03 GR 206590
03 GR 206590
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
In criminal prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of shabu, primordial importance
must be given to "the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused." 1
This is an appeal from the June 23, 2011 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
2
CR-HC No. 00744 that aft1rmed in toto the April 12, 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial
3
Court (RTC) of Guiuan, Eastern Samar, Branch 3, in Criminal Case Nos. 2079 and 2078,
finding Myrna Gayoso y Arguelles (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating
Sections 5 (illegal sale of a dangerous drug) and 11 (illegal possession of a dangerous
drug), Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, respectively, and imposing upon her the
penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00 for selling shabu, and the
indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as maximum, for possessing 0.53gram of shabu.
Factual Antecedents
The Information in Criminal Case No. 2078 contained the following accusatory allegations
against appellant:
That on or about the 24th day of March, 2004, at about 5:30 o'clock in the morning at Jetty,
Brgy. Hollywood, Guian, Eastern Samar, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the abovementioned accused who acted without the necessary pennit from proper
authorities whatsoever, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and folonioμsly hi:i.ve in her
possession, control and custody eleven (11) x x x sachets (containing] Methamphdamme
Hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu" weighing 0.53 [gram], a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 4
The Information in Criminal Case No. 2079 charged appellant in the following manner:
That on or about the 24th day of March, 2004, at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning at Jetty,
Brgy. Hollywood, Guian, Eastern Samar, Philippines, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, who acted without the necessary permit or authority
whatsoever, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell, deliver and dispense
one (1) pc. small heat sealed sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known
as "shabu" weighing 0.06 [gram], a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 5
During arraignment, appellant entered a plea of ''not guilty" in both cases. Joint trial then
ensued.
Based on the testimonies of SP03 Victorino de Dios (SP03 De Dios), SP03 Rolando G.
Salamida (SP03 Sa1amida), P02 Rex Isip (P02 Isip), SP04 Josefina Bandoy (SP04
Bandoy), P/Insp. Eleazar Barber, Jr. (PI Barber), PS/Insp. Benjamin Cruto (PSI Cruto ), and
the documentary exhibits, the following facts emerged:
PI Barber of the PNP Guiuan Police Station directed SP03 De Dios to conduct a
6
surveillance on appellant after receiving several reports that she was peddling prohibited
drugs. Three weeks later, SP03 De Dios confirmed that appellant was indeed engaged in
illegal drug activities. PI Barber filed for and was issued a search warrant. However, prior to
implementing the search warrant, PI Barber decided to conduct a "confirmatory test-buy"
designating SP03 De Dios as poseur-buyer and giving him ₱200.00 marked money for the
operation.
On March 24, 2004, SP03 De Dios and a civilian asset proceeded to the house of appellant
and asked her if they could buy shabu. The sale was consummated when appellant took
the marked money from SP03 De Dios after giving him a sachet of shabu. SP03 De Dios
immediately informed PI Barber by text message about the successful "confirmatory test-
buy". PI Barber and his team of police officers who were positioned 100 meters away
n1shed towards the house of appellant. He also instructed SP03 De Dios and the civilian
asset to summon the Barangay Chairman to witness the search of the house. When he
arrived together with a ko,gawad and a media representative, SP03 Salamida read the
search warrant to appellant.
During the search of the house, SP04 Bandoy found a tin foil under the mattress. SP03 De
Dios took it from SP04 Bandoy and gave it to SP03 Salamida who found seven sachets
of shabu inside, in addition to the four sachets of shabu found inside the right pocket of the
short pants of appellant. The search of the house also revealed several drug paraphernalia.
An inventory of seized items was prepared and the same was signed by
the Barangay Chairman, P02 Isip, SP04 Bandoy, and appellant. The sachets
of shabu were brought to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) then to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for qualitative examination. The results of the examination verified that the
seized sachets contained shabu.
Version of Appellant
Appellant denied the charges against her. She claimed that on March 24, 2004, somebody
forcibly kicked the front door of her house and tried to break it open. When she opened the
door, PI Barber pushed her aside and told his companions to move quickly. They went
directly to her room; when P02 Isip emerged therefrom seconds later, he was holding a
substance that looked like tawas. SP03 De Dios and SP03 Salamida went in and out of her
house. She maintained that the search warrant was shown to her only after an hour and
that the sachets of shabu were planted. She argued that the police officers fabricated the
charges against her since her family had a quarrel with a police officer named Riza1ina
Cuantero regarding the fence separating their houses.
The RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal
possession of shabu. It declared that the prosecution ably established the elements of
illegal sale and possession of shabu through the testimonies of its witnesses who arrested
appellant after selling a sachet of the illegal drug in a "test-buy operation" and for
possessing 11 sachets of the same drug in her house after enforcing a search watrant
immediately thereafter. Appellant had no evidence that she had license or authority to
possess the shabu.
The RTC ruled that the evidence sufficiently established the chain of custody of the sachets
of shabu from the time they were bought from appellant and/or seized from her house, to its
turn over to the PDEA and submission to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The
RTC rejected appellant's defense of denial and frame-up in view of her positive
identification by eyewitnesses as the criminal offender.
The RTC therefore sentenced appellant to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
₱500,000.00 for the illegal sale of shabu. It also sentenced appellant to suffer the
indeterminate prison term of eight (8) years and one (1) day, as minimum to fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as maximum and a fine of ₱300,000 for illegal
possession of shabu.
From this judgment, appellant appealed to the CA. In her Brief, she assailed the validity of
7
the search warrant claiming that it was not issued by the RTC upon determination of
probable cause. She argued that the "'confirmatory test-buy" conducted by the poseur buyer
and the confidential asset was not valid since they forced her to engage in a drug sale. She
maintained that the shabu presented during trial was inadmissible in evidence due to
several gaps in its chain of custody.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed its Brief for the Appellee praying for the
8
affirmance of the appealed Decision. It argued that the evidence on which the RTC based
its determination of probable cause was sufficient for the issuance of the search warrant. It
asserted that the "test-buy operation" was an entrapment and not an inducement. The OSG
maintained that the shabu confiscated from appellant was admissible in evidence since the
prosecution established the proper chain of custody.
The CA noted that the examination by the trial judge established probable cause in issuing
the search warrant, The deposition of P03 Salamida shows that he had personal knowledge
of appellant's drug activities, and the same served as basis for the finding of probable cause
for the purpose of issuing a search warrant.
The CA was not swayed by appellant's contention that the "test-buy operation" amounted to
instigation since it is settled jurisprudence that a "decoy solicitation" is not tantamount to
inducement or instigation. The CA was also unconvinced by appellant's claim that the proof
against her was inadmissible since the prosecution failed to show strict compliance with
Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules on the custody and disposition of the
evidence.
Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. On July 15, 2013, the Court notified the parties to file
9 10
their supplemental briefs. However, appellant opted not to file a supplemental brief since
she had extensively argued her cause in her appellants' brief. For its part, the OSG
11
manifested that it would not file a supplemental brief since its appellee's brief filed in the CA
had already discussed and refuted the arguments raised by appellant. 12
Our Ruling
Appellant contends that there was no probable cause for the issuance of the search
warrant. She claims that PI Barber had no personal knowledge of her alleged drug dealings.
Probable cause for a valid search warrant is defined "as such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed, and that objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place
sought to be searched." The probable cause must be "determined personally by the judge,
13
after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to
be seized." Probable cause does not mean actual and positive cause, nor does it import
14
absolute certainty. The determination of the existence of probable cause is concerned only
with the question of whether the affiant has reasonable wounds to believe that the accused
committed or is committing the crime charged. 15
Here, the records reveal that the trial court issued the search warrar1t after deposing two
witnesses, namely PI Barber and SP03 Salamida. In particular, the disposition of SP03
Salamida shows that he had personal knowledge of appellant's drug pushing activities
which served as basis for the finding of probable cause for the issuance of the search
warrant. Thus, whether or not PI Barber had personal knowledge of the illegal drug activities
committed by appellant will not adversely affect the findings of probable cause for the
purpose of issuance of search warrant.
