View full case

PEOPLE v. RAMIL DORIA DAHIL

FACTS:

The case involves the prosecution of two individuals, Dahil and Castro, for the sale and possession of illegal drugs specifically marijuana. The police officers conducted a buy-bust operation wherein Dahil handed over six sachets of marijuana to PO2 Corpuz in exchange for marked bills. Five additional sachets of marijuana were recovered from Dahil's possession and a brick of marijuana was found in Castro's possession. The confiscated drugs were sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, which yielded positive results for marijuana. The prosecution offered documentary evidence including affidavits, the marked money, inventory of seized items, laboratory examination request, and chemistry report. The defense claimed that they were framed and abducted by unknown persons before being brought to Clark Air Base where they were charged with drug offenses. The RTC found Dahil and Castro guilty and imposed life imprisonment and fines for illegal sale and possession of marijuana. The CA affirmed the decision, ruling that the prosecution established the crimes and the identity of the confiscated drugs.

The appellant, Ronald Dahil and his co-accused, Evelyn Castro, were charged with violation of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The evidence against Dahil consisted of five bricks of marijuana, while Castro was found in possession of one brick of marijuana. The drugs confiscated from Dahil were marked as "B-1" to "B-5" with the initials "ADGC" and "EML," while the marijuana brick seized from Castro was marked as "C-RDRC."

The upper court found that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody. Testimonies from PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu confirmed that the seized drugs were marked at the police station. There was an inventory report of the confiscated items, duly signed by Kagawad Pamintuan. The Request for Laboratory Examination also indicated that the same drugs were submitted to the PNP crime laboratory for examination. Additionally, the Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002 confirmed that the specimen gave positive results for marijuana. The accused failed to provide any proof that the confiscated marijuana items were tampered with or switched before their delivery to the crime laboratory.

Consequently, the sole issue in this appeal is whether or not the law enforcement officers substantially complied with the chain of custody procedure required by Republic Act No. 9165.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there was an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs.

  2. Whether the prosecution established the corpus delicti of the crime charged.

  3. Was there a valid inventory conducted in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165?

  4. Was there substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165?

  5. Whether or not the marking of the seized drugs was properly done immediately after they were seized from the accused.

  6. Whether or not the markings on the seized drugs were made in the presence of the accused.

  7. Whether or not the failure to immediately mark the seized drugs and the absence of markings on some of the seized drugs cast doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.

  8. Whether or not the belated marking of the seized drugs, as well as the failure to properly mark some of the seized drugs, violated the chain of custody rule.

  9. Whether the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

  10. Whether there were irregularities in the turnover of the seized drugs to the investigating officer and the forensic chemist.

  11. Whether there was proper turnover of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.

  12. Whether there was compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

  13. Whether the presumption of regularity of the performance of official duties can be applied in favor of the police officers.

RULING:

  1. The Court found that there was no unbroken chain of custody. The strict procedure outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) was not complied with. The inventory of the seized property was not immediately conducted after seizure and confiscation, as required by law.

  2. The prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of the crime charged. There were substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, raising doubts about the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.

  3. No, there was no valid inventory conducted in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165. The prosecution failed to justify the delayed conduct of the inventory and there were conflicting claims as to who prepared the Inventory of Property Seized. Moreover, there were conflicting statements on whether the seized items were photographed in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official.

  4. Yes, there was substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165. While there was failure to strictly comply with the law, jurisprudence dictates that substantial compliance is sufficient. The issue of non-compliance with Section 21 is not of admissibility, but of the weight to be given to the evidence. As long as it can be proven that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, substantial compliance is acceptable.

  5. The marking of the seized drugs was not properly done immediately after they were seized from the accused. The markings were only placed at the police station and were not made in the presence of the accused.

  6. There was no showing that the markings on the seized drugs were made in the presence of the accused.

  7. The failure to immediately mark the seized drugs and the absence of markings on some of the seized drugs cast doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.

  8. The belated marking of the seized drugs, as well as the failure to properly mark some of the seized drugs, violated the chain of custody rule.

  9. The Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs. There was no testimony or evidence regarding the turnover of the seized items to the investigating officer, SPO4 Jamisolamin. It is highly improbable for an investigator in a drug-related case to effectively perform his work without having custody of the seized items. The failure to establish the necessary links in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in previous cases where similar irregularities were present. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence on how the seized marijuana was handled and transferred to the crime laboratory. The forensic chemist did not appear in court and the stipulated testimony provided no information on who received the subject drugs at the crime laboratory. Lastly, there was no testimonial or documentary evidence on how the drugs were kept while in the custody of the forensic chemist until its transfer to the court. The inadequate stipulations regarding the custody of the seized drug in previous cases also resulted in acquittal. Therefore, the Court can only conclude that there was no proper chain of custody established in this case.

  10. The court concluded that there was no compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 due to the inadequate physical inventory and the lack of photography of the confiscated marijuana. The prosecution failed to prove the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, breaching the four links required to establish the proper chain of custody.

  11. The court disagreed with the Court of Appeals (CA) that the presumption of regularity of the performance of official duties could apply in favor of the police officers. The records showed serious lapses and irregularities, which cast doubt on the regularity of their performance. The presumption of regularity is weaker than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Appeal in criminal cases opens the whole case for review, and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment, whether assigned or unassigned, especially when the liberty of the accused is at stake.

  • The presentation of dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material and indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.

  • The identity of the dangerous drugs should be established beyond doubt by showing that the items offered in court were the same substances bought during the buy-bust operation.

  • The chain of custody ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.

  • Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 provides the procedures to be observed by the apprehending officers to confirm the chain of custody. Non-compliance with these requirements, under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, does not invalidate the seizures and custody of said items.

  • The conduct of a valid inventory in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165 is necessary for the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

  • Non-compliance with the strict requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 does not render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized inadmissible. Substantial compliance is sufficient.

  • The chain of custody of the seized items must be shown to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The prosecution must establish every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it was offered into evidence, to ensure that there was no change in its condition and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

  • The marking of seized drugs is crucial in proving the chain of custody and serves to separate the marked evidence from other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure until the end of the criminal proceedings. Failure to immediately mark the seized drugs casts doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti.

  • The chain of custody rule may be relaxed in certain cases, such as when the marking of seized items is allowed to be undertaken at the police station instead of the place of arrest, as long as it is done in the presence of the accused.

  • The proper marking of seized drugs should be done at the earliest possible opportunity, and failure to do so may result in mix-ups and uncertainty as to the identity of the corpus delicti.

  • The belated marking of seized drugs, as well as the failure to properly mark some of the seized drugs, violates the chain of custody rule.

  • The chain of custody is essential in drug cases to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

  • The turnover of seized drugs to the investigating officer and the forensic chemist must be properly established.

  • The testimony of the forensic chemist is crucial in providing information on the custody of the seized drugs.

  • Stipulated testimony should provide sufficient details on the custody of the seized drugs in order to maintain their integrity.

  • Compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is necessary for the admissibility of seized items as evidence.

  • The presumption of regularity of the performance of official duties can be overcome by evidence showing lapses and irregularities in the conduct of police officers.