People v. Salmeron
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants Arsenio Salmeron y Amaro and Ma. Lourdes Estrada y Cruz were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, for allegedly selling 2.92 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, on November 19, 2013, in Quezon City. The prosecution presented evidence from a buy-bust operation where a confidential informant facilitated the transaction between a poseur buyer, PO3 Rolando Alieger, Jr., and the accused. The defense, however, claimed that the evidence was planted and that they were victims of a palit-ulo scheme. Procedural History: The case originated from an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) - Branch 79, Quezon City, where both accused pleaded not guilty. After trial, the RTC rendered a judgment on July 25, 2017, finding the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentencing them to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 each. The decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in its Decision dated July 31, 2018, affirmed the RTC's ruling, upholding the conviction. This present appeal assails the CA's decision. The Petition: The accused-appellants seek acquittal from the Supreme Court, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming their conviction. Their primary contention revolves around the alleged non-compliance with Section 21(a) of RA 9165, specifically the failure of the apprehending officers to secure the presence of representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media during the inventory and photographing of the seized item. They also question the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item throughout the chain of custody. The prosecution countered that the chain of custody was followed and that the absence of the required witnesses would not render the evidence inadmissible as long as its integrity was maintained.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of the appellants for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, considering the requirements for establishing the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases. Whether the prosecution sufficiently established the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs, and whether the procedural lapses in the inventory and photographing of the seized items were justified, thereby preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
Ruling
The appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 31, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 09555 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellants Arsenio Salmeron y Amaro and Ma. Lourdes Estrada y Cruz are ACQUITTED in Criminal Case R-QZN-13-05297-CR.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of the Erroneous Affirmation of Conviction: The Court held that in illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti, and the prosecution must establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: seizure and marking, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and submission to the court. On the Issue of Chain of Custody and Compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165: Section 21 of RA 9165 prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti, requiring the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or their representative, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and any elected public official. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 provide a saving clause, stating that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds will not render the seizures void as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. In this case, the inventory and photograph of the seized items were conducted only in the presence of the appellants and Barangay Chairman Crissel Beltran. The records were silent as to the presence of media and DOJ representatives, and the arresting officers failed to provide any explanation for their absence. The Court cited several cases, including People v. Mendoza, People v. Abelarde, People v. Macud, and People v. Año, where acquittals were granted due to similar procedural lapses in the chain of custody and the absence of required witnesses without justifiable grounds. Furthermore, the Court noted another gap in the chain of custody concerning the handling, storage, and security of the seized drug before, during, and after its custody by the forensic chemist, PCI Jocelyn Belen Julian, and its subsequent turnover to the evidence custodian, PO3 Salvan. The prosecution failed to present evidence on the precautionary steps taken by PCI Julian in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug. The Court emphasized that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot substitute for compliance with the law and mend broken links in the chain of custody, especially when the records are replete with details of serious lapses. The breaches in the chain of custody rule were deemed fatal flaws that destroyed the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. Since the prosecution failed to offer any explanation to excuse the non-compliance with the chain of custody rule and to prove that the integrity and value of the seized evidence were preserved, the condition for the saving clause to apply was not met. Consequently, the appellants were acquitted.
Main Doctrine
The failure of the prosecution to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically the presence of the required witnesses during the inventory and photograph of the seized items, and the absence of any justifiable ground for such non-compliance, fatally compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal.