PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. KATCHAN IRIZUMI Y BORROMEO @ “HAPON,” ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Irizumi

The Case

This is an appeal by Katchan Irizumi y Borromeo, known by the alias Hapon, against his conviction for selling and possessing dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended. The People of the Philippines prosecuted him in two separate criminal cases arising from a single buy-bust operation conducted in Batangas City. The case matters because it tests how strictly the Court will enforce the two-witness requirement of Section 21 of the law, and whether the absence of the required insulating witnesses at or near the place of seizure can be excused as substantial compliance.

Procedural History

Irizumi was charged before Branch 84 of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City in two Informations for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. After a joint trial, the trial court rendered a Joint Decision finding him guilty on both counts and imposing life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos for each. Irizumi appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision in full. Still aggrieved, he elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal under Rule 124 of the Rules of Court.

Facts

In the evening of April 27, 2021, a civilian asset reported to the City Drug Enforcement Unit of the Batangas City Police Station that a certain alias Hapon was selling shabu. A buy-bust operation was organized, with Police Staff Sergeant Benjo Lumanglas designated as the poseur buyer. The team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and prepared buy-bust money of two 1,000 peso bills. They tried to secure the attendance of the barangay captain and a representative of the Department of Justice, but the barangay captain refused out of fear for her safety, and no Justice representative was available because of the pandemic. A media representative, Benedicto Griño, joined the team.

Near midnight, the poseur buyer and the asset approached Irizumi. The asset introduced the poseur buyer as his cousin who wanted to buy shabu. Irizumi received the marked money, placed it on a styrofoam box, and handed over one sachet of shabu. The poseur buyer gave the pre-arranged signal, arrested Irizumi, and marked the sachet. He then called the barangay captain, who arrived after about ten to fifteen minutes. In her presence and in Griño's presence, the police frisked Irizumi and recovered the styrofoam box containing fourteen more sachets of shabu and the buy-bust money. The items were marked, photographed, and inventoried, and the certificate of inventory was signed by Irizumi, Griño, and the barangay captain.

The seized items were turned over to the investigator, then to the forensic chemist, who examined representative samples from all fifteen sachets. All tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The defense, for its part, presented Irizumi alone, who claimed that armed men accosted him near his home, planted the drugs on a table, and threatened his family. The trial court and the Court of Appeals rejected his defense of denial and frame-up and convicted him.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction despite the failure of the police officers to have the required insulating witnesses present at or near the place of seizure.
• Whether or not the absence of an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service during the actual seizure may be excused as substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, provides:

SEC. 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/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 person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/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/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/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

This provision fixes the two-witness requirement and the narrow ground on which noncompliance may be excused, and it is the measure against which the police conduct in this case was tested.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the required insulating witnesses were not present at or near the place of seizure. The law requires two witnesses, an elected public official and either a representative of the National Prosecution Service or of the media, immediately after seizure or confiscation. Here, only the media representative was present during the actual buy-bust. The barangay captain arrived only after the sale was consummated, and no Justice representative was ever secured. The Court held that the presence of the media representative alone did not satisfy the two-witness rule.

On the second issue, the Court refused to treat the deficiency as substantial compliance. The saving clause of Section 21 applies only where noncompliance rests on justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Court stressed that the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the charge but also of proving the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, which in drug cases is the dangerous drug itself. Because the drugs are susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution, the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody and account for each link. The Court could not simply turn a blind eye to the police officers' disregard of the two-witness rule and their attempt to pass the same off as substantial compliance. The failure created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized drugs.

Doctrine

In every prosecution for dangerous drugs, the State must prove the corpus delicti, and the dangerous drug itself is the corpus delicti. The identity and integrity of the seized drugs must be established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, requires two insulating witnesses, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, to be present at the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. Their absence at or near the place of seizure cannot be excused as substantial compliance unless the prosecution pleads and proves justifiable grounds and shows that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The saving clause is an exception, not a license, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot supply what the law itself demands.

Disposition

The Court granted the appeal, acquitted Irizumi on the ground of reasonable doubt, and reversed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court.

Remember This

The single line to memorize: the two-witness rule of Section 21 is mandatory, and its breach is not cured by calling it substantial compliance. Examiners use this case to test whether a candidate knows that the saving clause requires justifiable grounds and preserved integrity, and that the dangerous drug is the corpus delicti that must be proved with moral certainty.