Appellant argues that the "confirmatory test-buy" by the police officers was not valid since
she was induced by the' designated poseur buyer, SP03 De Dios, and the confidential
informant to sell the seized shabu.
In inducement or instigation - the criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigator and
the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him.
The instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense
and himself becomes a co-principal. ['This is distinguished from entrapment wherein] ways
and means are resorted to for the purpose of capturing the lawbreaker inflagrante delicto. 16
The "test-buy" operation conducted by the police officers is not prohibited by law. It does not
amount to instigation. As in this case, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the poseur
buyer merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The police received an
17
Appellant impugns the prosecution's failure to establish the charges of illegal sale and
possession of shabu against her due to the gaps in the chain of custody and the assailable
integrity of the evidence in view of non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
The offense of illegal sale of shabu has the following elements: "(1) the identities of the
buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor." On the other hand, the offense of illegal possession
18
for illegal sale and possession of shabu, there must be proof that these offenses were
actually committed, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. 20
In both illegal sale and illegal possession of [ shabu,] conviction cannot be sustained if there
is a persistent doubt on the identity of said drug. The identity of the [shabu] must be
established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or
sale are present, the fact that the [shabu] illegally possessed and sold x xx is the
same [shabu] offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree
of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.21
"The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 22
Chain of custody is defined as "duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment
of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to
safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction." In People v. Havana, the Court
23 24
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in
evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and
from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness'
possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was
delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions
taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
While the testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost
always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and
essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or
when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to
observe its uniqueness. The same standard obtains in case the evidence is susceptible of
alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words,
the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering -without regard to
whether the same is advertent or otherwise not - dictates the level of strictness in the
application of the chain of custody rule.
Thus, as a general rule, four links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item must be
established:
first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused
by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the
court.
25
Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and
signature on the items after they have been seized. It is the starting point in the custodial
link. It is vital that the seized items be marked immediately since the succeeding handlers
thereof will use the markings as reference. The chain of custody rule also requires that the
26
marking of the seized contraband be done "(l) in the presence of the apprehended violator,
and (2) immediately upon confiscation." 27
In this case, the records do not show that the arresting officers marked the seized items
with their initials in the presence of appellant and immediately upon confiscation. While P02
Isip testified that the seized sachets of shabu were marked in the police station, no
28
evidence was presented to show that the marking was accomplished in the presence of
appellant. Moreover, the author of the markings on said items was never identified. None of
the police officers admitted placing the markings. There was therefore a complete absence
of evidence to prove authorship of the markings.
While marking of the evidence is allowed in the nearest police station, this contemplates a
case of warrantless searches and seizures. Here, the police officers secured a search
29
warrant prior to their operation. They therefore had sufficient time and opportunity to
prepare for its implementation. However, the police officers failed to mark immediately the
plastic sachets of shabu seized inside appellant's house in spite of an Inventory of Property
Seized that they prepared while still inside the said house. The failure of the arresting
officers to comply with the marking of evidence immediately after confiscation constitutes
the first gap in the chain of custody.
The turnover of the seized shabu from the arresting officers to the investigating officer in the
police station constitutes the second link in the chain of custody. In this regard, the Court
1âwphi1
takes note that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the person to
whom the seized items were turned over at the police station. While SP03 Salamida was
identified as the property custodian of the police station, this does not necessarily mean that
he is also the investigating officer. There is nothing in the records to substantiate this
presumption. This total want of evidence gains importance considering that none of the
arresting officers presented as witnesses identified the shabu presented during trial as the
same shabu seized from appellant. Thus, the second link in the chain of custody is missing.
The transfer of the seized shabu from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist in the
crime laboratory is the third link in the chain of custody. While the seized shabu was turned
over by PI Barber to the PDEA, he no longer had any personal knowledge of the manner it
was handled therein. He also did not identify the police officer in whose custody the seized
sachets of shabu were placed at the PDEA. He left it to the responsibility of the PDEA to
forward the seized shabu to the crime laboratory. The request for laboratory examination of
the PDEA identifies the police officer who delivered the seized shabu as a certain SPO1
Asis, but he was not presented to testify that the shabu delivered to the crime laboratory
was the same shabu confiscated from appellant. There is a third break in the chain of
custody.
