People v. Dumalag

G.R. No. 180514               April 17, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 
vs.
DANTE L. DUMALAG, Accused-Appellant.

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Facts:

At around 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon of January 5, 2005, a female police informant from Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte went to the office of the Special Operations Group (now Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Team or PAID-SOT) located at Camp Juan, Laoag City and reported that a certain Dato Dumalag, a known drug personality of Brgy. 2, Pasuquin, Ilocos Norte was at Sexy Beach Resort owned by Bebot Ferrer selling shabu to customers.

Acting upon the report, PO3 Rousel Albano and PO2 Danny Valdez relayed the information to their team leader, Police Inspector Rolando Battulayan, who then organized a team composed of PO3 Albano, PO2 Valdez, SPO4 Salvatierra and PO2 Harold Nicolas to conduct a buy bust operation against the suspect. PO3 Albano was assigned to act as poseur buyer while the rest of the team will act as perimeter back up. Afterwards, the team proceeded to the target place located in Brgy. Estancia, Pasuquin at around 2:30 o’clock that same afternoon.

When they were already at the door, the asset called out the name of the suspect Dato and PO3 Albano knocked at the door. After the asset also knocked at the door, a male person peeped through and upon recognizing the police asset, Dato Dumalag told her, "Mano Alaenyo, sumrek kay pay lang ngarud" (How much will you get, come in then). As they were already inside the room, PO3 Albano told the suspect, "Balor dos ti alaenmi" (We will get worth two).

The suspect then went to the dresser located on the southern part of the room and west of the door and took one small plastic sachet and handed the same to PO3 Albano who immediately handed the two marked P100 bills. After the suspect had pocketed the money on his right front pocket, he told them, "Rumaman kay pay ngarud tig-P50.00 (Taste first, P50 worth for each of you). At that instance, PO3 Albano gave the pre-arranged signal to the members of the back up security that the sale was already consummated by pressing the button of his cellphone to retrieve and call the last dialed number which was the cell number of PO2 Valdez. After making the signal, PO3 Albano grabbed the right hand of the suspect and informed him of his authority.

Afterwards, they brought the suspect and the confiscated items to their headquarters in Laoag City where PO3 Albano marked the sachet of shabu bought from the suspect with his initials "RA". He also marked the other three sachets and the P50 bill in which he found the said sachets with the letter "R" on one side and the letters "DD" on the other side. He also prepared the confiscation receipt, which the accused signed, and the post operation report.

 On the other hand, PO2 Valdez marked the items that he confiscated with his initials "DUV". They then brought the confiscated items for laboratory examination together with a letter request.

Upon receipt of the specimens, the Forensic Chemical Officer found the contents thereof to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. The said Forensic Chemical Officer also found the urine sample of the accused positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

On November 16, 2005, the RTC promulgated its Decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the felonies charged.

In its Decision dated July 3, 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the RTC judgment of conviction.

Issue:

Whether the arresting police officers complied with the chain of custody rule.

Ruling:

The Court finds that the prosecution, in compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No, had duly established the chain of custody of the sachets of shabu seized from accused-appellant. 9165. As pertinently summarized by the Court of Appeals, the prosecution had proven each and every link of the chain of custody of the sachets of shabu from the time they were seized from accused-appellant, kept in police custody then transferred to the laboratory for examination, and up to their presentation in court. Accused-appellant’s insistence that the police officers broke the chain of custody rule when they failed to mark the seized items immediately upon their confiscation at the place where he was apprehended lacks legal basis.

It has already been settled that the failure of police officers to mark the items seized from an accused in illegal drugs cases immediately upon its confiscation at the place of arrest does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. 

In People v. Resurreccion, the Court explained that "marking" of the seized items "immediately after seizure and confiscation" may be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of an accused in illegal drugs cases. It was further emphasized that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as these would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.