View full case

PEOPLE v. MANUEL GAMBOA Y FRANCISCO

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Manuel Gamboa was charged with the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that a buy-bust operation was conducted after receiving information that Gamboa was engaged in selling shabu. The poseur-buyer gave Gamboa buy-bust money and Gamboa handed him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. The back-up officers arrested Gamboa and conducted a preventive search where they recovered another plastic sachet and the buy-bust money. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed. The forensic chemist confirmed that the substances tested positive for shabu. Gamboa denied the allegations, claiming he was wrongfully arrested for vagrancy. The RTC found Gamboa guilty and the CA affirmed the decision. Gamboa appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the chain of custody was not properly established.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there was a violation of the chain of custody rule in the handling of the seized items.

  2. Whether the deviation from the prescribed chain of custody rule is justified.

  3. Whether the failure of the prosecution to comply with the witness requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 renders the confiscated items inadmissible.

  4. Whether the prosecution provided justifiable grounds for their failure to comply with the witness requirement.

  5. Whether the arraignment of the accused was proper;

  6. Whether the trial court erred in admitting the extrajudicial confession as evidence;

  7. Whether the trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

  1. The court finds that there was a violation of the chain of custody rule. The seized items were not properly marked in the presence of an elected public official, as well as a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

  2. The court held that minor deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule can be excused if there is a justifiable reason for non-compliance. However, in this case, the prosecution failed to provide a justifiable reason for the deviations.

  3. The absence of witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason or a showing of genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses must be provided by the prosecution.

  4. The prosecution failed to provide a plausible explanation for their failure to comply with the witness requirement. Mere statements of unavailability, without any serious attempts to contact the barangay chairperson, members of the barangay council, or other elected public officials, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. As such, the Court concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been compromised. The accused is therefore acquitted.

  5. The arraignment of the accused was proper. The accused was properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and he voluntarily and intelligently entered a plea of not guilty.

  6. The trial court erred in admitting the extrajudicial confession as evidence. The confession was obtained in violation of the accused's right against self-incrimination, as it was elicited through the use of force and intimidation.

  7. The trial court erred in finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt. There was insufficiency of evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime charged and to positively identify the accused as the perpetrator.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In order to establish possession of a prohibited drug, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty. The prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody over the drug.

  • Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value.

  • Failure to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 does not automatically render the seizure and custody of the items as void and invalid, as long as the prosecution can prove that there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

  • The justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact by the prosecution. The court cannot presume the existence of justifiable grounds for the deviations.

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

  • The prosecution has the positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Any perceived deviations from the procedure must be acknowledged and justified by the prosecution. Failure to comply with the procedure may result in the acquittal of the accused.

  • A valid arraignment requires that the accused be properly informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and that he voluntarily and intelligently enters a plea.

  • The admission of extrajudicial confessions as evidence is subject to the requirement that it is obtained voluntarily and without violation of the accused's constitutional right against self-incrimination.

  • In criminal cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The absence of sufficient evidence to establish all the elements of the crime charged and to positively identify the accused as the perpetrator warrants an acquittal.