Tolentino v People, GR No. 227217 [Case Digest]

 

Tolentino v People,

GR No. 227217,

Facts:

            Tolentino was arrested by Task Force Bantay Droga during a buy-bust operation.  Allegedly the poseur-buyer was able to buy from the accused P100 worth of marijuana.  Petitioner was then brought to the house of the barangay captain of Ungot and SPO1 Navarro conducted an inventory of the said items thereat. During the inventory, photographs were taken and the confiscated items were marked respectively. Subsequently, SPO1 Navarro brought the suspected drugs to the crime laboratory where they were received by officer Timario. According to SPO1 Navarro, from the time the inventory was conducted until the subject items were brought to the laboratory for analysis, he had exclusive possession of the same.

            RTC and CA found the accused guilty of the crime.

 

Issue:

            Whether or not the accused is guilty of the crime charge beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Held:

            NO. In order to sustain a conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the law demands the establishment of the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused.

            In the prosecution of drugs cases, the procedural safeguards that are embodied in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, are material, as their compliance affects the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug itself and warrants the identity and integrity of the substances and other evidence that are seized by the apprehending officers.

            The Court reiterates though that a failure to fully satisfy the requirements under Section 21 must be strictly premised on "justifiable grounds." The primary rule that commands a satisfaction of the instructions prescribed by the statute stands. The value of the rule is significant; its non­compliance has serious effects and is fatal to the prosecution's case.

      Here, as culled from the records and highlighted by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses themselves, only one of the required witnesses was present during the inventory stage - the barangay captain of Ungot. Neither was it shown nor alleged by the police officers that earnest efforts were made to secure the attendance of these witnesses.

                The prosecution cannot simply invoke the saving clause found in Section 21 - that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved - without justifying their failure to comply with the requirements stated therein. Even the presumption as to regularity in the performance by police officers of their official duties cannot prevail when there has been a clear and deliberate disregard of procedural safeguards by the police officers themselves. 

           

 

 

 

ð  People v. Morales explained that failure to comply with paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of [R.A. No.] 9165 implie[s] a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti. It "produce[s] doubts as to the origins of the [seized paraphernalia]."

ð  Compliance with Section 21's chain of custody requirements ensures the integrity of the seized items. non-compliance with them [tarnishes] the credibility of the corpus delicti around which prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act revolve. Consequently, they also tarnish the very claim that an offense against the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act was committed.

ð  In the same vein, the Court, in People v. Mendoza,31 explained that the presence of these witnesses would not only preserve an unbroken chain of custody but also prevent the possibility of tampering with, or "planting" of, evidence ààlosing

 

            For the arresting officers' failure to adduce justifiable grounds, we are led to conclude from the totality of the procedural lapses committed in this case that the arresting officers deliberately disregarded the legal safeguards under R.A. [No.] 9165. These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we must resolve the doubt in favor of accused-appellant, "as every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt."

 

            èAs a final note, we reiterate our past rulings calling upon the authorities "to exert greater efforts in combating the drug menace using the safeguards that our lawmakers have deemed necessary for the greater benefit of our society." The need to employ a more stringent approach to scrutinizing the evidence of the prosecution - especially when the pieces of evidence were derived from a buy-bust operation - "redounds to the benefit of the criminal justice system by protecting civil liberties and at the same time instilling rigorous discipline on prosecutors."