Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions

G.R. No. 190347 (People of the Philippines v. Veds Osmeña). — Before this Court is an automatic review of the Court of Appeals (CA) 28 May 2009 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00327-MIN.^[1]

The RTC Ruling 

In its 29 June 2004 Decision,^[2] the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted accused-appellant of violating Section 26(b), in relation to Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Accused-appellant was allegedly arrested in  flagrante delicto while attempting to sell eleven (11) plastic sachets of shabu. The RTC found that, based on the evidence presented, the following elements of attempted illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established: (1) the police officer designated as the poseur- buyer received the shabu to be sold from accused-appellant; (2) the object of the sale was 27.8799 grams of shabu; and (3) the buyer was Police Officer 2 (PO2) Pedro Gorre and the seller was accused-appellant Veds Osmeña. The RTC further ruled that the testimony of the arresting officer deserved faith and credence. Accused-appellant was then sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.

The CA Ruling

On intermediate appellate review, the ruling of the RTC was affirmed. The CA gave credence to the positive narrations of the police officers that accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation. These testimonies of the police officers remain undisputed, absent ill motive or any other clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption that the government officials reneged on the performance of their duties in a regular and proper manner. The CA also rejected accused-appellant's claim that he had been framed up considering that such defense was easy to contrive and difficult to disprove.

We now rule on the case on final review.

  Our Ruling

We deny the Petition.  

After a careful review of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or modify the findings of the RTC, less so in the present case when the said findings were affirmed by the CA.

In his Supplemental Brief,^[3] accused-appellant alleges that since the police officers did not take photographs of the confiscated items, nor did they confiscate them immediately at the time of the arrest as required by Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165,^[4] the chain of custody was not preserved, and thus, the very existence of the illegal drug is questionable.

Crucial to proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs^[5]  immediately after they are seized from the accused-appellant. Likewise, our drug laws and their implementing rules outline and require the taking of photographs of the confiscated items.^[6] 

As regards the immediate marking of the seized drug, this Court has recognized that the immediate marking of the seized items upon confiscation contemplates marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.^[7]  The reason behind this stance is that we are not always looking for a strict, step-by-step adherence to the procedural requirements.^[8] Thus, the marking of the plastic sachets by PO2 Gorre at the police station did not, in itself, taint the identity of the narcotic substance.

With respect to the taking of photographs, we have already ruled in People v. Campos^[9] that the failure to photograph the confiscated items is not fatal to the prosecution's cause, in fact, in Imson v. People,^[10]  we have ruled that the failure of the police to make a physical inventory and to photograph the sachets containing shabu  does not render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence.

As cited in People v. Rusiana,^[11] although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence, substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item is sufficient. Behind this is an acknowledgment that the chain of custody rule is difficult to comply with.^[12] Thus, failure to fully comply with each and every requirement of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 does not automatically invalidate an accused's arrest or seizure made in drug cases. What should be of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.^[13] 

Since the irregularities raised by the accused-appellant do not cast a doubt as to the identity of the drug, a ruling for an acquittal is not justified. It must be noted that Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requiring the taking of photographs and the immediate marking of the seized items cannot be applied with pedantic rigor.^[14]cralaw

WHEREFORE, the 28 May 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CR-HC No. 00327-MIN is hereby AFFIRMED.

Very truly yours, 

(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Deputy Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello, with Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias, and Ruben C. Ayson concurring. 

^[2] Penned by Judge Renato A. Fuentes; docketed as Crim. Case No. 52, 782-03. 

^[3] Rollo, pp. 26-32. 

^[4] Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and. the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; x x x.

^[5] People v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, 25 April 2012, citing People v. Coreche, 596 SCRA 350 (2009).

^[6] R.A. 9165 (2002), Sec. 21(1); Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 (2002), Sec. 21(a); Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1 (2002), Sec. 2.

^[7] People v. Resureccion, G.R. No. 186380, 12 October 2009, 603 SCRA 510; Imson v. People, G.R. No. 193003, 13 July 2011, 653 SCRA 826; People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, 28 September 2011, 658 SCRA 305.

^[8] People v. Domado, G.R. No. 172971, 16 June 2010, 621 SCRA 73.

^[9] G.R.No. 186526, 25 August 2010, 629 SCRA 462.

^[10] G.R. No. 193003, 13 July 2011, 653 SCRA 826.

^[11] G.R. No. 186139, 5 October 2009, 603 SCRA 57, citing People v. Cortez, 593 SCRA 743 (2009).

^[12] Id.

^[13] Imson v. People, supra note 10.

^[14] People v. Tan, G.R.No. 191069, 15 November 2010, 634 SCRA 773.