 233, 242-243.
20People v. Pepino-Consulta, G.R. No. 191071, 28 August 2013, 704 SCRA 276, 303.