THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ARHASSAN HASSAN Y BASANUL, ACCUSED-APPELLANT,

People versus Hassan

The Case

This is People versus Hassan, a criminal appeal in which the accused, Arhassan Hassan y Basanul, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City of the crime of selling a dangerous drug, methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine. The case matters because it is a chain-of-custody case: the Court acquits not on the facts of the sale but on the failure of the prosecution to prove the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug, which is the very corpus delicti, the body of the crime, that must be established beyond reasonable doubt.

Procedural History

The accused, together with a co-accused who remained at large, was charged by Information dated October 5, 2004. He was arraigned on June 14, 2007 and pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Zamboanga City, rendered its Decision dated November 11, 2011, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposing life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos, while archiving the case against the co-accused and issuing an alias warrant of arrest against her. Aggrieved, the accused appealed to the Supreme Court, raising a single assignment of error that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him when his guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Office of the Solicitor General filed its appellee's brief, and the case was submitted for decision.

Facts

On October 4, 2004, at about three o'clock in the afternoon, a confidential informant went to the Zamboanga City Police Station and reported an alleged drug peddler at the local wharf. SPO1 Amado Mirasol, Jr. formed a buy-bust team, with himself as team leader, PO3 Ronald Cordero as poseur buyer, and two others as perimeter security. The pre-arranged signal was for PO3 Cordero to transfer a white towel from his left shoulder to his right shoulder. He was given a 100-peso bill with Serial Number PW058979 as buy-bust money.

At about four-thirty in the afternoon, the team proceeded to the wharf. The informant pointed out a man standing beside an old dump truck, later identified as the accused. The informant introduced PO3 Cordero as a buyer. The accused asked how much, and PO3 Cordero replied one peso only. The accused then went under the truck and shouted to a woman that they had a buyer. The woman asked how much, and the accused answered 100 pesos. The woman took a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from her pocket and gave it to the accused, who handed it to PO3 Cordero. After scrutinizing it, PO3 Cordero gave the 100-peso bill to the accused, executed the pre-arranged signal, and told the accused he was a police officer.

SPO1 Mirasol, Jr. rushed to assist in the arrest. The woman ran toward the docked fast craft and threw a medium plastic sachet on the ground before escaping; SPO1 Mirasol, Jr. picked it up. At the police station, PO3 Cordero marked the small sachet with his initials, and SPO1 Mirasol, Jr. marked the medium sachet with his. Both were turned over to the investigator, who prepared the request for laboratory examination. The forensic chemist found both specimens positive for shabu. The accused, for his part, testified that he was a porter at the wharf and that he was merely handcuffed and later told that a shabu had been found on him, which he denied.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused for the sale of a dangerous drug was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug as the corpus delicti of the offense.
• Whether or not the failure to comply strictly with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165 on inventory and photographing renders the seized drugs inadmissible.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, as quoted in the Information, penalizes the sale of dangerous drugs:

That on or about October 4, 2004, in the City of Zamboanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together. Mutually aiding and assisting one another, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver, transport, distribute or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously SELL and DELIVER to PO1 RONALD C. CORDERO, PNP, Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Force, one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic pack containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.0161 gram, which when subjected to qualitative examination gave positive result to the test for METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU), all accused know that the same is a dangerous drug.

This is the offense charged and the provision under which the accused was convicted.

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

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:(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;xxx xxx xxx

This is the custody procedure the accused claimed was not followed.

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

SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precurses and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:(a) The apprehending office/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, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; 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;xxx xxx xxx

This is the rule that allows substantial compliance where the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the sale of a dangerous drug can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug, and that the identity of the dangerous drug must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The dangerous drug is the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, and its existence is a condition sine qua non, an indispensable condition, to sustain a conviction. The Court quoted its earlier ruling that the illegal drug's unique characteristic renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution, so evidence must show that the drug presented in court is the same drug actually recovered from the accused.

On the second issue, the Court held that the chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts on the identity of the corpus delicti are removed. It enumerated four links: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked drug from the forensic chemist to the court. The Court found all four links established: PO3 Cordero received the small sachet from the accused and marked it with his initials; the turnover to the investigator was admitted by the defense; and the turnover to the forensic chemist and to the court was also admitted, with the chemistry report confirming shabu. The Court concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug were preserved.

On the third issue, the Court held that while Section 21 and its Implementing Rules provide the procedure, substantial adherence, not perfect adherence, is what is demanded of police officers. What is crucial is that the officers show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs have been preserved. The Court quoted its ruling that failure to strictly comply with Section 21 does not necessarily render the arrest illegal or the items inadmissible, and that what is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

Doctrine

A conviction for the sale of a dangerous drug under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165 requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug, which is the corpus delicti of the offense. The chain of custody rule requires the establishment of four links: seizure and marking by the apprehending officer; turnover to the investigating officer; turnover to the forensic chemist; and turnover to the court. Substantial compliance with Section 21 and its Implementing Rules suffices, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

Disposition

The Court affirmed the conviction of the accused, finding that the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody and that his guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the dangerous drug is the corpus delicti, and its identity and integrity must be preserved through an unbroken chain of custody, with substantial compliance with Section 21 sufficient so long as that integrity is shown. Examiners use this case to test the four links of the chain of custody and the rule that substantial, not perfect, adherence to Section 21 is demanded.