Title
People vs. Veloo
Case
G.R. No. 252154
Decision Date
Mar 4, 2021
Two Malaysian nationals convicted for transporting shabu at NAIA; one conviction upheld due to preserved evidence integrity, the other acquitted over chain-of-custody doubts.
drug trafficking
conviction
acquittal

Case Summary (G.R. No. 252154)

Factual Background: Arrival at NAIA and Airport Apprehension

On June 16, 2012, at around three thirty in the afternoon, Veloo and Nadarajan, both Malaysian nationals, arrived at NAIA Terminal 2 on Philippine Airlines Flight PR 319 from Hong Kong. They were seated beside each other on the flight and, upon arrival, each took a different piece of luggage at the conveyor belt: Veloo took a black Dibola luggage, while Nadarajan took a black Phoenix bag. They then queued at adjacent lanes at the Customs area.

The apprehension arose during customs inspection. Customs Examiner Carol B. Buenconsejo testified that when Veloo presented her Customs Declaration Form and indicated she had nothing to declare, Buenconsejo became suspicious because Veloo said they were “on a honeymoon” despite the lack of an obvious companion. The suspicion increased when Veloo carried a large luggage. Buenconsejo asked Veloo to open the luggage. Upon inspection, she noticed numerous peanut brittles and asked what they were for. Veloo answered that the peanuts were intended for their honeymoon. Buenconsejo then found a false bottom in the luggage, where she felt a bulging hard object. When she opened the zipper at the bottom, she recovered a small clear plastic pack containing crystallized granules. At that time, Buenconsejo’s superior Elizabeth Pableo, co-examiner Nerissa Alveza, and customs police SAII Antonio Punzalan were present.

Buenconsejo also testified that Veloo pointed to Nadarajan when she saw him about to come out of the adjacent lane, calling him “my husband.” Punzalan then instructed officers Alona De Guzman and Edmund Mozo to apprehend Nadarajan, and directed Buenconsejo to close the bag and bring Veloo and the luggage to the exclusion room for further examination. In the exclusion room, Buenconsejo found more clear plastic packs inside the Dibola luggage, totaling ten (10) packs, with a combined weight of four (4) kilos. A field test conducted there by SAII Ernie Pracale of the Customs Task Force tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

As to Nadarajan’s apprehension, Punzalan testified that Nadarajan entered the exclusion room without his luggage. Nadarajan denied being Veloo’s husband and claimed he met her on the plane and did not know why Veloo claimed they were married. Punzalan directed that airline records be checked as to whether Nadarajan had a luggage. After verification, De Guzman and Mozo retrieved the Phoenix bag from a hotel representative outside the airport. The retrieval took more than an hour. Both the prosecution and defense witnesses testified that when the Phoenix bag eventually arrived in the exclusion room, it was already opened. Buenconsejo examined it and testified that it contained clothes, peanuts, and a false bottom from which she retrieved six (6) clear plastic packs containing crystallized granules, weighing a total of two (2) kilos. After that, photographing and inventory were allegedly conducted in the presence of the accused, Punzalan, Kagawad Jaime Abasola, and a media reporter (ABS-CBN/DWIZ Media Reporter Raoul Esperas). Buenconsejo then turned over the bags to IO2 Julie Lucero of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), who in turn delivered them to forensic chemist Arlene Arcos for analysis and thereafter to the trial court.

RTC and Court of Appeals Rulings

After trial on their pleas of not guilty, the RTC issued a Joint Decision dated September 15, 2015, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 in both criminal cases. The RTC imposed life imprisonment and required each accused to pay a fine of PHP 800,000.00 in each case.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in toto in its Decision dated December 13, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09033. It also denied Nadarajan’s motion for reconsideration.

Issues Raised on Appeal

On appeal to the Supreme Court, Veloo and Nadarajan argued that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal transportation under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. They also challenged the prosecution’s compliance with the chain of custody and, in particular, the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, citing the alleged absence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative during the inventory.

Legal Standards: Elements and Chain of Custody under R.A. No. 9165

The Supreme Court reiterated that the essential elements for illegal transportation were the transportation of the illegal drugs and the existence of the prohibited drug. It further emphasized that the prosecution had to prove not only the act of transporting drugs but also the identity and integrity of the drugs, because the seized drug was the corpus delicti. Hence, the preservation of the seized drugs—from seizure and marking until submission to court—had to be shown to eliminate doubts on the identity of the evidence.

