Joel David v People, GR No. 253336 [Case Digest]

 

Joel David v People,

GR No. 253336

Facts:

            Bertilla David went to Bacolor Municipal Police Station to report that her son, Joel, had punched her several times, and was engaged in scandalous acts in their place at Barangay. The police officers responding to this report. PO3 Flores tried to pacify David; and challenged Flores to a fistfight. PO3 Flores proceeded to arrest David for Alarms and Scandals, while informing him of his constitutional rights; the officers brought David back to the police station to conduct a follow-up investigation. Thereat, PO3 Flores noticed that David's right hand was inserted inside his shorts, but not in the pocket thereof, which prompted him to ask David what he was hiding; however, the latter replied that it was nothing. Bertilla then informed PO3 Flores that David was hiding marijuana. PO3 Flores asked David to show his right hand which revealed 1 transparent plastic sachet containing dried leaves. PO3 Flores proceeded to prepare the Affidavit of Arrest, the Request for Laboratory Examination, and the Inventory of the seized sachet, as well as other documents necessary to file cases for Alarms and Scandals, and for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The inventory and photography of the sachet were witnessed by Brgy. Kag. Rodriguez, Brgy. Kag. Rodriguez, and Charlie Sia, a media representative, who arrived after the .sachet was confiscated. PO3 Flores likewise marked the sachet with "GCF." Subsequently, PO3 Flores brought the seized sachet and the Request for Laboratory Examination to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office which were received by P/Sr. Insp. Baligod, the forensic chemist. The contents tested positive for marijuana.

            RTC and CA found the accused guilty of the crimes charged.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the chain of custody was observed in the case at bar.

 

Held:

            NO. As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." Nonetheless, anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear.

While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given· circumstances. Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation, and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule.

 

 

 

èTo establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 22 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure \md confiscation of the same.

 

 

èThe law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640,24 "a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media." The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence."

 

èAs a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law.

 

 

è