People v. Secreto

G.R. No. 198115               February 22, 2013

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, 
vs.
JOSE ALEX SECRETO y VILLANUEVA, Accused-Appellant.

PEREZ, J.:

Facts:

On 09 July 2003, a tipster gave information to the Office of the District Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Group (DAID-SOG) about the drug trade of accused-appellant at Libis Espina, Caloocan City. A team went to the area and validated the report. They saw accused-appellant sell Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu" to three (3) persons. Consequently, a buy-bust operation was planned and immediately implemented on the same day.

At around 8:30 P.M., the team proceeded to the target area dressed in civilian clothes. Upon their arrival, the team saw accused-appellant standing in a corner near a small alley. Together with the informant, [PO2 Lagmay], acting as poseur-buyer, approached accused appellant to buy shabu worth P100.00 and handed to the latter the marked money.

Accused-appellant then gave PO2 Lagmay a small sachet of shabu. At once, PO2 Lagmay introduced himself as a police officer and placed accused-appellant under arrest while apprising him of the Miranda rights. PO2 Lagmay then ordered Secreto to empty his pockets and recovered the marked money as well as another sachet of shabu.

PO2 Lagmay presented the recovered evidences to the team leader, SPO1 Edgar Pamor. At the DAID-SOG office, the seized items were surrendered to the investigatoron-duty, [PO1 Llanderal] who then instructed PO2 Lagmay to mark the sachet of shabu sold by accused-appelllant as "RLR-1," and "RLR-2" for the other sachet that was confiscated from him. PO1 Llanderal took the sworn statements of the buy-bust team and likewise prepared the requests for laboratory examination of the seized items and for a drug test on accused-appellant.

At the crime laboratory, [P/Insp. Calabocal] examined the two (2) recovered sachets weighing six tenths (0.06) and four tenths (0.04) grams, respectively. Both were found positive for shabu, a dangerous drug.

After trial, the court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both crimes.

The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the decision of the trial court. Hence, this appeal.

Issue:

Whether the chain of custody rule has been complied with by the arresting officer to warrant conviction of the appellant.

Ruling:

Obviously the steps outlined in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence of corpus delicti were not followed.

That being the case, it is necessary for the prosecution to show that inspite of the non-observance of the requirements in Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were nonetheless preserved. This was not done in this case.

The prosecution failed to show how SPO1 Pamor ensured the integrity of the seized items from the time it was entrusted to him at the place of confiscation until the team reached the police station until he eventually handed them over again to PO2 Lagmay for the marking of the sachets. Neither did the prosecution show to whom the confiscated articles were turned over and the manner they were preserved after the laboratory examination and until their final presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.

Clearly, these lapses raise doubt on the integrity and identity of the drugs presented as evidence in court.

Further, on the basis of the testimony of PO2 Lagmay, the confiscated items were not immediately marked at the scene of the crime. More significantly, although these items were allegedly marked in the police station, there was no showing that it was done in the presence of the accused-appellant or his chosen representative. In People v. Sanchez, the Court had the occasion to emphasize the necessity of marking the evidence in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation. It ratiocinated:

What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not expressly specify is the matter of "marking" of the seized items in warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items – to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence – should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft.

We cannot, therefore, hold that the guilt of the accused-appellant has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The constitutional right of the accused-appellant to be presumed innocent must prevail.