Case Digest: People v. Chavez, Jr., GR No. 235983, December 07, 2021

 

CASE TITLE: People v. Chavez, Jr.

GR No/ Date: G.R. No. 235983, December 07, 2021

People of the Philippines 

Bienvenido Chavez, Jr. y Anas

FACTS:

  • Bienvenido Chavez Jr. y Anas, the accused-appellant, was convicted by the Regional Trial Court and Court of Appeals for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act). 

  • One of the mandatory Witnesses — the DOJ representative — was not present in the inventory.


DOCTRINE:

  • Strict compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is mandatory and any deviation therefrom must be acknowledged and explained or justified by the prosecution. 

  • Failure to do so will result in the acquittal of the accused due to the prosecution's failure to establish an essential element of the crime.

ISSUE:

Whether the prosecution proved the compliance with the chain of custody rules under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, mandating the presence of specific witnesses during inventory and photography of seized drugs. NO

DECISION/DOCTRINE:

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :


Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 7, 2021 which reads as follows:


G.R. No. 235983 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus BIENVENIDO CHAVEZ, JR. y ANAS, accused-appellant.


After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court REVERSES the Decision 1 dated July 18, 2017 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City Special Twentieth Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02086 which affirmed the Joint Decision 2 dated February 16, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Bacolod City, Branch 52 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 09-32530 and 09-32531 convicting accused-appellant Bienvenido Chavez y Anas (Chavez) for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165.


In cases involving dangerous drugs, the prosecution has the burden to prove compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, to wit:

  1. the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation;

  2. the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of

    1. the accused or his/her representative or counsel,

    2. an elected public official,

    3. a representative from the media, and

    4. a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ).


All of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same and the seized drugs must be turned over to a forensic laboratory within 24 hours from confiscation for examination.


Strict compliance with the foregoing requirements is mandatory, and any deviation therefrom must be acknowledged and explained or justified by the prosecution. Otherwise, the integrity and credibility of the Corpus Delicti are tarnished and the claim that a violation of RA 9165 was committed by the accused becomes questionable. 


Further, it is only by such strict compliance that the grave mischiefs of planting, switching and contamination of Evidence may be eradicated and the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation may be proved. In other words, noncompliance with Section 21 is tantamount to a failure to establish an essential element of the crime; and will therefore engender the Acquittal of an accused.

In this case, the Certificate of Inventory 6 is clear that one of the mandatory Witnesses — the DOJ representative — was not present in the inventory. Even the RTC and the CA both acknowledge this fact. While the CA excused the same as the presence of the additional elective official supposedly sufficed to fill the gap, this ruling is neither supported by the letter of the law nor by jurisprudence. More importantly, the apprehending officers did not even try to offer an explanation as to why there was no member of the DOJ present during the inventory of the seized items.


In a plethora of cases, the Court has repeatedly stressed that the presence of all the third-party Witnesses at the time of the inventory and photography is mandatory and the law imposes said requirement because the presence of said Witnesses will guarantee "against planting of Evidence and frame-up." The presence of these disinterested Witnesses will insulate "the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." 


While jurisprudence provides that strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 is not always possible given the wide range of varying field conditions, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 nonetheless state that "noncompliance 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 and custody over said items." 


Thus, for this saving clause to apply, the prosecution still needs to satisfactorily prove that:

  1. there is justifiable ground for noncompliance; and

  2. the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 


As the Court en banc unanimously held in the case of People v. Lim, [i]t must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three Witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:

  1. their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; 

  2. their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; 

  3. the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; 

  4. earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with Arbitrary Detention; or 

  5. time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required Witnesses even before the offenders could escape.  

In People v. Umipang, the Court dealt with the same issue where the police officers involved did not show any genuine effort to secure the attendance of the required witness before the buy-bust operation was executed. In the said case, the Court held:


Indeed, the absence of these representatives during the physical inventory and the marking of the seized items does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible in Evidence. However, we take note that, in this case, the SAID-SOTF did not even attempt to contact the barangay chairperson or any member of the barangay council. There is no indication that they contacted other elected public officials. Neither do the records show whether the police officers tried to get in touch with any DOJ representative. Nor does the SAID-SOTF adduce any justifiable reason for failing to do so — especially considering that it had sufficient time from the moment it received information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest.


Thus, we find that there was no genuine and sufficient effort on the part of the apprehending police officers to look for the said representatives pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. A sheer statement that representatives were unavailable — without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances — is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse. We stress that it is the prosecution who has the positive duty to establish that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, or that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so.


The Court emphasizes that while it is laudable that police officers exert earnest efforts in catching drug pushers, they must always do so within the bounds of the law. Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official during the inventory of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the Evidence would again rear their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were Evidence herein of the Corpus Delicti. 


Thus, this failure adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of Chavez. Indeed, the insulating presence of such Witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.


Because of noncompliance with the three-witness rule under Section 21, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the Corpus Delicti of the offense. Chavez must perforce be acquitted.


WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated July 18, 2017 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City Special Twentieth Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02086 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant BIENVENIDO CHAVEZ, JR. y ANAS is ACQUITTED of violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.


Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.

SO ORDERED."


By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA

Division Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO

Deputy Division Clerk of Court

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