This case has been cited 48 times or more.
|
2008-12-16 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Be that as it may, although testimony about a perfect chain does not always have to be the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody indeed becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is a narcotic substance. A unique characteristic of narcotic substances such as shabu is that they are not distinctive and are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature.[32] And because they cannot be readily and properly distinguished visually from other substances of the same physical and/or chemical nature, they are susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination,[33] substitution and exchange [34] whether the alteration, tampering, contamination, substitution and exchange be inadvertent or otherwise not.[35] It is by reason of this distinctive quality that the condition of the exhibit at the time of testing and trial is critical.[36] Hence, in authenticating narcotic specimens, a standard more stringent than that applied to objects which are readily identifiable must be applied a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or contaminated or tampered with.[37] | |||||
|
2008-12-16 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It needs no elucidation that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be seen in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise, where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse presumption arises as a matter of course.[48] There is indeed merit in the contention that where no ill motives to make false charges was successfully attributed to the members of the buy-bust team, the presumption prevails that said police operatives had regularly performed their duty, but the theory is correct only where there is no showing that the conduct of police duty was irregular. People v. Dulay[49] and People v. Ganenas[50] in fact both suggest that the presumption of regularity is disputed where there is deviation from the regular performance of duty. Suffice it to say at this point that the presumption of regularity in the conduct of police duty is merely just that a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth.[51] | |||||
|
2008-12-16 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| All told, in view of the deviation by the buy-bust team from the mandated conduct of taking post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug in this case, there is no way to presume that the members thereof had performed their duties regularly. Even granting that we must blindly rely on the credibility of Velasco's testimony, still, the prosecution evidence would fall short of satisfying the quantum of evidence required to arrive at a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as the evidence chain failed to solidly connect appellant with the seized drug in a way that would establish that the specimen is one and the same as that seized in the first place and offered in court as evidence. The Court cannot indulge in the presumption of regularity of official duty if only to obliterate the obvious infirmity of the evidence advanced to support appellant's conviction. In Mallillin v. People,[54] we categorically declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer in court the testimony of key witnesses for the basic purpose of establishing a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the evidence before the same was finally offered in court, materially conflict with every proposition as to the culpability of the accused. For the same plain but consequential reason, we will not hesitate to reverse the judgment of conviction in the present appeal. | |||||
|
2008-12-16 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| One final word. In no uncertain terms must it be stressed that basic and elementary is the presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused rests on the prosecution which must draw strength from its own evidence and not from the weakness of the defense. The rule, in a constitutional system like ours, is invariable regardless of the reputation of the accused because the law presumes his innocence until the contrary is shown. In dubio pro reo. When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right.[55] | |||||
|
2008-10-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti: every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established.[27] The chain of custody requirement performs this function in buy-bust operations as it ensures that doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[28] In a long line of cases, we have considered it fatal for the prosecution to fail to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly seized from the accused.[29] | |||||
|
2008-10-15 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The recent case of Lopez v. People[32] is particularly instructive on how we expect the chain of custody or "movement" of the seized evidence to be maintained and why this must be shown by evidence:As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. | |||||
|
2008-10-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| The common issue that crops out of a buy-bust operation, like in this case, is whether the drug submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from appellant. The Court is cognizant of the fact that an entrapment operation is open to possibilities of abuse. It is by this same thrust that the chain of custody rule was adopted by the Court. In Lopez v. People,[19] we had the occasion to expound on the chain of custody rule, thus:As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. | |||||
|
2008-09-26 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Specimen A, B and C contain Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug.[6] | |||||