Title
People vs. Oliveros y Corporal
Case
G.R. No. 212202
Decision Date
Jul 30, 2019
Accused-appellant acquitted due to lapses in chain of custody; failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 cast doubt on evidence integrity.
drug case
acquittal
statutory requirements
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 212202)

Factual Background

The information alleged that on or about November 30, 2007, the accused-appellant, without authority of law, “did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver” to PO1 RenEn Malonzo, who allegedly posed as buyer, Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) weighing 0.02 gram, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding license or prescription and with knowledge of its nature.

At trial, the parties adopted a stipulation of facts. The stipulation stated that Ebuen was a bona fide member of the Caloocan City Police Station assigned at the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office and that, based on a laboratory examination request dated November 30, 2007 and signed by P/Chief Insp. Carlito Dimalanta, she examined the specimen described as one small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu and marked as “DOC 11/30/07.” The laboratory result yielded a positive test for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, and her findings were embodied in Physical Sciences Report No. D-415-07.

Prosecution’s Version (Buy-Bust Operation and Handling of Evidence)

PO1 Malonzo testified that, at around 7:30 p.m. on November 30, 2007, a confidential informant reported rampant selling of dangerous drugs by a person named Darren in the area of Sunflower Street, Bulak, Camarin, Caloocan City. The buy-bust team thereafter prepared pre-operation documents, including a Pre-Operation Report and Coordination Form, which were faxed to the DAID and the PDEA, and the team briefed on arrest procedures and each member’s roles. Malonzo acted as poseur buyer; his companions served as back-up.

Around 8:30 p.m., Malonzo and the team proceeded to the target area and arrived at Sunflower Street at around 10:30 p.m. The informant and Malonzo went to the accused-appellant’s location and Malonzo claimed that the accused-appellant asked the amount to be purchased. After the accused-appellant indicated “Dos lang pare,” Malonzo testified that the accused-appellant handed him a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. Malonzo further testified that, after the exchange, he signaled his companions by scratching his head. Malonzo then held the accused-appellant’s hand, introduced himself as a policeman, and SPO2 Quillan allegedly arrived and handcuffed the accused-appellant. Malonzo stated that he apprised the accused-appellant of constitutional rights, requested the accused-appellant’s full name, and marked the confiscated item inside the plastic sachet with “DOC 11/30/07.” He also confiscated the buy-bust money—one PhP200.00 bill with serial number BT-049085, marked “RM” at the upper right portion.

Malonzo testified that he prepared a request for laboratory examination of the confiscated item, which was brought to the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory Office on December 1, 2007 at around 2:30 a.m. He stated that the laboratory report showed the specimen tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as shabu. He further claimed that he and SPO2 Quillan executed a Pinagsamang Sinumpaang Salaysay related to the filing of the complaint.

While SPO2 Quillan corroborated Malonzo’s testimony, she admitted that she did not see the accused-appellant handing the shabu to Malonzo and expressed uncertainty whether the shabu actually came from the accused-appellant.

Accused-Appellant’s Version

Darren Oliveros denied the accusations. He testified that, at around 8:30 p.m. on November 30, 2007, seven uniformed policemen arrived at a billiard hall where he was present; one was Malonzo. He claimed that he and two companions—William Bangga and Edward Faballa—were frisked and brought to the Sangandaan Police Station. He alleged that the policemen demanded PhP10,000.00 from his companions, which they were able to give, but he stated that he failed to produce the demanded amount. He asserted that no violation was explained to him, and that nothing was recovered from him and his companions when they were searched.

RTC and CA Rulings

The RTC found the accused-appellant guilty. It held that the prosecution proved the elements of the offense beyond reasonable doubt. It gave little weight to the accused-appellant’s denial due to lack of corroboration and concluded that the prosecution witnesses were not motivated by improper intent. The RTC also ruled that the chain of custody remained unbroken.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto, holding against the accused-appellant.

The Principal Issue on Appeal

The accused-appellant argued that the buy-bust team failed to strictly comply with the statutory safeguards governing the preservation of the chain of custody, which allegedly created serious gaps affecting the integrity of the evidence comprising the corpus delicti.

Supreme Court’s Legal Analysis on Chain of Custody

The Court emphasized that departures by arresting officers from the procedures required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules must be justified; otherwise, they severely affect the integrity of the corpus delicti. It cited Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which requires, among others, that the apprehending team with initial custody and control must immediately after seizure and confiscation physically inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were seized, a representative from the media, the DOJ, and an elected public official, whose required signatures and copies are part of the statutory design.

The Court also referenced Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), which reiterated the same presence requirements and provided that noncompliance under justifiable grounds would not automatically void the seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value were properly preserved by the apprehending officer-team.

The Court further explained that, under Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, chain of custody meant the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs at each stage, from seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping, to presentation in court for destruction. It divided the links into four parts: (first) seizure and marking; (second) turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (third) turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist; and (fourth) turnover by the forensic chemist to the court.

Gaps in the Third and Fourth Links

The Court held that while the State proved the first and second links through PO1 Malonzo because Malonzo allegedly had sole possession of the packets from seizure until investigation, the third and fourth links were not reliably substantiated.

The Court focused on Malonzo’s testimony regarding turnover to the laboratory. Malonzo claimed he handed the request for laboratory examination and the seized drug to PO1 Brinquez, but he admitted he did not know what Brinquez did with the documents and the evidence thereafter. The Court noted that, although Sr. Insp. Ebuen testified that she conducted the laboratory examination and issued Physical Sciences Report No. D-415-07, the break in the chain of custody could not be ignored. The person to whom Malonzo stated he turned over the drug was not the same person who conducted the test and testified in court.

The Court also noted the absence of a suitable written record explaining the movement of the seized drug from its delivery to the chemistry laboratory until its presentation in court as evidence. It held that this deprived the court of the ability to determine the reasonableness of the lapse.

Additional Procedural Lapses Affecting Evidence Integrity

The Court further found that the buy-bust team committed other lapses in handling the seized drug. It ruled that the team did not conduct a physical inventory of the seizure, and it did not photograph the seized drug in the presence of the required parties, including a representative from the media, the DOJ, and an elected public official. The Court explained that such presence was required under Section 21 to insulate the seizure from risks of tampering, substitution, or planting.

The Court held that, in the absence of

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms