People v Tamil Veloo, GR No. 252154 [Case Digest]

 

People v Tamil Veloo,

GR No. 252154

Facts:

            Veloo and Nadarajan, both Malaysian nationals are apprehended in NAIA for carrying shabu contained in two bags.  Photographing and inventory of the seized items were done in the presence of the accused, SAII Punzalan, Kagawad Jaime Abasola, and ABS-CBN/DWIZ Media Reporter Raoul Esperas. Buenconsejo then turned the bags over to P02 Julie Lucero ofthe Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) who, subsequently, delivered the same to Forensic Chemist Arlene Arcos for analysis before turning them over to the trial court.

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

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the chain of custody was observed with respect to the seized items in the two bags [Dibola bag and Phoenix bag]

 

Held:

            DIBOLA BAG ONLY. Considering that there are two pieces of luggage containing prohibited drugs in this case, observance of the chain of custody rule must be determined in relation to the contents of each individual luggage.

            It is undisputed that Buenconsejo weighed the drug specimens from the first examined bag (Dibola bag) and indicated the weights thereof and her markings on the plastic packs, and that the photographing and inventory thereof were done in the presence of the accused, Punzalan, Kagawad Abasola, and media reporter Esperas. While the Court notes the absence of a DOJ representative, the same is not necessarily fatal as will be discussed later.

            èDUHA NA KA WITNESSES

            èOKAY ang Chain of Custody na observed gyud xa

            Veloo's testimony that Buenconsejo made the report at around 9:00 p.m. is consistent with the Inventory Report dated June 16, 2012 stating that the inventory was conducted on even date at 9:00 p.m. While the defense argues that the inventory and marking took place only the next day as shown by the photographs dated "6.17.2012," the Booking Sheets/Arrest Reports signed by each of the accused indicate that the inventory and marking were indeed made on June 16. Taken together with the Inventory Report itself and Veloo's testimony, we find the date June 16, 2012 more credible.

            As regards the second examined bag (Phoenix bag), the Court observes that while both Veloo and Nadarajan claim said bag, it was not in their possession when it was seized. The fact that it was retrieved by Punzalan's men from a hotel representative outside the airport after more or less one (1) hour, as testified by both prosecution and defense witnesses, without so much as an explanation as to why it took that long, engenders doubt in the Court's mind as to the integrity of the contents thereof, especially since it was already opened when it arrived at the Exclusion Room. The prosecution did not even present the hotel representative who allegedly had actual custody of the bag or the customs police who took the bag from said hotel representative. Since the very seizure of the Phoenix bag containing the drugs is questionable, it would no longer matter that said drugs were properly turned over to the PDEA investigating officer, then to the forensic chemist, then finally, to the court.

            While the customs police are presumed to have regularly performed their duties, SC held in People v. Sipin that judicial reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty despite the lapses in the procedures undertaken by the agents of the law is fundamentally flawed because the lapses themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity. The presumption may only arise where there is a showing that the apprehending officers/team followed the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, or when the saving clause in the IRR is successfully triggered.