People v. Abetong

G.R. No. 209785               June 4, 2014

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 
vs.
MARLON ABETONG y ENDRADO, Accused-Appellant.

Facts:

That on or about the 22nd day of August 2003, the Accused-Appellant, in the City of Bacolod, sell, deliver, give away to a police poseur buyer in a buy-bust operation one ( 1) heat-sealed transparent plastic packet containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu weighing 0.02 gram(s) more or less, in exchange for a price of P100.00 in mark money, consisting of two (2) P50.00 bill, in violation of R.A. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act).

Issue:

Whether the chain of custody rule in the handling of evidence, under Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165, was satisfactorily complied with by the arresting police officers.

Ruling:

The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the drug evidence.

The arresting officers unduly deviated from legal procedure.

It is beyond dispute that the date and time of confiscation do not appear on the markings of the seized items. It cannot also be denied that no photograph was taken of the recovered items for documentation purposes. It is admitted that no representative from the media, from the Department of Justice, or any elective official was present to serve as witness in recording the arrest. The prosecution’s testimonial evidence is likewise bereft of any allegation of efforts undertaken by the law enforcers to contact these representatives. Nevertheless, an accused can still be convicted in spite of these circumstances provided that a justifiable ground for excusing noncompliance with the requirements under Sec. 21 of RA 9165 has satisfactorily been established by the prosecution as required by jurisprudence and the law’s implementing rules.

Such justifiable ground is wanting in this case. No explanation whatsoever was offered by PO3 Perez in his testimony justifying noncompliance. Without this justification, it was improper for the court a quo to affirm accused-appellant’s conviction. To sustain the RTC and the CA’s findings would render the legal requirements under Sec. 21 of RA 9165 inutile and would effectively diminish the safeguards offered by the law in favor of the accused.