View full case

PEOPLE v. JANET PEROMINGAN Y GEROCHE

FACTS:

Janet Peromingan y Geroche was charged with violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 for selling 0.057 grams of shabu. The prosecution presented testimonies from a forensic chemist and a police officer who participated in the buy-bust operation. The chemist confirmed that the substance in the sachet was Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, while the police officer testified that he received information about Peromingan selling drugs and conducted the operation. He approached Peromingan, handed her money, and received the sachet in return. Peromingan claimed that she was forcibly taken to the police station while walking with her son and denied involvement in the drug sale. The RTC convicted her, and the CA affirmed the decision citing the validity of the operation and the integrity of the seized substance. Peromingan appealed to the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there were irregularities in the custody and disposition of the confiscated drugs that compromised the identity of the corpus delicti.

  2. Whether the failure to follow the procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, rendered the evidence of the seized drug inadmissible.

  3. Did the police officers follow the procedural safeguards prescribed by law in handling the seized drugs?

  4. Was there a proper chain of custody of the confiscated dangerous drug?

  5. Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty should prevail over the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.

  6. Whether the evidence presented against the accused is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

RULING:

  1. The appeal is meritorious. The State has the burden of proving the elements of the offense of sale of dangerous drugs, which include presenting the seized drugs and proving that there were no substantial gaps in the chain of custody. The State and its agents are mandated to faithfully observe the safeguards in every drug-related operation and prosecution. Failure to do so may raise doubts about the authenticity of the evidence. In this case, the irregularities and substantial gaps in the custody and disposition of the confiscated drugs compromised the identity of the corpus delicti.

  2. The failure to follow the procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, rendered the evidence of the seized drug inadmissible. Section 21 provides procedural safeguards covering the seizure, custody, and disposition of dangerous drugs. Non-compliance with these requirements, unless justified by justifiable grounds and as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, renders the seizures and custody over said items void and invalid.

  3. The Court held that the police officers did not follow the procedural safeguards prescribed by law and failed to establish a proper chain of custody of the seized drugs. There were serious gaps in the documentation of the movement and custody of the seized items, as well as the marking, inventory, and picture-taking. The officers did not coordinate with any media representative, Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, or elected official during the physical inventory. Furthermore, there was no proof that the marking and inventory of the seized drugs were done in the presence of the accused or her representative, and no photograph was taken to document the evidence seized. The "Turn Over Receipt/Inventory of Seized Items" was also not signed by the necessary witnesses. These lapses and actuations of the police officers resulted in the non-preservation of the chain of custody, raising serious doubt on the authenticity of the drugs presented as evidence.

  4. The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty should not prevail over the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. The presumption of regularity becomes entirely bereft of factual and legal bases when there are various patent indications of lapses on the part of the officers.

  5. The evidence presented against the accused is not sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The State bears the burden of proving the elements of the offense of sale of dangerous drugs, including the presentation of the seized drugs and ensuring the integrity of the evidence.

  • Courts should ensure that there are no irregularities or substantial gaps in the custody and disposition of seized drugs, as this may compromise the identity of the corpus delicti.

  • Non-compliance with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, unless justified by justifiable grounds and as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, renders the seizures and custody over said items void and invalid.

  • The procedural safeguards prescribed by law, such as marking, inventory, and picture-taking, are vital in establishing the chain of custody of seized items.

  • The absence of signatures from the necessary witnesses and the errors in the inventory document engender doubts on the proper custody and handling of seized drugs.

  • Excessive reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties is unwarranted when there are patent indications of lapses by the police officers.

  • The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty should not be stronger than the presumption of innocence favoring the accused.

  • The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty should not be a factor in adjudging the accused guilty of the crime charged if the proof adduced against the accused does not overcome the presumption of innocence.

  • The constitutional guarantee of being presumed innocent should not be subordinate to a mere rule of evidence primarily devised for judicial convenience.