View full case

PEOPLE v. LUIS PAJARIN Y DELA CRUZ

FACTS:

The case involves the prosecution of Luis Pajarin and Efren Pallaya for violation of Section 5 in relation to Sections 26 and 11 (3) in relation to Section 13, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution presents two police officers who testified that they conducted a buy-bust operation on June 2, 2005. According to their testimony, an informant tipped them off about a drug sale, and the poseur-buyer, PO2 Ibañez, bought shabu from the two accused using a marked bill. The police officers immediately arrested the accused after the pre-arranged signal was given. The police officers then searched the compartment of a red scooter where one of the accused took out a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. Another sachet with the same substance was recovered from the compartment. The seized suspected shabu was turned over to another police officer who marked the sachets accordingly. The seized substances were later examined and found to be positive for a regulated drug. The defense presented a different version of events, with Pajarin claiming that he was forcefully taken and accused of owning the sachet found in the scooter. Pallaya also claimed that he was forcibly taken and accused without a warrant or search warrant. The RTC found both accused guilty and imposed penalties on them, which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. On appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court reversed the CA decision and acquitted the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized substances and that there were significant lapses in the procedure followed by the police officers, casting doubt on the authenticity of the evidence. The Court emphasized the need for law enforcement agencies and prosecutors to ensure proper observance of the rules in drug operations.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not excluding the evidence of the seized shabu on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove their integrity by establishing the chain of custody of the same until they got to the trial court.

  2. Whether or not for this reason the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the accused.

RULING:

  1. The Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and the Regional Trial Court and acquitted the accused-appellants on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court ordered their immediate release from custody unless they are being held for some other lawful cause.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The failure of the police to comply with the procedure laid down in Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) regarding the chain of custody of seized items does not render the seizure void as long as the apprehending officers give justifiable reason for their imperfect conduct and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items had not been compromised.

  • The seizure of evidence in illegal drug cases must be marked in order to ensure its authenticity and integrity. The marking of captured items immediately after they are seized from the accused is the starting point in the custodial link. Failure to place such markings raises doubts on the authenticity of the evidence.

  • The police chemist who examines a seized substance should ordinarily testify that he received the seized article as marked, properly sealed and intact; that he resealed it after examination of the content; and that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. Failure to comply with this procedure raises doubts on the authenticity and integrity of the evidence.

  • The failure of law enforcement agencies to observe the rules governing buy-bust operations can result in acquittals. Drug enforcement agencies should continually train their officers and agents to observe these rules and transfer out those who would not. Prosecutors should not file drug cases in court if the supporting documents do not show compliance with the rules.