Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PEOPLE vs. Ramil Doria Dahil Jan. 12, 2015
PEOPLE vs. Ramil Doria Dahil Jan. 12, 2015
DECISION
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the September 27, 2013 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
05707, which affirmed the July 17, 2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles
City (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. DC 02-376, DC 02-377 and DC 02-378, finding accused Ramil Doria
Dahil (Dahil) and Rommel Castro (Castro) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11 of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
On October 1, 2002, Dahil and Castro were charged in three (3) separate Informations before the RTC. In
Criminal Case No. DC 02-376, Dahil and Castro were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 for the sale of 26.8098 grams of marijuana in the Information which reads: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
That on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating and mutually
helping one another, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or deliver to a poseur
buyer six (6) tea bags of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing TWENTY SIX GRAMS AND EIGHT
THOUSAND NINETY EIGHT TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (26.8098), which is a dangerous drug, without
authority whatsoever.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
In Criminal Case No. DC 02-377, Dahil was charged with possession of 20.6642 grams of marijuana in
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in the Information which reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
That on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession and custody and control Five (5) tea bags of dried marijuana fruiting tops
weighing TWENTY GRAMS AND SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY TWO TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM
(20.6642), which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
In Criminal Case No. DC 02-378, Castro was charged with possession of 130.8286 grams of marijuana in
violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in the Information which reads:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
That on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in his possession and custody and control One (1) brick in form wrapped in masking tape of
dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing ONE HUNDRED THIRTY GRAMS and EIGHT THOUSAND TWO
HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (130.8286), which is a dangerous drug, without
authority whatsoever.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
On November 14, 2002, Castro was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Dahil, on the other hand, filed a
motion for reinvestigation and his arraignment was deferred. Trial ensued and the prosecution presented
PO2 Arieltino Corpuz (PO2 Corpuz) and SPO1 Eliseo Licu (SPO1 Licu), as witnesses.
On August 6, 2009, the RTC discovered that Dahil was never arraigned through inadvertence.6 The RTC
informed the parties of the situation and the defense counsel did not interpose any objection to the
reopening of the case and the arraignment of Dahil. The latter was then arraigned and he pleaded not guilty.
Thereafter, the public prosecutor manifested that he was adopting all the evidence already adduced.
Evidence of the prosecution tended to show that, for a couple of weeks, the agents of the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Region 3, conducted surveillance and casing operations relative to the
information they received that a certain alias “Buddy” and alias “Mel” were trafficking dried marijuana in TB
Pavilion, Marisol Subdivision, Barangay Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City. On September 29, 2002, the Chief of
PDEA formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. The team was composed of four (4) police officers,
namely, Sergeant Juanito dela Cruz (Sergeant dela Cruz), as team leader; and PO2 Corpuz, SPO1 Licu and
PO2 Javiar, as members. PO2 Corpuz was designated as the poseur-buyer while SPO1 Licu was assigned as
his back-up.
The team proceeded to the target place at around 8:00 o’clock in the evening. Upon arriving, PO2 Corpuz
together with the informant went to the house of Dahil which was within the TB Pavillon compound. When
PO2 Corpuz and the informant were in front of the house, they met Dahil and Castro. The informant then
introduced PO2 Corpuz as the buyer of marijuana. Dahil asked PO2 Corpuz how much would he be buying
and the latter answered that he would buy P200.00 worth of marijuana. At this juncture, Dahil took out from
his pocket six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana and handed them to PO2 Corpuz. After checking the items,
PO2 Corpuz handed two (2) P100.00 marked bills to Castro.
Immediately thereafter, PO2 Cruz took off his cap to signal that the sale had been consummated. The rest
of the buy-bust team then rushed to their location and arrested Castro and Dahil. PO2 Corpuz frisked Dahil
and recovered from his possession another five (5) plastic sachets containing marijuana while SPO1 Licu
searched the person of Castro and confiscated from him one (1) brick of suspected marijuana.
