Lawyerly

GR No. 188653

2014-01-29

PEREZ, J.

We have consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. Failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.[22]

GR No. 198113

2013-12-11

PEOPLE v. FERDINAND BAUTISTA Y SINAON

ABAD, J.

The first stage after seizure is the taking of inventory of the dangerous drugs seized from the suspect. It begins with the marking of the seized objects to fix its identity. Such marking should be made as far as practicable in the presence of the suspect immediately upon his arrest.[12] Of course, the failure to mark the seized items at the place of arrest does not of itself impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence.[13] Marking upon "immediate" confiscation can reasonably cover marking done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team,[14] especially when the place of seizure is volatile and could draw unpredictable reactions from its surroundings.

GR No. 199901

2013-10-09

PEOPLE v. GARYZALDY GUZON

REYES, J.

The rule includes the proviso that procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drugs are not ipso facto fatal to the prosecution's cause, provided that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. In each case, courts are nonetheless reminded to thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those errors that constitute a simple procedural lapse from those that amount to a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards that are drawn by the law[44] for the protection of the corpus delicti. The strict demands and significant value of the chain of custody rule were emphasized in the oft-cited Malillin v. People[45] wherein the Court held: 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.

GR No. 199901

2013-10-09

PEOPLE v. GARYZALDY GUZON

REYES, J.

As Guzon correctly pointed out in his Supplemental Brief, there were several lapses in the law enforcers' handling of the seized item which, when taken collectively, render the standards of chain of custody seriously breached. In a line of cases, the Court explained that the failure to comply with the indispensable requirement of corpus delicti happens not only when it is missing, but also where there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs which raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.[47] Upon review, the Court has determined that such lapses and doubt mar the instant case.

GR No. 199901

2013-10-09

PEOPLE v. GARYZALDY GUZON

REYES, J.

Here, instead of immediately marking the subject drug upon its confiscation, PO2 Tuzon marked it with his initials "EAT" only upon arrival at the police station.[50] While the failure of arresting officers to mark the seized items at the place of arrest does not, by itself, impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence,[51] such circumstance, when taken in light of the several other lapses in the chain of custody that attend the present case, forms part of a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards that are drawn by the law,[52] sufficient to create reasonable doubt as to the culpability of the accused.

GR No. 194948

2013-09-02

PEOPLE v. FREDDY SALONGA Y AFIADO

SERENO, C.J.

Finally, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be invoked by the prosecution where the procedure was tainted with material lapses. These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up which was testified to by a third party witness.[40] The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.[41]

GR No. 202709

2013-07-03

PEOPLE

ABAD, J.

Yet, the police officers did not bother to offer any sort of reason or justification for their failure to make an inventory and take pictures of the drugs immediately after their seizure in the presence of the accused and the other persons designated by the law. Both the RTC and the CA misapprehended the significance of such omission. It is imperative for the prosecution to establish a justifiable cause for non-compliance with the procedural requirements set by law.[22] The procedures outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 are not merely empty formalities these are safeguards against abuse,[23] the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion.[24]

GR No. 188024

2013-06-05

RODRIGO RONTOS Y DELA TORRE v. PEOPLE

SERENO, C.J.

This Court has emphasized the import of Section 21 as a matter of substantive law that mandates strict compliance.[32] It was laid down by Congress as a safety precaution against potential abuses by law enforcement agents who might fail to appreciate the gravity of the penalties faced by those suspected to be involved in the sale, use or possession of illegal drugs.[33] Under the principle that penal laws are strictly construed against the government, stringent compliance therewith is fully justified.[34]

GR No. 198115

2013-02-27

PEOPLE v. JOSE ALEX SECRETO Y VILLANUEVA

PEREZ, J.

Once again, we recite the well-settled rule that non-compliance with the procedures laid down in Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, does not necessarily warrant the acquittal of the accused,[1] provided that when there is gross disregard of the prescribed safeguards, serious doubt arises as to the identity of the seized item presented in court,[2] for which reason, the prosecution cannot simply invoke the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties[3] to justify the omissions. For, indeed, "a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties."[4]

GR No. 197371

2012-06-13

PEOPLE v. JOEL ANCHETA Y OSAN

SERENO, J.

In the very recent case People v. Umipang,[7] we explained that the nature of a buy-bust operation necessitates a stringent application of the procedural safeguards specifically crafted by Congress in R.A. 9165 to counter potential police abuses. We held thus: At the outset, we take note that the present case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the SAID-SOTF. We thus recall our pronouncement in People v. Garcia:

	GR No. 188653 2014-01-29	LITO LOPEZ v. PEOPLE PEREZ, J.
We have consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. Failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.[22]
	GR No. 198113 2013-12-11	PEOPLE v. FERDINAND BAUTISTA Y SINAON ABAD, J.
The first stage after seizure is the taking of inventory of the dangerous drugs seized from the suspect. It begins with the marking of the seized objects to fix its identity. Such marking should be made as far as practicable in the presence of the suspect immediately upon his arrest.[12] Of course, the failure to mark the seized items at the place of arrest does not of itself impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence.[13] Marking upon "immediate" confiscation can reasonably cover marking done at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team,[14] especially when the place of seizure is volatile and could draw unpredictable reactions from its surroundings.
	GR No. 199901 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. GARYZALDY GUZON REYES, J.
The rule includes the proviso that procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drugs are not ipso facto fatal to the prosecution's cause, provided that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. In each case, courts are nonetheless reminded to thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those errors that constitute a simple procedural lapse from those that amount to a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards that are drawn by the law[44] for the protection of the corpus delicti. The strict demands and significant value of the chain of custody rule were emphasized in the oft-cited Malillin v. People[45] wherein the Court held: 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.
	GR No. 199901 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. GARYZALDY GUZON REYES, J.
As Guzon correctly pointed out in his Supplemental Brief, there were several lapses in the law enforcers' handling of the seized item which, when taken collectively, render the standards of chain of custody seriously breached. In a line of cases, the Court explained that the failure to comply with the indispensable requirement of corpus delicti happens not only when it is missing, but also where there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs which raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.[47] Upon review, the Court has determined that such lapses and doubt mar the instant case.
	GR No. 199901 2013-10-09	PEOPLE v. GARYZALDY GUZON REYES, J.
Here, instead of immediately marking the subject drug upon its confiscation, PO2 Tuzon marked it with his initials "EAT" only upon arrival at the police station.[50] While the failure of arresting officers to mark the seized items at the place of arrest does not, by itself, impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence,[51] such circumstance, when taken in light of the several other lapses in the chain of custody that attend the present case, forms part of a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards that are drawn by the law,[52] sufficient to create reasonable doubt as to the culpability of the accused.
	GR No. 194948 2013-09-02	PEOPLE v. FREDDY SALONGA Y AFIADO SERENO, C.J.
Finally, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot be invoked by the prosecution where the procedure was tainted with material lapses. These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up which was testified to by a third party witness.[40] The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt.[41]
	GR No. 202709 2013-07-03	PEOPLE ABAD, J.
Yet, the police officers did not bother to offer any sort of reason or justification for their failure to make an inventory and take pictures of the drugs immediately after their seizure in the presence of the accused and the other persons designated by the law. Both the RTC and the CA misapprehended the significance of such omission. It is imperative for the prosecution to establish a justifiable cause for non-compliance with the procedural requirements set by law.[22] The procedures outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 are not merely empty formalities these are safeguards against abuse,[23] the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion.[24]
	GR No. 188024 2013-06-05	RODRIGO RONTOS Y DELA TORRE v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
This Court has emphasized the import of Section 21 as a matter of substantive law that mandates strict compliance.[32] It was laid down by Congress as a safety precaution against potential abuses by law enforcement agents who might fail to appreciate the gravity of the penalties faced by those suspected to be involved in the sale, use or possession of illegal drugs.[33] Under the principle that penal laws are strictly construed against the government, stringent compliance therewith is fully justified.[34]
	GR No. 198115 2013-02-27	PEOPLE v. JOSE ALEX SECRETO Y VILLANUEVA PEREZ, J.
Once again, we recite the well-settled rule that non-compliance with the procedures laid down in Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, does not necessarily warrant the acquittal of the accused,[1] provided that when there is gross disregard of the prescribed safeguards, serious doubt arises as to the identity of the seized item presented in court,[2] for which reason, the prosecution cannot simply invoke the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties[3] to justify the omissions. For, indeed, "a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties."[4]
	GR No. 197371 2012-06-13	PEOPLE v. JOEL ANCHETA Y OSAN SERENO, J.
In the very recent case People v. Umipang,[7] we explained that the nature of a buy-bust operation necessitates a stringent application of the procedural safeguards specifically crafted by Congress in R.A. 9165 to counter potential police abuses. We held thus: At the outset, we take note that the present case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the SAID-SOTF. We thus recall our pronouncement in People v. Garcia:

PEOPLE v. SAMMY UMIPANG Y ABDUL