Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
PAGAL VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 251894 (02 MARCH 2022):
MOST RECENT JURISPRUDENCE ON CHAIN OF CUSTODY
On 02 March 2022, the Supreme Court, through its Third (3rd) Division, issued a Decision in G.R. No. 251894 entitled “Johnny Pagal y Lavarias vs. People of the Philippines”. In two (2) separate Informations, accused Pagal was charged of violation of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Regional Trial Court convicted accused Pagal of Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs) but acquitted him of Section 12 (illegal possession of drug paraphernalia). The trial court invalidated the search of the nephew’s room and the seizure of the drug paraphernalia for the officers’ failure to comply with the two-witness requirement in executing a search / warrant under Rule 126, Section 8 of the Rules of Court. The trial court, however, refused to apply this to the dangerous drugs found in the living room which is the basis for accused Pagal’s conviction under Section 11 of RA 9165.
The Court of Appeals ruled that without contrary evidence, accused Pagal was presumed to have knowledge and full control and dominion over the seized items retrieved from his house. It also dismissed the defense of denial and frame-up, there being no clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity in the police officers’ performance of duties. The Court of Appeals disagreed with Pagal that his acquittal due to the illegal search of his nephew’s room tainted the search in the living room when the illegal drugs were found, as accused Pagal himself was in the living room when the police found the four sachets of shabu. The appellate court also held that accused Pagal waived his objections to the validity of the Search Warrant since he did not question the same before the trial court. Finally, the Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s finding that there was no significant break in the chain of custody. It did not deem fatal the marking of the seized drugs outside the house, together with the failure to indicate the date, time, and place. It also dispensed with the testimony showing the fourth link in the chain of custody, from the chemical analysis of the drugs to their presentation in court. It found the Chain of Custody Form sufficient since it recorded the movement of the drugs. While the inventory was inadmissible for being signed without accused Pagal’s counsel, the appellate court said that this did not affect the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti.
On the first issue, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the Search Warrant. Having raised the ground, i.e., that the judge who issued the same supposedly did not personally examine the applicant, for the first time on appeal, the Supreme Court held that accused Pagal waived his right to question the same. Also, the Court also rejected his objection that the Search Warrant supposedly did not provide the specific details on the particular area to be searched. The Court also noted that accused Pagal did not deny that it was his house.
On the second issue, the Court affirmed the ruling of the trial and appellate courts that all elements are present. The confiscated drugs were found inside accused Pagal’s house specified in the Search Warrant. Absent evidence to the contrary, mere finding of illicit drugs in accused Pagal’s house raises the presumption of construction possession. In this case, apart from alleging non-exclusive possession of the house, accused Pagal merely denied having smoked Marlboro cigarettes. Accused Pagal also failed to present any authority to possess the illegal drugs confiscated from his house. His only defenses were denial and frame-up, which without clear and persuasive proof, are inherently weak.
As to the third issue, the Court held that while all elements for illegal possession of illegal drugs is present, the prosecution failed to prove the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. It must be proven beyond reasonable doubt that the corpus delicti have been preserved, a sine qua non for a conviction under RA 9165. The rationale of this is that illegal drugs are not readily identifiable and area easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the items offered in court are the same items seized from the accused. This may be done by complying the so-called Chain of Custody as outlined in Section 21 of RA 9165.
In the instant case, the Supreme Court held that the police officers’ procedural lapses in handling the custody of the seized drugs compromised the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti which effect is the failure of the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held:
“First, the two required witnesses were not present during the confiscation of the illegal drugs, tainting both the seizure and marking of the illegal drugs. The Search Warrant was implemented after the arrival of Kagawad Manuel at around 5:40 a.m. Media representative Toledo was not present when the search began and arrived only ‘when the search was about to finish.’ The Search Warrant was issued on October 14, 2016 but was implemented three days later. Thus, the police officers had sufficient time to ensure that both witnesses would be present during the search. The prosecution did not attempt to explain why the search was commenced without waiting for Toledo. It also appears that Toledo was only contacted while the search was already ongoing. This taints the credibility of the corpus delicti at the time of seizure
Second, the law and jurisprudence are clear that the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized drugs ‘shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served.’ The prosecution failed to explain why the marking of seized items was done ‘outside the house.’ It is also unclear where exactly the seized drugs and paraphernalia were marked and photographed.
The rule on immediate inventory and photographing of seized items has only been excused when ‘the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by law or of the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory action of those who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault.’ Here, the marking and inventory were not done at the same place where the Search Warrant was implemented-a clear deviation which the prosecution did not acknowledge. There was no explanation as to the safeguards undertaken to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs. Thus, the first link in the chain of custody has already been tarnished.
Third, there is a glaring gap in the second and third links in the chain of custody. It appears that the designated investigating officer was not involved in the handling of the illegal drugs. To recall, PO3 Naungayan was assigned as the investigator while PO1 Saringan was the seizing officer. However, records consistently state that it was PO1 Saringan who seized and marked the illegal drugs, and delivered the same for laboratory examination. PO3 Naungayan had no participation in the chain of custody despite being designated as the investigating officer.
Finally, the fourth link in the chain of custody was also not established beyond reasonable doubt. We agree with petitioner that there is no testimony as to how the interim records custodian preserved the integrity of the corpus delicti prior to its presentation in Court. The Court of Appeals erroneously relied on the Chain of Custody Form which supposedly duly recorded the movement of the seized drugs. Its reliance on the prima facie rule on evidence on entries on official records is wrong.
x x x x x x x x x
The burden of establishing the unbroken chain of custody is with the prosecution. This is a positive duty which the prosecution must discharge. In People v. Sagana, the prosecution’s failure ‘to offer the testimonies of the persons who had direct contact with the confiscated items without ample explanation casts doubt on whether the allegedly seized shabu were the very same ones presented in court.’ Here, the testimony of Chief Inspector Todeño was insufficient to establish the fourth link. There was no testimony as to how the integrity and identity of the illegal drugs had been preserved when they were turned over to P03 Manuel, the officer for safekeeping the evidence before being presented in court. There was no explanation why evidence custodian P03 Manuel was not presented to testify on these matters. Thus, the fourth link in the chain of custody was not established.”
Finally, the Court, under the ponencia of Justice Marvic Leonen, held that there is no saving the prosecution’s lapses in establishing the links in the chain of custody. It was held that too many intervening events may have already compromised the corpus delicti by the time the required witnesses arrived at the scene. It does not also help the prosecution’s case that the item dealt in this case is only 0.1 gram of shabu. The Court held that when only a miniscule amount of narcotics is involved, with more reason the application of Section 21 of RA 9165 would be stringent in compliance thereto.