Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82774:56620&catid=1579&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 10:48:25+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 198804, January 22, 2014 - CARLITO VALENCIA Y CANDELARIA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
CARLITO VALENCIA Y CANDELARIA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
That on or about the 8th day of April 2006, in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession, custody and control two (2) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance weighing 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram of METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu), a dangerous drug, when subjected for chemistry examination gave positive result of METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, knowing the same to be such.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring Accused CARLITO VALENCIA y CANDELARIA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the offense of Violation of Section 11, Art. II. R.A. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Accordingly, this Court hereby sentences him to suffer an imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day as the minimum to Seventeen (17) years and Eight (8) months as the maximum and to pay the fine of Three hundred thousand pesos ([P]300,000.00).
The subject drug subject matter of this case is hereby ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
The prosecution’s evidence convincingly demonstrated the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs beginning from the arresting officers, to the investigating officer, then to the forensic chemist, until such time that they were offered in evidence before the court a quo. The plastic sachets seized were not tampered with or switched before the same were delivered to and chemically examined by the forensic chemist. Perforce, all persons who obtained and received the plastic sachets did so in the performance of their official duties. Appellants adduced not a speck of proof to overthrow the presumption that official duty was regularly performed.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision of conviction dated 18 February 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127, in Criminal Case No. C-75090, is AFFIRMED.
Valencia sought a reconsideration20 of the Decision dated May 25, 2011, but it was denied by the CA in its Resolution21 dated September 26, 2011.
Essentially, the issue presented for the Court’s resolution is whether the CA erred in affirming Valencia’s conviction for the offense of possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine, or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu,” or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or “ecstacy,” PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana.
And what happened to the shabu which the accused placed as his bet?
When I introduced myself as a policeman I took the shabu, ma’am.
If that shabu which you confiscated will be seen by you again, will you be able to identify the same?
How will you be able to identify?
Because of the markings, ma’am.
What marking are you referring to?
Now, Mr. Witness, what did you do after you asked the accused to bring out the contents of his pocket which yielded another plastic sachet?
I apprised him of his constitutional rights and boarded him to our vehicle and brought him to our office, ma’am.
What happened now to the plastic sachet marked CVC-2?
I was in possession of the plastic sachets including the plastic sachet which he placed as a bet, ma’am.
And what did you do next?
We proceeded to our office, ma’am.
What did you do upon arrival at your office?
We turned over the accused to the investigator including the shabu I recovered, ma’am.
Was there any document evidencing the turn over of the person of the accused and the two plastic sachets you recovered from the possession of the accused?
Yes, ma’am, the evidence acknowledge (sic) receipt.
Did you come to know what happened to the plastic sachets you turned over to PO2 Hipolito?
PO2 Hipolito made a request addressed to crime laboratory, ma’am.
Did you see that document?
How about the result, have you seen the result?
Who marked these two plastic sachets CVC-1 and CVC-2?
Who turned over to the investigator CVC-1?
I was the one, ma’am.
Who was in possession of CVC-1 from the time it was recovered from accused by PO3 Modina up to the time it was turned over to the investigator?
How about the item CVC-2 when you said it was handed to you by the accused at the place of the incident until it was turned over to the investigator and marked by him, who was in possession thereof?
At that time, was there any other apprehension that you conducted?
Were you present when the investigator put the marking on the specimen?
A perusal of the foregoing testimonies of PO3 Modina and PO2 Rosales shows that there are significant lapses in the chain of custody of the plastic sachets that were confiscated from Valencia. Indeed, while the prosecution was able to prove that the two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance that were confiscated from Valencia were marked as “CVC-1” and “CVC-2” by PO2 Hipolito, after the same were turned over to him at the police station for investigation, there was no showing that the marking had been done in the presence of Valencia or his representatives.
Further, although PO3 Modina testified that he turned over the said plastic sachets to PO2 Hipolito, who subsequently made the request for examination of the contents of the plastic sachet, it was not clear who actually brought the plastic sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. It is likewise unclear who actually received the confiscated plastic sachets in the PNP Crime Laboratory and who exercised custody and possession of the same after it was examined and before it was presented before the RTC.
