Chain of custody of evidence; planting of evidence

 "Further, even if the seized items are deemed admissible, the prosecution's case would still fail for violating the chain of custody rule.

In all cases involving dangerous drugs, great importance is put in ensuring that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, the drug itself, remains intact. This is due to the delicate nature of dangerous drugs and its susceptibility to being altered or tampered. This was elucidated in People v. Jaafar:77

Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their composition and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized from the accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. . . . 78 (Citations omitted)

It is also the vulnerability of dangerous drugs and the confidential manner by which it is produced and distributed which makes it a target of abuse by authorities during anti-narcotics operations, as explained in People v. Saragena:79

There is great possibility of abuse in drug cases, especially those involving miniscule amounts. This Court has recognized that buy-bust operations could be initiated based on dubious claims of shady persons. or that small amounts of illicit drugs could be planted as evidence on innocent individuals, in view of the secrecy surrounding drug deals in general. Thus:

"[B]y the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the case with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses[.]80 (Citation omitted)

Thus, to prevent any mishandling of the prohibited drug once it is confiscated, the rules on chain of custody were enacted in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, which 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:

(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: 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, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

This ensures that every link from the moment the dangerous drug is seized from the accused, until it is presented before the judge is accounted for. Any break or disruption in the chain would cast doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized item. Thus, it is essential for the prosecution to establish with moral certainty that the drug presented in court is the same drug confiscated from the accused.81 Failure to do so would render the evidence against the accused insufficient, resulting in an acquittal.82

Here, the prosecution miserably failed to establish that the police officers complied with the requirements laid down in Section 21.

First, the marking of evidence was not done immediately upon confiscation of the items from the accused-appellants. Records show that after SPO1 Bactad seized one clear plastic sachet from each of them, he did not mark any of it before putting them in his pants pockets.83 Similarly, PO2 Cruz did not mark the paraphernalia found on top of the table before putting them in a plastic. The marking was only done at the police station.

Due to these sequence of events, it cannot be said that the sachets were accurately marked. This is especially important for the criminal charges pertaining to the individual possession of dangerous drugs by each accused-appellant, as it cannot be determined from whom each sachet was confiscated. This immediately casts doubt on the identity of the seized objects from its seizure, the first link in the chain of custody.

Aside from this, marking and inventory were not done in the presence of the required witnesses, namely, representatives from the Department of Justice, a Barangay Kagawad, and a media representative. While Cabading and Alcantara signed the Confiscation Receipt, Cabading manifested that she was not present during the marking, inventorying, and photographing of the items.84 These are unacceptable lapses by the police authorities cause another break in the chain of custody.

This Court has established that an "ostensibly approximate compliance"85 to Section 21 of Republic Act. No. 9165 will not suffice to reach a conviction. It bears reiterating that each link of the chain of custody of the seized drug must be accounted for to show there was no "tampering, alteration, or substitution, may it be by accident or otherwise."86 The chain of custody rule requires actual compliance to prove with moral certainty the corpus delicti of the crime charged. Seeing as the prosecution neither established the identity of the seized items in each link of the chain of custody, nor preserved its integrity, accused-appellants must be acquitted.

We reiterate our statements in People v. Holgado,87

It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels.88

This case was riddled by procedural infirmities from the moment the accused-appellants were apprehended to the moment the gavel was struck to convict them. While this court laments the proliferation of the use and distribution of illegal substances, it cannot support the haphazard and shoddy execution of government agents of their official tasks. We remind our police officers, as well as officers of the Court, that the constitutionally protected rights of the people must always prevail.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the January 15, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08489 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-Appellants Jamal Rangaig y Ampuan, Saad Makairing y Lonto, and Michael Juguilon y Solis are hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.

The Regional Trial Court is also ordered to turn over the shabu subject of this case to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED."

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAMAL RANGAIG Y AMPUAN, SAAD MAKAIRING Y LONTO, AND MICHAEL JUGUILON Y SOLIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, 

G.R. No. 240447, April 28, 2021. 

