View full case

PEOPLE v. GLENN DE GUZMAN Y DELOS REYES

FACTS:

The appellant, Glenn De Guzman, was charged with the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. According to the prosecution's version of events, an entrapment operation took place on November 12, 2009, wherein the appellant was caught selling one sachet of marijuana to a poseur buyer. During his apprehension, the police found four sachets of marijuana and a plastic pack containing a small brick of marijuana on the appellant's person. The confiscated items were marked and turned over to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for marijuana. Despite the appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up, claiming that the evidence against him was planted, the Regional Trial Court found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges. The RTC sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000 for the violation of Section 5, and imprisonment from twelve years and one day to fourteen years and eight months and a fine of P300,000 for the violation of Section 11. The appellant appealed the RTC decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the lower court's findings and upheld the chain of custody over the seized items. The appellant now challenges whether the chain of custody was properly maintained.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the prosecution has established the identity and integrity of the seized illegal drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. Whether the prosecution failed to establish the first and second links of the chain of custody pertaining to the seizure and handling of the seized items from the time of seizure until their delivery at the police station.

  3. Whether the prosecution failed to establish the third link of the chain of custody pertaining to the turnover of the seized items from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist.

  4. Whether the prosecution failed to establish the fourth link of the chain of custody pertaining to the turnover of the seized items from the forensic chemist to the court.

  5. Whether the identity of the corpus delicti was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

  6. Whether there was an unbroken chain of custody over the seized marijuana.

RULING:

  1. No, the prosecution failed to establish the identity and integrity of the seized illegal drugs beyond reasonable doubt.

  2. Yes, the prosecution failed to establish the first and second links of the chain of custody as they did not provide details regarding the handling and disposition of the seized items after the appellant's arrest. The prosecution did not disclose who had custody of the confiscated items after their seizure, nor did they indicate that the arresting officers retained custody of the items until they reached the police station. (Derilo v. People)

  3. Yes, the prosecution failed to establish the third link of the chain of custody as they did not disclose the identity of the person who had custody of the seized items after they were turned over by the investigating officer and before they were examined by the forensic chemist. The prosecution's evidence regarding the turnover of the seized items to the forensic chemist was incomplete. (Derilo v. People)

  4. Yes, the prosecution failed to establish the fourth link of the chain of custody as the forensic chemist did not testify in court. Instead, the parties stipulated to her testimony. It was unusual that the seized items were turned over to an unnamed person at the City Prosecutor's Office before being submitted as evidence to the court. The City Prosecutor's Office had no authority to take custody of the drugs before they were presented in court. (Derilo v. People)

  5. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted the appellant of the charges of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Court determined that the identity of the corpus delicti was not proven beyond reasonable doubt, and that there was a failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized marijuana.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In prosecutions involving dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, and its identity must be established with moral certainty.

  • The presentation of evidence establishing the elements of the offenses of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs alone is insufficient to secure or sustain a conviction under RA 9165.

  • The intrinsic worth of the evidence, particularly the identity and integrity of the seized drug, must be shown to have been preserved.

  • The procedure under Section 21 of RA 9165 provides the safeguards in the handling of seized illegal drugs to preserve their identity and integrity as evidence.

  • Non-compliance with the prescribed procedures under Section 21 does not automatically result in the acquittal of the accused if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.

  • The prosecution has the burden of recognizing and explaining any procedural lapses committed by the apprehending team and demonstrating that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved.

  • In order to establish an unbroken chain of custody of seized items, the prosecution's evidence must include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the items were seized until they are presented in court. This includes the identity of the persons who had custody of the seized items, details of handling and disposition, and precautions taken to ensure no tampering or change in condition. (Derilo v. People)

  • Failure to establish any link in the chain of custody may cast doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot apply if the acts in question are patently irregular. (Derilo v. People)

  • In criminal cases, the prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

  • The chain of custody rule requires the prosecution to show an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items in order to ensure their integrity and evidentiary value. Failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody may result in the exclusion of the seized items as evidence.