Nothing also can be gained from the testimony of the forensic chemist PSI Cruto. His
testimony is not clear and positive since he failed to assert that the alleged packs of
chemical substance presented for laboratory examination and tested positive
for shabu were the very same substance allegedly recovered from appellant. His testimony
was limited to the result of the examination he conducted and not on the source of the
substance.
From the foregoing, it appears that no chain of custody was established at all. What we
have here are individual links with breaks in-between which could not be seamlessly woven
or tied together. The so-called links in the chain of custody show that the seized shabu was
not handled properly starting from the actual seizure, to its turnover in the police station and
the PDEA, as well as its transfer to the crime laboratory for examination. The Court
therefore cannot conclude with moral certainty that the shabu confiscated from appellant
was the same as that presented for laboratory examination and then presented in court.
It is indeed desirable that the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken. In reality
however, this rarely occurs. The legal standard that must therefore be observed "is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be
used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused." Here, the Court finds that the
30
apprehending officers failed to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the
confiscated shabu. There are just too many breaks and gaps to the effect that a chain of
custody could not be established at all. Failure of the prosecution to offer testimony to
establish a substantially complete chain of custody of the shabu and the inappropriate
manner of handling the evidence prior to its offer in court diminishes the government's
chance of successfully prosecuting a drug case. 31
Aside from the failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody, another
procedural lapse casts farther uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the
subject shabu. This refers to the non-compliance by the arresting officers with the most
basic procedural safeguards relative to the custody and disposition of the seized item under
Section 21(1), Article II of RA 9165, which reads as follows:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drug shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the
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.
Corollarily, Section 2l(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations provides as follows:
Section 2l(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drug
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the
media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and a public official who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in
case of warrantless seizures; Provided, farther, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render
void and invalid such seizure of and custody over said items.
In this case, the apprehending team never conducted a physical inventory of the seized
items at the place where the search warrant was served in the presence of a representative
of the Department of Justice, nor did it photograph the same in the presence of appellant
after their initial custody and control of said drug, and after immediately seizing and
confiscating the same. Neither was an explanation offered for such failure. While this
directive of rigid compliance has been tempered in certain cases, "such liberality, as stated
in the Implementing Rules and Regulations can be applied only when the evidentiary value
and integrity of the illegal drug are properly preserved." Such an exception does not obtain
32
in this case. "Serious uncertainty is generated on the identity of the [shabu] in view of the
broken linkages in the chain of custody. [Thus,] the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty accorded to the [apprehending officers] by the courts below
cannot arise."33
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to the Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
Footnotes
1
People v. Mendoza, 683 Phil. 339, 350 (2012).
Records (Criminal Case No. 2078), pp. 129-145; penned by Presiding Judge
3
Rolando M. Lacdo-o.
4
Id. at 1.
5
Records (Criminal Case No. 2079), p. 1.
6
Philippine National Police.
7
CA rollo, pp. 53-75.
8
Id. at 37-50.
9
Id. at 129.
10
Rollo, p. 18.
11
Id. at 41-42.
12
Id. at 21-24.
13
Dr. Prudente v, Executive Judge Dayrit, 259 Phil. 541, 549 (1989),
14
Id.
15
Columbia Pictures v. Court of Appeals, 329 Phil. 875, 919 (1996),
16
Peoplev. Gatong-o, 250 Phil. 710, 711 (1988).
17
People v. Sta. Maria, 545 Phil. 520, 528-529 (2007).
18
People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 402 (2010).
19
Id. at 403.
20
Id.
21
Id.
22
People v. Havana, G.R. No. 198450, January 11, 2016, 778 SCRA 524, 534.
23
Id.
24
Id. at 534-535.
25
People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 144-145 (2010).
26
People v. Alejandro, 671 Phil. 33, 46 (20 l1).
27
Id. at 47.
28
TSN, July 12, 2005, pp. 107-108.
29
People v. Alcuizar, 662 Phil. 794, 802 (201l).
