People v Patacsil, GR No. 234052 [Case Digest]

 

People v Patacsil,

GR No. 234052

Facts:

            Patacsil was arrested by the Dagupan police officers during a buy bust operation.  During the arrest, the police officers inspected Patacsil's cellphone pouch and recovered five (5) more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance therefrom. The buy-bust team then took Patacsil and the seized plastic sachets, first to the hospital for medical examination, and thereafter, to the police station for marking and inventory procedures. Finally, the seized plastic sachets were taken to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was confirmed that they indeed contain methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

            RTC found Patacsil guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. CA affirmed.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the CA correctly upheld Patacsil' s conviction for the crimes charged.

Held:

            NO. Case law states that in both instances, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime.

            The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not always be possible. In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 - which is now crystallized into statutory law with the passage of RA 10640 - provide that the said inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 - under justifiable grounds - will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team.[[31]] In other words,

 

èAlthough the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In People v. Almorfe, the Court explained that for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved.

 

                After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds that the arresting officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from Patacsil.

            Here, a plain examination of PO3 Meniano's handwritten Confiscation Receipt³⁷ dated September 28, 2012 - which stood as the inventory receipt - shows that while PO3 Meniano claims that representatives from the media witnessed the conduct of inventory, no such representatives signed the document. Further, it also appears that no public elected official was present when such inventory was made. 

 

 

èCase law states that in both instances, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime.

 

èIn this relation, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the police officers must follow when handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. Under the said section, prior to its amendment by RA 10640, the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his 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 of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination.

 

èIn the case of People v. Mendoza, the Court stressed that "[w]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJJ, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, ·'planting' or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of

 

èIn fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 - which is now crystallized into statutory law with the passage of RA 10640 - provide that the said inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 - under justifiable grounds - will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team.[[31]] In other words, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

 

èHere, a plain examination of PO3 Meniano's handwritten Confiscation Receipt dated September 28, 2012 - which stood as the inventory receipt - shows that while PO3 Meniano claims that representatives from the media witnessed the conduct of inventory, no such representatives signed the document. Further, it also appears that no public elected official was present when such inventory was made.

 

èèAt this point, it is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 must be adduced. Mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. 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 full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

 

àIn this case, PO3 Meniano himself admitted that no public elected official, e.g., barangay officials, was present during the inventory because "they were not around" and that he simply forgot to let the media representatives sign the inventory receipt because he "forgot" to do so. Verily, these flimsy excuses do not justify a deviation from the required witnesses rule, hence, the Court is impelled to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Patacsil - which constitute the corpus delicti of the crimes charged - have been compromised.