THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOEY GARCIA Y AGBAYANI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Garcia

The Case

This is People versus Garcia, a criminal appeal from a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accused, Joey Garcia, was found with seven plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, weighing 3.37 grams. He does not deny possession; he denies that the possession was unlawful, claiming he was a police asset authorized to hold the drugs. The case matters for two enduring lessons: first, that an objection to the chain of custody raised for the first time on appeal comes too late; and second, that the elements of illegal possession include the absence of legal authority, which the accused must overcome with competent evidence.

Procedural History

Joey Garcia was arraigned before the Regional Trial Court of the City of Tuguegarao, Branch 1, and pleaded not guilty. After pre-trial and trial on the merits, the trial court rendered judgment on 16 April 2012, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day as minimum to fifteen years as maximum, with a fine of three hundred thousand pesos. The drugs were forfeited in favor of the government.

Aggrieved, Garcia elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, assigning two errors: that the trial court convicted him despite the apprehending team's failure to comply with the chain of custody rule, and that the prosecution failed to establish all the elements of the offense. The appeal was denied and the trial court's decision affirmed in its entirety.

Facts

On the morning of 21 July 2003, a certain Peter Anog was apprehended for drugs by the police of Tuguegarao City. During investigation, Anog revealed that his supplier was Joey Garcia. The Chief of Police organized a buy-bust team and designated SPO1 Edgar Caranguian as poseur buyer. Anog contacted Garcia by text message, and they agreed to meet in front of City Mall along Bonifacio Street.

When a tricycle passed, Anog pointed out Garcia as its passenger. The team alighted, Caranguian flagged down the tricycle, and after a brief conversation Garcia handed over seven plastic sachets of white crystalline substance. The sachets were brought to the crime laboratory, where Forensic Chemist Myra Madria found them positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The defense told a different story. Garcia claimed he had boarded a tricycle to fetch his child at East Central School, and that upon seeing police officers there he voluntarily handed them the seven sachets, which he had obtained from Peter Anog. He insisted he was a secret asset of the police intelligence group helping curb illegal drugs in the city.

Issues

• Whether or not the conviction may stand despite the apprehending team's alleged failure to comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165, when the objection was raised only for the first time on appeal.
• Whether or not the prosecution established all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, particularly the element that the possession was not authorized by law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165 provides:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

This is the chain of custody procedure whose breach the defense invoked, but only on appeal.

Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act Number 9165 provides:

(a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/ team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

This shows that the procedure is not absolute, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are what the Court ultimately protects.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the objection came too late. Garcia himself admitted possessing the seven sachets and surrendering them to the buy-bust team. He admitted the existence and due execution of the chemistry report. The defense never objected to the presentation of the sachets as evidence, nor manifested any lapse in procedure affecting their integrity. The alleged violations of Section 21 were raised only for the first time on appeal. The Court ruled that objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an objection. Absent such objection, the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers applies, and the integrity of the evidence remains untainted and retains its full evidentiary value.

On the second issue, the Court held that all the elements of illegal possession were established: the accused was in possession of a prohibited drug; the possession was not authorized by law; and he was freely and consciously aware of the possession. Garcia failed to prove he was a police asset on 21 July 2003. The witness Marcelo Relos testified that he became Drug Watch Coordinator only in 2005 and introduced Garcia to the former Chief of Police also in 2005, two years after the arrest. The identification card signed by a police superintendent was given no weight because the signer never authenticated it and the card bore no date. No officer in charge of designating drug assets testified. Garcia himself admitted he had no operation before his arrest. The Court also found that if he truly intended to surrender the drugs, he should have gone directly to the police station nearby, and that no surrender took place except through the chance encounter.

Doctrine

First, an objection to the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. If the defense never questions the integrity of the evidence during trial, the presumption of regularity in the handling of exhibits by public officers applies, and the evidence retains its full evidentiary value.

Second, in a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: the accused was in possession of an item identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; such possession is not authorized by law; and the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. The claim of being a police asset is an assertion of legal authority, and it must be proven by competent evidence, such as the testimony of the officer who designated the asset or an authenticated identification document. An undated identification card, unauthenticated by its signer, and testimonial evidence showing the asset relationship arose only after the arrest, cannot overcome the presumption of regularity and the finding of unauthorized possession.

Disposition

The appeal was denied, and the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of the City of Tuguegarao, Branch 1, convicting Joey Garcia of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and sentencing him accordingly, was affirmed in its entirety.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the chain of custody objection raised for the first time on appeal is barred, and unauthorized possession is an element the accused must disprove with competent proof of authority. Examiners use this case to test the elements of illegal possession and the procedural rule that objections to evidence must be timely made at trial.