View full case

PEOPLE v. ROBERTO HOLGADO Y DELA CRUZ

FACTS:

The accused-appellants, Roberto Holgado and Antonio Misarez, were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs. They were accused of selling drugs to a police officer during a buy-bust operation. Holgado and Misarez attempted to escape but were apprehended, and a search warrant was enforced leading to the seizure of other drugs and paraphernalia. They were also charged with additional offenses but were acquitted. The plastic sachet, which was the basis of the illegal sale charge, was allegedly marked by the police officer at the site of the operation. During trial, the accused-appellants denied the buy-bust operation and claimed unlawful entry by the police. Defense witnesses supported their claims. The Pasig City Regional Trial Court found the accused guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision. The accused filed their notice of appeal, and the Office of the Solicitor General waived filing a supplemental brief. The accused filed a joint supplemental brief questioning the compliance with the chain of custody requirements. The main issue is whether the accused's guilt for violating the law was established, as well as compliance with the law's requisites. The prosecution needs to establish the sale transaction and present the drugs as evidence. The accused argued noncompliance with the custody and inventory requirements.

The case involves a prosecution for possession of illegal drugs. The accused were arrested and charged based on seized items alleged to be drugs in a buy-bust operation. The items were submitted for examination, and a certification of the results was issued. The defense argued failure to comply with the law's requirement raises doubts about the seized items. The court emphasized the importance of integrity in drug prosecutions, as failure to ensure it raises doubts about the search and the possibility of planted evidence. The court explained the need for exactitude in handling narcotics due to their fungible nature. Thus, the state must show the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit for the finding to be admissible.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

  2. Whether failure to establish the identity of the corpus delicti and non-compliance with Section 21 is a ground for acquittal.

  3. Whether the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug was properly established.

  4. Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties can apply in this case.

  5. Whether there was compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 regarding the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

  6. Whether the quantity of drugs seized is significant in determining the integrity of the evidence.

  7. Whether or not the accused-appellants Roberto Holgado y Dela Cruz and Antonia Misarez y Zaraga should be acquitted due to failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  8. Whether or not the Regional Trial Court should turn over the seized sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.

RULING:

  1. Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Failure to comply with this requirement indicates a failure to establish an element of the offense, thus sufficing as a ground for acquittal.

  2. Failure to establish the identity of the corpus delicti and non-compliance with Section 21 is a ground for acquittal. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty, and the substance illegally possessed or sold must be the same substance offered in court as an exhibit. The prosecution's guarantees as to the identity and integrity of seized drugs and drug paraphernalia, as well as the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, are not sufficient to secure a conviction.

  3. The Court finds that the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug was compromised. The prosecution failed to establish how the seized item was handled immediately after the seizure, as well as how it was stored, preserved, labeled, and recorded. There were also discrepancies in the testimonies regarding the turnover of the specimen to the crime laboratory. The Court held that the flagrant procedural lapses and evidentiary gaps in the chain of custody cannot be cured, and therefore, the accused must be acquitted.

  4. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be applied in this case. The standard procedure requires that the confiscated substance be brought to the crime laboratory for tests, and the result becomes one of the bases for the charge filed. However, given the serious question regarding the chain of custody, the Court cannot rely on the presumption of regularity. The lower courts erred in relying on this presumption in light of the lapses and irregularities observed.

  5. There was no compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 regarding the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The broken chain of custody, particularly the failure to properly turnover the seized items, cast doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused-appellants.

  6. The miniscule amount of drugs seized is not a ground for acquittal by itself. However, it underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. The likelihood of tampering, loss, or mistake with respect to small amounts of drugs is greater, and thus, more stringent procedures should be followed in their handling.

  7. The accused-appellants Roberto Holgado y Dela Cruz and Antonia Misarez y Zaraga are acquitted due to failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered to be immediately released from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause.

  8. The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the seized sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The evidence offered must have probative value and be sufficiently connected to the facts in issue. Authentication and laying a foundation for the introduction of evidence are important.

  • Narcotic substances are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The likelihood of tampering, loss, or mistake with respect to exhibits is greater for substances that have physical characteristics similar to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. The chain of custody of narcotic substances must be established with sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has been exchanged, contaminated, or tampered with.

  • Compliance with the chain of custody requirement ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in terms of their nature, quantity, relation to the incident, and relation to the person/s alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them.

  • Marking of seized drugs alone is insufficient to comply with the clear and unequivocal procedures prescribed in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.

  • The amendments to Section 21 by Republic Act No. 10640 have made compliance with the chain of custody requirement even more stringent. The physical inventory and photographing of seized items must be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served, or at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.

  • The chain of custody of seized evidence must be clearly established to maintain its integrity and evidentiary value.

  • Procedural lapses and evidentiary gaps in the chain of custody may compromise the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties.

  • The presumption of regularity in the performance of duties applies only when nothing in the record suggests deviation from the standard conduct of official duty required by law.

  • Compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 regarding the chain of custody of the seized drugs is essential to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence.

  • The quantity of drugs seized, although not a ground for acquittal by itself, may be considered in evaluating the integrity of the evidence and the need for more stringent procedures in handling small amounts of drugs.

  • Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165 and employ heightened scrutiny in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs. Doubt may arise in cases where an accused has been discharged from other simultaneous offenses due to mishandling of evidence.

  • Law enforcers and prosecutors should focus resources on the source and true leadership of drug cartels rather than small-time drug users and retailers. Prosecutions involving small amounts of drugs may distract from the more essential task of uprooting the causes of the drug menace.

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

  • Accused-appellants should be acquitted if the prosecution fails to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • Seized illegal drugs should be turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.