View full case

PEOPLE v. PATRICIA CABRELLOS Y DELA CRUZ

FACTS:

Accused-appellant Patricia Cabrellos was charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution alleged that on September 22, 2005, a buy-bust operation was conducted based on a tip from a confidential informant regarding Cabrellos' alleged illegal drug activities in Ayungon, Negros Oriental. The buy-bust team, led by PO3 Allen June Germodo, posed as a buyer and arranged the transaction with Cabrellos. During the operation, Cabrellos sold two sachets of suspected shabu to PO3 Germodo and was subsequently arrested. A search of Cabrellos' bag revealed seventeen more sachets of suspected shabu. The seized items were then brought to the police station for inventory and later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Cabrellos claimed that she was present at her house when two unidentified individuals came looking for her husband and brought her to the police station, where she was made to sign a document already signed by a barangay official. She was then detained for three months before being transferred to Bais City Jail. The RTC found Cabrellos guilty, and the CA affirmed the decision. Cabrellos appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that there was a failure to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule by the police officers put into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

  2. Whether the separate inventories conducted at different places and witnessed by different individuals comply with the required witnesses rule.

  3. Whether or not the petitioner should be acquitted due to insufficiency of evidence.

  4. Whether or not the petitioner should be released from custody.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule by the police officers put into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The police officers admitted in open court that they conducted two separate inventories in different places and in the presence of different witnesses. This is a violation of the chain of custody rule, which requires the inventory to be witnessed by the required personalities at the same time. Such deviations raise doubts about the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

  2. No, the separate inventories conducted at different places and witnessed by different individuals do not comply with the required witnesses rule. The law requires the presence of a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the seized drugs. The wordings of the law do not allow for piecemeal compliance with this requirement. In this case, the arresting officers attempted to cover up the separate inventories by preparing a single inventory sheet signed by the witnesses at different times and places. This is a clear violation of the required witnesses rule.

  3. The Court finds that the evidence presented against the petitioner is insufficient to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, she should be acquitted of the crimes charged.

  4. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause the petitioner's immediate release, unless she is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The insulating presence of a representative from the media, the DOJ, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of seized drugs is required to prevent the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence.

  • Strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not always be possible under varied field conditions. Non-compliance with the requirements will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items as long as there is justifiable ground for non-compliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

  • The prosecution must explain the reasons behind procedural lapses and prove as a fact the justifiable ground for non-compliance. The court cannot presume the existence of these grounds or the reasons for the lapses.

  • Non-compliance with the required witnesses rule does not automatically render the confiscated items inadmissible.

  • The prosecution must show earnest efforts or justifiable reason for the failure to comply with the required witnesses rule.

  • Mere statements of unavailability, without actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.

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

  • The failure to comply with the required witnesses rule can warrant the acquittal of the accused.

  • The accused should be acquitted if the prosecution fails to prove his or her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

  • In case of acquittal, the accused should be released from custody.