People v Hementiza, GR No. 227398 [Case Digest]

 

People v Hementiza,

GR No. 227398

Facts:

            The accused Hementiza was arrested during a buy-bust operation conducted by the police operatives.  Allegedly the accused sold to P02 Rache E. Palconit, who acted as a poseur-buyer, one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance, for and in consideration of the sum of P200.00, which after the corresponding laboratory examination conducted by the PNP Crime Laboratory gave a positive result to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," a dangerous drug.

            RTC rendered decision finding the accused guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. CA affirmed the decision of RTC in toto.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the guilt of the accused for the crimes charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

 

CODE: SPL_RA 10640-Part 1

REVIEW QUESTIONS:

1. What are the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs?

2. What are the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs?

3. What is the chain of custody means?

4. Give the steps of Sec. 21 and its IRR of RA 9165 / Sec. 21 RA 10640

5. What is the saving clause found in Sec. 21?

6. Give the links of the chain of custody?

7. Give the doctrine regularity in performance of the duty of apprehending officers in drug cases.

8. What link or links did not observed when the identity of the investigating officer and the forensic chemist were unknown?

9. How can the identity of the prohibited drug must be established? Is the elements of the crime enough to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt?

10. Is the procedure in 21(A) substantive law?

11. Give the some justifiable grounds in relaxing the requirements of the witnesses as prescribed in Sec. 21 of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640?/Give Jurisprudence and GR Number

12. What is an objective test? Jurisprudence

 

 

 

 

 

Held:

            NO. The elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. Similarly, it is essential that the transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti which means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged.

            On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.  The corpus delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs is the presentation of the dangerous drug itself.

            Thus, the chain of custody over the dangerous drug must be shown to establish the corpus delicti. 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 connection thereto, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides for the manner by which law enforcement officers should handle seized items in dangerous drugs cases. Strict compliance with the chain of custody requirement, however, is not always the case. Hence, the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

    SECTION 21.(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.

            In the case at bench, the prosecution failed to demonstrate substantial compliance by the apprehending officers with the safeguards provided by R.A. No. 9165 as regards the rule on chain of custody. To begin with, the records are bereft of any showing that an inventory of the seized items was made. Neither does it appear on record that the apprehending team photographed the contraband in accordance with law.

            Further, People v. Dahil restated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=è

 

First Link: Marking of the Drugs
Recovered from the Accused by the
Apprehending Officer

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because the 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, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.

Still, there are cases when the chain of custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the seized items is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of the accused in illegal drugs cases. àKULANG PA NIA

In this case, Palconit claimed that he had placed his initials on the seized items. Based on his testimony, it is clear that the marking was not immediately done at the place of seizure; instead, the markings were only placed at the PDEA office, for which the prosecution did not offer any justifiable reason. Even if the Court glosses over this lapse, still, it could not be said that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. For one, neither in the direct examination nor in the cross-examination of Palconit was it mentioned that the markings were made in the presence of accused-appellant or his representatives. He merely testified that he placed the markings at the PDEA office, without any allusion to the identities of the persons who were present when he did the markings.

èIn People v. De La Cruz, where the marking of the seized items was made at the police station, and without any showing that the same had been done in the presence of the accused or his representatives, the Court concluded that the apprehending team's omission to observe the procedure outlined by R.A. No. 9165 in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs significantly impaired the prosecution's case.

 

7

èThe prosecution's sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs and drug paraphernalia will not secure a conviction. While 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 merely just that - a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.

 

 

 

Second Link: Turnover of
the Seized Drugs by the
Apprehending Officer to
the Investigating Officer

The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. This is a necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required documents.

Here, the identity of the investigating officer was unknown.

èSimilarly, in People v. Nandi, where the apprehending officer was unable to identify the investigating officer to whom he turned over the seized items, the Court held that such circumstance, when taken in light of the several other lapses in the chain of custody that attend the case, raises doubts as to whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs had been preserved.

 

 

 

 

Third Link: Turnover by the
Investigating Officer of the Illegal
Drugs to the Forensic Chemist

From the investigating officer, the illegal drug is delivered to the forensic chemist. Once the seized drugs arrive at the forensic laboratory, it will be the laboratory technician who will test and verify the nature of the substance. In this case, it was uncertain who received the seized items when it was brought to the forensic laboratory,

èIn People v. Beran, the investigator of the case claimed that he personally took the drug to the laboratory for testing, but there was no showing who was the laboratory technician who received the drug from him. The Court noted that there was serious doubt that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item had not been fatally compromised.

 

 

 

 

 

Fourth Link: Turnover of the Marked
Illegal Drug Seized by the Forensic
Chemist to the Court

The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case.

In this case, the records are bereft of any evidence as to how the illegal drugs were brought to court. Fabros merely testified that she made a report confirming that the substance contained in the sachets brought to her was positive for shabu.

The saving clause in Section 21, IRR of R.A. No. 9165 fails to remedy the lapses and save the prosecution's case. In People v. Garcia, the Court stated that "the saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter cited justifiable grounds." Failure to follow the procedure mandated under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR must be adequately explained.37

 

9

In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.

In fine, the Court holds that the totality of the evidence presented does not support a finding of guilt with the certainty that criminal cases require. The procedural lapses committed by the apprehending team show glaring gaps in the chain of custody, creating a reasonable doubt on whether the shabu seized from accused-appellant was the same shabu that were brought to the crime laboratory for chemical analysis, and eventually offered in court as evidence. Hence, the corpus delicti has not been adequately proven.

It could be that the accused was really involved in the sale of shabu, but considering the doubts engendered by the paucity of the prosecution's evidence, the Court has no recourse but to give him the benefit thereof. Law enforcers should not only be mindful of the procedures required in the seizure, handling and safekeeping of confiscated drugs, but the prosecution should also prove every material detail in court. Observance of these is necessary to avoid wasting the efforts and the resources in the apprehension and prosecution of violators of our drug laws.39

 

à10

èJurisprudence states that the procedure enshrined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. For indeed, however noble the purpose or necessary the exigencies of the campaign against illegal drugs may be, it is still a governmental action that must always be executed within the boundaries of law. [People vs Tomawis]

 

11èJustifiable grounds

(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. [People vs Romy Lim; GR No. 231989]

 

People v. Doria, the Court explained that the "objective test" requires the details of the purported transaction during the buy-bust operation to be clearly and adequately shown, i. e., the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase the drug, and the promise or payment of the consideration, payment using the buy-bust or marked money, up to the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale whether to the informant alone or the police officer.