Verily, the records are bereft of any evidence, which would clearly show that the said plastic sachets were indeed marked in the presence of Valencia. Nor was there any evidence as to the identity of the individual who brought the seized plastic sachets from the police station to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. That the plastic sachets that were confiscated from Valencia were not marked in his presence or that of his representative and the indeterminateness of the identities of the individuals who had actually taken custody of the plastic sachets effectively broke the chain of custody, which thus taints the integrity of the sachets of shabu that were presented before the RTC. The foregoing lapses create reasonable doubt as to whether the plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance that were presented before the RTC are the same ones that were confiscated from Valencia.
Another phase of the first link to the chain of custody is the marking of seized items. The rule requires that it should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence. Evidently, the marking was not done at the scene of the crime. In fact, PO1 Bernardo testified that it was an investigator of the crime laboratory, whose name he cannot recall, who made the markings. Indeed, PO1 Bernardo could not explain the actual markings.
The prosecution miserably failed to establish the crucial first link in the chain of custody. The plastic sachets, while tested positive for shabu, could not be considered as the primary proof of the corpus delicti because the persons from whom they were seized were not positively and categorically identified by prosecution witnesses. The prosecution likewise failed to show how the integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized had been preserved when it was not explained who made the markings, how and where they were made.
The third link in the chain should detail who brought the seized shabu to the crime laboratory, who received the shabu at the crime laboratory and, who exercised custody and possession of the shabu after it was examined and before it was presented in court. Once again, these crucial details were nowhere to be found in the records. PO2 Tugo allegedly brought them to the crime laboratory but he was not presented to affirm and corroborate PO1 Tuscano’s statement, nor was any document shown to evidence the turnover of the seized items. The Request for Laboratory Examination was signed by a certain Police Senior Inspector Rodolfo Tababan. But his participation in the custody and handling of the seized items were never mentioned by the prosecution witnesses.
Respecting the team’s non-compliance with the inventory, not to mention the photograph, requirement of R.A. No. 9165, the same does not necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the dangerous drugs. There must, however, be justifiable grounds to warrant exception therefrom, and provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/s.
The arresting officers in this case tendered no justification in court for their non-compliance with the procedures. Indeed, a thorough perusal of the records of this case yielded no result as to any explanation or justification tendered by the apprehending officers as regards their non-compliance with the procedures laid down under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It was thus a grave error for the RTC and the CA to rule that there was an unbroken chain of custody despite the failure of the arresting officers to mark the confiscated plastic sachets in the presence of Valencia and to identify all the individuals who took custody of the same from the time the said plastic sachets were confiscated until the time they were presented in the RTC.
WHEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing disquisitions, the Decision dated May 25, 2011 and the Resolution dated September 26, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 33194, which affirmed the Decision dated February 18, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 127, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The petitioner Carlito Valencia y Candelaria is hereby ACQUITTED for the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered to be immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Decision and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, concurring; id at 30-41.
4 Issued by Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos; records, pp. 149-156.
22 See People v. Secreto, G.R. No. 198115, February 27, 2013, 692 SCRA 298, 307; People v. Climaco, G.R. No. 199403, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 631, 641.
23 See Fajardo v. People, G.R. No. 185460, July 25, 2012, 677 SCRA 541, 548; People v. Alcuizar, G.R. No. 189980, April 6, 2011, 647 SCRA 431, 437.
24 See People v. Nacua, G.R. No. 200165, January 30, 2013, 689 SCRA 819, 832.
26 See Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
27People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 357.
28 G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 123.
30 Testimony of PO3 Ferdinand Modina, TSN, November 8, 2007, pp. 10-15.
31 Testimony of PO2 Joel Rosales, TSN, August 22, 2008, pp. 16-17.
34 G.R. No. 185460, July 25, 2012, 677 SCRA 541.
36People v. Bara, G.R. No. 184808, November 14, 2011, 660 SCRA 38, 45.
37Zafra v. People, G.R. No. 190749, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 396, 408.
38 Supra note 28, at 136.
39 See People v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 197371, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 604, 618.
40 G.R. No. 181831, March 29, 2010, 617 SCRA 52.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.