People v. Cohayco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case stemmed from an Information charging Marivic Cohayco y Revil @ "Kakang" (Cohayco) with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. Operatives of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) conducted a buy-bust operation on March 19, 2014, leading to Cohayco's arrest and the recovery of one (1) big sachet containing ten (10) small sachets of white crystalline substance, weighing 0.2075 gram, identified as methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the PDEA Satellite Office in the presence of barangay officials and media representatives. The RTC found Cohayco guilty beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing her to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. The CA affirmed the RTC decision. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Oroquieta City, Branch 12, found accused-appellant Marivic Cohayco y Revil @ "Kakang" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The RTC sentenced her to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision in its Decision dated April 24, 2018. The Petition: Cohayco appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn her conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs seized from the accused-appellant, thereby proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, considering the chain of custody. Whether the prosecution provided justifiable grounds for any non-compliance with the chain of custody rule, and whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved despite such non-compliance.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed and set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and acquitted accused-appellant Marivic Cohayco y Revil @ "Kakang" of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections was ordered to cause her immediate release, unless lawfully held for other reasons.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Chain of Custody and Integrity of Corpus Delicti: The Court reiterated that in cases involving illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty, as it forms an integral part of the corpus delicti. Failure to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the State's evidence insufficient, warranting acquittal. To establish this identity, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court. This includes the mandatory marking, physical inventory, and photography of seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation. While marking at the nearest police station is permissible, the inventory and photography must be conducted in the presence of the accused or their representative, and specific witnesses: a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official, prior to the amendment by RA 10640. The presence of these witnesses is crucial to prevent switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. The Court emphasized that compliance with the chain of custody procedure is not merely a technicality but a matter of substantive law, designed to prevent police abuses, especially given the severe penalties involved. On Justifiable Grounds for Non-Compliance and the Saving Clause, and Application to the Case at Bar, and Conclusion on Acquittal: The Court acknowledged that strict compliance may not always be possible due to varying field conditions. However, the saving clause in Section 21(a) of the IRR of RA 9165, later adopted into RA 10640, allows for non-compliance if there is a justifiable ground and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Crucially, the prosecution bears the burden of proving these justifiable grounds and demonstrating that genuine and sufficient efforts were made to secure the presence of the required witnesses. Mere statements of unavailability are insufficient without proof of earnest attempts to contact them. The Court cannot presume these grounds exist. In the present case, the Court found that while the marking, inventory, and photography were conducted at the PDEA Satellite Office instead of the place of arrest (a known shabu hotbed), which was deemed justifiable to prevent compromise, the inventory and photography were not conducted in the presence of a DOJ representative. The Inventory of Seized Items/Confiscated Non-Drugs showed signatures only from barangay officials and media representatives. The testimony of IO2 Taghoy confirmed the absence of a DOJ representative. The prosecution failed to provide a justifiable reason for this absence or demonstrate earnest efforts to secure their presence. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was an unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, compromising the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Cohayco. Due to the compromised integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items resulting from the unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish Cohayco's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, her acquittal was warranted.
Main Doctrine
The failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody procedure, specifically the presence of required witnesses during inventory and photography, renders the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items compromised, warranting acquittal, unless a justifiable ground for non-compliance is proven and the integrity is shown to be preserved.