30
People v. Mendoza, supra note 1.
31
People v. Havana, supra note 22 at 537.
32
Id. at 538-539.
33
Id. at 539.
DIGEST:
DEL CASTILLO, J.
FACTS:
Based on the testimonies of SPO3 Victorino de Dios, SPO3 Rolando G. Salamida, PO2
Rex Isip, SPO4 Josefina Bandoy, P/Insp. Eleazar Barber, Jr., PS/Insp. Benjamin Cruto, and the
documentary exhibits, the following facts emerged: PI Barber of the PNP Guiuan Police Station
directed SPO3 De Dios to conduct a surveillance on appellant after receiving several reports that
she was peddling prohibited drugs. Three weeks later, SPO3 De Dios confirmed that appellant
was indeed engaged in illegal drug activities. PI Barber filed for and was issued a search warrant.
However, prior to implementing the search warrant, PI Barber decided to conduct a
"confirmatory test-buy" designating SPO3 De Dios as poseur-buyer and giving him P200.00
marked money for the operation.
Appellant denied the charges against her. She claimed that on March 24, 2004, somebody
forcibly kicked the front door of her house and tried to break it open. When she opened the door,
PI Barber pushed her aside and told his companions to move quickly. They went directly to her
room; when PO2 Isip emerged therefrom seconds later, he was holding a substance that looked
like tawas. SPO3 De Dios and SPO3 Salamida went in and out of her house. She maintained that
the search warrant was shown to her only after an hour and that the sachets of shabu were
planted. She argued that the police officers fabricated the charges against her since her family
had a quarrel with a police officer named Rizalina Cuantero regarding the fence separating their
houses.
The RTC, in finding the appellant guilty, ruled that the evidence sufficiently established
the chain of custody of the sachets of shabu from the time they were bought from appellant
and/or seized from her house, to its turnover to the PDEA and submission to the PNP Crime
Laboratory for examination. The RTC rejected appellant's defense of denial and frame-up in
view of her positive identification by eyewitnesses as the criminal offender. The CA affirmed in
toto the RTC ruling finding appellant guilty of unauthorized sale and possession of shabu. The
CA was not swayed by appellant's contention that the "test-buy operation" amounted to
instigation since it is settled jurisprudence that a ''decoy solicitation" is not tantamount to
inducement or instigation.
ISSUE:
RULING:
1. In inducement or instigation — the criminal intent originates in the mind of the instigator
and the accused is lured into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him.
The instigator practically induces the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and
himself becomes a co-principal. This is distinguished from entrapment wherein ways and means
are resorted to for the purpose of capturing the lawbreaker in flagrante delicto.
The "test-buy" operation conducted by the police officers is not prohibited by law. It does
not amount to instigation. As in this case, the solicitation of drugs from appellant by the poseur
buyer merely furnishes evidence of a course of conduct. The police received an intelligence
report that appellant habitually deals with shabu. They designated a poseur buyer to confirm the
report by engaging in a drug transaction with appellant. There was no proof that the poseur buyer
induced appellant to sell illegal drugs to him.
2. No. From the foregoing, it appears that no chain of custody was established at all. What
we have here are individual links with breaks in-between which could not be seamlessly woven
or tied together. The so-called links in the chain of custody show that the seized shabu was not
handled properly starting from the actual seizure, to its turnover in the police station and the
PDEA, as well as its transfer to the crime laboratory for examination. The Court therefore cannot
conclude with moral certainty that the shabu confiscated from appellant was the same as that
presented tor laboratory examination and then presented in court.
Aside from the failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody, another
procedural lapse casts further uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the subject shabu. This
refers to the non-compliance by the arresting officers with the most basic procedural safeguards
relative to the custody and disposition of the seized item under Section 21(1), Article II of RA
9165.
In this case, the apprehending team never conducted a physical inventory of the seized
items at the place where the search warrant was served in the presence of a representative of the
Department of Justice, nor did it photograph the same in the presence of appellant after their
initial custody and control of said drug, and after immediately seizing and confiscating the same.
Neither was an explanation offered for such failure.