Roman A.
Edora
Howard Lescano @ Tisoy Vs People GR No. 214490
FACTS:
On July 6, 2008 The Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Team (CAIDSOT) of Olongapo
City, conducted buy bust operation against the Lescano. PO3 Javier together with his
confidential informant, able to buy from Lescano a medium sized plastic sachet
containing Marijuana in exchange of P 100.00 buy bust money, at this instance PO3
Javier introduced himself as a Police Officer, he then frisked Lescano and recovered the
buy bust money. After arrest PO3 Javier marked the medium sized plastic sachet with
the initials “HJ”. Inside the CAIDSOT office, an inventory was allegedly conducted and
the photographs of marked money and the sachet were taken. Lescano was then
charged for Violation of Sec 5 of RA 9165, Prosecution presented the following pieces
of evidence to support its allegation: (1) the testimony of PO3 Javier; (2) the
corroborative testimony of SPO1 Allan Delos Reyes; (3) Letter Request for Laboratory
Examination; (4) Letter Request for Drug Test; (5) Chemistry Report No. DT-080-2008-
OCCLO; (6) the sachet allegedly seized from Lescano; (7) the Joint Affidavit of PO3
Javier and PO1 Mataverde; (8) the Coordination Form; (9) the PDEA Certification of
Coordination; (10) the Receipt of Evidence; (11) photographs of the marijuana; and (12)
the P100.00 bill with serial number CM283073 marked with the initials "HJ. Lescano
was found guilty of Violating Sec 5 of RA 9165 and affirmed by the CA.
ISSUE:
Whether the prosecution was able to establish compliance with the requisites of Section
21 of Republic Act No. 9165
RULINGS:
The elements that must be established to sustain convictions for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs are settled: In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took
place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as
evidence. However the Prosecution cannot establish the requisites of Sec 21 of RA
9165, Sec 21 (1) of RA 9165 provides; The apprehending team having initial custody
and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals,
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an
elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the
media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the
place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. In this case the prosecution
failed to established the chain of custody, there is no evidence either on how the item
was stored, preserved, labeled and recorded. PO1 Collado could not even provide the
court with the name of investigator, he admitted that he was not present when it was
delivered to the crime laboratory. It was Forensic Chemist who identified the person
PO1 Cuadra who delivered the specimen, who has not even a member of the buy bust
team. In view of the foregoing the court is considered view that chain of custody is
compromised. Moreover, Section 21(1) requires at least three (3) persons to be present
during the physical inventory and photographing. These persons are: first, the accused
or the person/s from whom the items were seized; second, an elected public official;
and third, a representative of the National Prosecution Service. There are, however,
alternatives to the first and the third. As to the first (i.e., the accused or the person/s
from whom items were seized), there are two (2) alternatives: first, his or her
representative; and second, his or her counsel. As to the representative of the National
Prosecution Service, a representative of the media may be present in his or her place.
However during the buy bust operation against Lescano, Media, Barangay Official and
Representative of NPS were not present. With the integrity of Corpus Delicti of the
crime for which petitioner was charged is cast in doubt, it follows that there is no basis
for finding Lescano guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and the decision of RTC and Court
of Appeals are reversed and set aside.