Chain of custody was described as the duly recorded and authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from seizure to receipt by the forensic laboratory, safekeeping, and presentation in court. The Court stressed that compliance with the chain of custody rule was essential because the prohibited drug presented in court had to be the same substance seized from the accused.

It then set out the statutory and regulatory framework. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 required that the apprehending team conduct immediate physical inventory and photographing of the seized items in the presence of the accused or representative or counsel, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official, who would sign the inventory and receive copies. It also required submission to the PDEA forensic laboratory and issuance of forensic results within prescribed periods. In relation to the procedure, Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR contained a saving clause: non-compliance under justifiable grounds, provided integrity and evidentiary value were properly preserved, would not render the seizure invalid.

The Supreme Court also reiterated the links that must be established in chain of custody: (first) seizure and marking; (second) turnover from apprehending officer to investigating officer; (third) turnover from investigating officer to forensic chemist; and (fourth) turnover from forensic chemist to court.

Chain of Custody Analysis by Luggage: Dibola Bag vs. Phoenix Bag

Because two separate pieces of luggage were involved, the Court analyzed chain of custody in relation to the contents of each individual luggage.

First Link: Seizure and Marking

For the Dibola bag, it was undisputed that Buenconsejo weighed the drug specimens from the first examined bag, indicated weights and markings on the plastic packs, and that photographing and inventory were done in the presence of the accused, Punzalan, Kagawad Abasola, and media reporter Esperas. Although the Court noted the absence of a DOJ representative, it observed that the issue would not be automatically fatal if the requirements for excuse under the IRR saving clause were properly triggered.

The Court also addressed the defense attack on the date of marking and inventory. Veloo’s testimony that a report was made at around nine o’clock in the evening aligned with the Inventory Report stating inventory was conducted at 9:00 p.m. While the defense pointed to photographs dated 6.17.2012, the booking sheets/arrest reports allegedly indicated inventory and marking were made on June 16, and the Court found June 16 more credible based on the combined evidence.

For the Phoenix bag, however, the Court found troubling circumstances. Veloo and Nadarajan both claimed it was their bag, but the Court noted it was not in their possession when it was seized. The Phoenix bag was retrieved by Punzalan’s men from a hotel representative after about one hour, and the Court found no sufficient explanation for the delay. It also noted that the Phoenix bag was already opened upon arrival at the exclusion room. The prosecution did not present the hotel representative allegedly in actual custody, nor the customs police who took the bag from that representative. The Court ruled that doubts on integrity existed at the point of seizure because the prosecution did not establish preservation of the Phoenix bag’s contents.

Applying prior rulings, it held that the presumption of regularity could not substitute for proof of compliance or for a successful triggering of the IRR saving clause. Consequently, while the Court regarded the first link as untarnished for the Dibola bag’s contents, it concluded the prosecution failed to show that the seized items were preserved as to the Phoenix bag.

Second Link: Turnover from Apprehending Officer to Investigating Officer

The Court found this link satisfied. Based on the Turn-Over Receipt dated June 16, 2012, prepared by Buenconsejo and witnessed by Punzalan, Abasola, and Esperas, the two bags containing the marked heat-sealed plastic containers, together with both accused, were turned over by Buenconsejo to IO2 Lucero of the PDEA.

Third Link: Turnover from Investigating Officer to Forensic Chemist

This link was also found established. The Acknowledgment Receipt and Chemistry Report, both dated June 17, 2012, and a stipulation of the parties showed that forensic chemist Arlene Arcos received the luggage containing the specimens from IO2 Lucero at 6:50 a.m. on June 17, after checking the consistency of markings with those in the laboratory request.

Fourth Link: Turnover from Forensic Chemist to the Court

The Court held the last link satisfied as well. It was stipulated that the specimens examined by the forensic chemist were the same specimens submitted to the trial court. It also noted testimony that during the presentation of Buenconsejo, the forensic chemist opened bags she had previously sealed.

Consideration of Fungibility and Level of Strictness

The Supreme Court explained that the level of strictness in applying chain of custody depended o

...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