Alex Besenio y
Cledoro v. People
G.R. No. 237120
June 26, 2024
FACTS:
The prosecution
averred that the PNP Provincial Headquarters of Camarines Sur Intelligence
Section, in coordination with the PDEA, sought the issuance of a search warrant
against Besenio. They avouched that after culminating a surveillance and a test
buy operation, there was reasonable ground to believe that Besenio was keeping
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu at his house. At around 5 am on August
24, 2006, the search warrant was implemented. Upon arriving at Besenio’s house
and being granted access thereto, the police team conducted the search in the
presence of Besenio, his wife and children, his mother, and the two barangay
officials. In one of the rooms in the house, PSINSP Arce discovered a
heat-sealed plastic sachet containing substance suspected to be shabu. They
immediately took pictures of the sachet and PO2 Alcomendas, the investigator on
duty, placed his initials to mark the same. This was witnessed by Besenio and
the two barangay officials as evidenced by the Certificate of Inventory. He was
then brought to Baao Police Station where the arrest was effected. Thereafter,
a separate Certificate of Inventory was prepared and signed by media
representative Joan Verdeflor and Municipal Councilor Ulysses Dato. No
representative from the DOJ was present as it was still early in the morning.
PO2 Alcomendas then prepared the return for the search warrant, along with a
motion to withdraw evidence to secure possession of the seized heat-sealed plastic
sachet after submitting the same to the issuing court. Upon withdrawal of the seized
sachet, PO2 Alcomendas delivered the same to the crime laboratory where it was
received by the clerk, Llona then the latter turned over the sachet to the
forensic chemist, PINSP Severo. After a qualitative examination, the contents
of the sachet tested positive for shabu. RTC convicted Besenio. CA affirmed.
With his bid for reconsideration having been denied by the CA in the oppugned
Resolution, Besenio now seeks refuge before this Court via a Petition for
Review on Certiorari.
ISSUE:
Whether
or not Besenio should be convicted of violation of Section 11 of RA 9165.
HELD:
No.
Chain of custody has been defined as “the duly recorded, authorized movements, and
custody of the seized drugs at each stage, from the moment of confiscation to
the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until it is presented to
the court.” There are four critical links in the chain of custody of seized
drugs that must be proven:
1)
The seizure and marking of the illegal drugs
recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
2)
The turnover of the illegal drugs seized by the
apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
3)
The turnover by the investigating officer of the
illegal drugs to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
4)
The turnover and submission by the forensic
chemist of the marked illegal drugs to the court.
The conduct of inventory and
taking of photographs of the seized
dangerous drugs must be done:
a.
Immediately after seizure and confiscation;
b.
in the presence of the accused, or the person/s
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative
or counsel; and also in the presence of the insulating witnesses, as follows:
[I]f the seizure occurred during
the effectivity of [Republic Act] No. 9165, or from July 4, 2002
until August 6, 2014, the presence
of three (3) witnesses, namely, an elected public official; a
[DOJ) representative; and a media representative
if the seizure occurred after the
effectivity of [Republic Act] No. 10640, or from August 7, 2014
onward, the presence of two (2)
witnesses, namely, an elected public official; and a National Prosecution
Service representative or a media representative.
In
this case, it is plan as day that the required insulating witnesses were not
present during the seizure of the illegal drugs. The Certificate of
Inventory/Inventory Receipt, which was prepared during the execution of the
search warrant and after the seizure of the illegal drugs, clearly shows that
the only witness present were two elected public officials. Notably, the
subsequent Certificate of Inventory that was prepared at Baao Police Station
was only signed by a media representative and another elected public official,
with no representative from the DOJ.
As
earlier adumbrated, Nisperos mandates that such insulating witnesses
must be present during the conduct and taking of photographs which must be done
immediately after seizure and confiscation of the illegal drugs. Here, not only
were there two separate inventories done, but also, the required witnesses were
incomplete in both instances – in the first, only elected public officials
witnessed the inventory conducted at the place of seizure; and in the second,
only a media representative and another elected public official witnessed the
inventory conducted at Baao Police Station. All the same, there was no DOJ
representative. Even if the Court were to validate the belated second inventory
conducted, the absence of a DOJ representative thereat, and the flimsy
justification proffered by the police officers to explain their absence, falls
short of the earnest efforts required under the law and jurisprudence.
To
be sure, it is well-settled that the presence of insulating witnesses during
the seizure and marking of the illegal drugs “protects the seizure and arrest
from possibilities of switching, ‘planting’ or contamination of the evidence,
which compromise the integrity of the confiscated items.” Consequently, “failure
to comply with this jeopardizes the trustworthiness of corpus delicti,
breaks the chain of custody and, by result, puts the guilt of the accused in
doubt.” This failure to observe the first link is heightened by the fact that
the seizure of the illegal drugs was effected through a search warrant.
Necessarily, a search warrant entails advance planning and preparation,
especially in this instance when the search was preceded by months of
surveillance and even a test buy, which means that noncompliance was all the
more unjustified.
Despite
the judicial admission as to the identity of the seized illegal drugs from the
time of seizure up until it was turned over to the forensic chemist for
qualitative examination, i.e., from the first link to the third in the chain of
custody, the forensic chemist failed to testify:
1)
whether he resealed the specimen after
examination of the contents of the sachet;
2)
the manner of handling and storage of the
specimen before, during, and after the chemical examination; and
3)
whether he took precautionary measures after
examination of the seized drugs specimen to preserve its integrity and
evidentiary value before the same was submitted to the RTC.
At this juncture, the Court
discerns that given the inadequate testimony of the forensic chemist, the
prosecution was unable to prove compliance with the fourth link.
No comments:
Post a Comment