We now examine the chain of custody of the corpus delicti of this case. Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 provides for the custody and disposition of the confiscated illegal drugs, to wit:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her 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 thereof;
Further, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, provides:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.—The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her 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 thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items x x x.
Strict compliance with the prescribed procedures is required because of the unique characteristic of illegal drugs, rendering them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Hence, we have the rules on the measures to be observed during and after the seizure, during the custody and transfer of the drugs for examination, and at all times up to their presentation in court.[43]
While Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 excuses non-compliance with the afore-quoted procedure, the same holds true only for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. Here, the failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the procedural requirements cannot be excused since there was a break in the chain of custody of the substance taken from appellant. It should be pointed out that the identity of the seized substance is established by showing its chain of custody.[44]
The following are the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, 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 from the forensic chemist to the court.[45]
As provided by the implementing rules and jurisprudence, strict compliance of the requisites under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 can be disregarded as long as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved; and its preservation can be well established if the chain of custody of illegal drug was unbroken. The break is clear in this case.
It must be noted that the police officer who had the initial custody and control of the illegal drug was not clearly identified. In the preceding discussion on the inconsistency in the statements of PO2 Ibasco and PO2 Pascua, it was pointed out that PO2 Ibasco admitted that he was in possession of the confiscated drug, but this was contradicted by PO2 Pascua who testified that he was the one who was in possession of the illegal drug which was the subject of sale when it was brought to the police station.
Fiscal Araula: After both accused were arrested and recovered buy-bust money and two plastic sachet[s], in which you recovered from the accused, what happened next?
PO2 Ibasco: We turned over all the evidence to the desk officer and the desk officer turned it to the police investigator for proper investigation sir.
x x x x
Fiscal Araula: All the recovered evidence that we recovered from the accused, can you tell to this Honorable Court what are these?
PO2 Ibasco: The plastic sachet that I bought, paltik, two sachets, one bente nueve and the buy-bust money sir.
Fiscal Araula: Who was in possession of the evidence when your group went to the police station?
PO2 Ibasco: I was the one holding the plastic sachet what I was able to buy, my companion was holding on the items that they recovered, sir.[46]
In his direct examination, PO2 Pascua testified differently:
Fiscal Araula: Now, who was in possession of that two plastic sachets and the paltik revolver taken from Fermin at that time when you proceeded to La Loma Police Station?
PO2 Pascua: I was in possession of that, together with the paltik, sir.
Fiscal Araula: How about the P100.00 bill and the plastic sachet which was the subject of sell [sale], who was in possession?
PO2 Pascua: All of them were in my possession, sir.[47]
Additionally, no photograph was taken of the substance immediately after its supposed seizure.
Atty. Madayag: When the alleged shabu was confiscated, was there any photographs taken?
PO2 Pascua: No sir.
Atty. Madayag: That is in violation of Section 21 of [R.A. No.] 9165. So there was no inventory and photographs?
PO2 Pascua: There was an inventory.
Atty. Madayag: On the night of the incident?
PO2 Pascua: All the evidences were turned over to Villanueva.
x x x x
Atty. Madayag: Where was the inventory made?
PO2 Pascua: At the office.
Atty. Madayag: At the office there was no photographing?
PO2 Pascua: None, sir.[48]
The fundamentals of a criminal prosecution were, indeed, disregarded. In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the law’s own starting perspective on the status of the accused – in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charged laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt.[49] The burden lies on the prosecution to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required. To repeat, the prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. And if the prosecution fails to meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not even present evidence on its own behalf. In which case, the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be acquitted.[50]
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the two accused. The rule that high respect must be accorded the lower courts in their findings of facts cannot be misused to diminish the required evidence to overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused as guaranteed by the Constitution.
x x x."
No comments:
Post a Comment