PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JUVYLEN DUMAT-OL Y MIRAFLOR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

Dumat-ol versus People of the Philippines

The Case

This is the case of Dumat-ol versus People of the Philippines, a criminal appeal from a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The accused, Juvylen Dumat-ol, was charged with selling methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, to a poseur buyer of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency during a buy-bust operation in Quezon City. She was convicted by the trial court, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The case matters for the bar because it is a working illustration of the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165, and of how the Supreme Court treats deviations from the three insulating witnesses required by that section when justifiable grounds exist and the integrity of the seized drug is preserved.

Procedural History

Dumat-ol was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. On arraignment she pleaded not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered a judgment of conviction, finding her guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of Republic Act Number 9165, sentencing her to life imprisonment, and imposing a fine of 500,000 pesos.

She appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that her arrest was illegal, that no buy-bust operation ever took place, and that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. The Court of Appeals, through its decision dated January 11, 2018, affirmed the conviction.

Dumat-ol then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, praying for acquittal on the same ground of a broken chain of custody. The Supreme Court, by resolution dated September 9, 2019, dismissed the appeal for failure to sufficiently show reversible error. Dumat-ol filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court resolved in this decision, denying the motion and affirming the conviction.

Facts

On June 25, 2014, a confidential informant of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency reported to the agency's regional office that a woman known as Jovy was engaged in the illegal drug trade in Quezon City. The informant said that Jovy had asked him to look for a buyer of 100 grams of shabu worth 200,000 pesos. A buy-bust operation was authorized, and Agent Marc Junef Avenido was designated as the poseur buyer, with Agent Arcadio Saplan as his back-up.

The informant and Agent Avenido met the woman at the corner of General McArthur Highway and General Araneta Avenue in Cubao. The woman showed him a red pouch containing a knot-tied transparent plastic bag of white crystalline substance. When she demanded payment, Agent Avenido handed her the buy-bust money, and once she accepted it, he gave the pre-arranged signal by scratching his head. The team closed in and arrested the woman, later identified as Dumat-ol. Agent Avenido marked the seized plastic sachet at the place of arrest.

Because Dumat-ol resisted arrest and a crowd was gathering, the team decided to conduct the inventory at the agency office for security reasons. At the office, an inventory was prepared and signed by a barangay kagawad and a media representative. No representative from the Department of Justice witnessed the inventory because none was available. The laboratory examination confirmed that the specimen contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. Dumat-ol, for her part, denied the charge and claimed she was merely looking for a job when strangers grabbed her and brought her to the police station.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution established all the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• Whether or not the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drug despite the absence of a Department of Justice representative during the inventory and the conduct of the inventory at the agency office rather than at the place of arrest.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Republic Act Number 9165, the provision under which Dumat-ol was charged, defines the illegal sale of dangerous drugs and is the source of the elements the prosecution had to prove:

That on or about the 25th day of June, 2014 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, without lawful authority, did, then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, give away to another, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, one (1) knot-tied transparent plastic bag containing one zero zero point five six one four (100.5614) grams of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. CONTRARY TO LAW.

This is the charge as recited in the Information, and it fixes the subject matter whose identity and integrity the prosecution had to prove.

Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165 provides:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (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 chain of custody rule the Court applied in testing whether the seized drug was preserved with moral certainty.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act Number 9165 further commands:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plants Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment - ... (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 is the saving clause the Court relied on, because it allows substantial compliance where justifiable grounds exist and the integrity of the evidence is preserved.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the prosecution proved all the elements of illegal sale. The apprehending officers caught Dumat-ol in the act of selling shabu worth 200,000 pesos during a buy-bust operation, and the forensic chemist identified the substance as methamphetamine hydrochloride. The identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration, as well as the delivery of the thing sold and the payment, were all established.

On the second issue, the Court held that the prosecution substantially complied with the chain of custody rule. The Court stressed that the drug itself is the corpus delicti, the very body of the offense, and must be proven with moral certainty. The Court then traced the four links of custody: the seizure and marking by the apprehending officer, the turnover to the investigating officer, the turnover to the forensic chemist, and the turnover to the court. On the first link, the Court found that Agent Avenido marked the seized drug at the place of arrest, which is what the rule requires.

On the missing Department of Justice representative, the Court held that this did not warrant acquittal. The apprehending officers tried to secure one but nobody was available. The Court also accepted the transfer of the inventory to the agency office because Dumat-ol resisted arrest and a crowd was gathering, making the on-site inventory unsafe. The Court quoted its own ruling in Xiuquin Shi versus People, holding that the absence of representatives from the Department of Justice and media during the inventory and photographing did not render the seized items inadmissible. The Court thus treated the situation as substantial compliance, since the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug were properly preserved.

Doctrine

To convict for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act Number 9165, the prosecution must establish the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. The drug itself is the corpus delicti, and its identity must be proven with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody.

The chain of custody has four links: seizure and marking by the apprehending officer, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and turnover to the court. Marking must be done immediately upon confiscation and at the place of confiscation, in the presence of the offender.

The insulating witnesses required by Section 21 need not be present during the seizure or the buy-bust itself; they need be present only during the inventory and photographing. Where a deviation occurs, the prosecution must acknowledge it and prove justifiable grounds and the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. Under the saving clause of the Implementing Rules, non-compliance with justifiable grounds does not invalidate the seizure and custody so long as integrity is preserved.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied Dumat-ol's motion for reconsideration and affirmed her conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, with the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the absence of an insulating witness does not automatically acquit, so long as justifiable grounds are shown and the integrity of the seized drug is preserved. Examiners use this case to test the four links of the chain of custody and the saving clause on substantial compliance.