People v Andanar et al, GR No. 246284 [Case Digest]

 

People v Andanar et al,

GR No. 246284

Facts:

            Andanar was arrested in a buy-bust operation where the accused sell and deliverr to the poseur-buyer PO2 Antillon Jr. Thus, Andanar was charged for illegal selling of shabu.  On the other hand one Garbo was sawn by Antillon sniffing the alleged shabu during the said operation.  Thus Garbo was charged with illegal maintenance of a drug den under Section 6 of RA 9165.

            The team brought appellants to the police station where the marking, inventory, and photographing were done. The team had to leave the situs criminis because a crowd had already gathered around. Antillon, handed the seized items to the case investigator PO3 Del Rosario who prepared the following documents: affidavit of arrest, inventory report, spot report, booking sheets, and request for laboratory examination. Antillon and Del Rosario brought the specimen to the crime laboratory where it was received by PO2 Manuel.

            Both RTC and CA found the accused guilty of the crime charged.

 

Issue:

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

 

Held:

            NO. "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 the seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of 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 illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally sold by the accused is the same substance eventually presented in court.

To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.

                Here, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody Consider:

One, the venue for making the inventory and photograph was not properly complied with. Section 2l(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) requires that the inventory and photograph be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation, thus, it must be done at the place of the arrest.

è In People. v. Dumanjug, the Court rejected the buy-bust team's argument that that it failed to conduct the marking, inventory, photography of the seized drug immediately at the place of arrest because a crowd of two hundred (200) people have gathered creating a dangerous environment. Indeed, bare invocation of inconvenience does not translate to compliance with the chain of custody rule.

Two, the physical inventory and photography were not done in the presence of a DOJ representative, a media representative, and a local elected official.

è People v. Lim stressed the importance of the presence of the three (3) insulating witnesses or in the alternative, the prosecution must allege and prove the reasons for their absence and show that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance.

ànow only 2 witnesses is required by virtue of RA 10640 amending RA 9165.

Three, what happened to the confiscated drugs after SP02 Antillon, Jr. and P03 Del Rosario delivered them to the crime laboratory? The prosecution was conspicuously silent on this point.

è In People v. Burdeos, the prosecution failed to show how the specimen was handled while under the custody of the officer who received it and how the same was subsequently turned over to the forensic chemist who conducted the examination. The Court, thus, declared that such glaring gap in the chain of custody tainted the integrity of the corpus delicti.

Four, there was nothing in the records regarding the custody of the seized drug from the time it was turned over to the laboratory up to its presentation in court.

è In People v. Baltazar, the accused was acquitted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs because the records were bereft of any evidence as to how the illegal drugs were brought to court. There was no showing how the alleged seized item was stored after it was examined by the forensic chemist, who handled the specimen after examination, and where the same was kept until it was retrieved and presented in court.

            For Garbo's part, she was charged with illegal maintenance of a drug den under Section 6 of RA 9165. The offense requires the following elements: a) that the place is a den -· a place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold, or used in any form; and b) that the accused maintains the said place. It is not enough that dangerous drugs or drug paraphemalias were found in the place. More than a finding that the dangerous drug is being used there, it must also be clearly shown that the accused is the maintainer or operator or the owner of the place where the dangerous drug is used or sold.