View full case

PEOPLE v. PABLITO PAGASPAS Y ALCANTARA

FACTS:

On July 19, 2017, a buy-bust operation was conducted by a team of police officers against Pablito Pagaspas and Joey De Leon, accused of violating the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The operation took place in Sitio Palao, Kapayapaan Village, Brgy. Canlubang, City of Calamba, Province of Laguna. A confidential informant knocked on the door of Pagaspas' house, and De Leon responded and asked if they were there to buy drugs. After a marked money exchange, De Leon shouted to Pagaspas that there was a buyer. Pagaspas came out and gave a plastic sachet of suspected shabu to the police officer. Pagaspas was arrested, and De Leon was apprehended by another police officer. The other members of the buy-bust team and witnesses arrived, witnessed the marking of the drugs, and conducted an inventory. Five sachets were recovered, and these were turned over for examination. Both Pagaspas and De Leon pleaded not guilty and claimed they were framed by the police officers. However, they were found guilty by the Regional Trial Court and sentenced accordingly.

Pablito Pagaspas and Joey De Leon were charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 5 and Section 11, respectively, of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The trial court found them guilty, ruling that the arresting officers had no ill motive and that all the elements of the crimes were sufficiently established.

On appeal, Pagaspas and De Leon argued that the arresting officers failed to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 and failed to establish every link in the chain of custody. They further claimed that it was ambiguous whether one of the arresting officers solely delivered the seized items to the Crime Laboratory or if he was accompanied by another officer. They also contended that the prosecution failed to establish the second link in the chain of custody.

The Court of Appeals affirmed their convictions, finding that there was an unbroken chain of custody and that the arresting officers had no ill motive. De Leon and Pagaspas filed a Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court, which ordered the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs.

The issues before the Supreme Court are whether Pagaspas and De Leon are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

The Supreme Court held that Pagaspas and De Leon must be acquitted because the arresting officers' failure to comply with the strict requirements of RA 9165 cast doubt on the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, which are essential elements in establishing the offenses.

The elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were discussed, along with the requirement of establishing the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. It was emphasized that the integrity and identity of the dangerous drugs must be preserved for a conviction.

Section 21 of RA 9165, which governs the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs, was also cited, highlighting the requirements for physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or their representative, elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media.

The Supreme Court concluded that there was reasonable doubt in this case due to the non-compliance with Section 21 and the failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody. Therefore, Pagaspas and De Leon must be acquitted.

In the case of People v. Castillo, the prosecution was tasked with establishing the chain of custody of a confiscated illegal drug. The court identified four links that needed to be proven: First, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer. Second, the turnover of the seized illegal drug from the apprehending officer to the investigating officer.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether there were discrepancies in the markings of the seized drugs that compromised the integrity and identity of the evidence.

  2. Whether there was a failure to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs due to the lack of narration on how the police officer handled the seized items.

  3. Whether the chain of custody of the seized items was properly established.

  4. Whether there were justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

  5. Whether there was noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements in the handling of the seized shabu.

  6. Whether the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty justifies the police officers' noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements.

RULING:

  1. Yes, there were discrepancies in the markings of the seized drugs. The different versions of the markings cast doubt on whether the seized items presented in court were the exact ones seized from the accused. The discrepancies in the markings compromise the integrity and identity of the evidence, and therefore, acquittal must ensue.

  2. Yes, there was a failure to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The prosecution's narrative did not provide a clear account of how the police officer maintained custody of the seized items. The lack of narration on how the items were handled creates doubts on the integrity of the evidence.

  3. The chain of custody of the seized items was not properly established. The court found that there were gaps and inconsistencies in how the items were handled and kept in custody. The police officer's act of keeping the items in his pockets was deemed inadequate to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The court also noted the lack of testimony regarding the turnover of the seized items to the investigating officer. Therefore, the broken and unreliable chain of custody was fatal to the prosecution's case.

  4. The prosecution failed to show justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21. The court found that there was no justification provided for deviating from the strict requirements of the law. Therefore, non-compliance with Section 21 rendered the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid.

  5. The Court held that there was noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements in the handling of the seized shabu. The prosecution failed to justify why the seized items went straight from the apprehending officer to the forensic chemist, bypassing an investigating officer. The deviation from the links in the chain of custody raises reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized items. Therefore, the accused must be acquitted.

  6. The Court ruled that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot justify the police officers' noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements. The presumption of regularity applies only when law enforcers comply with the standard conduct of official duty required by law. In this case, there were flagrant lapses and irregularities in the law enforcers' conduct, rendering the presumption inapplicable.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The prosecution must establish the four links in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: seizure and marking, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and turnover to the court.

  • Marking of the seized evidence immediately after seizure is crucial in proving the chain of custody. It serves to separate the marked evidence from other similar or related evidence and prevents switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

  • Discrepancies in the markings of seized drugs cast doubt on the authenticity of the evidence and compromise the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti.

  • Failure to provide a clear account of how the seized items were handled can result in a failure to establish the chain of custody.

  • The chain of custody is a crucial element in proving the integrity of seized items in drug-related cases.

  • Merely keeping the seized items in the pockets of a police officer does not ensure their integrity.

  • The failure to establish the transfer of the seized items to the investigating officer breaks the chain of custody.

  • Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 renders the seizure and custody of the items void and invalid, unless there are justifiable grounds for such non-compliance.

  • Compliance with the chain of custody requirements is essential in drug-related cases to ensure the identity and integrity of the seized items.

  • Noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements may be excused if the prosecution acknowledges the procedural lapses and justifies the deviation, describing in detail the measures taken to preserve the items' identity and integrity.

  • The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty applies only when law enforcers comply with the standard conduct of official duty required by law. It cannot stand when there are irregularities in their conduct.