PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MICHAEL MANAOAT Y VIRAY, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Manaoat

The Case

This is People versus Manaoat, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Michael Manaoat y Viray for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accusation was that he sold two heat-sealed plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, to a poseur-buyer during a buy-bust operation in Binmaley, Pangasinan. The case matters because it is a textbook illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the chain of custody requirement: the Court acquitted the accused not because the sale was disproved by contrary testimony, but because the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti, the drug itself, with the exactness the law demands.

Procedural History

An Information was filed against the accused before the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69. On February 28, 2012, the accused pleaded not guilty, and trial on the merits followed. The prosecution presented the poseur-buyer and the forensic chemist, while the accused testified for the defense. On December 11, 2012, the trial court rendered judgment convicting the accused of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165 and sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos.

Dissatisfied, the accused filed an appeal directly with the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the trial court's reliance on allegedly improbable and inconsistent prosecution testimony, its disregard of his own testimony, its failure to find his warrantless arrest illegal, its failure to apply the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, its failure to find a violation of his rights under Republic Act Number 7438, and its finding of guilt despite non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165 and a broken chain of custody.

Facts

On January 23, 2012, a briefing for a buy-bust operation against the accused was held, headed by a police inspector and the chief of police. The poseur-buyer was handed marked money worth 500 pesos. The team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and with the barangay officials of Barangay Gayaman. The poseur-buyer and two other officers proceeded to the public market of Binmaley to meet their asset, while the rest of the team stayed about ten meters away.

When the accused arrived, the poseur-buyer asked for his identity and then handed him the marked money. The accused in turn handed over a plastic sachet of suspected shabu. The poseur-buyer then held the accused's hand as the pre-arranged signal, and the team apprehended him and brought him to the barangay hall. There the seized items were marked and inventoried in the presence of barangay officials, and the accused was brought to the police station. The sachet was turned over to the investigator, who brought the request for laboratory examination to the forensic chemist. The laboratory reports yielded positive results for shabu.

The accused denied the charge. He testified that he had been at home until half past four in the afternoon, that he borrowed money from a friend because his child was sick, and that on his way home he rode a tricycle driven by a barangay mate. Police officers ordered the tricycle to pull over, frisked him, and told him they were conducting a buy-bust operation. Nothing was seized from him during the search. At the barangay hall he was shown two plastic sachets of shabu, 740 pesos, and aluminum foil; he said only 240 pesos belonged to him and the rest were implanted. A barangay kagawad even told the officers to send him home because the items did not belong to him. He was brought to the police station without being informed of his constitutional rights, and his drug test yielded a negative result.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight and credence to the allegedly improbable and inconsistent testimony of the prosecution witness.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in disregarding the testimony of the accused.
• Whether or not the warrantless arrest of the accused was illegal.
• Whether or not the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine applies to the allegedly confiscated shabu.
• Whether or not the rights of the accused under Republic Act Number 7438 were violated.
• Whether or not the accused was properly convicted despite non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165 and its implementing rules.
• Whether or not there was a broken chain of custody of the allegedly confiscated shabu.

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 statutory safeguard whose non-compliance the Court found fatal to the prosecution's case.

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

(a) The apprehending officer/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.

The Court read this proviso as permitting relaxation only upon justifiable grounds and only where the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are shown to have been preserved.

Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation Number 1, Series of 2002 defines chain of custody:

b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

This definition supplies the links the prosecution must prove to authenticate the drug presented in court.

Ruling

The appeal is meritorious. On the first two issues, the Court acknowledged that the trial court's findings of fact are entitled to great weight, but held that this rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied. The Court stressed that in prosecutions involving narcotics, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti, and its identity must be established beyond reasonable doubt, meaning it must be shown that the drug presented in court is the same drug seized from the accused.

On the issues of the warrantless arrest, the fruit of the poisonous tree, and Republic Act Number 7438, the Court did not rest its ruling on these grounds; it resolved the case on the failure of the prosecution to comply with Section 21 and to establish the chain of custody.

On the Section 21 and chain of custody issues, the Court found that while the poseur-buyer admitted the arrest, the records were bereft of proof on how the seized items were handled from the time of arrest until they were brought to the office for investigation and disposition. The poseur-buyer offered no justifiable ground for not immediately conducting an inventory and marking the items after the arrest. The prosecution also failed to reveal the identity of the person who had custody and safekeeping of the drugs after examination and pending presentation in court. The Court noted that no inventory and photograph were made in the presence of a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and the alleged inventory was never presented in court. It held that the step-by-step procedure is a matter of substantive law that cannot be brushed aside as a mere procedural technicality. Quoting its own ruling in Sanchez, the Court declared:

While the Court is mindful that the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot, by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be used as basis for affirming accused-appellant's conviction because First, the presumption is precisely just that — a mere presumption. Once challenged by evidence, as in this case, . . . [it] cannot be regarded as binding truth. Second, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption also cannot prevail over positive averments concerning violations of the constitutional rights of the accused. In short, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Doctrine

In every prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti is the drug itself, and its identity must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must show that the drug presented in court is the very same drug seized from the accused, and the chain of custody requirement exists precisely to remove unnecessary doubts on that identity.

The procedure under Section 21, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165 is mandatory, as shown by the word shall, and it is a matter of substantive law, not a mere procedural technicality. Non-compliance may be excused only under justifiable grounds, and only so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, as the Implementing Rules provide.

The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, nor can it constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Disposition

The appeal was granted, the judgment of conviction was reversed and set aside, and Michael Manaoat y Viray was acquitted and ordered released from detention unless held for some other lawful cause.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the failure to immediately conduct an inventory and mark the seized items, and to establish every link in the chain of custody, is fatal to the prosecution's cause, because the drug itself is the corpus delicti. Examiners use this case to test the mandatory character of Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165 and the rule that the presumption of regularity of official duty yields to the presumption of innocence.