View full case

PEOPLE v. RICARDO REMIGIO Y ZAPANTA

FACTS:

On April 17, 2003, PO2 Ramos received information from an informant about a person named Alyas Footer selling drugs in Cainta, Rizal. A decision to conduct a buy-bust operation was made, and PO2 Ramos acted as the poseur-buyer, accompanied by the informant. PO2 Ramos approached Alyas Footer and purchased drugs from him in exchange for marked money. After the transaction, Alyas Footer was identified as the accused Ricardo Remigio. The police found additional sachets of drugs in Alyas Footer's pockets and motorcycle compartment. The seized items were brought to Camp Crame for examination, and PO2 Ramos identified the marked money and motorcycle used in the operation.

For the defense, Remigio claimed that he was at Helen's Best store when PO2 Ramos approached him, searched his pockets, and found a sachet of drugs. Remigio denied ownership of the sachet. He also claimed that a police officer named Oscar Soliven propositioned him to pay a bribe in exchange for not being charged with illegal drug sale, which he refused. Remigio presented a witness who saw the uniformed police officer questioning him at Helen's Best store.

During trial, Remigio was found guilty of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. He appealed the decision, raising issues regarding the validity of the buy-bust operation, failure to present the actual sachets in court, and non-compliance with the chain of custody procedures. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling with modification on the penalty, and Remigio lodged an appeal focusing on the break in the chain of custody and absence of identification of the illegal drugs.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the prosecution presented sufficient evidence to establish the chain of custody of the confiscated illegal drugs.

  2. Whether the failure of the prosecution to present the actual illegal drugs as evidence before the trial court warrants the acquittal of the accused.

  3. Whether the requirements of Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, pertaining to the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs, were substantially complied with.

  4. Whether the prosecution established the chain of custody of the seized drugs in accordance with People v. Kamad.

  5. Did the failure to transfer the seized items to the investigating officer and the confusion regarding the person responsible for delivering the items to the forensic chemist taint the chain of custody?

  6. Can the failure to produce the corpus delicti in court be remedied by a stipulation regarding the findings of the forensic chemist?

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to present the actual illegal drugs as evidence before the trial court. The Court emphasized that the illegal drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The need for both the presentation of the drug as exhibit and the establishment of its identity with unwavering exactitude was stressed. Since the prosecution relied only on pictures of the alleged drugs and did not make any effort to present the actual corpus delicti, the Court concluded that there was no corpus delicti in this case. As a result, the accused must be acquitted.

  2. The Court held that the requirements of Section 21(a) of the IRR were substantially complied with. It was emphasized that non-compliance with these requirements, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the apprehending team/officer, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

  3. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs in accordance with People v. Kamad. It was noted that there was no showing of when, where, and how the seized sachets were marked. Furthermore, it was unexplained why the sachets were already marked when transmitted to the forensic chemist. The failure to present the substance itself also rendered the chain of custody fatally flawed.

  4. Yes, the failure to transfer the seized items to the investigating officer and the confusion regarding the person responsible for delivering the items to the forensic chemist tainted the chain of custody. This violated the procedure in the conduct of buy-bust operations.

  5. No, the failure to produce the corpus delicti in court cannot be remedied by a stipulation regarding the findings of the forensic chemist. The stipulation does not cure the lack of proof of identification of the seized item and the transfer of its custody.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt.

  • The prosecution must present the actual illegal drug as evidence in court to establish the corpus delicti.

  • The need for compliance with the chain of custody of evidence is underscored by the rule on the presentation of the recovered substance and the certainty that what was recovered from the accused is the same substance presented in evidence.

  • The custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and surrendered dangerous drugs must comply with the requirements of Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165. Non-compliance with these requirements, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, shall not render such seizures and custody invalid.

  • In order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, the prosecution must prove the seizure and marking of the illegal drug, the turnover of the drug to the investigating officer, the turnover to the forensic chemist for examination, and the turnover and submission of the marked drug to the court. Failure to establish any link in the chain of custody can taint the identification of the seized drugs.

  • The chain of custody requirement is essential in ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items are preserved.

  • The failure to comply with the proper procedure in conducting buy-bust operations can cast doubt on the legality and validity of the arrest and seizure.

  • The prosecution must present sufficient evidence to prove the identification and custody of the seized items in order to establish the corpus delicti.

  • A stipulation regarding the findings of a forensic chemist cannot cure the lack of proof of the identification and custody of the seized items.