S Upreme Court: .Tlbilippine
S Upreme Court: .Tlbilippine
···~·~
la.epulllit of tbe .tlbilippine~ I!!'!"', ;' . ·. ·. ·. ·.',
s;upreme Court -- IJ
~'
~'Ji:
'8
;fflanila
~··
THIRD DIVISION
VELASCO, JR., J,
Chairperson,
-versus- BERSAMIN,
LEONEN,
MARTIRES,
GESMUNDO, JJ.
MARTIRES, J.:
THE.FACTS
Lachica and Ramirez were charged before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 259, Parafiaque City (RTC), in Criminal Case No. 08-1386 for
violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act
(R.A) No. 9165. The Information dated 3 November 2008 reads~
1
Rollo, pp. 39-57.
2
Id. at 35-37.
Decision· 2 G.R. No. 225690
Records, p. 1.
4
Id. at 46-47; TSN, 4 March 2009.
Id. at 48-49.
6
Id. at 49-51.
Id. at 52-53.
Id. at 54~55.
9
Id. at 55-56.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 225690
The rest of the buy-bust team quickly arrived and arrested Linda and
her male companion. They identified themselves as PDEA agents and
apprised them of their constitutional rights. After the arrest, they all
proceeded to Barangay Pinyahan in Quezon City, where the physical
inventory and the taking of photographs of the seized items were done
before Barangay Kagawad Melinda Z. Gaffud (Gaffud). At the barangay
hall, the buy-bust team learned that Linda's last name was Lachica and that
her male companion was Ramirez.
Lachica and Ramirez were then brought to the PDEA along with the
seized drugs and the inventory documents. After IOI Magdurulang prepared
the request for laboratory examination, IOI Bautista brought the seized
drugs to the PDEA laboratory. The chemistry report shows that the two (2)
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets contained 3.9632 grams and 4.4596
grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 10
While inside the car, the PDEA operatives asked Lachica and Ramirez
about a certain "Bak/a" who was a known drug dealer in Parafiaque City.
Ramirez pleaded that they be set free because they did not know this person.
12
Nevertheless, they were brought to Quezon City and there detained.
xx xx
The CA Ruling
The CA affirmed in toto the trial court's decision. It held that the
failure of the PDEA operatives to mark the seized items at the place of arrest
would not impair the chain of custody as marking could be done at the
nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. Furthermore, the
CA said that the absence of the representatives from the media and the DOJ
would not automatically render the confiscated items inadmissible provided
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs are preserved.
OUR RULING
This would not be the first instance when the Court would reverse a
conviction for these reasons: (1) there was a patent disregard of the
procedure laid out in Section 21 ofR.A. No. 9165; (2) there were gaps in the
chain of custody over the seized drugs; and (3) the lack of a valid excuse for
noncompliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The presence of these
circumstances quantify as reasonable doubt involving the most important
element in drug - related cases-the existence of the dangerous drug itself.
Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(emphasis ours)
However, R.A. No. 9165 is silent on when and where marking should
be done. Marking is the first and most crucial step in the chain of custody
rule as it 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. This is when the
apprehending officer or poseur-buyer places his or her initials and signature
on the item/s seized.
In the instant case, IOI Bautista was in possession of the two (2) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachets from the time Ramirez handed him the
cigarette pack containing these until the time it was marked at the barangay
hall. During his cross-examination, IO 1 Bautista said:
xx xx
A: More or less one ( 1) hour or more than one ( 1) hour because it was
traffic, October 31 and November 1 [were] holiday[s].
From his testimony, we gather that IOI Bautista claims that it was not
safe that the marking, physical inventory, and photography be done at the
parking lot of SM Bicutan. Contrary to the position taken by the lower
courts, we cannot say that IOI Bautista's failure to mark the two (2) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet immediately after confiscation was
excusable. We take note of the fact that there were more than enough PDEA
agents at that moment to ensure that the area was secure for IOI Bautista to
mark the confiscated items. We do not think it would take more than five
(5) to ten (IO) minutes for IOI Bautista to do this.
Here, the time and distance from the scene of the arrest before the
drugs were marked are too substantial that we cannot but think that the
alleged evidence could have been tampered with.
Although we cannot help but note that the evidence for the defense is
far from strong, if the prosecution cannot establish Lachica and Ramirez's
guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the need for them to adduce evidence on their
behalf never arises. Therefore, however weak the defense evidence may be,
the prosecution's case still falls.
31 People v. Sanchez, supra note 24 at 243. See also Dissenting Opinion of J. Brion in People v. Agulay,
588 Phil. 247, 293-294 (2008).
32
Rollo, p. 56.
Decision IO G.R. No. 225690
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
CERTIFICATION
~:~
~ , '" .... < . . . I ,... ' ··. - _, J
r ~- . ~:111)
r!~ U ~·JlO