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/apr2021/gr_240447_2021.html

Warrantless search, seizure and arrest

 "Similarly, in this case, after receiving a tip from an informant, the police officers proceeded to the abandoned nipa hut without conducting any prior surveillance or verification of the facts given by the informant. There, PO2 Cruz peeked through the door of the hut which was slightly ajar and found the accused-appellants about ten meters away, sitting beside a table with what seemed to be a clear plastic sachet on it along with other paraphernalia, such as foil. This prompted PO2 Cruz to signal his teammates to enter the house and apprehend accused-appellants.

Lastly, this case cannot be considered a valid warrantless arrest under Section 5(c) as accused-appellants were not fugitives fleeing the custody of a penal establishment at the time of their apprehension.

Corollary to warrantless arrests, this Court in Lapi v. People,63 reiterated the different kinds of valid warrantless search and seizure, thus:

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12. Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence:

2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view"

. . . .

3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity;

4. Consented warrantless search;

5. Customs search;

6. Stop and Frisk; and

7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances."64

The first type of valid warrantless search and seizure will not apply as there was no valid warrantless arrest to begin with.

Similarly, the second type of valid warrantless search and seizure known as seizure in plain view, does not apply in this case. The Plain View Doctrine is "usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object[.]"65 To be valid, there must be a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest and, secondly, the evidence found must have been in plain view of the arresting officer and not inadvertently found.66

In United States case law, the plain view doctrine cannot be applied in one's curtilage, or the area immediately surrounding a person's home or dwelling where one has a reasonable expectation of privacy.67 This gives emphasis to the sanctity of the home which is accorded special protection in line with the '"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects."68 The concept of curtilage was explained in United States v. Dunn,69 in this wise:

[C]urtilage questions should be resolved with particular reference to four factors: the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home, whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. We do not suggest that combining these factors produces a finely tuned formula that when mechanically applied, yields a "correct" answer to all extent-of-curtilage questions. Rather, these factors are useful analytical tools only to the degree that, in any given case, they bear upon the centrally relevant consideration — whether the area in question is so intimately tied to the home itself that it should be placed under the home's “umbrella" of Fourth Amendment protection.

Thus, law enforcers may seize evidence and contraband that are in plain view, as long as the officer is in a place where he has a legal right to be, and the seizure does not involve entering one's home or curtilage.

Applied in this case, the fact that PO2 Cruz saw accused-appellants around a table through the slightly opened door of an abandoned nipa hut, in itself cannot be considered a violation of the sanctity of their home or curtilage as they could not have any expectation of privacy in their location. However, this does not change the fact that the buy-bust team were at the abandoned nipa hut on the strength of a single tip, without conducting prior surveillance. The plain view doctrine is only proper when the two requirements—a prior valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest and that the evidence found was in plain view of the arresting officer—is met.

Here, the prosecution failed on the first requirement. There was no valid intrusion by the police officers as they did not have probable cause to enter the premises without a valid warrant of arrest or search warrant. It is apparent that PO2 Cruz's suspicion was anchored on the informant's tip they received earlier informing them of an on-going pot session in the area. Consequently, the act of peeping through an open door to ascertain what the accused-appellants were doing inside the house cannot be justified.

Illustrative is the case of People v. Bolasa,70 wherein the authorities proceeded to a certain house after being tipped off that Bolasa, among others, was packing drugs therein. After peeking through the window of the house and seeing and a man and a woman packing marijuana, the police entered the house, arrested the two, and seized the drugs and paraphernalia. There, this Court held that the arrests and resulting searches and seizures were invalid as the arresting officers did not have personal knowledge of the criminal activities in the house. It was further held that "[n]either can it be said that objects were seized in plain view [as the] the police officers intentionally peeped first through the window before they saw and ascertained the activities of accused-appellants inside the room."71

Nevertheless, this Court has held that peeping into a window may be deemed "plain view" if the law enforcement officer had prior justification for being at the position. In Miclat v. People,72 it was explained:

Objects falling in plain view of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. The "plain view" doctrine applies when the following requisites concur: (a) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; (b) the discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent: (c) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. The law enforcement officer must lawfully make an initial intrusion or properly be in a position from which he can particularly view the area. In the course of such lawful intrusion, he came inadvertently across a piece of evidence incriminating the accused. The object must be open to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent[.]

