People v. Velasco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused Alvin Velasco y Huevos and Vevir Diaz y Malinao were charged with illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 (Criminal Case No. CR-06-8539). Diaz was also charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 (Criminal Case No. CR-06-8538). Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 39, Calapan City, Oriental Mindoro, convicted both Velasco and Diaz in a joint decision dated April 10, 2012. The RTC found that the elements of illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established, that the accused were caught in flagrante delicto, and that the apprehending officers substantially complied with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction on May 27, 2014. Velasco appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Velasco sought the review and reversal of the CA decision, arguing that the CA erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding Alvin Velasco y Huevos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, considering the procedural requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Whether the apprehending officers complied with the specific procedural requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 regarding chain of custody, and if not, whether such non-compliance was justified.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, acquitting Alvin Velasco y Huevos on the ground that his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ordered his immediate release from confinement unless there were other lawful causes for his detention.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs and compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165: The Court held that the apprehending officers failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which mandates the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The records showed that the inventory and photographing were done only after the seized items were brought to the police station and in the presence only of the barangay captain. On the issue of justification for non-compliance with chain of custody requirements: Crucially, the apprehending officers failed to provide any justifiable reason or explanation for this non-compliance. The Court emphasized that while Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) provides a saving mechanism for non-compliance, its application is conditioned upon the rendering of a justification for the lapse. Without such justification, the failure to comply creates doubt as to the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The Court reiterated that in every prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the State bears the burden of justifying lapses in the chain of custody. The absence of such justification means the chain of custody is not shown to be unbroken, thus preserving doubt about whether the evidence presented was the substance subject to the illegal sale. This doubt necessitates acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt, as established in cases like People v. Geronimo. The Court noted that the police had sufficient time to ensure the presence of the required witnesses, further underscoring the lack of justification for their procedural lapses. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot prevail when the records clearly show a failure to follow mandatory procedures without any explanation. Therefore, the incrimination of Velasco became doubtful, leading to his acquittal.
Main Doctrine
The regularity of the performance of official duty on the part of arresting officers during a buy-bust operation and its aftermath cannot be presumed when the records do not contain any explanation why the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 were not complied with. The incrimination of the accused thereby becomes doubtful, and his acquittal of the charge of illegal selling of dangerous drugs should follow.