People v.

Sanchez
G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017
J. Martires

Digest Author: June Vincent Ferrer III

Topic: Power of Administrative Agencies – Power Presumed. Presumption of Regularity

of Performance of Functions

Plaintiff-appellee: People of the Philippines

Accused-appellants: Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez and Jhunrel Sulogaol y Datu

Case Summary: The accused were arrested by the police in a buy-bust operation. The
prosecution claim that shabu and drug paraphernalia were found in their possession.
However, the accused refused to sign the certificate of inventory claiming that the shabu
was planted by the police. RTC convicted them. CA affirmed. Hence, this petition.

The Supreme Court ruled that the police were not able to strictly follow the chain of
evidence. It cannot be said that the shabu seized during the operation is the same shabu
presented in court as evidence. Hence, it is inadmissible and the accused must be
acquitted.

Doctrine: The presumption of regularity will not be stronger than the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the
constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent.

FACTS

• Arposeple and Sulogaol were both charged with illegal use, possession, and sale
of dangerous drugs (RA 9165)

Prosecution’s Story:

• Around 3AM on Sept. 21, 2005, Jimenez (Asst. City Drug Enforcement Officer)
held a briefing at his office for a buy-bust operation
o Ramos would be the poseur-buyer
o Bagotchay would be the record and property custodian

• In the course of the buy-bust operation, they were able to arrest Arposeple and
Sulogaol
o A body search on Arposeple yielded a sachet containing shabu leftover, 2
empty transparent sachets containing shabu leftover, and other drug
paraphernalia
o A body search on Sulogaol yielded nothing
 • Ramos turned over the seized items to Bagotchay whole filed out the certificate of
inventory
o The inventory was witnessed by Arposeple, Sulogaol, barangay kagawads,
DOJ representatives, and the media
o However, the accused refused to sign the certificate of inventory

• The accused were then brought to the police station

• At 3:05 PM, the crime laboratory received a request for the examination of the
seized sachets and drug paraphernalia
o The chemistry report showed that the sachets did contain shabu

Defense’s Story:

• The accused were resting from their travel at a Tara’s house when the police
suddenly barged in and pointing their guns at them

• The police frisked the accused several times but found nothing on them

• Ramos then took shabu, money, and some drug paraphernalia from his pocket
and placed them on the table

• The accused protested the planting of evidence but they were told to explain
themselves at the police station

• At the police station, the accused complained about the planting of evidence
o They also did not sign the inventory of items because there was nothing
found on them

Case Trail

• RTC convicted Arposeple and Sulogaol of illegal possession of drugs

• CA affirmed
• Hence, this petition.
 ISSUES AND HELD

1. W/N the chain of custody was broken – YES

RULE

• In all prosecutions for violations of RA 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous
drug itself, the existence of which is essential to a judgment of conviction
o Thus, its identity must be clearly established

• To establish all the elements of violations of RA 9165, it must be proved that there
was no hiatus in the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs and paraphernalia

• The prosecution cannot prove its case for violation of RA 9165 when the seized
items could not be accounted for or when there were significant breaks in their
chain of custody
o It would cast doubt as to whether those items presented in court were
actually those that were seized

• Chain of Custody
o Defined as the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
drugs from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction

• Under jurisprudence, the following links must be established in the chain of custody
in a buy-bust operation
(1) The seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused
by the apprehending officer
(2) The turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer
(3) The turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination
(4) The turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the
forensic chemist to the court

APPLICATION

• In this case, the first link was weak

• Importance of Marking
o Marking should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator
immediately upon arrest
o The marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous
drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity
and evidentiary value
Witnesses’ Testimony

• There’s nothing in the certificate of inventory as to the marking of the seized items
o Ramos and Jimenez failed to explain how and when the seized items were
marked
o In their report, they failed to mention anything as to what had happened to
the seized items after the inventory and when these were to the police
station for marking

• Some members of the buy-bust team even testified that they had no knowledge as
to who made the markings on the evidence

• Although there were already markings on the seized items when these were
submitted to the laboratory, none of the prosecution witnesses testified as to who
made the markings, how and when marked, and the meaning of these markings

• Hence, it is uncertain whether the items presented as evidence were actually those
that were seized

Hiatus

• There’s a hiatus from the time the seized items were inventoried at the crime scene
to the time these were delivered to the laboratory

• Although the evidence was obtained at around 4:00 AM, it was delivered to the
laboratory only around 3:05 PM
o There’s a lapse of 11 hours

• The preservation of the chain of custody vis-á-vis the contraband ensures the
integrity of the evidence incriminating the accused, and relates to the element of
relevancy as one of the requisites for the admissibility of the evidence

• In order that the seized items may be admissible, the prosecution must show by
records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between
the times it came into the possession of the police until it was tested in the
laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence
o In this case, there is nothing that would support a declaration that the seized
items were admissible

• The chain of custody requirement 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

• Since the first link in the chain of custody is inherently weak, the other links must
also fail
2. W/N the presumption of regularity prevails – NO

• The presumption of regularity will not be stronger than the presumption of

innocence in favor of the accused.
o Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined
right to be presumed innocent

• Here, the chemistry report showed that only a very small amount of shabu was
found in the sachets (0.01 grams)

• There is a need to ensure the integrity of seized drugs in the chain of custody when
only a minuscule amount of drugs had been allegedly seized from the accused

3. W/N the guilt of the accused was proven beyond reasonable doubt – NO

• The irregular manner by which the seized items were handled generates serious
doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the items

• Considering that the seized items constitute the corpus delicti of the offenses
charged, the prosecution should have proven with moral certainty that the items
confiscated were actually those presented before the RTC during the hearing

• It must be established that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence

against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place

• In this case, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been
compromised

RULING

Petition GRANTED.