View full case

PEOPLE v. ANASTACIO HEMENTIZA Y DELA CRUZ

FACTS:

The case involves Anastacio Hementiza y Dela Cruz (accused-appellant) who was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. In Criminal Case No. 03-25726, accused-appellant was charged with possession of shabu, while in Criminal Case No. 03-25727, he was charged with the sale of shabu.

According to the prosecution, on May 25, 2003, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the police at Sitio Lower Sto. Nino, Barangay Sta. Cruz, Antipolo City. Accused-appellant was allegedly peddling drugs in the area. The poseur-buyer, PO2 Rache E. Palconit, approached accused-appellant and bought shabu from him. The rest of the team rushed to the scene after the sale was consummated. Accused-appellant was frisked and the marked money and two plastic sachets containing shabu were recovered from his pocket. The seized items were brought to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Office for examination, which confirmed that the substances were shabu.

Accused-appellant, on the other hand, claimed that he was playing billiards when three armed men arrived, pointed a gun at him, frisked and handcuffed him. However, the trial court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the violations charged and sentenced him accordingly. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Hence, this appeal before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were established.

  2. Whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly preserved.

  3. Whether there was strict compliance with the chain of custody requirement under RA 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations (IRR).

  4. Whether the failure to comply with the chain of custody requirement renders the seized items inadmissible as evidence.

  5. Whether the marking of the seized items was done in accordance with the chain of custody rule.

  6. Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

  7. Whether the failure to mention the markings in the incident report and affidavit of arrest affects the admissibility of the seized items as evidence.

  8. Whether the unmarked drugs were properly transported and custody was maintained.

  9. Whether the failure to follow the procedure mandated under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR in the submission of seized drugs to the court as evidence is a fatal lapse.

  10. Whether the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty to sustain a conviction.

RULING:

  1. The Court held that the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were not sufficiently proven. The prosecution failed to establish the essential elements for both offenses, such as the identity of the buyer and seller, the delivery of the drugs, and the possession of the drugs without authorization.

  2. The Court emphasized the importance of the chain of custody in cases involving dangerous drugs. The chain of custody refers to the recorded movements and custody of the seized drugs from the time of seizure to receipt in the laboratory and eventually to presentation in court for destruction. The chain of custody is crucial in establishing the identity and integrity of the drugs as evidence, especially since drugs are subject to tampering, alteration, or substitution.

  3. The court held that there was no strict compliance with the chain of custody requirement. The prosecution failed to demonstrate substantial compliance with the safeguards provided by RA 9165 and its IRR. There was no inventory of the seized items made, and there was no evidence that the apprehending team photographed the contraband in accordance with the law.

  4. The court ruled that the failure to comply with the chain of custody requirement does not automatically render the seized items inadmissible as evidence. Non-compliance may be excused if there are justifiable grounds and as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

  5. The marking of the seized items was not done in accordance with the chain of custody rule. The markings were made at the PDEA office instead of the place of seizure, and there was no mention of the accused or his representatives being present during the marking.

  6. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were not preserved. The failure to mention the markings in the incident report and affidavit of arrest, as well as the transportation of unmarked drugs, raises doubts on the handling and custody of the evidence.

  7. The failure to mention the markings in the incident report and affidavit of arrest affects the admissibility of the seized items as evidence. The marking should have been made prior to writing the incident report and executing the affidavit of arrest.

  8. The transportation of unmarked drugs raises questions about proper custody and maintenance of the evidence. It is unclear how the unmarked drugs were transported and who took custody of them while in transit.

  9. The saving clause in Section 21, IRR of R.A. No. 9165 does not remedy the lapses in the procedure for the submission of seized drugs to the court. The prosecution is required to adequately explain the failure to follow the procedure. In this case, the absence of evidence on how the illegal drugs were brought to court and the failure to justify the procedural lapses create a reasonable doubt on the integrity of the evidence. As a result, the corpus delicti has not been adequately proven, and the accused is acquitted.

  10. In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The substance illegally possessed and sold must be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The elements necessary in every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs are the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the drugs and payment.

  • The elements necessary in prosecuting a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are the accused's possession of the prohibited drug, the absence of authorization, and the accused's conscious and voluntary possession.

  • The presentation of the dangerous drug itself is essential in proving the corpus delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs.

  • The chain of custody must be properly established to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized drugs as evidence.

  • The chain of custody rule requires testimony on every link in the chain, from the moment the drugs were seized to their presentation in court, to ensure that there was no tampering, alteration, or contamination.

  • In cases involving dangerous drugs, the chain of custody requirement is more stringent compared to cases involving readily identifiable objects. It requires a more exacting standard to ensure that the original item has not been exchanged, contaminated, or tampered with.

  • The chain of custody requirement under RA 9165 and its IRR includes the marking of the seized drugs or related items immediately after seizure, as well as the turnover of the items to different individuals for examination and presentation in court.

  • Strict compliance with the chain of custody requirement is not always necessary. Non-compliance may be excused if there are justifiable grounds and if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

  • The chain of custody rule requires the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of seized items in drug cases.

  • Marking of seized items should be done at the place of seizure and in the presence of the accused or his representatives.

  • Failure to follow the chain of custody rule, including proper marking and documentation, may significantly impair the prosecution's case.

  • The presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by law enforcers cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and cannot alone constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • The chain of custody requirement is a method of authenticating the seized drugs as evidence, and it ensures that the drugs have not been tampered with or substituted.

  • The custody of the seized drugs must be shown from the time of seizure until its presentation in court, with each transfer of custody recorded and identified.

  • The failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody raises doubts as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

  • The saving clause in Section 21, IRR of R.A. No. 9165 applies only when procedural lapses are recognized by the prosecution and justifiable grounds are cited.

  • Failure to follow the procedure mandated under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR must be adequately explained by the prosecution.

  • The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty to sustain a conviction in cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs.

  • Conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The substance illegally possessed or sold must be proven to be the same substance offered in court as evidence.