People v. Veloo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellants Tamil Selvi Veloo and N. Chandrar Nadarajan, both Malaysian nationals, were apprehended at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) upon their arrival from Hong Kong. They were found to be in possession of substantial quantities of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), totaling approximately 4 kilograms in one bag and 2 kilograms in another. Veloo was found with a black Dibola luggage containing ten plastic packs of shabu, while Nadarajan was apprehended with a black Phoenix bag containing six plastic packs of shabu. Both were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for the transportation of dangerous drugs. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, in a Joint Decision dated September 15, 2015, found both accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charges and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of P800,000.00 in each case. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated December 13, 2018, affirmed the RTC's decision in its entirety. A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration filed by Nadarajan was denied. The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal. The Petition: The accused-appellants, through their respective Briefs, argued that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of the crime charged and that the apprehending officers did not faithfully comply with the chain of custody requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, specifically citing the absence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative during the inventory of the seized drugs. They contend that this non-compliance renders the seized items inadmissible. The Supreme Court reviewed the procedural lapses in the chain of custody, particularly concerning the Phoenix bag, and the presence of required witnesses during the inventory, while also considering the nature of the apprehension at an airport customs area.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Whether the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was strictly complied with, particularly the presence of a DOJ representative during the inventory and photographing of the seized items, and whether non-compliance was justified. Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved despite alleged lapses in procedure, and the consequences of failing to establish integrity for one of the bags.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' Decision with modification. The accused-appellants Tamil Selvi Veloo and N. Chandrar Nadarajan were found guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-12-05297-CR (pertaining to the Dibola bag) and were sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to each pay a fine of Eight Hundred Thousand Pesos (P800,000.00). However, they were acquitted in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-12-05298-CR (pertaining to the Phoenix bag) for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi
On the elements of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs: The Court reiterated that the essential elements for the crime of illegal transportation of dangerous drugs are (1) the transportation of illegal drugs was committed, and (2) the prohibited drug exists. To establish guilt, the prosecution must prove not only the act of transporting the drugs but also their identity and integrity, including the corpus delicti. In this case, the prosecution successfully proved the transportation of drugs found in the Dibola bag. The Court found Veloo's claim of mistaking the bag as hers unpersuasive, considering the differences in the bags and the circumstances of their retrieval. The Court also noted that intent and proof of ownership are not essential elements for the crime of illegal transportation, as it is a malum prohibitum offense. The Court found that both accused intended to travel together, explaining their actions regarding the bags. On the chain of custody rule and Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165: The Court acknowledged that strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which requires inventory and photographing in the presence of specific witnesses including a DOJ representative, is crucial. However, the Court reiterated its stance that non-compliance is not necessarily fatal if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. In this case, the Court found that while the integrity of the drugs from the Dibola bag was preserved, the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the drugs from the Phoenix bag due to questionable retrieval circumstances and the lack of explanation for the delay. The Court noted the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory of the Dibola bag, but found that the presence of other government agents (Bureau of Immigration officers, who are under the DOJ) and the fact that it was a routine airport customs check could be deemed sufficient to excuse this lapse, provided the integrity of the evidence was maintained. The Court emphasized that the prosecution bears the burden of proving justifiable grounds for non-compliance. On the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs: The Court found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug specimens from the Dibola bag were preserved. The drugs were found in heat-sealed containers, and the total amount (four kilos) was considerable, minimizing the risk of tampering. The Court also noted that the chain of custody from the apprehending officer to the PDEA, then to the forensic chemist, and finally to the court was established for the Dibola bag. Conversely, for the Phoenix bag, the Court found doubt as to the integrity of the contents due to the questionable circumstances of its retrieval, the delay in its production, and the fact that it was already opened when it arrived in the exclusion room. This failure to establish the integrity of the evidence from the Phoenix bag led to the acquittal in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-12-05298-CR.
Main Doctrine
While strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is required for the custody and disposition of seized drugs, non-compliance is not necessarily fatal as long as there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. However, the prosecution bears the burden of proving these justifiable grounds.