Both Castro and Dahil, together with the confiscated drugs, were then brought by the buy-bust team to the
PDEA office. There, the seized items were marked by PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu. First, the six (6) plastic
sachets of marijuana which were sold by Dahil to PO2 Corpuz were marked with “A-1” to “A-6” and with
letters “RDRC,” “ADGC” and “EML.” Second, the five (5) plastic sachets recovered from Dahil were marked
with “B-1” to “B-5” and with letters “RDRC,” “ADGC” and “EML.” Finally, the marijuana brick confiscated
from Castro was marked “C-RDRC.” Sergeant dela Cruz then prepared the request for laboratory
examination, affidavits of arrest and other pertinent documents. An inventory of the seized items7 was also
prepared which was signed by Kagawad Pamintuan. Thereafter, PO2 Corpuz brought the confiscated drugs
to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination, which subsequently yielded
positive results for marijuana.
The prosecution and defense entered into stipulation as to the essential contents of the prospective
testimony of the forensic chemist, to wit:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
2. That said letter request for laboratory examination was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp
Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga;
4. That said forensic chemist conducted an examination on the substance subject of the letter request
with qualification that said request was not subscribed or under oath and that the forensic chemist
has no personal knowledge as from whom and where said substance was taken;
5. That the result of the laboratory examination is embodied in Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002;
and
The prosecution was ordered to formally offer its evidence on March 7, 2007.9 After much delay, the public
prosecutor was finally able to orally submit his formal offer of exhibits after almost two years,or on January
6, 2009.10 He offered the following documentary evidence: (1) Joint Affidavit of Arrest, (2) Custodial
Investigation Report, (3) Photocopy of the marked money, (4) Brown envelope containing the subject illegal
drugs, (5) Inventory of Property Seized, (6) Laboratory Examination Request, and (7) Chemistry Report No.
D-0518-2002.
In his defense, Dahil claimed that on September 29, 2002, a tricycle driver came looking for him after he
had arrived home. He saw the tricycle driver with another man already waiting for him. He was then asked
by the unknown man whether he knew a certain Buddy in their place. He answered that there were many
persons named Buddy. Suddenly, persons alighted from the vehicles parked in front of his house and
dragged him into one of the vehicles. He was brought to Clark Air Base and was charged with illegal selling
and possession of marijuana.
For his part, Castro testified that on September 29, 2002, he was on 4th Street of Marisol, Barangay Ninoy
Aquino, Angeles City, watching a game of chess when he was approached by some men who asked if he
knew a certain Boy residing at Hardian Extension. He then replied that he did not know the said person and
then the men ordered him to board a vehicle and brought him to Clark Air Base where he was charged with
illegal possession of marijuana.
RTC Ruling
In its Decision,11 dated July 17, 2012, the RTC found both accused liable for violating Sections 5 and 11 of
R.A. No. 9165, and imposed upon them the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 each for
the crime of illegal sale of marijuana; Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Fourteen (14)
Years of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, and a fine of P300,000.00 each for the crime of illegal
possession of marijuana.
The RTC was convinced that the prosecution was able to prove the case of selling and possession of illegal
drugs against the accused. All the elements of the crimes were established. To the trial court, the evidence
proved that PO2 Corpuz bought marijuana from Dahil. The latter examined the marijuana purchased and
then handed the marked money to Castro.
The marked money was lost in the custody of the police officers, but the RTC ruled that the same was not
fatal considering that a photocopy of the marked money was presented and identified by the arresting
officers.12 It did not give credence to the defense of frame-up by Dahil and Castro explaining that it could
easily be concocted with no supporting proof.
CA Ruling
The accused then appealed to the CA. In their Brief for the Accused-Appellants,13 they argued that there
were irregularities on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal items seized from
them. The prosecution witnesses exhibited gross disregard of the procedural safeguards which generated
clouds of doubts as to the identity of the seized items presented in evidence. 14 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In its Brief for the Appellee,15 the OSG contended that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of
the crime of illegal sale and possession of marijuana. As to the chain of custody procedure, it insists that the
prosecution witnesses were able to account for the series of events that transpired, from the time the buy-
bust operation was conducted until the time the items were presented in court.
The CA denied the appeal in its Decision, dated September 27, 2013. In its view, the prosecution was able
to establish that the illegal sale of marijuana actually took place. As could be gleaned from the testimony of
PO2 Corpuz, there was an actual exchange as Dahil took out from his pocket six (6) sachets containing
marijuana, while PO2 Corpuz handled out the two (2) P100.00 marked bills, after they agreed to transact
P200.00 worth of the illegal drug.16 The charge of illegal possession of marijuana, was also thus established
by the prosecution.17 Another five (5) plastic sachets of marijuana were recovered from Dahil’s possession
while one (1) brick of marijuana from Castro’s possession.18 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
It was likewise proven that the illicit drugs confiscated from the accused during the buy-bust operation were
the same drugs presented before the RTC. As testified to by PO2 Corpuz, the six (6) plastic sachets of
marijuana, which were sold by Dahil to PO2 Corpuz were marked “A-1” to “A-6” and with letters “RDRC,”
“ADGC” and “EML,” the five (5) plastic sachets recovered in the possession of Dahil were marked “B-1” to
“B-5” and with the initials “ADGC” and “EML,” while the marijuana brick confiscated from Castro was marked
“C-RDRC.”19 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
It was also held that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody. PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu
testified that the said drugs were marked at the police station. An inventory of the seized items was made
as shown by the Inventory Report of Property Seized, duly signed by Kagawad Pamintuan. The Request for
Laboratory Examination revealed that the confiscated drugs were the same items submitted to the PNP
crime laboratory for examination. On the other hand, Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002 showed that the
specimen gave positive results to the test of marijuana. The accused failed to show that the confiscated
marijuana items were tampered with, or switched, before they were delivered to the crime laboratory for
examination.20 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
This appeal involves the sole issue of whether or not the law enforcement officers substantially complied
with the chain of custody procedure required by R.A. No. 9165. cralawred
Let it be underscored that appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review and it is the duty
of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are
assigned or unassigned.21 Considering that what is at stake here is no less than the liberty of the accused,
this Court has meticulously and thoroughly reviewed and examined the records of the case and finds that
there is merit in the appeal. The Court holds that that there was no unbroken chain of custody and that the
prosecution failed to establish the very corpus delicti of the crime charged.
A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been proven to be an
effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-
bust operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is
susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion.22 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not indispensable in every
prosecution for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. As such, the identity of the dangerous
drugs should be established beyond doubt by showing that the items offered in court were the same
substances bought during the buy-bust operation. This rigorous requirement, known under R.A. No. 9165 as
the chain of custody, performs the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of
the evidence are removed.23 In People v. Catalan,24 the Court said: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the
Prosecution must prove the corpus delicti. That proof is vital to a judgment of conviction. On the other hand,
the Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of
Republic Act No. 9165 when the dangerous drugs are missing but also when there are substantial gaps in
the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence
presented in court.
Although R.A. No. 9165 does not define the meaning of chain of custody, Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs
Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, explains the said term as
follows: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
"Chain of Custody" means the 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. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of
the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody
were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
As a means of ensuring the establishment of the chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 specifies
that:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs 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.
Specifically, Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165
enumerates the procedures to be observed by the apprehending officers to confirm the chain of custody, to
wit: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
xxx
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs 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: Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in
case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further 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 seizures of and custody
over said items;
xxx
Although the prosecution offered in evidence the Inventory of the Property Seized signed by the arresting
officers and Kagawad Pamintuan, the procedures provided in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not
observed. The said provision requires the apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation, to immediately
(1) conduct a physically inventory; and (2) 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 DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
First, the inventory of the property was not immediately conducted after seizure and confiscation as it was
only done at the police station. Notably, Article II, Section 21(a) of the IRR allows the inventory to be done
at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team whichever is practicable, in
case of warrantless seizures. In this case, however, the prosecution did not even claim that the PDEA Office
Region 3 was the nearest office from TB Pavilion where the drugs were seized. The prosecution also failed to
give sufficient justification for the delayed conduct of the inventory. PO2 Corpuz testified, to wit:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Second, there is doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared the Inventory of Property Seized.
According to the CA decision, it was Sergeant dela Cruz who prepared the said document.27 PO2 Cruz on the
other hand, testified that it was their investigator who prepared the document while SPO1 Licu’s testimony
was that a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin was their investigator.28chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Third, there were conflicting claims on whether the seized items were photographed in the presence of the
accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected
public official. During the cross-examination, PO2 Corpuz testified: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Q: After you arrested Ramil Dahil, did you conduct the inventory of the
alleged seized items?
A: Yes, sir (sic).
Q: Where did you conduct the inventory?
A: In our office, ma’am
Q: Were pictures taken on the alleged seized items together with Ramil
Dahil?
A: No, ma’am.29 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
[Emphases supplied]
SPO1 Licu when cross-examined on the same point, testified this was: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Q: After you conducted the alleged buy-bust operation, did you conduct an
inventory of the alleged seized items?
A: Yes, ma’am.
Q: Were the accused assisted by counsel at the time you conduct the
inventory?
A: No, ma’am.
Q: Were pictures taken on them including the alleged seized items?
A: Pictures were taken on the accused, ma’am.
[Emphasis supplied]
In other words, when questioned on the conduct of the inventory, PO2 Corpuz testified that no pictures of
the seized items were taken while SPO1 Licu said that pictures of the accused were taken. From the vague
statements of the police officers, the Court doubts that photographs of the alleged drugs were indeed taken.
The records are bereft of any document showing the photos of the seized items. The Court notes that SPO1
Licu could have misunderstood the question because he answered that “pictures were taken on the accused”
when the question referred to photographs of the drugs and not of the accused.
To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, the proper chain of
custody of the seized items must be shown. The Court explained in People v. Malillin33 how the chain of
custody or movement of the seized evidence should be maintained and why this must be shown by
evidence, viz:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
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 into 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.
In People v. Kamad,34 the Court identified the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: 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; andfourth, the turnover and submission of
the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately
after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or
the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting
point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence
serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the
time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings,
thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.35 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
It must be noted that marking is not found in R.A. No. 9165 and is different from the inventory-taking and
photography under Section 21 of the said law. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, however, this
Court had consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast
reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.36 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
In the present case, PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu claimed that they had placed their initials on the seized
items. They, however, gave little information on how they actually did the marking. It is clear, nonetheless,
that the marking was not immediately done at the place of seizure, and the markings were only placed at
the police station based on the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, to wit: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Q: So, after recovering all those marijuana bricks and plastic sachets of
marijuana and the marked money from the accused, what else did you
do?
A: We brought the two (2) suspects and the evidence and marked money to
our office, sir.
Q: So, in your office, what happened there?
A: Our investigator prepared the necessary documents, sir, the request for
crime lab examination, joint affidavit of arrest, booking sheet, and all
other documents necessary for the filing of the case against the two (2),
sir.
xxx
Q: What about the marijuana, subject of the deal, and the one which you
confiscated from the accused, what did you do with those?
A: Before sending them to Olivas, we placed our markings, sir.37
Hence, from the place of the seizure to the PDEA Office Region 3, the seized items were not marked. It
could not, therefore, be determined how the unmarked drugs were handled. The Court must conduct
guesswork on how the seized drugs were transported and who took custody of them while in transit.
Evidently, the alteration of the seized items was a possibility absent their immediate marking thereof.
Still, there are cases when the chain of a custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the seized
items is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest for as long as it is
done in the presence of the accused in illegal drugs cases.38 Even a less stringent application of the
requirement, however, will not suffice to sustain the conviction of the accused in this case. Aside from the
fact that the police officers did not immediately place their markings on the seized marijuana upon their
arrival at the PDEA Office, there was also no showing that the markings were made in the presence of the
accused.
PO2 Corpuz testified that they only placed their markings on the drugs when they were about to send them
to Camp Olivas for forensic examination. This damaging testimony was corroborated by the documentary
evidence offered by the prosecution. The following documents were made at the PDEA Office: (1) Joint
Affidavit of Arrest, (2) Custodial Investigation Report, (3) Inventory of Property Seized, and (4) Laboratory
Examination Request. Glaringly, only the Laboratory Examination Request cited the markings on the seized
drugs. Thus, it could only mean that when the other documents were being prepared, the seized drugs had
not been marked and the police officers did not have basis for identifying them. Considering that the seized
drugs were to be used for different criminal charges, it was imperative for the police officers to properly
mark them at the earliest possible opportunity. Here, they failed in such a simple and critical task. The
seized drugs were prone to mix-up at the PDEA Office itself because of the delayed markings.
Worse, not all of the seized drugs were properly marked. As noted by the RTC, Exhibit B-3 RC RD,39Exhibit
A-5 RC RD and Exhibit A-6 RD RC40 did not have the initials of the apprehending officers on the back.
