View full case

PEOPLE v. ABDUL RACMAN OSOP OMAR

FACTS:

The case involves the arrest and conviction of two individuals, Omar and Rascal, for the sale and possession of shabu. The police officers conducted a buy-bust operation after receiving information about Omar and Rascal's drug activities. During the operation, the police officers recovered sachets of shabu from Rascal. The seized items were properly marked and inventory was conducted in the presence of witnesses. The defense claimed they were framed and presented their testimonies. The trial court convicted Omar and Rascal for the sale and possession of shabu.

Omar and Rascal appealed their conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA), but their appeal was denied. The CA found that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of the offenses and established the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The CA also dismissed the appellants' claim regarding the belated presence of witnesses during the inventory. Omar and Rascal then appealed to the Supreme Court, raising various issues such as the sufficiency of the evidence and the integrity of the prosecution's witness.

The Supreme Court emphasized that an appeal in criminal cases allows the reviewing tribunal to correct errors in the appealed judgment. Regarding the chain of custody, the Court reiterated the State's duty to account for any lapses, even if the issue is raised for the first time on appeal. This duty is necessary to safeguard evidence integrity and evidentiary value.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not Omar and Rascal are guilty of offenses under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 or whether or not there was an actual buy-bust operation;

  2. Whether appellant Rascal is guilty of the offense under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165;

  3. Whether the PDEA complied with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

  4. Whether the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs

  5. Whether the possession was authorized by law

  6. Whether the accused freely and consciously possessed the drugs

  7. Whether there was an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs

  8. Whether there was a proper chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs.

  9. Whether the defense of frame-up was proven with clear and convincing evidence.

  10. Whether there was compliance with the requirement of witnesses during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items.

  11. Whether the alleged belated presence of the required witnesses render the confiscated items inadmissible.

  12. Whether the maximum penalty of life imprisonment may be imposed for illegal possession of dangerous drugs without it being committed in the presence of two or more persons or in a social gathering.

RULING:

  1. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in perfunctorily dismissing an issue raised by Omar and Rascal solely on the ground that it was raised for the first time on appeal. The appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and the reviewing tribunal has the duty to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment, whether they are assigned or unassigned. It is the duty of the appellate court to examine the records, revise the judgment appealed from, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.

  2. The Court also affirmed the convictions of Omar and Rascal for the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The prosecution was able to prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, as well as the delivery of the drugs and the payment. PO2 Vildosola, the poseur-buyer, identified Omar and Rascal as the ones who sold him shabu, and PO2 Vildosola's testimony was supported by other evidence such as the forensic examination of the sachets, the buy-bust money, and the inventory of the seized items.

  3. With regard to the charge of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs against Rascal, the Court did not explicitly state the ruling in the partial digest provided.

  4. The Court found the accused guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The prosecution was able to establish that the accused was in possession of 79 sachets of shabu, which were confirmed to be dangerous drugs. The accused did not assert that his possession was authorized, and his conscious possession was shown by his failure to deny or protest his possession when arrested.

  5. The Court also found that there was an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs. The first link in the chain was established when the drugs were marked by the apprehending officer. The safekeeping of the drugs was duly established through testimonial evidence. The second and third links were established when the drugs were brought to the police station and then to the crime laboratory.

  6. The court held that there was a proper chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs. The arresting officer also acted as the investigating officer who turned over the specimens to the crime laboratory. The drugs did not change hands and were properly sealed and documented. The crime laboratory examination and the subsequent turn over to another police officer for safekeeping further established the integrity of the seized items. Lastly, the items were brought to court without any evidence of tampering or planting.

  7. The defense of frame-up was not proven with clear and convincing evidence. The court noted the large quantity of drugs seized, which makes it less likely for the evidence to be easily planted or tampered with. The lack of resistance from the accused during the arrest and the presence of witnesses during the inventory also supported the prosecution's version of events. The court emphasized the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the credibility of witnesses.

  8. The court held that there was compliance with the requirement of witnesses during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. The prosecution presented the direct testimony of the arresting officer who stated that the media representative, barangay officials, and representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) were present during the marking of the seized items. Additionally, the inventory of the seized items and supporting photographs showed the presence of the required witnesses. The court emphasized that the purpose of requiring witnesses is to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. The minimum safeguards mandated by law have been met.

  9. The court held that the alleged belated presence of the required witnesses does not render the confiscated items inadmissible. The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty stands when no reason exists in the records to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. Even in cases where there is an absence of the required witnesses, the court has taken into consideration the sufficient effort to secure the witnesses. As long as there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, the seizure and custody over the seized items remain valid and admissible.

  10. The Supreme Court ruled that the maximum penalty of life imprisonment may only be imposed for illegal possession of dangerous drugs if it is committed in the presence of two or more persons or in a social gathering. If such circumstances are not present, the maximum imposable penalty should be below life imprisonment, which is currently 40 years and 1 day. In this case, since the accused was not caught possessing the dangerous drugs during a party or in the proximate company of at least two persons, the penalty of imprisonment ranging from 20 years and one day to 30 years was imposed.

PRINCIPLES:

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

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

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

  • In order to prove the identity of the dangerous drugs, there must be an unbroken chain of custody over the drugs from the moment of seizure up to their presentation in court.

  • The chain of custody involves four links: seizure and marking, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist for examination, and turnover to the court.

  • Compliance with the chain of custody procedure is considered a substantive matter of law and is enforced as a safety precaution against potential police abuses.

  • The defense of frame-up in drug cases requires clear and convincing evidence and is viewed with distrust by the court.

  • The presence of witnesses during the physical inventory and photographing of seized items is required to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

  • Strict compliance with the requirements of the law on witnesses may be relaxed as long as there is justifiable ground for non-compliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

  • The maximum penalty of life imprisonment for illegal possession of dangerous drugs may only be imposed if the crime was committed in the presence of two or more persons or in a social gathering.

  • If the circumstances mentioned in principle 1 are not present, the maximum imposable penalty should be below life imprisonment.

  • The penalty for illegal possession of dangerous drugs may range from 20 years and one day to 30 years in imprisonment.