Sunday, March 8, 2015

Preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs - G.R. No. 181249

See  -  G.R. No. 181249





"x x x.



Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979, as amended by Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 2, Series of 1990 reads:
            Subject: Amendment of Board Regulation No. 7, series of 1974, prescribing the procedure in the custody of seized prohibited and regulated drugs, instruments, apparatuses, and articles specially designed for the use thereof.
            x x x x
            SECTION 1. All prohibited and regulated drugs, instruments, apparatuses and  articles specially designed for the use thereof when unlawfully used or found in the possession of any person not authorized to have control and disposition of the same, or when found secreted or abandoned, shall be seized or confiscated by any national, provincial or local law enforcement agency.  Any apprehending team having initial custody and control of said drugs and[/or] paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and/or his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Thereafter the seized drugs and paraphernalia shall be immediately brought to a properly equipped government laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination.
            The apprehending team shall: (a) within forty-eight (48) hours from the seizure inform the Dangerous Drugs Board by telegram of said seizure, the nature and quantity thereof, and who has present custody of the same, and (b) submit to the Board a copy of the mission investigation report within fifteen (15) days from completion of the investigation.[45]
The records do not show that the NBI-STF team complied with the aforementioned procedure. Nevertheless, such failure is insufficient ground to acquit appellant.
In People v. Gonzaga,[46] wherein the very same issue was raised, we explained that:
While it appears that the buy-bust team failed to comply strictly with the procedure outlined above, the same does not overturn the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty.  A violation of the regulation is a matter strictly between the Dangerous Drugs Board and the arresting officers and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case since the commission of the crime of illegal sale of a prohibited drug is considered consummated once the sale or transaction is established and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the arresting officers’ inability to conform to the regulations of the Dangerous Drugs Board.
 Further, the integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered with.[47]
Moreover, non-compliance with the said regulation is not fatal to the prosecution as it does not render appellant’s arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of herein appellant.[48]
A thorough review of the records of this case shows that despite the NBI-STF’s non-compliance with said regulation, the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs was nonetheless preserved.  Evidence shows that the three heat-sealed plastic sachets of shabu, after being confiscated from appellant on the night of May 23, 2001, were duly marked by poseur-buyer Kawada as “REM-1,” “REM-2” and “REM-3” using his own codename.[49] That same night, at the NBI-STF office, Kawada prepared the disposition form with file number DD-010480 indicating the transmittal of the same three heat-sealed sachets of shabu for laboratory examination. The said disposition form was duly noted by NBI-STF Chief Atty. Max Salvador.[50]   The following day, the confiscated drugs including the disposition form Kawada prepared, were delivered and submitted by Agent Raoul Manguerra to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Division at 7:15 in the morning and were duly received by NBI Forensic Chemist Gelacio-Mahilum.[51]  As indicated in her Certification dated May 24, 2001, the three plastic sachets marked “REM-1,” “REM-2,” and “REM-3” were still heat-sealed when she received them.  She also certified that the three sachets have a total weight of 305.4604 grams and gave positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.[52]  When presented during the trial, these specimens were also positively identified by Kawada as the very same sachets which were handed to him by the appellant.[53]
It is also worthy to note that appellant never alleged that the drugs presented during the trial have been tampered with. Neither did appellant challenge the admissibility of the seized items when these were formally offered as evidence. In the course of the trial, the seizedshabu were duly marked, made the subject of examination and cross-examination, and eventually offered as evidence, yet at no instance did the appellant manifest or even hint that there were lapses in the safekeeping of the seized items as to affect their admissibility, integrity and evidentiary value. It was only during her appeal that she raised the issue of non-compliance with the said regulation. Settled is the rule thatobjections to the admissibility of evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal.[54]
It should also be noted that appellant failed to present evidence to show that the NBI-STF team was impelled by improper motives to testify against her. She merely gave the bare assertion that she was arrested by the NBI operatives to be used as leverage in pressuring her husband to divulge the whereabouts of alias Boy Life.
x x x."