Laws & Jurisprudence
PROSECUTION OF CASES OF ILLEGAL SALE AND POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS, CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE
8:39 AM
Under R.A. 9165 and its IRR, the
following elements must be present in the prosecution of the offense: (1) that
the transaction took place; (2) that the illegal drug was presented as
evidence; and that the buyer and seller were identified. What is material is
the presentation of the illegal drug in court for it establishes the fact that
the crime is committed. Therefore, the identity of the illegal drug must be
identified with unwavering exactitude; and this is achieved if the chain of
custody if the said illegal drugs remains unbroken.
The failure to comply with the
procedural requirement does not automatically result to the nullification of
the seizure and custody of the illegal drugs, if the following are present: (1)
that the non-compliance was attended by justifiable grounds; and (2) that the
identity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending team. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. RONALDO DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 186498, 26 March 2010)
For
illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the prosecution must
establish the following elements: (1) the accused is in possession of an item
or object, which is identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the drug.
Admittedly,
a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost
always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. What is of utmost
importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items. (ROSANA ASIATICO y STA. MARIA v. PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, G.R.
No. 195005, 12 September 2011)
Drug
pushing has been committed with so much casualness even between total
strangers.Sec. 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is clear that the quantity
of shabu sold
is not material in the determination of the corresponding penalty therefor.
Likewise applicable in the determination of the appropriate penalty is the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, which provides that “if the offense is
punished by any other law, the court shall sentence the accused to an indeterminate
sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum fixed by said
law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the
same.” (People of the Philippines v. Camilo D. Nicart and
Manuel T. Capanpan, G.R. No. 182059, 4 July
2012)
In all prosecutions
for the violation of the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the existence of the prohibited drug has to be proved. The chain of custody
rule requires that testimony be presented about every
link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized up to the time it is offered
in evidence.
To this end, the prosecution must ensure
that the substance presented in court is the same substance
seized from the accused. (People of the Philippines v.
Alex Watamama y Esil, G.R. No. 194945, 30 July 2012)
To prove illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be
present: “(a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the
sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment for the thing. And, to secure conviction, it is material to establish
that the transaction or sale actually took place, and to bring to the court the
corpus delicti as evidence.
As
to the crime of illegal possession of shabu,
the prosecution clearly proved the presence of the following essential elements
of the crime: “(a) the accused [was] in possession of an item or object that is
identified to be a prohibited or dangerous drug; (b) such possession [was] not
authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
drug.” (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPINES v. JOHN
BRIAN AMARILLO a.k.a“JAO MAPA”, G.R. No. 194721, 15 August 2012)
What
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt is the fact of possession of the
prohibited drug itself. This may be done by presenting the police officer who
actually recovered the prohibited drugs as a witness, being the person who has
the direct knowledge of the possession. In every criminal prosecution for
possession of illegal drugs, the Prosecution must account for the custody of
the incriminating evidence from the moment of seizure and confiscation until
the moment it is offered in evidence. (PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO BELOCURA y PEREZ, G.R. No. 173474, 29 August
2012)
Conviction is proper in
prosecutions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs if the following
elements are present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object,
and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
thereto.
The Court has already ruled in a
number of cases that non-presentation of the forensic chemist in illegal drugs
cases is an insufficient cause for acquittal. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. CALEXTO DUQUE FUNDALES, JR., G.R. No.
184606, 05 September 2012)
The elements necessary for a prosecution
for violation of R.A. 9165 or sale of dangerous drugs are: (1) the identity of
the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment. What is material is the proof that
the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the
court of the corpus delicti. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE ALMODIEL
alias "DO DONG ASTROBAL”, G.R. No. 200951, 05 September 2012)
What assumes primary importance in drug cases is
the prosecution’s proof, to the point of moral certainty, that the prohibited
drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same item
recovered from his possession. Non-compliance with the prescribed procedure
does not automatically render the seizure of the dangerous drug void and the
evidence inadmissible. The law itself lays down certain exceptions to the
general compliance requirement – “as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team,” the seizure of and the custody over the dangerous drugs shall
not be rendered void and invalid. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
RONALD DE JESUS y APACIBLE and AMELITO DELA CRUZ y PUA, G.R. No. 191753, 17 September
2012)
Non-presentation of the
pre-operation orders and post operation report was not fatal to the cause of
the prosecution in illegal sale of drugs. Pre-operational reports are not
indispensable in a buy-bust operation. Further, the quantity of bills involved
is a purely operational matter left to the discretion of the arresting team.
The quantity of bills used will not affect the outcome of the case.
The marking of the seized items at the police
station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient compliance with the
rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates
even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.(PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MOHAMAD ANGKOB y MLANG, G.R. No. 191062, 19 September 2012)
What is material is proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of evidence of the corpus delicti. The commission of illegal sale merely
requires the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment
the buyer receives the drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went
through the operation as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by appellant,
followed by the delivery of the dangerous drugs to the former, the crime is
already consummated. In this case, the prosecution has amply proven all the
elements of the drugs sale with moral certainty. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
REYNA BATALUNA LLANITA and SOTERO BUAR
Y BANGUIS, G.R. No. 189817,
3 October 2012)
For the successful prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of the corpus delicti. The delivery
of the contraband to the poseur-buyer and the receipt of the marked money
consummate the buy-bust transaction between the entrapping officers and the
accused. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARICAR BRAINER y
MANGULABNAN,
G.R. No. 188571, 10 October 2012)
Where the
accused was likewise 17 years old at the time of the commission of the offense,
the Court held, inter alia, that: (a)
pursuant to Sec. 98 of R.A. 9165, the penalty for acts punishable by life
imprisonment to death provided in the same law shall be reclusion perpetua to death when the offender is a minor; and (b)
that the penalty should be graduated since the said provision adopted the
technical nomenclature of penalties provided for in the Revised Penal Code.
In the
prosecution of illegal sale of drugs, the elements that should be proven are
the following: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
The prosecution must (1) prove that the transaction or sale actually took
place, and (2) present in court evidence of the corpus delicti. As
regards the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements
to be proven are the following: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or
an object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the said drug. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. MERIAM GURU y KAZAN, G.R. No. 189808, 24 October 2012)
What is material to the
prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court
of evidence of corpus delicti. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GODOFREDO
MARIANO and ALLAN DORINGO, G.R. No. 191193, 14 November 2012)
Statutory rules on preserving the
chain of custody of confiscated prohibited drugs and related items are designed
to ensure the integrity and reliability of the evidence to be presented against
the accused. Their observance is the key to the successful prosecution of
illegal possession or illegal sale of dangerous drugs. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SAMIN ZAKARIA y MAKASULAY and JOANA SAMIN
ZAKARIA y MAKASULAY, G.R. No. 181042, 26 November 2012)
Non-compliance with
Section 21 does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items seized
inadmissible. What is essential is that the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are preserved which would be utilized in the determination of
the guilt or innocence of the accused. Neither law nor jurisprudence requires
that the police must apply fluorescent powder to the buy-bust money to prove
the commission of the offense. The same holds true for the conduct of finger
print examination on the money used in the buy-bust operation. What is crucial
is that the prosecution proves, as in this case, the delivery of the prohibited
drugs to the poseur-buyer and the presentation of the confiscated drugs before
the court. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BERNABE ANESLAG
y ANDRADE, et al., G.R. No. 185386, 21 November 2012)
Non-compliance with Section 21, Article II, of R.A.
9165 does not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is essential is the
‘preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as
the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.’ (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
JOSEPH ROBELO y TUNGALA,
G.R. No. 184181, 26 November 2012)
In the prosecution of illegal
sale of dangerous drugs, the two essential elements are: “(1) the identity of
the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.”
R.A.
No. 7659 provides that the unauthorized sale of 200 grams or more of shabu or
methamphetamine hydrochloride is punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death and a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos.
(PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
SIMPRESUETA M. SERASPE, G.R. No. 180919, 9 January 2013)
In order for prosecution for
illegal possession of a dangerous drug to prosper, there must be proof that (1)
the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a
prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and
(3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the
drug. (NELSON VALLENO v. PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 192050, 9 January 2013)
It is material in illegal sale of
dangerous drugs that the sale actually took place. What consummates the
buy-bust transaction is the delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer and, in
turn, the seller’s receipt of the marked money. While the parties may have
agreed on the selling price of the shabu
and delivery of payment was intended, these do not prove consummated sale.
