People vs Estabillo, GR No. 252902 [Case Digest]

 

People vs Estabillo,

GR No. 252902

Facts:

            The accused a police officer had been arrested by P/Supt. Fajardo and company in a buy-bust operation for the illegal possession of cocaine and illegal selling of the same. Both RTC and CA found the accused guilty of the crime charged.

            The accused contended that the chain of custody regarding the alleged illegal drugs implicated to him is not observed because there is no member of the DOJ during the buy-bust operation and that the reporter of GMA 7 reporter Perillo denied seeing any actual cocaine during his coverage of the incident.

 

Issue:

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

 

Held:

            YES. 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.

 

The first link of the chain of custody is the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused, as well as compliance with the physical inventory and photograph requirements.  Marking is the starting point in the custodial link. It 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, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence. Marking though should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon confiscation to truly ensure that they are the same items which enter the chain of custody.

 

After marking the seized items, the apprehending team shall conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. The purpose of the law in having these witnesses is to prevent or insulate against and deter possible planting of evidence. Failure to comply with this three (3) witness rule, however, does not ipso facto invalidate or render void the seizure and custody over the items as long as the prosecution is able to show that (a) there is justifiable ground for noncompliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

 

The arresting officers offered adequate explanation for the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory. Verily, there was simply no prosecutor from the DOJ who was available to witness the inventory at that very late hour in the evening. SC also consider the immediacy of performing the marking and inventory of seized items which ought riot be delayed.

 

For another, it was not Perilla's job as insulating witness to look for white powdery substance which could possibly be dangerous drugs. For the insulating witnesses do not guarantee that the items seized from an accused are indeed dangerous drugs. They only needed to confirm that the items seized from appellant as appearing in the inventory, regardless of whether they dangerous drugs or simply mundane things, are the same items offered in evidence before the trial court.

 

 

 

 

è

To be clear though, a media representative is no substitute for a DOJ representative under RA 9165 prior to its amendment. However, the arresting officers' decision to invite additional witnesses than required is cogent proof of their good faith, if not, earnest efforts to comply with the witness requirement under Section 21, RA 9165, and more important, to ensure transparency and dispel any kind of suspicion on the legitimacy of the operation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

è

Appellant is charged with unauthorized sale and possession of dangerous drugs allegedly committed on June 15, 2010. The applicable law therefore is RA 9165 ·before its amendment in 2014. These offenses are defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11 of the same law.

 

è

To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements:

(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and

(2) the delivery ofthe thing sold and the payment therefor.

 

 

èAbsence of Ultraviolet powder

Appellant argues though that if there was indeed a sale and he truly received payment from SP02 Taldo, then he should have tested positive for ultraviolet powder. The prosecution, however, did not offer in evidence any proof of such positive result.

è

The arresting officer's failure to test appellant for ultraviolet powder is not fatal to the prosecution's case. For the law does not require buy-bust money and boodle money used in anti-drug operations to be dusted with ultraviolet powder for purposes of proving delivery of payment. This second element may be established through other means, such as the testimony of the poseur-buyer himself, as here. To reiterate, SP02 Taldo categorically testified that he had delivered payment to appellant. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found this testimony to be credible. The Court sees no cogent reason to depart from this uniform factual findings of the courts below.

 

 

èElements of Illegal possession

In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be shown that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.

 

 

èPossession" under the contemplation of Section 11, RA 9165 may either be actual or constructive.

èPeople v. Santos, citing People v. Lagman, elucidates: Possession, under the law, includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is in the immediate possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is located, is shared with another.

 

 

 

è

Here, appellant had possession of the two (2) bricks of cocaine recovered from behind the driver seat of his vehicle upon his arrest. Though he did not have immediate physical possession of these items, he had constructive possession thereof. Only he had dominion of these items. The two (2) bricks ofcocaine were under his control and disposal.

 

 

 

è