FACTS
Alex Besenio was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 after police officers implemented a search warrant at his house in Baao, Camarines Sur. During the search, the police found a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a substance later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The sachet was immediately marked by PO2 Andrew Alcomendas with the initials “AJA.”
The police conducted an inventory at the place of seizure in the presence of Besenio and two barangay officials. A second inventory was later conducted at the Baao Police Station, where a media representative and an elected public official were present. However, no Department of Justice (DOJ) representative was present during either inventory. The police officer explained that it was too early in the morning to secure a DOJ representative.
The seized sachet was subsequently submitted to the crime laboratory. It was received by the receiving clerk and then turned over to Police Inspector Richard Severo, the forensic chemist, who conducted a qualitative examination and confirmed that the substance was shabu. The RTC convicted Besenio, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
During trial, however, Besenio's counsel judicially admitted that the specimen found in Besenio's house was the same specimen submitted to the crime laboratory. The RTC considered this an admission concerning the identity of the seized specimen. Besenio nevertheless challenged his conviction before the Supreme Court, particularly the prosecution's compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
ISSUE
Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, despite the absence of the required DOJ representative during the inventory and the deficiencies in the testimony concerning the handling of the drug after its laboratory examination.
HELD
The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition and ACQUITTED Besenio. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drug.
The Court reiterated that there are four critical links in the chain of custody: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drugs by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission by the forensic chemist of the marked drugs to the court.
The Court found that the police officers failed to comply with the requirements for the first link. Since the seizure occurred on August 24, 2006, the original version of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 applied. It required the presence of three insulating witnesses during the inventory and photographing: an elected public official, a DOJ representative, and a media representative. Only two elected public officials were present during the inventory at the place of seizure, while the subsequent inventory at the police station was witnessed only by a media representative and an elected public official.
The Court held that the explanation that it was 5:00 a.m. and therefore too early to secure a DOJ representative was insufficient. The search warrant was issued after prior surveillance and a test-buy operation, meaning that the police had the opportunity to plan and prepare for the search. The prosecution therefore failed to establish a justifiable ground for the absence of the required DOJ representative.
However, the Court recognized the judicial admission made by Besenio's counsel that the specimen found in the house was the same specimen submitted to the crime laboratory. A judicial admission is binding upon the party making it and dispenses with the need for proof of the admitted fact. The Court held that this admission effectively established the identity and integrity of the drug from the first link up to the third link.
The judicial admission, however, did not excuse the prosecution from proving the fourth link. The forensic chemist must testify regarding the handling and analysis of the drug, including when and from whom it was received, its identifying markings, its condition and container, the method of analysis, whether it was resealed after examination, the precautions taken to preserve its integrity, and how it was stored and handled until its presentation in court.
The forensic chemist, Police Inspector Severo, testified regarding his receipt of the specimen, its identification and marking, and the qualitative tests conducted. However, he failed to testify as to whether he resealed the specimen after examination, how it was handled and stored before, during, and after the examination, and what precautionary measures were taken to preserve its integrity and evidentiary value before its submission to the RTC.
Thus, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody. Because the prosecution failed to establish with moral certainty the identity and unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drug, reasonable doubt existed as to the corpus delicti. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted Besenio.
No comments:
Post a Comment