Case Digest: Nisperos v. People, GR No. 250927, November 29, 2022

 

CASE TITLE: Nisperos v. People 

GR No/ Date: G.R. No. 250927, November 29, 2022

PETITIONER:

Mario Nisperos y Padilla


Represented by:

-

RESPONDENT:

People of the Philippines


Represented by:

-

ACTION WITH THE SUPREME COURT: Petition for Review on Certiorari

PONENTE: Rosario, J.

FACTS:

  • Petitioner Mario Nisperos y Padilla was charged for violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 for selling 0.7603 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride ("shabu") to PO1 Michael B. Turingan, who was acting as a poseur-buyer.

  • The PNP and PDEA conducted the buy-bust operation, leading to the petitioner’s arrest and the confiscation of the drugs.

    • The transaction involved the exchange of the shabu for PHP 3,000.00, consisting of both genuine and fake money, which was later recovered from the petitioner.

  • The prosecution presented evidence including the testimony of PO1 Turingan, the recovery of the buy-bust money, and the positive result of the drug test conducted by forensic chemist PSI Alfredo Quintero.

  • The defense argued that the allegations were fabricated and claimed that the chain of custody was not properly observed.


  • RTC: Found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

    • Sentence: Life imprisonment with a PHP 500,000.00 fine. 


  • CA: Upheld the RTC's decision.

    • Modified the sentence making the petitioner ineligible for parole.

ISSUE:

Whether the apprehending team failed to strictly follow the chain of custody rule as laid down in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640,[21] and its Implementing Rules and Regulations  (IRR). YES

APPELLANT:


  • The absence of witnesses during the warrantless arrest.

  • The lack of immediate initial marking of the evidence.

  • The failure to prove a proper chain of custody.

  • The failure to follow the chain of custody rules, including not transferring the evidence to the investigator.

  • The failure to provide a copy of the Receipt/s of Property Seized to the petitioner and witnesses.


DECISION/DOCTRINE:  


In warrantless arrests on account of buy-bust operations, the required witnesses must be present "at or near" the place of apprehension, i.e., within the vicinity, in order to comply with the statutory rule that the inventory should be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation. Since they may be present "near" the place of apprehension, they need not witness the arrest itself or the seizure or confiscation of the drugs or drug paraphernalia. They only need to be readily available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.


II


Considering that the CA imposed the penalty of life imprisonment, petitioner should have filed a notice of appeal before the CA and not a petition for review on certiorari before this Court. Nonetheless, in the interest of substantial justice, We shall excuse the procedural faux pas and treat the petition as an ordinary appeal.


We further note that the petition was filed with a docket fee payment deficiency of P80.00 and lacks certified true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution of the CA, which, under Sec. 5, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, are sufficient grounds for the dismissal thereof. However, We have, in the past, glossed over such procedural defects especially when the petition is meritorious, as in the case at bench.


III


In the prosecution of drugs cases, the procedural safeguards under the chain of custody procedure embodied in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, are material, as their compliance affects the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug, controlled precursor, essential chemical, drug instrument or paraphernalia, and/or laboratory equipment itself, and warrants the identity and integrity of said item/s seized by the apprehending officers. Chain of custody refers to 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. Failure to comply, however, with Sec. 21 shall not render void and invalid the seizure of illegal drugs or items provided that (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved


The mandatory witnesses must be

present at or near the place of

apprehension in order for the

immediate conduct of the inventory.


In alleging failure of the buy-bust team to comply with the chain of custody rule, petitioner asserts that the required witnesses were not present at the time of his arrest. He cites People v. Supat where We ruled that "it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug."


Similarly, in People v. Tomawis, We held that since the phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the inventory and taking of photographs of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after said seizure, it follows that the witnesses required to be present during the inventory should already be present at the time of apprehension—a requirement that can easily be complied with considering that a buy-bust operation is a planned activity.


We emphasized that:

The presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."


We are not unmindful of the fact that the presence of the mandatory witnesses at the time of apprehension may pose a serious risk to their lives and to the buy-bust operation. However, since they may also be present "near" and not necessarily "at" the place of apprehension, We stress that they are not required to witness the arrest and the seizure or confiscation of the drugs or drug paraphernalia. They need only be readily available to witness the immediately ensuing inventory.


Here, while the purported sale transpired at 11:30 AM of June 30, 2015, the inventory took place half an hour later. While Barangay Captain Taguinod was already present at the place of transaction, DOJ representative Gangan arrived only at 12 noon. Without his presence, the inventory could not be conducted for lack of one required witness. Given that the inventory was done at the place of seizure and did not need to be performed at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team, the buy-bust team should have been able to conduct the same immediately after the seizure, were it not for the tardy arrival of the DOJ representative. Certainly, his late arrival is not a justifiable ground for the delay. The buy-bust team only had itself to blame for not ensuring that all required witnesses were readily available for them to be able to immediately conduct the inventory.


