PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MUSTAFA SALI Y ALAVVADDIN A.K.A. "TAPANG/PANG," Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 236596, January 29, 2020.
"x x x.
The prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized sachets of shabu from the time they were recovered from Sali up to the time they were presented in court. Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002,21 which implements the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines chain of custody as follows:
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[.]
To ensure an unbroken chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 specifies:
(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[.]
Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21 (a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
(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[.]
On July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 was approved to amend R.A. No. 9165. Among other modifications, it essentially incorporated the saving clause contained in the IRR, thus:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.
In the present case, the physical inventory and photograph, as evidenced by the Certificate of inventory,22 were done at the PDEA, Regional Office 9, Upper Calarian, Zamboanga City, and not where the buy-bust operation was conducted. Although these processes may be excused in cases where the safety and security of the apprehending officers, witnesses required by law and item seized are threatened by immediate danger, the present case is not one of those. The allegation that the physical inventory and photograph were not done in the crime scene because of security reason will not suffice. The prosecution failed to expound what security threats the law enforcement agents were facing at the time of the buy-bust operation.
In the Joint-Affidavit of Arrest of IO1 Lanza and IO2 Natividad, it was mentioned that it was only after Sali was brought to their office, which is at the PDEA, Regional Office 9, when the proper documentation happened and not immediately upon seizure and arrest. There is also no justification contained in the Joint-Affidavit of Arrest of why the physical inventory and photograph were done away from the crime scene. It is hard to imagine that the apprehending officers were able to mark the items seized at the crime scene but were not able to photograph the same.
Moreover, it is apparent from the Certificate of Inventory that it was signed by the representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, and by an elected public official, but there is no signature of Sali or his representative. No evidence was proffered to indicate that the inventory was conducted in the presence of Sali or his duly authorized representative. The photographs submitted as evidence could not conclusively determine whether Sali was present during the inventory.
Hence, the prosecution failed to prove valid causes for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. Worse, there is no showing that earnest efforts were done to secure the attendance of Sali 's representative. The witnesses' testimonies in open court and in the Joint-Affidavit miserably failed to mention the causes for non compliance with Section 21.
The Court stressed in People of the Philippines v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro:23
The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence.
The non-observance of the procedure mandated by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, casts serious doubt if the illegal drugs presented in court are the same illegal drugs seized from Sali. It is worthy to note the quantities of the illegal drugs seized which are only 0.0241 gram and 0.0155 gram. They are extremely small amounts which are highly susceptible to planting and tampering. This is the very reason why strict adherence to Section 21 is a must.
X x x. "
