View full case

PEOPLE v. RUIZ GARCIA Y RUIZ

FACTS:

The accused, Ruiz Garcia y Ruiz, was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. He was accused of illegally selling and delivering marijuana to a poseur-buyer. During the pre-trial conference, his counsel admitted the identity of Ruiz as the accused, the jurisdiction of the trial court, and Ruiz' lack of authority to possess or sell drugs. The prosecution presented a single witness, PO1 Samuel Garcia, who testified that Ruiz was arrested during a buy-bust operation where he sold marijuana. The parties entered into stipulations regarding the testimony of the forensic chemist. The prosecution also submitted various pieces of evidence, while the defense relied solely on the testimony of Ruiz who claimed to be the victim of a police frame-up and extortion. The trial court found Ruiz guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. On appeal, Ruiz argued that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence, while the People of the Philippines argued that the lower courts correctly found Ruiz guilty based on the testimony of the poseur-buyer and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties by the police officers involved.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. Whether the police complied with the procedural safeguards provided under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

  3. Whether or not the failure to comply with the requirement of physically inventorying the seized items and taking photographs of the same under R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules is fatal to the prosecution's case.

  4. Whether or not the discrepancy in the markings on the seized items raises doubts on their identity as evidence.

  5. Whether there was compliance with the chain of custody requirement for the seized drugs.

  6. Whether the procedural lapses in handling the seized items render the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid.

  7. Whether the evidence established the identity of the police inspector who received the seized marijuana

  8. Whether the subsequent links in the chain of custody were properly established

RULING:

  1. The court resolves to acquit the accused as the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to show that the police complied with the procedural requirements under R.A. No. 9165, specifically paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II, and the chain of evidence requirement.

  2. The court observes that the police did not comply with the mandatory procedures under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II. The records do not show that the buy-bust team conducted a physical inventory and photographed the seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. The testimony of one of the arresting officers reveals that he only verified the contents of the seized marijuana and turned it over to their investigator without following the prescribed procedures.

  3. The Supreme Court held that the failure to comply with the requirement of physically inventorying the seized items and taking photographs of the same is fatal to the prosecution's case. This procedural lapse creates doubts on the identity and integrity of the seized drugs and raises questions on whether or not the seized items presented in court were the same items seized from the accused.

  4. The prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the confiscated drugs. The evidence presented did not show a clear and unbroken chain that would prove that the marijuana presented in court was the same item seized from the accused at the time of his arrest. There were major lapses in marking and handling the seized items, creating doubts on their identity and integrity.

  5. The procedural lapses in handling the seized items were not recognized by the prosecution, nor were justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the requirements explained or proven. The non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements, without proper justification, renders the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid.

  6. The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals. The accused-appellant was acquitted due to the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court found serious uncertainties in the identification of the seized marijuana and noted several procedural lapses in the chain of custody. As a result, the Court held that the prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of the crime charged.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Presumption of innocence: Every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Elements of the crime: In a prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, the consideration, the delivery of the drug, and the payment made. The corpus delicti, or the body or substance of the crime, must also be presented in court.

  • Procedural safeguards: The law provides specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs to prevent police abuse and ensure the integrity of the evidence. Failure to comply with these procedures may affect the admissibility and evidentiary value of the seized items.

  • Non-compliance with procedures: Non-compliance with the prescribed procedures may render a seizure and custody void and invalid, unless there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

  • The failure to comply with the prescribed procedure for handling and identifying seized items in anti-narcotics operations, such as physically inventorying the items and taking photographs, creates doubts on the identity and integrity of the evidence. (People v. Orteza, People v. Laxa, People v. Kimura, Zarraga v. People, People v. Nazareno, People v. Santos, Jr., People v. Dela Cruz, People v. De la Cruz)

  • Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is justified under the rule that penal laws shall be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of the accused. (People v. Dela Cruz, People v. De la Cruz)

  • In case of warrantless seizure, such as a buy-bust operation, the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items should be done by the buy-bust team, if practicable, at the place of seizure, in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. (People v. Sanchez)

  • The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to establish that the item in question is what the proponent claims it to be. Testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized to its presentation in court, must be provided to ensure the authenticity of the evidence.

  • The chain of custody requirement is essential to remove doubts regarding the identity of the evidence. It involves the recording and monitoring of all authorized movements and custody of seized items from seizure to presentation in court. Failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody can raise doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

  • Non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements, without proper justification, renders the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid. The prosecution must recognize the procedural lapses and provide an explanation and proof showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved.

  • The chain of custody refers to the process by which seized evidence is safeguarded to prevent tampering, alteration, substitution, or contamination. It requires the marking, handling, storage, and safekeeping of the seized items at each stage of custody.

  • The failure to comply with the standard procedures prescribed by law raises doubt on the regularity in the performance of official duties, thereby negating the presumption of regularity.