People v. Pulgado
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case stemmed from two Informations charging accused-appellant Marko Pulgado y Magno a.k.a. "Mako" (Pulgado) with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. The prosecution alleged that on June 14, 2016, a buy-bust operation was conducted where Pulgado allegedly sold one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.106 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Subsequently, four more sachets weighing a total of 0.519 gram of the same substance were recovered from his possession. The seized items were brought to the police station, marked with initials, inventoried, photographed, and sent to the crime laboratory, where they tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Pulgado denied the charges, claiming he was arrested for alleged theft. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 75, found Pulgado guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both crimes. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for illegal sale, and twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months imprisonment and a fine of P300,000.00 for illegal possession. The RTC found the prosecution's evidence credible and Pulgado's defense untenable. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC ruling with modification, sentencing Pulgado to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole for illegal sale. The CA ruled that the elements of the crimes were established and the chain of custody was duly complied with. The Petition: Pulgado appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing, among others, that the apprehending team failed to comply with the chain of custody rule due to the delayed marking of the drug evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, considering the chain of custody. Whether or not the chain of custody rule was strictly complied with by the apprehending officers, and if not, whether the prosecution provided justifiable grounds for deviation and proved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. The Decision dated June 16, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 11074 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Marko Pulgado y Magno a.k.a. "Mako" is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless lawfully held for another reason.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Guilt and Compliance with Chain of Custody: In cases involving illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must be established with moral certainty. This requires the prosecution to account for every link in the chain of custody from seizure to presentation in court. The law mandates, among others, the immediate marking, physical inventory, and photography of seized items. Marking, as the first and crucial step, should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon confiscation to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The Court has emphasized that compliance with the chain of custody procedure is not merely a technicality but a matter of substantive law, designed as a safeguard against police abuses and planting of evidence, especially given the severe penalties involved. The prosecution bears the positive duty to demonstrate observance with this rule and justify any deviations therefrom. In this case, the records show that the marking of the seized items was performed only at the police station, not immediately after confiscation. The prosecution failed to provide a justifiable reason for this deviation from the standard procedure. While the saving clause in Section 21(a) of the IRR of RA 9165 allows for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, the prosecution must duly explain the reasons for the lapses and prove the justifiable ground as a fact. The testimony of PO3 Tan indicates that marking occurred at the police station before inventory and photography, and that he placed his initials on the sachets before handing them over to PO2 Sarmiento. However, this does not equate to immediate marking at the place of arrest or confiscation. The Court reiterated the reminder in People v. Miranda that prosecutors must account for lapses in the chain of custody, regardless of whether the defense raises the issue, to avoid convictions being overturned due to compromised evidence integrity. Therefore, due to the unjustified non-compliance with the chain of custody rule, the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs purportedly seized from Pulgado were compromised, warranting his acquittal.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution has the positive duty to demonstrate observance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. Failure to strictly comply with the immediate marking requirement, without a justifiable reason duly explained and proven, compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, warranting acquittal.