THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ALEXANDER ALVARO Y DE LEON AND ROSALIE GERONIMO Y MADERA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.

People versus Alvaro

The Case

This is a criminal appeal in a dangerous drugs prosecution. The People of the Philippines charged Alexander Alvaro and Rosalie Geronimo with illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and charged Geronimo additionally with illegal possession under Section 11 of the same Article. The case matters because it is a textbook illustration of the chain of custody rule under Section 21: even where the elements of sale and possession appear proven, the conviction cannot stand if the prosecution fails to account for every link in the custody of the seized drug, because the drug itself is the corpus delicti, the very body of the offense.

Procedural History

Two Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64. Upon arraignment, both accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, in a decision dated September 7, 2010, convicted both accused of illegal sale, sentencing each to life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos, and convicted Geronimo of illegal possession, sentencing her to an indeterminate prison term of twelve years and one day to fifteen years and a fine of 400,000 pesos. The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a decision dated September 11, 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in full, holding that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved and the chain of custody remained unbroken despite procedural lapses and a typographical error in the marking. The accused then filed an ordinary appeal to the Supreme Court, which resolved the case in January 2018.

Facts

At about half past five in the afternoon of June 5, 2008, after a tip from a confidential informant about the drug peddling of a certain alias Betchay, later identified as Geronimo, a team of Makati anti-drug operatives proceeded to Laperal Compound in Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City. Operative Siborboro was designated as the poseur-buyer, with the rest of the team as back-up. The informant introduced him to Geronimo, who asked how much he intended to buy. Siborboro handed her the marked 500 peso bill, which she in turn passed to her companion Alvaro, standing about three meters away. Geronimo then took out two plastic sachets of suspected shabu and handed one to Siborboro, who gave the pre-arranged signal by lighting a cigarette and throwing it, prompting the back-up officers to rush in and arrest both accused.

Siborboro confiscated the remaining sachet from Geronimo, while another officer recovered the buy-bust money from Alvaro. Siborboro marked the sachet sold with the initials JSJR and the sachet recovered from Geronimo with JSJR-1. He prepared an inventory signed by a police officer and by the barangay chairman. The items were turned over to the investigator, who prepared the request for laboratory examination and submitted the sachets to the crime laboratory, where a forensic chemist examined them and found them positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.

Geronimo's defense was denial and frame-up. She testified that she was resting at her uncle's house when several men barged in, told her to keep quiet, searched the house, frisked her, and took her belongings; she and Alvaro were then taken away for questioning. The trial court rejected this defense and convicted them, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

• Whether or not the convictions for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165 should be upheld.
• Whether or not Geronimo's conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of the same law should be upheld.
• Whether or not the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved despite the apprehending team's departures from the chain of custody procedure under Section 21.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, on illegal sale, provides:

Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos to Ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.

This is the provision under which both accused were charged and convicted for the sale of the 0.03 gram of shabu.

Section 11, Article II of the same law, on illegal possession, provides in its pertinent portion:

Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos to Ten million pesos shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof: xxxx (3) Imprisonment of twelve years and one day to twenty years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos to Four hundred thousand pesos, if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or ecstasy, PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred grams of marijuana.

This is the provision under which Geronimo was convicted for possessing the 0.01 gram of shabu.

Section 21 of the same Article, as amended by Republic Act Number 10640, supplies the chain of custody rule:

The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments or paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his or her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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 or team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of 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 or team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

This is the procedure the apprehending team must follow, and its saving clause is the only escape from a broken chain.

Ruling

The Court granted the appeal and acquitted both accused. It began by stressing that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review, and the reviewing tribunal must correct errors whether assigned or not. It then recited the elements of illegal sale, namely the identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and payment; and of illegal possession, namely possession of a dangerous drug, lack of authority, and free and conscious possession. But it held that in both crimes the identity of the confiscated drug must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and to do that the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court as the corpus delicti.

The Court found numerous lapses and inconsistencies. First, the poseur-buyer testified that he marked and inventoried the items at the place of arrest, but another officer testified that the inventory was done along EDSA at the trunk of the service vehicle. Second, the prosecution failed to show that the inventory was made in the presence of the accused, and the required representatives of the media and the Department of Justice and an elected official were not shown to be present; the barangay chairman signed only after the receipt was brought to his office. Third, the seized items were not shown to have been photographed, as no photographs were offered in evidence. Fourth, the sachet marked JSJR appeared in the laboratory report as JSJRND, and with the testimonies of the investigator and the chemist dispensed with by stipulation, no witness could explain the discrepancy or the whereabouts of the original sachet. Fifth, the request for laboratory examination was delivered not by the investigator but by a certain Serrano, whose possession of the items no witness explained.

On the saving clause, the Court held that for it to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and show that integrity and evidentiary value were nonetheless preserved, and the justifiable ground must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume that such grounds exist. Here no explanation was offered. The integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs were therefore compromised, and absent conclusive identification of the corpus delicti, there can be no finding of guilt.

Doctrine

• In prosecutions for illegal sale and illegal possession under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established beyond reasonable doubt, because the drug is the corpus delicti.
• The prosecution must prove an unbroken chain of custody, accounting for every link from seizure to presentation in court.
• Section 21 requires, immediately after seizure, a physical inventory and photograph of the items in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, and turnover to the crime laboratory within twenty-four hours.
• Noncompliance does not automatically invalidate the seizure, but the saving clause applies only if the prosecution explains the justifiable ground as a proven fact and shows that integrity and evidentiary value were preserved. The Court cannot presume such grounds.

Disposition

The Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, acquitted Alexander Alvaro and Rosalie Geronimo of the crimes charged, and ordered their immediate release unless lawfully held for another reason.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the drug is the corpus delicti, and a broken chain of custody means reasonable doubt on identity, which means acquittal. Examiners use this case to test the Section 21 saving clause, the requirement that justifiable grounds be proven and not presumed, and the rule that an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole record for review.