View full case

PEOPLE v. JOEY SANCHEZ Y LICUDINE

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Joey Sanchez was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) against Sanchez. The prosecution alleged that Sanchez, who was identified as alias "Totoy," was engaged in illegal drug trade at the Bacnotan Public Market. During the operation, the poseur-buyer was able to purchase a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) from Sanchez. Two more sachets of shabu were found in Sanchez's possession. The seized sachets were subjected to markings, inventory, and photography, and later confirmed by the PNP Crime Laboratory to contain shabu. Sanchez pleaded not guilty and claimed that he was falsely accused. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Sanchez guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment for illegal sale and 12 years and 1 day to 20 years for illegal possession. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision with modifications, imposing fines on Sanchez. Aggrieved, Sanchez filed an appeal before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not there was a proper chain of custody of the illegal drugs seized from the accused.

  2. Whether or not the non-compliance with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR rendered the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid.

  3. Whether the non-observance of the witness requirement during the conduct of inventory and photography in a buy-bust operation renders the confiscated items inadmissible as evidence.

  4. Whether the prosecution provided justifiable grounds or showed that special circumstances exist which would excuse the non-observance of the witness requirement.

  5. Whether or not the State has proven the integrity of the corpus delicti in a prosecution for the sale and possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165.

RULING:

  1. The Court found that there was an unjustified deviation from the prescribed chain of custody rule. The presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media during the conduct of the inventory did not cure the deviations. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were put into question.

  2. Non-compliance with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR does not automatically render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid. The prosecution must prove that there was a justifiable ground for non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

  3. The non-observance of the witness requirement during the conduct of inventory and photography in a buy-bust operation does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible as evidence.

  4. The prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds or show that special circumstances exist which would excuse their non-compliance with the witness requirement. Mere statements of unavailability, without actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. The prosecution must show that earnest efforts were made in contacting the required witnesses.

  5. The appeal is granted, and the accused-appellant is acquitted of the crimes charged.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In criminal appeals, the reviewing tribunal has the duty to correct and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment, regardless of whether they are assigned or unassigned.

  • In cases involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, the consideration, the delivery of the thing sold, and the payment.

  • In cases involving illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish that the accused was in possession of a prohibited drug, the possession was not authorized by law, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.

  • The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty, and an unbroken chain of custody must be shown from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court.

  • Non-compliance with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may be justified under certain circumstances as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must explain the reasons for the procedural lapses, and the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact.

  • The law requires the presence of an elected public official, as well as representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media, during the actual conduct of inventory and photography in a buy-bust operation to ensure the observance of the chain of custody rule and prevent tampering, switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

  • Minor deviations from the witness requirement may be excused if a justifiable reason for non-compliance is explained.

  • In a prosecution for the sale and possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, the prosecution must not only state reasons for their non-compliance but also convince the court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure and that their actions were reasonable.

  • Mere statements of unavailability of witnesses, without actual serious attempts to contact them, are considered flimsy excuses and unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance with the witness requirement.

  • The State carries the burden of proving not only the elements of the offense but also the integrity of the corpus delicti in a prosecution for the sale and possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165.

  • Compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.

  • Prosecutors have a positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165, and they must justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings before the trial court.

  • The failure to raise or thresh out any issue regarding compliance with the procedure during the proceedings below does not preclude the appellate court from examining the records of the case to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation.

  • In the absence of justifiable reasons for any deviation from the procedure, it is the appellate court's duty to acquit the accused and overturn a conviction.

  • Law enforcement officers are not justified in disregarding the rights of individuals in the name of order, and the Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection both the innocent and the guilty against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities.