People v. Sendad
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case originated from two criminal complaints filed against Norin Sendad y Kundo for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution alleged that during a buy-bust operation, two sachets of suspected shabu were recovered from Sendad. A subsequent search yielded four additional sachets, totaling 0.2613 grams of the substance. Sendad, in her defense, denied the charges, claiming she was apprehended without cause and that money and her cellphone were taken from her. She presented witnesses who testified that no commotion or apprehension occurred at the location she claimed to have been arrested. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacurong City, Branch 20, found Sendad guilty beyond reasonable doubt for both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. She was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine for the sale charge, and a prison term and fine for the possession charge. Sendad appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA affirmed the RTC's ruling but modified the prison sentence for the possession charge. Aggrieved by the CA's decision, Sendad filed an ordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. The Petition: This appeal seeks to overturn Sendad's conviction. The core of the petition revolves around the alleged procedural lapses in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs. Specifically, the petition highlights the absence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative during the marking, inventory, and photography of the confiscated items, which is a requirement under RA 9165 prior to its amendment by RA 10640. The petition argues that this unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, warranting Sendad's acquittal.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs seized from the accused, considering alleged deviations from the chain of custody rule. Whether the absence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative during the inventory and photography of the seized items, without justifiable ground, renders the evidence inadmissible and warrants acquittal.
Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. The Decision dated June 21, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01626-MIN is reversed and set aside. Accused-appellant Norin Sendad y Kundo a.k.a. "Nhorain Sendad y Kusain" is acquitted of the crimes charged.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Chain of Custody and 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, as the corpus delicti, must be established with moral certainty. This requires an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court. The law mandates specific procedures, including marking, physical inventory, and photography of seized items, to be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. While marking at the nearest police station is acceptable, the inventory and photography must be done in the presence of the accused or their representative, and specific witnesses, which, prior to the amendment by RA 10640, included a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. The Court emphasized that these procedures are not mere technicalities but substantive safeguards against police abuse, especially given the severe penalties involved. The Court acknowledged a "saving clause" in Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, later adopted into RA 10640, which allows for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. However, the prosecution bears the burden of proving these justifiable grounds and explaining the procedural lapses. Mere statements of unavailability are insufficient; genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of required witnesses must be demonstrated. The Court cautioned that it cannot presume the existence of justifiable grounds. Due to the compromised integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs resulting from the unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, the Court found the evidence insufficient to prove Sendad's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, Sendad was acquitted. On the Absence of the DOJ Representative: In the present case, the Court found a clear deviation from the required witnesses rule because the inventory and photography were conducted without a DOJ representative. The Inventory of Property Seized only confirmed the presence of a Barangay Kagawad and a media representative. The absence of the DOJ personnel was not explained nor justified by the prosecution. The apprehending officers failed to present any justifiable reason for this lapse or to show that they made earnest efforts to secure the presence of such a witness. This failure to account for the absence of a required witness, without a justifiable ground, compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The Court noted that the unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, coupled with inconsistencies surrounding the conduct of the buy-bust operation, led to the conclusion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Sendad were compromised. Consequently, this warrants her acquittal. The Court also referenced its reminder in People v. Miranda that the State has a positive duty to account for lapses in the chain of custody, regardless of whether the defense raises the issue, to avoid convictions being overturned.
Main Doctrine
The failure of the prosecution to establish an unbroken chain of custody, particularly the unjustified absence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative during the inventory and photography of seized items, compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal.