Franklin Reyes v People, GR No. 244545 [Case Digest]

 

Franklin Reyes v People,

GR No. 244545

Facts:

            Reyes was arrested in a buy-bust operation by the Laoag City Police.  The  buy-bust team  brought Reyes  to  the  police  station  and  contacted  members  of the  media  and  barangay  officials  but  only  Brgy. Kag.  Helen Bulaun arrived. The  police  officers marked  and  photographed  the  seized  items  in  the  presence  of Reyes  and  Kagawad Bulaun. After  the inventory, PO 1  Lorenzo and  PO 1  Corpuz personally delivered the  items to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The specimens tested positive for  the presence  of shabu.

            RTC convicted Reyes of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs. CA affirmed the decision of RTC with modification.

 

Issue:

            Whether police officers failed to comply with the chain of custody rule and that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Held:

            YES. In Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.  Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. Indeed, the prosecution must satisfactorily established the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: (1) the confiscation and marking, if practicable, of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court.  Here, the records reveal a broken chain of custody.

            The absence of a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media as an insulating witness to the inventory and photograph of the seized item puts serious doubt as to the integrity of the first link. SC emphasized that the presence of the insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. In People v. Lim, SC explained that in case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons for their absence, but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance.

 

 

è Later, in People v. Caray, 18 we ruled that the corpus delicti cannot be
deemed preserved absent any acceptable explanation for the deviation from
the procedural requirements of the chain of custody rule under Se~tion 21 of
Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. Similarly, in Matabilas v. People, 19 sheer
statements ofunavailability ofthe insulating witnesses, without actual serious
attempt to contact them, cannot justify non-compliance.

 

è Kagawad Bulaun admitted that she was not present during the
marking and inventory ofthe seized items.

 

è Lastly, it must be stressed that while the law enforcers enjoy the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption
cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed
innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot be regarded as
binding truth. 23 Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with
irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed.