FACTS
Joseph Atanacio and Jon Magno were charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, arising from an alleged buy-bust operation conducted on September 20, 2020 in Iloilo City. Atanacio and Magno allegedly sold one sachet containing 2.0105 grams of shabu to Patrolman Van Anvie Mendez, who acted as poseur-buyer, for ₱17,200.00. Atanacio was additionally charged with possession of another sachet containing 7.1275 grams of shabu.
During trial, the prosecution presented the members of the buy-bust team, including Pat. Mendez, who testified regarding the transaction and arrest. The prosecution also presented the forensic chemist and the exhibit custodian. The defense, on the other hand, denied the buy-bust operation and claimed that the accused were arrested and the drugs were planted on them. A defense witness, Bryan Ferrer, testified that he saw Atanacio being taken by several men from near a vulcanizing shop.
The RTC convicted Atanacio and Magno. The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the prosecution had sufficiently established the buy-bust operation and compliance with the chain of custody rule. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing, among others, that the prosecution failed to comply with the mandatory requirements governing the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized drugs.
The Supreme Court reviewed the records and focused on whether the prosecution had established with moral certainty the identity and integrity of the drugs allegedly seized from the accused. In particular, the Court examined the timing and circumstances of the marking and inventory of the seized sachets.
ISSUE
The first issue was whether the prosecution sufficiently established the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs through an unbroken chain of custody.
The second issue was whether the failure to immediately mark the seized drugs at the place of confiscation constituted a substantial lapse in the chain of custody.
The third issue was whether the prosecution adequately established the preservation of the evidentiary value and integrity of the seized drugs despite the deviations from the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended.
HELD
The Supreme Court GRANTED the appeal and ACQUITTED Atanacio and Magno on the ground of reasonable doubt. It held that the prosecution failed to establish with moral certainty the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from the accused. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and RTC decisions.
The Court emphasized that in prosecutions for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself. The prosecution must therefore prove that the substance presented and identified in court is the same substance that was seized from the accused. This is accomplished through the chain of custody, which covers the documented movement and custody of the seized drugs from confiscation until their presentation in court.
The Court applied Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, because the alleged offenses occurred on September 20, 2020. Under the amended procedure, the seized drugs must be marked immediately upon confiscation and at the place of confiscation, in the presence of the accused unless the accused eluded arrest. The inventory and photographs must likewise be conducted immediately after seizure and in the presence of the required insulating witnesses.
The Court found that the marking of the drugs was not done immediately upon confiscation. Pat. Mendez testified that the drugs were marked only after the arrival of the insulating witnesses. The Court rejected the Court of Appeals' view that "immediate" had no definite significance in this context. The requirement that marking be done immediately and at the place of confiscation is intended to prevent switching, planting, tampering, or contamination of evidence.
The Court considered the delay particularly significant because the total quantity of drugs involved was only 9.138 grams, contained in two sachets. Citing its jurisprudence, the Court explained that small quantities of fungible substances are especially susceptible to tampering, substitution, or mistake, making strict compliance with the chain-of-custody requirements particularly important.
The Court also found significance in the fact that the seized drugs were kept in the pocket of the arresting officer before marking. It held that such bodily custody, combined with the failure to immediately mark the drugs, created a serious doubt regarding the precautionary measures taken to preserve their identity and integrity. The delay also created the possibility that the drug allegedly sold in the buy-bust transaction could have been switched with the drug allegedly recovered from Atanacio for illegal possession.
The Court stressed that although a perfect chain of custody is not required, any deviation from the statutory procedure must be justified by the prosecution. The prosecution must positively acknowledge the deviation, establish a justifiable ground for non-compliance, and demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were nevertheless preserved. Here, the prosecution failed to adequately account for the lapse in the immediate marking requirement.
Consequently, the lapses and significant gaps in the chain of custody created reasonable doubt as to the integrity of the corpus delicti. Since the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the drugs presented in court were the same drugs allegedly seized from Atanacio and Magno, the Supreme Court acquitted both accused and ordered their immediate release, unless they were being held for another lawful cause.
No comments:
Post a Comment