People v. Paz
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Mark Andrew Paz y Rocaford was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 for allegedly selling two (2) sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing a total of 7.3715 grams to a poseur-buyer, IO1 Reagan B. Silverio, on May 9, 2013, in Caloocan City. The prosecution presented evidence that a buy-bust operation was conducted based on information received by PDEA agents. IO1 Silverio, as poseur-buyer, met Paz, exchanged the drugs for marked and boodle money, and signaled the arresting team upon consummation of the transaction. Paz was apprehended, and the buy-bust money and a cellphone were recovered from him. The seized items were later subjected to laboratory examination, which yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Paz claimed he was framed-up, alleging he was accosted, forced into a vehicle, and brought to various locations before being taken to the PDEA office where the alleged evidence was shown to him. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City found Paz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. Paz appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and that the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items were not done at the place of seizure and without the presence of required witnesses. The Petition: Paz prayed for his acquittal, primarily on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized sachets of shabu due to non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, specifically the marking, inventory, and photographing of the items at the PDEA office instead of the place of seizure, and the absence of a DOJ or media representative during the inventory.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drugs, and whether the marking of the seized items was properly conducted immediately upon confiscation. Whether the non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, specifically regarding the required witnesses during inventory, renders the seized evidence inadmissible and warrants acquittal.
Ruling
The appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Mark Andrew Paz y Rocaford is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of unbroken chain of custody and proper marking of seized items: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove compliance with the procedures under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized sachets of shabu. The Court noted that the marking of the seized items was done at the PDEA office, not immediately upon confiscation in the presence of the apprehended violator. The failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody means the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt. On the issue of non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding required witnesses: The Court emphasized that the procedural safeguards in Section 21 are crucial for preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. The inventory of seized properties was conducted without the presence of a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media, with only a Barangay Kagawad as witness. The Court reiterated that non-compliance with these requirements, without justifiable grounds, is fatal to the prosecution's case. The Court found no evidence that the buy-bust team exerted earnest efforts to comply with the law regarding the witnesses present during the inventory, and the prosecution did not offer any plausible explanation for the deviation from the prescribed procedure. The failure to prove justifiable reasons for non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 means the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the accused must be acquitted.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution's failure to strictly comply with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, specifically the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of seized items in the presence of the required witnesses, casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, necessitating acquittal if no justifiable ground for non-compliance is proven.