Receipt of the marked money, whether done before delivery of the drugs or
after, is required. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINE v. HONG YEN E AND TSIEN TSIEN CHUA, G.R. No. 181826, 09 January
2013)
If a person is found to have more
than five (5) grams of shabu in his
possession, then his purpose in carrying them is to dispose, traffic, or sell
it. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
CAMALODING LABA, G.R. No. 199938, 28 January 2013)
In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic
substance itself constitutes the corpus
delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a
judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Of paramount importance in
these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established
beyond reasonable doubt. The failure of the authorities to immediately mark the
seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus
delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. REYNALDO NACUA, G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013)
The commission of the
offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, merely requires
the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the
exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes place.
The chain of custody
of the seized drugs in a buy-bust operation had been sufficiently established
when there was proof of the following: first,
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; second,
the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; third,
the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth,
the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court. (ELIZABETH DE LA
VEGA y BAUTISTA, G.R. No. 177158, 6 February 2013)
For a case of illegal sale of drugs to prosper, the
prosecution must establish that (1) the illegal sale of the dangerous drugs
actually took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti
or the dangerous drugs seized in evidence. What is crucial is that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved for they will
be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
When prosecuting an illegal possession of dangerous
drugs case, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the drug. Mere possession of a prohibited drug, without
legal authority, is punishable under Republic Act No. 9165. (PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MALIK MANALAO y ALAUYA, G.R. No. 187496, 6 February 2013)
The different links that the prosecution must prove
in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered
from the accused by the apprehending officer; Second, the turnover of the
illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and Fourth, the turnover and
submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the
court. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SAIBEN LANGCUA y DAIMLA, G.R. No. 190343, 6 February
2013)
R.A. No. 6235 (The Anti-Hijacking
Law) authorizes search for prohibited
materials or substances. To limit the action of the airport security
personnel to simply refusing an accused into the aircraft and sending him home,
and thereby depriving them of “the ability and facility to act accordingly,
including to further search without warrant, in light of such circumstances,
would be to sanction impotence and ineffectivity in law enforcement, to the
detriment of society.
Failure of the prosecution to show compliance with
the procedural requirements provided in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
and its IRR is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellant’s
arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is
of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused. As long as the chain of custody remains
unbroken, the guilt of the accused will not be affected. (DON
DJOWEL SALES y ABALAHIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 191023, 6 February
2013)
Despite
the rigid procedural rules under the law on the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered
dangerous drugs, it was held, however, that a testimony about a perfect
chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an
unbroken chain. What is essential is to preserve the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items. (PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICTOR DE JESUS y GARCIA, G.R. No. 198794, 6 February
2013)
To
prosecute illegal possession of dangerous drugs, there must be a showing that
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to
be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v.
JAMES GALIDO y NOBLE, G.R. No. 192231, 13 February 2013)
The commission of the offense of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, requires simply the consummation
of the selling transaction, which happens at the moment the buyer receives the
drug from the seller. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. ARNOLD TAPERE y
POLPOL, G.R. No. 178065, 20 February 2013)
A
guidance counsellor, who caught a school employee in the possession of
marijuana, and who had initial custody of the seized drug is not expected to be
familiar with the niceties of the procedures in the initial handling of the
confiscated evidence. To impose on teachers and other school personnel the
observance of the same procedure required of law enforcers (like marking)
processes, unfamiliar to them – is to set a dangerous precedent that may
eventually lead to the acquittal of drug peddlers. (MARQUEZ y RAYOS DEL
SOL v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 197207, 13 March 2013)
Consistency with the "chain of custody"
rule requires that the “marking” of the seized items – to truly ensure that
they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones
offered in evidence – should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended
violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. (PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES v. JOSE ALEX SECRETO
y VILLANUEVA.,
G.R. No. 198115, 27 February 2013)
0 comments