In the chain of custody in drugs cases, the seizure and marking, including the physical inventory and photograph-taking, of the seized drug must be done immediately at the place of arrest.
Ads.
Thus reiterated the Supreme Court’s Special First Division in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier, as it granted the motion for reconsideration filed by Allan S. Almayda (Almayda) and Homero A. Quiogue (Quiogue). The motion for reconsideration challenged the Resolution of the Supreme Court affirming the conviction of Almayda and Quiogue for violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Ads.
Almayda and Quiogue were charged in 2012 for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 following a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
During the operation, the PDEA agents marked at the crime scene the seized plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The PDEA team then returned to the PDEA office to conduct the inventory and photograph-taking in the presence of Almayda and Quiogue, as well as Barangay Chairperson Ma. Jane Azotillo, Barangay Kagawad Rolando Belbes, media representative Romeo Romero, and Department of Justice representative Jesus Arseneo Aragon.
Related
Suggested answer in Political Law & International Law Read here
The Regional Trial Court convicted Almayda and Quiogue. The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).
In a Resolution dated November 11, 2021, the Court affirmed the conviction, prompting Almayda and Quiogue to file the present motion for reconsideration.
Ads.
In granting their motion, the Court restated its 2022 ruling in People v. Casa that in case of warrantless seizures, the inventory and taking of photographs, which is the first link in the chain of custody of drugs cases, generally must be done at the place of seizure.
Ads.
The exception to this rule is where the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized item may be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer or team, provided that police officers have justification that (1) it is not practicable to conduct the same at the place of seizure or (2) the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger at the place of seizure, held the Court.
RELATED
The Court added that when the police officers are able to provide a sensible reason, which is practicable, consistent, and not merely generic or an afterthought, then the courts will recognize that the police officers may indeed conduct the inventory at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. Such reason must be indicated in the affidavits of the police officers who participated in the buy-bust operation.
Ads.
In the present case, it is undisputed that the inventory and photograph-taking of the seized shabu were done at the PDEA office, not at the place of arrest. However, the prosecution witnesses failed to give any justification for their deviation from the general rule. Hence, the first link in the chain of custody was broken.
Ads.
The Court also clarified that even if the succeeding links in the chain of custody were compliant with the requirements under the law, this does not serve to cure the breach which attended early on the first link. “There was already a significant break [in the chain of custody] such that there can be no assurance against switching, planting, or contamination even though the subsequent links were not similarly infirm,” held the Court.
Ads.
“If the chain of custody procedure had not been complied with, or no justifiable reason exists for its non-compliance, as in this case, then it is the Court’s duty to overturn the verdict of conviction,” ruled the Court, acquitting Almayda and Quiogue.
Ads.
The Court concluded with a reminder that the efforts to eradicate dangerous drugs “cannot trample on the constitutional rights of individuals, particularly those at the margins of our society who are prone to abuse at the hands of the armed and uniformed men of the State. Time and again, we have exhorted courts to be extra vigilant in trying drugs cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.” (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)
Ads.
Full text of G.R. No. 227706 (People v. Almayda and Quiogue, June 14, 2023) at: https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/227706-people-of-the-philippines-vs-allan-almayda-y-selfides-and-homero-quiogue-y-adornado/
Ads.
FOLLOW US!
📎 Bio
🛒 Shop
⚖️ Blog
🤝 Business
Comments