PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARIVIC COHAYCO Y REVIL @ “KAKANG,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Cohayco versus People

The Case

This is the People of the Philippines against Marivic Cohayco, known as Kakang, an appeal from a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The case matters because it shows, in the clearest terms, that the chain of custody rule is not a technicality but substantive law, and that the State's failure to explain the absence of a required witness during the inventory and photography of the seized drugs destroys the corpus delicti and compels an acquittal.

Procedural History

Cohayco was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Oroquieta City, Branch 12, with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. After trial, the Regional Trial Court found her guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentenced her to life imprisonment, and ordered her to pay a fine of 500,000 pesos. It held that the prosecution had established the sale and that the chain of custody of the seized items was properly preserved.

Cohayco appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed her conviction in a decision dated April 24, 2018. The appellate court ruled that all the elements of the crime were proven and that the chain of custody rule was complied with. She then brought an ordinary appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking the reversal of her conviction.

Facts

On the evening of March 19, 2014, operatives of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in Region X conducted a buy-bust operation against Cohayco. One big sachet containing ten small sachets of white crystalline substance, with an aggregate weight of 0.2075 gram, was recovered from her. Because the place of arrest was a known shabu hotbed, the team brought her and the seized items to the PDEA Satellite Office, where the items were marked, inventoried, and photographed in her presence, together with barangay officials and media representatives. The items were then taken to the crime laboratory, where examination confirmed that the contents were methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu.

At the inventory, the signatures appearing on the inventory sheet belonged to the barangay chairman, a barangay councilman, a media representative, and two PDEA operatives. No representative of the Department of Justice was present, and no signature of any such representative appeared on the document.

In her defense, Cohayco denied the charge. She claimed she was merely looking for her five-year-old son when two men on a motorcycle restrained her and took her to the police station, where she was searched and nothing was found on her body. A barangay official later arrived and signed a document she knew nothing about, after which she was brought to the crime laboratory.

Issues

• Whether or not the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items conducted at the PDEA Satellite Office instead of the place of arrest was justified.
• Whether or not the prosecution justified the absence of a Department of Justice representative during the inventory and photography of the seized items.
• Whether or not the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved, such that Cohayco's conviction may stand.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, prior to its amendment, required the inventory and photography to be done in the presence of the accused and of a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The Court describes the requirement in these words:

a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official

This is the provision whose witness requirement the apprehending team failed to satisfy, since no Department of Justice representative attended the inventory and photography.

Section 21 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, provides for the saving clause in these terms:

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/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

This saving clause is the only route by which the prosecution could have excused the missing witness, and it required proof of a justifiable ground.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the police officers were justified in conducting the marking, inventory, and photography at the PDEA Satellite Office rather than at the place of arrest. The place was a known hotbed of shabu, and the arrest and seizure might have been compromised. Case law recognizes that marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.

On the second issue, the Court held that the prosecution failed to justify the absence of a Department of Justice representative. The inventory sheet showed signatures only from barangay officials and media representatives, and the testimony of the apprehending operative confirmed this. The Court stressed that the prosecution must account for the witness's absence by presenting a justifiable reason or by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted to secure his presence. Mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable. Since the prosecution never addressed the gap, there was an unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule.

On the third issue, the Court held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Cohayco were compromised. The dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti, and failure to prove its integrity renders the evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also reminded prosecutors of the State's positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody, regardless of whether the defense raises the issue.

Doctrine

In every prosecution for the illegal sale or illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty, because the drug is part of the corpus delicti. The prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody, from seizure to presentation in court.

The marking, inventory, and photography must be done immediately after seizure, but marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance. The inventory and photography must be witnessed by the accused and the required witnesses: before the amendment, a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and any elected public official; after the amendment, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.

Strict compliance is the general rule, because the procedure is substantive law and a safety precaution against police abuses. Non-compliance does not ipso facto invalidate the seizure, but the saving clause applies only if the prosecution proves a justifiable ground for the lapse and shows that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The justifiable ground must be proven as a fact, not presumed. As to an absent witness, the prosecution must show genuine and sufficient efforts to secure his presence; unavailability alone will not do.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, acquitted Marivic Cohayco of the crime charged, and ordered her immediate release unless she is lawfully held for another reason.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the chain of custody rule is not merely a procedural technicality but a matter of substantive law, and an unexplained absence of a required witness compromises the corpus delicti and warrants acquittal. Examiners use this case to test the saving clause under Section 21, the distinction between marking at the place of arrest and at the nearest office, and the State's positive duty to justify every gap in the chain of custody even if the defense never raises it.