People v. Caray
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The accused-appellant, Niña Caray y Emmanuel, was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Information alleged that on January 7, 2012, in Caloocan City, she unlawfully sold and delivered two sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, weighing 0.65 grams and 0.73 grams, to a poseur-buyer, PO3 Alexander Arguelles, without legal authorization. The prosecution presented evidence from the buy-bust operation, while the defense claimed the appellant was framed and subjected to extortion. Procedural History: The case originated from an Information filed on January 10, 2012, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 120, Caloocan City. After pleading not guilty, trial ensued. The RTC rendered a verdict of conviction on August 19, 2015, sentencing the appellant to life imprisonment and a fine of Php500,000.00. The appellant appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its Decision dated January 12, 2018, affirmed the RTC's conviction. The appellant then elevated the case to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The appellant seeks acquittal from the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's verdict of conviction despite significant procedural deficiencies. Specifically, the appellant contends that the chain of custody of the seized items was compromised due to alleged lapses in the inventory process, including the failure to mark the items at the place of arrest, the absence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative and an elected official during the inventory, and the lack of a clear explanation for these omissions. The appellant argues that these procedural flaws render the seized items inadmissible as evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's verdict of conviction despite the attendant procedural deficiencies relative to the inventory of the seized items, specifically the absence of mandatory witnesses. Whether, despite non-compliance with the mandatory witnesses requirement during the inventory, the prosecution successfully invoked the saving clause by demonstrating justifiable grounds for the deviation and preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
Ruling
The appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 12, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07846 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant NIÑA CARAY y EMMANUEL is ACQUITTED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the procedural deficiencies in the inventory and chain of custody: The Court held that in illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti. The prosecution must establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. Section 21 of RA 9165 prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti, requiring the physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and any elected public official. In this case, only the appellant and a media representative were present during the inventory, and the absence of an elected official and a DOJ representative was noted without explanation. The Court reiterated that non-compliance with the requirement of insulating witnesses during inventory is fatal to the prosecution's case, as it negates the credibility of the seized drug and other confiscated items due to the possibility of switching, planting, or contamination. The Court cited People v. Abelarde and People v. Macud where acquittals were rendered due to similar failures to secure the presence of required witnesses. On the application of the saving clause: The Court disagreed with the OSG's contention that the integrity of the corpus delicti was duly preserved. While the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 offer a saving clause for deviations from protocol when justifiable grounds exist and the integrity of the seized items is preserved, the prosecution in this case offered no such explanation. The mere statement that the required representatives were unavailable without showing earnest efforts to contact them was considered a flimsy excuse, as held in People v. Umipang. Therefore, the condition sine qua non for the saving clause to become operational was not complied with, and the proviso regarding the preservation of integrity and evidentiary value could not come into play. Absent any acceptable explanation for the deviation from the procedural requirements of the chain of custody rule, the corpus delicti cannot be deemed preserved, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Main Doctrine
Non-compliance with the mandatory witnesses requirement during the inventory and photographing of seized illegal drugs, without justifiable grounds and without preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, renders the seizure and custody void and invalid, leading to the acquittal of the accused.