CHARBEN DUARTE Y OLIVEROS, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

Duarte versus People

The Case

This is the case of Duarte versus People, a petition for review on certiorari brought by Charben Duarte against the People of the Philippines. Duarte was convicted by the trial court, and affirmed by the Court of Appeals, of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of the chain of custody rule: what the law demands of the apprehending team, when strict compliance may be excused, and why the failure to justify the absence of the required witnesses during the inventory and photography of the seized items destroys the very corpus delicti of the crime and compels an acquittal.

Procedural History

Two separate Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127: one for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, and another for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of the same Article. In a Joint Decision dated September 15, 2016, the trial court found Duarte guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and sentenced him to an indeterminate period of twelve years and one day, as minimum, to fourteen years and eight months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of 300,000 pesos. The trial court, however, acquitted him of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia for failure of the prosecution to identify the corpus delicti of that offense.

Duarte appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a Decision dated September 7, 2017, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that all the elements of the offense were present and that the police officers substantially complied with the chain of custody rule, adding that the absence of representatives from the Department of Justice and the media during the inventory was forgivable so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Duarte moved for reconsideration, which was denied in a Resolution dated April 4, 2018. He then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari, seeking to overturn his conviction.

Facts

At around five o'clock in the morning of January 20, 2014, a concerned citizen went to the Police Community Precinct in Caloocan City to report a shooting incident along Don Jose Street. Police Officers Wilson Tan and Willy Galauran responded and, upon arriving, saw a man lying on the ground with a gunshot wound, later identified as Duarte. As they approached, they noticed a gun tucked on the right side of his waist. Officer Galauran took the gun and asked Duarte whether he had authority to possess it. Duarte failed to answer or to show a license, so Officer Galauran conducted a body search and took a black sling bag from his shoulder.

Inside the bag, Officer Galauran discovered a grenade, a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, and various drug paraphernalia. The officers seized the items, marked them, informed Duarte of his constitutional rights, and brought him to the hospital for treatment of his gunshot wound. They then returned to their office and turned over the seized sachet and paraphernalia to the Station of Anti-Illegal Drugs, Special Operation Unit, where a physical inventory was conducted in the presence of Officer Galauran, Barangay Kagawad Rendon Ulderico, and Duarte. The items were brought to the crime laboratory and tested positive for shabu.

For his part, Duarte denied the charges. He testified that he had gone to his friend Bart to extend a loan of 5,000 pesos, and that Bart asked him to join a group going to Francisco Street. While cruising on single motorcycles, he heard gunshots and felt that he was hit at the back. He intentionally crashed his motorcycle, fled toward the highway, and took a tricycle to the hospital. While fleeing, he noticed that it was Bart who had fired at him, though he did not know why.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution established the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, accounting for each link in the chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court.
• Whether or not the failure to conduct the inventory and photography in the presence of representatives from the Department of Justice and the media constitutes an unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule.
• Whether or not the saving clause may excuse non-compliance with the witness requirement absent proof of justifiable grounds or of genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the required witnesses.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, as it stood before its amendment, required the inventory and photography of the seized items in the presence of the accused and certain witnesses. The Court summarizes that requirement in its discussion:

The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.

This requirement bears directly on the case because the inventory receipt showed only the signature of an elected public official, Barangay Kagawad Ulderico, and no representative of the Department of Justice or of the media was present.

Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act Number 9165, later adopted into the text of Republic Act Number 10640, contains the saving clause:

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 saving clause is the only route by which the prosecution could have excused the missing witnesses, and it is on this clause that the case turns.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition is meritorious. In cases for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, because the drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence of the State insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and warrants an acquittal. To establish identity with moral certainty, the prosecution must account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment of seizure to presentation in court. The Court clarified that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, so failure to mark at the place of arrest does not by itself impair the integrity of the drugs.

On the second and third issues, the Court held that compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined, regarded not as a mere procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law, because the law was crafted by Congress as a safety precaution against potential police abuses, especially since the penalty may be life imprisonment. Strict compliance may be excused only if the prosecution satisfactorily proves a justifiable ground for non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The Court stressed that the justifiable ground must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist, and that mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable.

Applying these rules, the Court found that the inventory and photography were not conducted in the presence of representatives from the Department of Justice and the media, as shown by the Receipt of Physical Inventory bearing only the signature of the elected public official, and as confirmed by the testimony of Officer Galauran on cross-examination. Once the defense had pointed out that only an elected public official was present, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to explain the absence of the other witnesses or to show that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted to secure their presence. The prosecution did neither. Absent any determination of earnest efforts, the Court held that there was an unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Duarte were compromised, and that his acquittal was warranted.

Doctrine

First, in every prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty, since the drug is part of the corpus delicti; the prosecution must account for every link in the chain of custody.

Second, the requirements of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, including the presence of the required witnesses during inventory and photography, are mandatory and substantive, not merely procedural.

Third, non-compliance may be excused only under the saving clause, which requires the prosecution to prove a justifiable ground as a fact and to show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. As to the witness requirement, the prosecution must show that the officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the witnesses; mere statements of unavailability are not enough.

Fourth, the State bears the positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody regardless of whether the defense raises them below, because the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence go to the very heart of the conviction.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals were reversed and set aside; Duarte was acquitted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and the Director of the Bureau of Corrections was ordered to cause his immediate release unless he is lawfully held for another reason.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the absence of the required witnesses during inventory and photography, unexplained and unaccompanied by proof of earnest efforts to secure them, compromises the integrity of the corpus delicti and compels acquittal. Examiners use this case to test the saving clause in Section 21, the distinction between marking at the place of arrest and marking at the nearest station, and the State's positive duty to justify every gap in the chain of custody.