View full case

PEOPLE v. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO

FACTS:

The case involves the appeal of Felimon Pagaduan y Tamayo (appellant) who was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The appellant was charged in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) with selling, trading, dispensing, delivering, and giving away 0.01 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The prosecution presented evidence that the appellant sold the shabu to Police Officer 3 (PO3) Peter Almarez, who was posing as a buyer. The buy-bust operation was planned after receiving information about the appellant's illegal drug activities. During the operation, the appellant handed a sachet containing shabu to PO3 Almarez in exchange for marked money. The marked money was later recovered from the appellant's pocket, and the appellant was arrested. The seized shabu was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory and was found positive for shabu by the Forensic Chemist. The appellant presented a different version of events, claiming that he was framed by Captain Jaime de Vera and that he was detained without proper arrest and without the assistance of a lawyer. The RTC convicted the appellant, and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The appellant argues that the police failed to conduct prior surveillance and that the chain of custody of the seized shabu was not established. The Office of the Solicitor General counters that there was sufficient evidence establishing the chain of custody and that a prior surveillance is not necessary for a prosecution for illegal sale of drugs.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prosecution complied with the procedures set forth in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the seizure and custody of drugs.

  2. Whether the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.

  3. Whether the failure of the police to conduct a physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs in compliance with the procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 renders the evidence inadmissible.

  4. Whether the prosecution's failure to offer any explanation to justify the procedural lapses is fatal to their case.

  5. Whether the prosecution established the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

  6. Whether there were procedural lapses in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs.

  7. Whether the prosecution adequately proved the elements of the crime charged.

  8. Whether or not the appellant, Felimon Pagaduan y Tamayo, should be acquitted.

  9. Whether or not the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

  1. The Court ruled to acquit the appellant due to the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the prosecution did not comply with the procedures set forth in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the seizure and custody of drugs. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.

  2. Yes, the failure of the police to comply with the required procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, such as the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs, compromises the integrity of the evidence. The deviations from the standard procedure are enough grounds for acquittal.

  3. Yes, the prosecution's failure to offer any explanation to justify the procedural lapses is fatal to their case. The justifiable grounds for noncompliance must be proven as a fact, and the prosecution cannot presume that such grounds exist.

  4. No, the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The evidence did not present testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the drugs were seized to the time they were offered in court. As a result, doubts concerning the identity of the drugs remained, and the corpus delicti was not properly established.

  5. Yes, there were procedural lapses in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs. The testimony of PO3 Almarez lacked specifics on how he marked the sachet and who witnessed the marking. The identity of the person who had control and possession of the seized drug during its transportation to the police station was also not established. Additionally, the person from whom PO3 Almarez received the seized illegal drug for transfer to the crime laboratory was not identified. These gaps in the chain of custody create reasonable doubt on whether the drugs confiscated from the appellant were the same drugs that were eventually offered in court as evidence.

  6. No, the prosecution did not adequately prove the elements of the crime charged. The procedural lapses in the chain of custody cast doubt on whether the seized drugs were indeed the corpus delicti. In the absence of concrete evidence on the illegal drugs bought and sold, the body of the crime has not been adequately proven. Therefore, the appellant's criminal liability cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt.

  7. The Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted Felimon Pagaduan y Tamayo for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered to be released from detention unless he is confined for another lawful cause.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The prosecution must comply with the procedures set forth in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the seizure and custody of drugs in order to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence.

  • In a prosecution for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs to prove the commission of the crime.

  • Compliance with the prescribed procedure in the custody and disposition of seized drugs, as outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, is crucial. Deviations from the standard procedure compromise the integrity of the evidence.

  • Failure to comply with the required procedures can result in the evidence being rendered inadmissible, which may lead to an acquittal.

  • The justifiable grounds for noncompliance with the prescribed procedure must be proven by the prosecution as a fact. The court cannot presume the existence of these grounds or the validity of the lapses.

  • The chain of custody requirement ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence in drug cases are removed. Every link in the chain, from the time the evidence is seized to its presentation in court, must be established and testified to by the individuals who handled it.

  • Testimony about every link in the chain of custody is necessary to establish the corpus delicti, which is the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.

  • The "marking" of the seized items should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation.

  • The evidentiary presumption that official duties have been regularly performed is not conclusive and cannot overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.

  • In order to overcome the presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce moral certainty, is indispensable.

  • The prosecution has the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Acquittal must be based on the appreciation of evidence and the application of the law.