View full case

PEOPLE v. GERALD TAMAYO CORDOVA

FACTS:

Accused-appellants Cordova and Eguiso were charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution alleged that the City Anti-Illegal Drug-Special Operation Task Group received information about Cordova selling drugs and hosting pot sessions. A buy-bust operation was conducted, with PO3 Sebastian acting as the poseur-buyer. Cordova handed a plastic sachet containing suspected shabu to PO3 Sebastian and was subsequently apprehended. Five more sachets of suspected shabu were found in Cordova's possession, while one sachet was found in Eguiso's possession. The seized items were marked, an inventory was conducted, and photographs were taken at the barangay hall. The accused-appellants claimed that they were threatened and that the police conducted an irregular arrest and inventory. The RTC ruled that the prosecution established the elements of the crimes charged and sentenced the accused-appellants accordingly. The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling, stating that there was an unbroken chain of custody despite the delay in forwarding the drugs for examination. The accused-appellants filed this appeal.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule were justified

  2. Whether or not the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved

  3. Whether the non-inclusion of accused-appellant Eguiso in the photographs of the seized items as required by law is a fatal flaw that invalidates the evidence against him.

  4. Whether the absence of the required witnesses and the failure to secure their presence during the inventory and photography of the seized items is a ground for acquittal.

  5. Whether the three-day delay in delivering the seized items to the crime laboratory violates the chain of custody rule and compromises the integrity of the evidence.

  6. Whether or not there was compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165.

  7. Whether or not the deviation from the said procedure is justifiable.

RULING:

  1. The deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule were not justified.

  2. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were not properly preserved.

  3. The non-inclusion of accused-appellant Eguiso in the photographs of the seized items is a fatal flaw that invalidates the evidence against him. The police officer's excuse of oversight is not a justifiable reason to excuse non-compliance with the procedure mandated by law.

  4. The absence of the required witnesses and the failure to secure their presence during the inventory and photography of the seized items is a ground for acquittal. The police officers did not provide any explanation for their non-compliance, and there was a dearth of evidence showing that they attempted to contact and secure the witnesses.

  5. The three-day delay in delivering the seized items to the crime laboratory violates the chain of custody rule and compromises the integrity of the evidence. The agreement between the crime laboratory and the police drug unit on apprehensions made on Fridays to Sundays was not followed, and the items seized were stored in the locker of a police officer without proper security measures. The delay exposes the items to a higher risk of tampering or alteration.

  6. The Court held that there was a failure to comply with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165. The prosecution has the positive duty to prove compliance with the said procedure and justify any perceived deviations from it. The fact that the issue regarding compliance was not raised or discussed in the lower courts does not preclude the appellate court from examining the records to determine if there was full compliance with the procedure. If no justifiable reasons exist to excuse the deviation, the appellate court has the duty to acquit the accused and overturn the conviction.

PRINCIPLES:

  • An appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.

  • In order to secure the conviction of an accused charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment.

  • In instances where an accused is charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish that the accused was in possession of the prohibited drug, such possession was not authorized by law, and the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug.

  • It is essential to establish the identity of the prohibited drug with moral certainty, and the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody over the drug from seizure to presentation in court.

  • Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, detailing the procedure for handling seized drugs to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value.

  • Deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule may be allowed under justifiable grounds, with the condition that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

  • The reasons for the procedural lapses and justifiable grounds for non-compliance must be proven as facts, as the Court cannot presume their existence.

CASE: People v. Cordova

G.R. No. 229914, February 26, 2020

  • The procedure under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act) is a matter of substantive law and non-compliance cannot be excused as a simple procedural technicality. Earnest efforts must be exerted by police officers to comply with the mandated procedure.

  • The absence of the required witnesses and their non-compliance with the inventory and photography of seized items as required by law is a ground for acquittal.

  • A delay in delivering seized items to the crime laboratory must be justified by a justifiable ground. Failure to do so compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items and violates the chain of custody rule.

  • The government's campaign against drug addiction is supported by the Court, but it should not be more demanding than the protections provided by the Bill of Rights.

  • The Constitution protects the innocent and the guilty alike against any high-handedness from the authorities.

  • The prosecution has the duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165 and justify any deviations.

  • Failure to comply with the procedure may affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence obtained.

  • The appellate court has the power to examine the records to determine if there was full compliance with the procedure, even if the issue was not raised in the lower courts.