DANGEROUS DRUGS

3. PEOPLE V. GARCIA (2009)

 On February 27, 2003, PO1 Samuel Garcia was with a confidential informer and two other
policemen at the back of San Roque Church, Navotas, Metro Manila, waiting for accused Ruiz
Garcia (Ruiz) with whom the confidential informer arranged for him to buy marijuana. There were
prior Informations from Camp Crame and the NPDO about the selling of marijuana. For this reason,
Garcia got in touch with the confidential informer whom [sic] he learned could buy marijuana from
the accused.
 Accused Ruiz arrived on board a red scooter at the area of operation. PO1Garcia told the accused
that he will buy P200.00 worth of marijuana. The accused in turn gave Garcia the marijuana
wrapped in a yellow page of the PLDT directory. Garcia verified the contents thereof and thereafter
gave the P200.00, consisting of two P100.00 bills earlier given for him to use as buy-bust money
whose serial numbers were listed in the dispatch order. Garcia then gave the signal to his
companions for them to approach. He also arrested the accused whom he told of his rights and
brought him to a lying-in clinic and then to the police headquarters.
 According to PO1 Garcia, after the arrest, they brought Ruiz to the DEU, office for investigation.
He turned over the seized items to the investigator, who then placed markings on the wrapper. The
seized items were thereafter sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination; they tested positive
for marijuana.
 The accused was charged for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
 The RTC found Ruiz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced him to
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and costs. CA affirmed.

ISSUE/HELD: Whether or not Ruiz is guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No.
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002- NO, Ruiz is NOT GUILTY.
RATIO:
1. The prosecution failed to show that the police complied with paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165.
 In a prosecution for the illegal sale of a prohibited drug, the prosecution must prove the following
elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these require evidence that the sale
transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or
substance of the crime that establishes that a crime has actually been committed,as shown by
presenting the object of the illegal transaction.
 In the present case, the object is marijuana which the prosecution must present and prove in court
to be the same item seized from the accused. It is in this respect that the prosecution failed.
 Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 states: 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.”
  Other than the markings made by PO1 Garcia and the police investigator (whose identity was not
disclosed), no physical inventory was ever made, and no photograph of the seized items was
taken under the circumstances required by R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules. We observe
that while there was testimony with respect to the marking of the seized items at the police station,
no mention whatsoever was made on whether the marking had been done in the presence of Ruiz
or his representatives. There was likewise no mention that any representative from the media and
the Department of Justice, or any elected official had been present during this inventory, or that
any of these people had been required to sign the copies of the inventory.
 In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated marijuana immediately
after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard procedure
in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the
Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.
 In addition, PO1 Garcia testified that he marked the confiscated items when he returned to the
police station after the buy-bust operation. This admission additionally shows that the marking was
not done immediately after seizure of the items, but only after a significant intervening time had
lapsed, i.e., after the buy-bust team had taken Ruiz to a lying-in clinic for a medical examination,
and from there, to the police headquarters. Significantly, Ruiz confirmed in his testimony that the
buy-bust team first took him to the San Jose Lying-in Center, before proceeding to the police
headquarters.
 In People v. Sanchez, in case of warrantless seizure (such as a buy-bust operation) under R.A. No.
9165, the physical inventory and photograph of the items shall be made by the buy-bust team,
if practicable, at the place they were seized, considering that such interpretation is more in
keeping with the law’s intent of preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
 The prosecution, in the present case, failed to explain why the required inventory and
photographing of the seized items were not practicable and could not have been done at the place
of seizure.
 Further, there is glaring inconsistency between PO1 Garcia’s testimony vis-à-vis the entries in the
Memorandum (the request for laboratory examination of the seized items) and Physical Science
Report issued by the PNP Crime Laboratory with respect to the marking on the seized items.
 The procedural lapses in the handling and identification of the seized items, as well as the
unexplained discrepancy in their markings, collectively raise doubts on whether the items
presented in court were the exact same items that were taken from Ruiz when he was
arrested.
 Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR offers some flexibility in complying with the express
requirements under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, i.e.,"non-compliance with
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 of and custody over said items." This saving clause applies only where the
prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds
and the prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have
been preserved.
 These conditions were not met in the present case, as the prosecution, in the first place, did not
even recognize the procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized items. Had the
prosecution done so, it would not have glossed over the deficiencies and would have, at the very
least, submitted an explanation and proof showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items have been preserved.

2. The prosecution failed to show that the police complied with the chain of custody requirement.
 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.
 "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs
or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage,
from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall
include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the
date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in
court as evidence, and the final disposition;
 In the present case, while PO1 Garcia duly testified on the identity of the buyer and seller, on the
consideration that supported the transaction, and on the manner the sale took place, the
prosecution’s evidence failed to establish the chain that would have shown that the marijuana
presented in court was the very item seized from Ruiz at the time of his arrest.

(a) The first crucial link in the chain of custody

 The first crucial link was from the time the marijuana was seized by PO1 Garcia to its
delivery to the police investigator at the police headquarters. Only PO1 Garcia testified to this
link. From his own testimony, he did not mark the seized marijuana after it was handed to him by
Ruiz; he only marked it at the police station when he turned it over to the investigator. In the interim,
he and the rest of the buy-bust team had taken Ruiz to a lying-in clinic for medical examination.
The evidence does not show who was in possession of the marijuana during the ride from the crime
scene to the lying-in center, and from the lying-in center to the police station.

(b) The second link in the chain of custody

 The second link in the chain of custody of the seized marijuana is from PO1 Garcia to the
police investigator. The identity of this police investigator to whom the custody of the seized
marijuana was turned over was not disclosed. Although a reading of the Memorandum dated
February 28, 2003 shows that a certain Ferdinand Lavadia Balgoa, as Police Inspector Chief SDEU,
prepared the request for the laboratory examination of the seized marijuana to the PNP Crime
Laboratory, this piece of evidence does not establish the latter’s identity as the police inspector to
whom PO1 Garcia turned over the marijuana, and who subsequently made the corresponding
markings on the seized items.

(c) The subsequent links in the chain of custody

 The evidence on record relating to the subsequent links in the chain of custody – from the
police inspector to the PNP Crime Laboratory –did not identify the person who submitted the
seized marijuana to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. Whether it was the Police Inspector
Chief SDEU is not clear from the evidence that only shows that he signed the request for the
laboratory examination of the seized marijuana to the PNP Crime Laboratory. At the same time,
the identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the seized marijuana, after it was
chemically analyzed pending its presentation in court, was also not disclosed.

 Thus, the accused-appellant is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.