Bearing in mind the importance of marking the seized items, these lapses in the procedure are too
conspicuous and cannot be ignored. They placed uncertainty as to the identity of the corpus delictifrom the
moment of seizure until it was belatedly marked at the PDEA Office.
Similarly, in People v. Garcia,41 the Court considered the belated marking of the seized drug by the
apprehending officer in acquitting the accused in the case. The officer testified that he marked the
confiscated items only after he had returned to the police station. Such admission showed that the marking
was not done immediately after the seizure of the items, but after the lapse of a significant intervening time.
The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer. Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a
supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing.42This is a
necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the
proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the
investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required documents.
The investigator in this case was a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin.43 Surprisingly, there was no testimony from
the witnesses as to the turnover of the seized items to SPO4 Jamisolamin. It is highly improbable for an
investigator in a drug-related case to effectively perform his work without having custody of the seized
items. Again, the case of the prosecution is forcing this Court to resort to guesswork as to whether PO2
Corpuz and SPO1 Licu gave the seized drugs to SPO4 Jamisolamin as the investigating officer or they had
custody of the marijuana all night while SPO4 Jamisolamin was conducting his investigation on the same
items.
In People v. Remigio,44 the Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the chain of custody as
the apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the investigating officer. The apprehending
officer kept the alleged shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic
chemist. The deviation from the links in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in the said
case.
From the investigating officer, the illegal drug is delivered to the forensic chemist. Once the seized drugs
arrive at the forensic laboratory, it will be the laboratory technician who will test and verify the nature of the
substance. In this case, it was only during his cross-examination that PO2 Corpuz provided some
information on the delivery of the seized drugs to Camp Olivas, to wit: chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Q: How about the alleged marijuana, you stated that the same was brought
to the crime laboratory, who brought the same to the crime lab?
A: Me and my back-up, ma’am.
Q: When did you bring the marijuana to the crime lab for examination?
A: I think it was the following day, ma’am.45
As can be gleaned from the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, very little detail was offered on how the seized
marijuana was handled and transferred from the PDEA Office in Angeles City to the crime laboratory in
Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. PO2 Corpuz kept possession of the seized drugs overnight without
giving details on the safekeeping of the items. The most palpable deficiency of the testimony would be the
lack of information as to who received the subject drugs in Camp Olivas.
Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran, the forensic chemist who conducted the tests on the subject drugs, did not appear
in court despite the numerous subpoenas sent to her.46 Instead, the prosecution and the defense agreed to
stipulate on the essential points of her proffered testimony. Regrettably, the stipulated testimony of the
forensic chemist failed to shed light as to who received the subject drugs in Camp Olivas. One of the
stipulations was “that said forensic chemist conducted an examination on the substance of the letter-request
with qualification that said request was not subscribed or under oath and that forensic chemist has no
personal knowledge as from whom and where said substance was taken.” 47 This bolsters the fact that the
forensic chemist had no knowledge as to who received the seized marijuana at the crime laboratory.
The recent case of People v. Beran48 involved irregularities in the third link. The police officer, who both
served as apprehending and investigating officer, claimed that he personally took the drug to the laboratory
for testing, but there was no showing who received the drug from him. The records also showed that he
submitted the sachet to the laboratory only on the next day, without explaining how he preserved his
exclusive custody thereof overnight. All those facts raised serious doubt that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized item have not been fatally compromised. Hence, the accused in the said case was also
acquitted.
The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when
presented as evidence in the criminal case. No testimonial or documentary evidence was given whatsoever
as to how the drugs were kept while in the custody of the forensic chemist until it was transferred to the
court. The forensic chemist should have personally testified on the safekeeping of the drugs but the parties
resorted to a general stipulation of her testimony. Although several subpoenae were sent to the forensic
chemist, only a brown envelope containing the seized drugs arrived in court.49 Sadly, instead of focusing on
the essential links in the chain of custody, the prosecutor propounded questions concerning the location of
the misplaced marked money, which was not even indispensable in the criminal case.
