PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDGARDO ROYOL Y ASICO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT
G.R. No. 224297
February 13, 2019
Doctrine: Chain of Custody
Facts:
Accused-appellant,
Edgardo A. Royol (Royol) was charged with violating Section 5 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
According
to prosecution, at around 9:00 a.m. on November 27, 2007, a confidential
informant went to the Tarlac Provincial Police and reported that Royol had been
selling illegal drugs in Barangay Lourdes, Bamban, Tarlac. The informant
allegedly told PO2 Baquiran that he was due to meet Royol that morning.
A buy-bust team was
formed with PO2 Baquiran as poseur-buyer, and Inspector Silva, Police Officer 1
Francis Capinding, and Police Officer 2 Christopher Soriano (PO2 Soriano) as
arresting officers. Four (4) other members of the team were tasked as back-up.
PO2 Baquiran was provided with two (2) marked P500.00 bills.
The buy-bust team
proceeded to the informant's supposed meeting place with Royol. Royol arrived
some 20 minutes after PO2 Baquiran positioned himself in the area. Upon meeting
Royol, PO2 Baquiran showed him the two (2) marked P500.00 bills and told him
that he intended to purchase half a kilogram of marijuana. Royol exchanged half
a brick of marijuana with PO2 Baquiran's marked bills.
Upon seeing PO2
Baquiran make the pre-arranged signal, the other members of the buy-bust team
rushed to arrest Royol. Royol gave chase but was shortly apprehended by
Inspector Silva and PO2 Soriano. He was then brought to the Tarlac Provincial
Police Office, where the brick of marijuana was supposedly marked. PO2 Baquiran
then personally brought the marijuana to the Tarlac Provincial Crime Laboratory
Office, where, upon examination by Police Inspector Jebie C. Timario, it tested
positive for marijuana.
Royol testified in
his defense. He recalled that in the morning of November 27, 2007, while
collecting garbage, 2 men approached him asking if he knew a certain Edgardo
Saguisag. They left him after he said that he did not know the man. A few
minutes later, the men returned with two teenagers who pointed to him as
Saguisag. The men then ordered him to raise his hands. He was handcuffed and
made to lie face on the floor. He asked the men why they handcuffed him, but
they did not reply. Instead, they searched his pockets, found P140.00, and took
it. They then compelled him to board a red car and brought him to Makabulos. He
was also shown marijuana and asked if it was his, to which he answered in the
negative.
Issue:
Whether or not the
prosecution established accused-appellant Edgardo A. Royol's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt for violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
Ruling:
NO.
In
actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements
must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction of sale took place
and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the
illicit drug as evidence.
While not requiring absolute certainty, proof
beyond reasonable doubt demands moral certainty. Compliance with this standard
is a matter of compliance with a constitutional imperative.
This rule places upon the prosecution the task of establishing the guilt of an accused, relying on the strength of its own evidence, and not banking on the weakness of the defense of an accused. Requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt finds basis not only in the due process clause of the Constitution, but similarly, in the right of an accused to be "presumed innocent until the contrary is proved." "Undoubtedly, it is the constitutional presumption of innocence that lays such burden upon the prosecution." Should the prosecution fail to discharge its burden, it follows, as a matter of course, that an accused must be acquitted.
The Supreme
Court categorically declared that failing to comply with Article II, Section
21(1) of Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act implies "a concomitant failure
on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus
delicti." It "produces doubts as to the origins of the
seized paraphernalia."
Since
compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 ensures the
integrity of the seized items, it follows that noncompliance with these
requirements tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti, which
is at the core of prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
Such noncompliance casts doubt on the very claim that an offense against the
law was committed.
In
every criminal prosecution for possession of illegal drugs, the Prosecution
must account for the custody of the incriminating evidence from the moment of
seizure and confiscation until the moment it is offered in evidence. That
account goes to the weight of evidence. It is not enough that the
evidence offered has probative value on the issues, for the evidence must also
be sufficiently connected to and tied with the facts in issue. The evidence is
not relevant merely because it is available but that it has an actual
connection with the transaction involved and with the parties thereto.
Furthermore, noncompliance with Section 21 means
that critical elements of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs remain
wanting. Such noncompliance justifies an accused's acquittal.
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.
As
regards the items seized and subjected to marking, Section 21 (1) of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended, requires the performance of two
(2) actions: physical inventory and photographing. Section 21 (1) is specific
as to when and where these actions must be done. As to when, it must be
"immediately after seizure and confiscation." As to where, it depends
on whether the seizure was supported by a search warrant. If a search warrant
was served, the physical inventory and photographing must be done at the exact
same place that the search warrant is served. In case of warrantless seizures,
these actions must be done "at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable."
Moreover, Section 21 (1) requires at least three (3) persons to be present during the physical inventory and photographing. These persons are: first, the accused or the person/s from whom the items were seized; second, an elected public official; and third, a representative of the National Prosecution Service. There are, however, alternatives to the first and the third. As to the first (i.e., the accused or the person/s from whom items were seized), there are two (2) alternatives: first, his or her representative; and second, his or her counsel. As to the representative of the National Prosecution Service, a representative of the media may be present in his or her place.
Here, the case
against accused-appellant is woefully lacking in satisfying these requirements. There is no semblance of compliance with Section
21(1). All the prosecution has to support its assertions on the integrity of
the marijuana that was allegedly obtained from accused-appellant is its bare
claim that it was marked at the Tarlac Provincial Police Office.
The mere marking of seized items, instead of a
proper physical inventory and photographing done in the presence of the persons
specified under Section 21, will not justify a conviction.
Thus, other than the markings made by PO1 Garcia and the police investigator (whose identity was not disclosed), no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules. We observe that while there was testimony with respect to the marking of the seized items at the police station, no mention whatsoever was made on whether the marking had been done in the presence of Ruiz or his representatives. There was likewise no mention that any representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected official had been present during this inventory, or that any of these people had been required to sign the copies of the inventory. Neither PO2 Baquiran nor Inspector Silva testified on the conduct of a proper inventory and photographing. The prosecution's claims are sorely lacking in accounting how the marijuana was actually marked, including the safety measures undertaken by police officers.
In drugs cases, the prosecution cannot benefit from
a presumption of regularity. Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act articulates a specific statutory mandate that cannot be trumped by the
prosecution's self-assurance.
Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise.
The
unjustified failure of the police officers to show that the integrity of the
object evidence-shabu was properly preserved negates the
presumption of regularity accorded to acts undertaken by police officers in
the pursuit of their official duties.
By its very
nature, Section 21 demands strict compliance. Compliance cannot give way to a
facsimile; otherwise, the purpose of guarding against tampering, substitution, and
planting of evidence is defeated. Proof that strict compliance is imperative is
how jurisprudence disapproves of the approximation of compliance
Comments
Post a Comment