PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. FELIMON PAGADUAN Y TAMAYO, APPELLANT.

People versus Pagaduan

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Felimon Pagaduan y Tamayo, a criminal prosecution for the illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The appellant was convicted by the trial court and the conviction was affirmed in full by the Court of Appeals, and he came to the Supreme Court asking for acquittal. The case matters because it is a leading illustration of how the Supreme Court treats the mandatory inventory and photograph requirement of Section 21 and the chain of custody rule, and of how the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties yields to the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Procedural History

The appellant was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, under an information alleging that he sold a sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride to a poseur buyer of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. He pleaded not guilty on arraignment, and trial on the merits followed. The trial court, in its decision of August 16, 2005, convicted him of the crime charged, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay a fine of 500,000 pesos. The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, in its decision dated May 22, 2007, affirmed the trial court decision in full. The case then reached the Supreme Court on appeal, and the Court resolved it in this decision.

Facts

After receiving information that the appellant was selling illegal drugs in Nueva Vizcaya, Captain Jaime de Vera called PO3 Peter Almarez and SPO1 Domingo Balido, who were then in Santiago City, and told them of a planned buy-bust operation. They met at the SSS Building near LMN Hotel in Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya, where Captain de Vera briefed the team and designated PO3 Almarez as the poseur buyer. Captain de Vera introduced PO3 Almarez to the police informant and gave him two 100 peso bills, which PO3 Almarez marked with his initials.

The buy-bust team then proceeded to Bintawan Road, Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. PO3 Almarez and the informant rode a tricycle, while Captain de Vera and SPO1 Balido followed in a tinted van. They arrived at the target area at around 4:30 in the afternoon and saw the appellant already waiting for the informant. The informant introduced PO3 Almarez as a buyer. PO3 Almarez told the appellant that he needed shabu worth 200 pesos and asked if he had stock. The appellant answered in the affirmative and handed one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO3 Almarez, who in turn gave the two pre-marked bills to the appellant. PO3 Almarez then made the pre-arranged signal, and his companions approached and arrested the appellant. Captain de Vera took the marked money from the appellant's right pocket, and PO3 Almarez marked the sachet with his initials.

The team brought the appellant to the Diadi Police Station, where Captain de Vera prepared a request for laboratory examination, and the appellant was detained in the municipal jail. Two days later, on December 29, 2003, PO3 Almarez transmitted the request and the seized plastic sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where PO2 Fernando Dulnuan received them. Police Senior Inspector Alfredo Quintero, the forensic chemist, examined the specimen and found it positive for shabu. The defense, for its part, claimed that the appellant was invited to be an asset, was handcuffed and frisked along the road, and was made to sign a document without the assistance of counsel.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of shabu.
• Whether or not the buy-bust team complied with the inventory and photograph requirement of paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165.
• Whether or not the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drug.
• Whether or not the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties can sustain the conviction.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, as described in the information, penalizes the sale, trading, dispensing, delivery, and giving away of dangerous drugs, and it is the crime charged against the appellant. Paragraph 1, Section 21, 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 mandatory procedure whose non-compliance the Court examines in this 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, 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[.]

This rule supplies the saving clause on which the prosecution must rely when it fails to comply. Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation Number 1, Series of 2002 defines chain of custody as follows:

"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 frames the links the prosecution must establish to preserve the identity of the corpus delicti.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In a prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor, all coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, the body or substance of the crime. The Court stressed that evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the appellant; otherwise, the prosecution fails.

On the second issue, the Court found that the buy-bust team did not comply with paragraph 1, Section 21. From the testimony of PO3 Almarez, the team, upon confiscation of the drug, immediately brought the appellant and the seized items to the police station and there prepared the request for laboratory examination. No physical inventory and photograph of the seized items were taken in the presence of the accused or his counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and an elective official. PO3 Almarez could not give a categorical answer when asked whether he issued a receipt for the shabu, and no such receipt or certificate of inventory appears in the records. The Court acknowledged that strict compliance may not always be possible under field conditions, but held that the saving clause requires the prosecution to explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had been preserved. The justifiable ground must be proven as a fact; the court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. Here, the prosecution offered no explanation at all.

On the third issue, the Court found glaring gaps in the chain of custody. The first link begins with the seizure, and the marking should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon confiscation; here, nothing in the records showed the manner and circumstances of the marking, or whether it was done in the presence of the appellant. The second link is the turnover from the apprehending team to the police station; PO3 Almarez failed to identify who had control and possession of the seized drug during its transportation, and the prosecution failed to identify the duty desk officer who received the sachet, which is significant because the specimen was turned over to the crime laboratory only after two days. As to the later links, the person from whom PO3 Almarez received the drug for transfer to the crime laboratory was not identified. These gaps created a reasonable doubt whether the drugs confiscated were the same drugs brought to the laboratory and offered in court, so the corpus delicti was not adequately proven.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the presumption of regularity is not conclusive and cannot by itself overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and makes the presumption unavailable. The failure to comply with Section 21 and with the chain of custody requirement effectively negated the presumption. The Court quoted its ruling in Malillin versus People:

The presumption of regularity is merely just that - a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. Suffice it to say that this presumption cannot preponderate over the presumption of innocence that prevails if not overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case the lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from petitioner, coupled with the irregularity in the manner by which the same were placed under police custody before offered in court, strongly militates a finding of guilt.

Doctrine

In every prosecution for illegal sale of a dangerous drug, the corpus delicti must be proven with unwavering exactitude, meaning the drug presented in court must be shown to be the very same drug recovered from the accused. Compliance with the physical inventory and photograph requirement of paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165 is mandatory, and non-compliance is not necessarily fatal only when the prosecution proves as a fact the justifiable ground for the lapse and shows that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The prosecution must establish every link in the chain of custody, from seizure to laboratory examination to presentation in court, identifying each person who handled the specimen and the circumstances of each transfer. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties is disputable and cannot prevail over the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Disposition

The Court acquitted the appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, reversing the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court.

Remember This

Memorize this line: non-compliance with Section 21 is saved only by a justifiable ground proven as a fact and by a showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were preserved. Examiners use this case to test the chain of custody rule, the saving clause of the Implementing Rules, and the hierarchy between the presumption of regularity and the presumption of innocence.