The case of People v. Gutierrez50 also had inadequate stipulations as to the testimony of the forensic
chemist. No explanation was given regarding the custody of the seized drug in the interim - from the time it
was turned over to the investigator up to its turnover for laboratory examination. The records of the said
case did not show what happened to the allegedly seized shabu between the turnover by the investigator to
the chemist and its presentation in court. Thus, since there was no showing that precautions were taken to
ensure that there was no change in the condition of that object and no opportunity for someone not in the
chain to have possession thereof, the accused therein was likewise acquitted.
In view of all the foregoing, the Court can only conclude that, indeed, there was no compliance with the
procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 because of the inadequate physical inventory and
the lack of photography of the marijuana allegedly confiscated from Dahil and Castro. No explanation was
offered for the non-observance of the rule. The prosecution cannot apply the saving mechanism of Section
21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 because it miserably failed to prove that the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items were preserved. The four links required to establish the proper chain of custody
were breached with irregularity and lapses.
The Court cannot either agree with the CA that the evidentiary rule involving the presumption of regularity
of the performance of official duties could apply in favor of the police officers. The regularity of the
performance of duty could not be properly presumed in favor of the police officers because the records were
replete with indicia of their serious lapses.51 The presumption stands when no reason exists in the records by
which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance, the presumption
of regularity will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a
mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused to be presumed
innocent.52chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the identity of the seized marijuana that the
prosecution presented as evidence before the Court. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully prove the
elements of the crime charged, creating a reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.53 chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
For said reason, there is no need to discuss the specific defenses raised by the accused. chanrobleslaw
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 27, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CR-HC No. 05707 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-appellants, Ramil Doria Dahil and
Rommel Castro y Carlos, are ACQUITTED of the crime charged against them and ordered
immediately RELEASED from custody, unless they are being held for some other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to implement this decision and to inform this Court
of the date of the actual release from confinement of the accused within five (5) days from receipt of copy.
SO ORDERED. cralawlawlibrary
Endnotes:
*
Designated Acting member in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion, per Special Order No. 1910, dated
January 12, 2015.
1
Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican with Associate Justice Michael P. Elbinias and Associate
Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, concurring; rollo, pp. 1-19.
Records, p. 1.
3
Id. at 17.
4
Id. at 30.
5
Id. at 219.
6
Id. at 16.
7
CA rollo, p. 49.
8
Records, p. 176.
9
10
Id. at 208.
11
CA rollo, pp. 45-56.
12
Id. at 54.
13
Id. at 25-43.
14
Id. at 41.
15
Id. at 75-87.
16
Rollo, p. 10.
17
Id. at 9-11.
18
Id. at 13.
19
Id. at 12.
20
Id. at 15-16.
21
People v. Balagat, 604 Phil. 529, 534 (2009).
22
People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 426-427 (2009).
23
People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014.
24
G.R. No. 189330, November 28, 2012, 686 SCRA 631, 644.
25
TSN, April 29, 2004, pp. 8-9.
26
Records, p. 10.
27
Rollo, p. 6.
28
TSN, August 17, 2006, p. 25.
29
TSN, May 5, 2006, p. 20.
30
People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil. 520, 530 (2009).
31
People v. Domado, 635 Phil. 78, 93 (2010).
32
People v. Salvidar, G.R. No. 207664, June 5, 2014.
33
Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
34
624 Phil. 289, 304-306 (2010).
35
People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 176350, August 10, 2011, 655 SCRA 279, 289-290.
36
People v. Sabdula, G.R. No. 184758, April 21, 2014.
37
TSN, April 29, 2004, pp. 9-10.
38
People v. Resurrecion, supra note 30, at 531.
39
TSN, August 17, 2006, p. 18.
40
Id. at 22.
41
Supra note 22.
42
People v. Martinez, G.R. No. 191366, December 13, 2010, 637 SCRA 791, 812.
43
Records, p. 11.
44
People v. Remigio, G.R. No. 189277, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 336, 353.
45
TSN, May 25, 2006, p. 22.
46
Records, pp. 90, 102, 105, 110, 112, 115.
47
CA rollo, p. 49.
48
People v. Beran, G.R. No. 203028, January 15, 2014.
49
Rollo, p. 6.
50
614 Phil. 285 (2009).
51
People v. Catalan, supra note 24, at 647.
52
People v. Mendoza, supra note 23.
53
People v. Garcia, supra note 22, at 436.