It is clear, therefore, that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. Since petitioners arrest is among the exceptions to the rule requiring a warrant before effecting an arrest and the evidence seized from the petitioner was the result of a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest, which incidentally was in plain view of the arresting officer, the results of the ensuing search and seizure were admissible in evidence to prove petitioner's guilt of the offense charged."73 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

Unlike this case, in Miclat, the police authorities knew the identity of the person connected to drug activities and conducted surveillance before making a valid warrantless arrest. Thus, they had a prior justification for being in a position within view of the criminal activity. Had PO2 Cruz and the buy bust team first conducted proper surveillance before proceeding with the warrantless arrest, the subsequent search and seizure may have fallen under the "plain view" doctrine.

As such, the prosecution here failed to establish by sufficient, clear and convincing evidence that there was probable cause to execute a warrantless arrest, and concomitantly seize the confiscated items. It is apparent from their narration that their arrest of the accused-appellants and search thereafter was fueled solely by the informant's tip. Apart from this, there is no evidence to show that the police officers had personal knowledge that would allow them to infer anything suspicious.

There being no valid warrantless arrest on accused-appellants, their arrest is illegal, and the ensuing search as a result thereof, is likewise illegal.74 It must be noted that a person's right against unreasonable searches and seizures is constitutionally protected and must prevail over the campaign against illegal drugs. Warrantless arrests and seizures remain to be exceptions to the general rule and must be construed strictly against government agents.75 Since there is no justification for the absence of an arrest warrant or search warrant upon the premises, the subsequent items obtained from the unreasonable search and seizure must be excluded in evidence for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.

The corpus delicti for the crimes charged presented into evidence by the prosecution is deemed inadmissible. Such inadmissibility then prevents conviction and calls for the imm ediate acquittal of the accused-appellants.76"

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAMAL RANGAIG Y AMPUAN, SAAD MAKAIRING Y LONTO, AND MICHAEL JUGUILON Y SOLIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, 

G.R. No. 240447, April 28, 2021. 

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/apr2021/gr_240447_2021.html

Double Jeopardy

 'Accused-appellants were charged and found guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of dangerous drugs in a social gathering, which are penalized under Republic Act No. 9165 Article II, Sections 11 and 13, respectively.

Accused-appellants assert that the charge of the possession of illegal drugs is absorbed in the charge of possession of illegal drugs in social gatherings. Thus, charging and eventually convicting them of both offenses, separately, placed them in double jeopardy. We agree.

The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy is provided in Article II, Section 21 of the Constitution:

No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

This constitutional right is implemented in Rule 117, Section 7 of the Rules of Court which provides:

SECTION 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. — When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information. (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, the rule on double jeopardy protects the accused by prohibiting the state from charging or convicting a person of either the same offense or the same act. These two categories of double jeopardy is differentiated in People v. Quijada:43

Thirdly, our Bill of Rights deals with two (2) kinds of double jeopardy. The first sentence of clause 20, section 1, Article II I of the Constitution, ordains that “no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense." (italics in the original) The second sentence of said clause provides that "if an act is punishable by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act." Thus, the first sentence prohibits double jeopardy of punishment for the same offense whereas, the second contemplates double jeopardy of punishment for the same act. Under the first sentence, one may be twice put in jeopardy of punishment of the same act, provided that he is charged with different offenses, or the offense charged in one case is not included in, or does not include, the crime charged in the other case. The second sentence applies, even if the offenses charged are not the same, owing to the fact that one constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the other a violation of a statute. If the two charges are based on one and the same act, conviction or acquittal under either the law or the ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the other. . . .

Elsewise stated, where the offenses charged are penalized either by different sections of the same statute or by different statutes, the important inquiry relates to the identity of offenses charged. The Constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available only where an identity is shown to exist between the earlier and the subsequent offenses charged. The question of identity or lack of identity of offenses is addressed by examining the essential elements of each of the two offenses charged, as such elements are set out in the respective legislative definitions of the offenses involved.44 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

The test of identity of offenses in ascertaining whether double jeopardy exists has been used by this Court as early as 1954 in People v. F. Diaz45 as cited in Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro,46 thus:

In the case of People v. F Diaz, G.R. No. L-6518, prom. March 30, 1954, the accused was charged in the municipal court of Pasay City with reckless driving under sec. 52 of the Revised Motor Vehicle Law, for having driven an automobile in a 'fast and reckless manner . . . thereby causing an accident.' After the accused had pleaded not guilty the case was dismissed in that court 'for failure of the Government to prosecute'. But some time thereafter the city attorney filed an information in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, charging the same accused with damage to property thru reckless imprudence. The amount of the damage was alleged to be P249.50. Pleading double jeopardy, the accused filed a motion, and on appeal by the Government we affirmed the ruling. Among other things we there said through Mr. Justice Montemayor —

The next question to determine is the relation between the first offense of violation of the Motor Vehicle Law prosecuted before the Pasay City Municipal Court and the offense of damage to property thru reckless imprudence charged in the Rizal Court of First Instance. One of the tests of double jeopardy is whether or not the second offense charged necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the former complaint or information (Rule 113, Sec. 9). Another test is whether the evidence which proves one would prove the other that is to say whether the facts alleged in the first charge if proven, would have been sufficient to support the second charge and vice versa; or whether one crime is an ingredient of the other[.]47

Applying this, We now examine the elements of the two crimes charged against accused-appellants.

The elements for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 require: (1) the possession by the accused of an item or object identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (2) that such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. On the other hand, Section 13 of the same law, requires the presence of the exact same elements with an addition of a fourth element: that the accused possessed the prohibited or dangerous drug during a social gathering or meeting, or in the company of at least two persons.48

Evidently, a charge for illegal possession in a social gathering absorbs one for illegal possession, as the former includes all the necessary elements in the latter. Petitioners correctly cited People v. Posada,49 which held that the sale of dangerous drugs absorbs the possession of it since all the elements of possession are inevitably integrated in its sale.

Since sale of dangerous drugs necessarily includes possession of the same, the accused-appellants should be convicted or possession. We have consistently ruled that possession of prohibited or dangerous drugs is absorbed in the sale thereof. Then Associate Justice Artemio Panganiban logically and clearly explained the rationale behind this ruling, to wit:

The prevailing doctrine is that possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale thereof, except where the seller is further apprehended in possession of another quantity of the prohibited drugs not covered by or included in the sale and which are probably intended for some future dealings or use by the seller.

Possession is a necessary element in a prosecution for illegal sale of prohibited drugs. It is indispensable that the prohibited drug subject or the sale be identified and presented in court. That the corpus delicti of illegal sale could not be established without a showing that the accused possessed, sold and delivered a prohibited drug clearly indicates that possession is an element of the former. The same rule is applicable in cases of delivery of prohibited drugs and giving them away to another[.]50 (Citation omitted)

Here, just like in Posada, the violation of illegal possession of dangerous drugs is necessarily included in illegal possession of dangerous drugs in a social gathering. Thus, the prosecution erred when it filed separate informations for both charges, arguing that each charge pertain to separate and distinct sachets—a charge for illegal drugs in a social gathering for the clear plastic sachet found on the table, and another charge for possession of illegal drugs for the clear plastic sachets found in the pockets accused-appellants. The justification that the sachets found in the persons of accused-appellants were probably intended for some future dealing is purely conjecture and cannot stand.

Accordingly, charging and convicting the accused-appellants under Section 11, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and Section 13, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs in a social gathering, put them in double jeopardy.

As it stands, the acquittal of accused-appellants is in order. However, it is necessary to discuss the remaining issues regarding the conduct of the warrantless arrests, search and seizure, and observance of the chain of custody rule by the authorities for the guidance of bar and bench."

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAMAL RANGAIG Y AMPUAN, SAAD MAKAIRING Y LONTO, AND MICHAEL JUGUILON Y SOLIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, 

G.R. No. 240447, April 28, 2021. 

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/apr2021/gr_240447_2021.html

Warrantless arrests

 "No less than the Constitution mandates that no arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. While jurisprudence and statute have created exceptions allowing warrantless arrests founded on probable cause, if a warrantless arrest is conducted outside of these exceptions, any evidence resulting therefrom will be deemed inadmissible in court. "

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JAMAL RANGAIG Y AMPUAN, SAAD MAKAIRING Y LONTO, AND MICHAEL JUGUILON Y SOLIS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS, 

G.R. No. 240447, April 28, 2021. 

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2021/apr2021/gr_240447_2021.html