We find, therefore, that the buy-bust team unjustifiably deviated from the chain of custody rule when only one of the mandatory witnesses was readily available at the place of transaction, thus constraining the buy-bust team to conduct the inventory only half an hour after the seizure and confiscation of the drugs.


IV


Marking is the first stage in the chain of custody and serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence.

While the rule on marking is not found in statute, Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, requires that the seized item/s be properly marked for identification. The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Guidelines on the IRR of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 likewise require that the apprehending or seizing officer mark the seized item/s immediately upon seizure and confiscation.


Administrative rules and regulations have the force and effect of law. When promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the administrative agency by law, rules and regulations partake of the nature of a statute.


The Court has stated the rationale for this in the following manner:

This is so because statutes are usually couched in general terms, after expressing the policy, purposes, objectives, remedies and sanctions intended by the legislature. The details and the manner of carrying out the law are often times left to the administrative agency entrusted with its enforcement. In this sense, it has been said that rules and regulations are the product of a delegated power to create new or additional legal provisions that have the effect of law.


In People v. Sanchez, We emphasized when and in whose presence marking must be conducted:

Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items – to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence — should be done 

  1. in the presence of the apprehended violator 

  2. immediately upon confiscation. 

This step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on allegations of robbery or theft. 


It is undisputed in this case that the poseur-buyer failed to mark the seized items immediately upon confiscating it. In fact, they were only marked during the inventory itself. No justifiable ground was proffered to excuse the belated marking. Since the first link of the chain was not even established, We find it unnecessary to discuss the other links of the chain. Verily, there was no chain to even speak of. With the belated marking and conduct of the inventory of the seized drugs, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti are seriously compromised and the acquittal of petitioner is warranted.


V


In order to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, particularly our law enforcement officers, the Court hereby adopts the following guidelines:


The marking of the seized dangerous drugs must be done:


  1. Immediately upon confiscation;

  2. At the place of confiscation; and

  3. In the presence of the offender (unless the offender eluded the arrest);


The conduct of inventory and taking of photographs of the seized dangerous drugs[43] must be done:


  1. Immediately after seizure and confiscation;

  2. 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; and

  3. Also in the presence of the insulating witnesses, as follows:

    1. if the seizure occurred during the effectivity of R.A. No. 9165, or from July 4, 2002 until August 6, 2014, the presence of three (3) witnesses, namely:

      1. an elected public official; 

      2. a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative; and 

      3. a media representative;

    2. if the seizure occurred after the effectivity of R.A. No. 10640, or from August 7, 2014 onward, the presence of two (2) witnesses, namely:

      1. an elected public official; and 

      2. a National Prosecution Service representative or a media representative.


In case of any deviation from the foregoing, the prosecution must positively acknowledge the same and prove 

  1. justifiable ground/s for non-compliance and

  2. the proper preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item/s.


WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 5, 2019 and Resolution dated November 7, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11472 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Mario Nisperos y Padilla is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Further, petitioner is ORDERED TO PAY the docket fee deficiency of P80.00.


Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this decision the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Secretary of Justice, the Police General of the Philippine National Police, the Chairperson of the Dangerous Drugs Board, and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.


Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.


SO ORDERED.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Equality and Human Rights: The United Nations and Human Rights System (September 16, 2023)

Sovereign Equality of States/Principle of sovereign equality UN Charter of 1945 All states are equal before international law no matter the size of their territory, population, economy or military. All states have equal rights and duties under international law, and that no state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Positive Consequences: All states have a voice in international affairs .   All states have the opportunity to participate in international organizations and to negotiate and conclude treaties. This helps to ensure that the interests of all states are represented in the development of international law and policy. No state has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of another state.  This helps to protect the sovereignty of all states and to prevent the use of force or coercion to achieve political objectives. States have the right to develop their own political, economic, and social systems without interference from othe...
Read more

Commercial Laws 1: R.A. No. 11057 — Personal Property Security Act

  Commercial Law TITLE XVI Personal Property Security Act Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises are sources of growth and innovation. They contribute to and benefit from future growth. Their increased participation in global trade "can have significant impact in reducing poverty through employment creation, productivity improvements and economies of scale." Congress passed the Personal Property Security Act in order to provide Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs) more access to "credit at the least cost through the establishment of a unified and modern legal framework for securing obligations with personal property ." It was explained:  According to the 2015 Philippine Statistics Authority data, there are 896,839 micro-small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) that established in the Philippines.  These MSMEs generated a total of 4,784,870 jobs in 2015 versus 2,181,819 for the large enterprises.  This indicates that the MSMEs contributed almost 61 % o...
Read more

Land Title and Deeds: Chapter 1 — What Lands are Capable of Being Registered

Chapter I What Lands are Capable of Being Registered All lands in the Philippines are presumed to be lands of the public domain, and therefore, owned by the State. This rule finds support in Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution:  Section 2 . All lands of the public domain , waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State . With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations or associations at least 60 per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. Such agreements may be fo...
Read more