Case Digest: People vs. Tecson y Avecilla , G.R. No. 234786, October 9, 2019

People vs. Tecson y Avecilla 

G.R. No. 243786 , October 09, 2019 

Perlas-Bernabe, J.


Criminal Law, Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

Criminal Law, Chain of Custody Rule


Facts:

Jenny Tecson y Avecilla (Tecson) was charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.”


The prosecution alleged that a team of operatives from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) conducted a buy-bust operation against Tecson and one (1) knot-tied transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline substance was recovered from her. As bystanders started to crowd the place of arrest, the PDEA operatives immediately brought Tecson to their office in Quezon City, where they marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized item in her presence, as well as that of Barangay Kagawad Marites M. Palma, and media representative Alex Mendoza. 


The RTC found Tecson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. The CA affirmed Tecson's conviction. 


Issues:

  1. Whether the CA erred in affirming the judgment of the RTC finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.

  2. Whether the chain of custody rule had been violated since the requisite marking, inventory, and photography of the purported drugs were not immediately accomplished at the place of arrest, nor was a representative of the DOJ present when these were conducted.


Ruling:

  1. The courts a quo correctly found that Tecson committed the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, as records clearly show that she was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer.

In every prosecution for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: 

  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.

Since there is no indication that the said courts overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from their factual findings. The trial court was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties.

  1. The chain of custody over the seized drugs remained unbroken, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been properly preserved; hence, Tecson's conviction must stand.

In cases of Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime.  To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime.

In this case, it is clear from the records that after the conduct of the buy-bust operation, bystanders had already started to crowd the place of arrest, prompting the PDEA operatives to immediately bring Tecson to their office in Quezon City. The failure to immediately conduct the marking, inventory, and photography at the place of arrest does not impair the integrity of the confiscated drugs, as their accomplishment at the office of the apprehending team, whenever practicable is deemed sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule. Moreover, the absence of a DOJ representative as a witness is not fatal since the crime took place on September 9, 2014, after the effectivity of 10640,  which merely requires that the inventory and photography of the seized drugs be witnessed by an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, which was complied with in this case.



People vs. Tecson y Avecilla, G.R. No. 243786


PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:


Assailed in this ordinary appeal is the Decision dated April 25, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08264, which affirmed the Judgment dated April 25, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 79 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-09130-CR finding accused-appellant Jenny Tecson y Avecilla (Tecson) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,  otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."


The Facts


This case stemmed from an Information dated September 11, 2014 charging Tecson with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution alleged that at around 5:00 in the afternoon of September 9, 2014, a team of operatives from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) conducted a buy-bust operation against Tecson at the Telus Building in Araneta Center, Cubao, Quezon City, during which one (1) knot-tied transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline substance was recovered from her. As bystanders started to crowd the place of arrest, the PDEA operatives immediately brought Tecson to their office in Quezon City, where they marked, inventoried, and photographed the seized item in her presence, as well as that of Barangay Kagawad Marites M. Palma (Kgd. Palma), and media representative Alex Mendoza (Mendoza). The seized item was then brought to the PDEA Laboratory Service where, after examination, its contents tested positive for 172.9 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.


In defense, Tecson denied the charge against her, claiming that, at the time and place of her arrest, she was waiting for her interview as a call center agent, when two (2) men suddenly approached and forcibly brought her to the PDEA office in Quezon City, where they demanded an amount of P1,000,000.00 in exchange for her release.


In a Judgment dated April 25, 2016, the RTC found Tecson guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00. It ruled that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of the crime charged, and that the integrity of the seized drug was established in accordance with the chain of custody rule. On the other hand, it found Tecson's defenses of denial and frame-up untenable for lack of convincing evidence.


Aggrieved, Tecson appealed to the CA, arguing that she should be acquitted since the requisite marking, inventory, and photography of the purported drugs were not conducted at the place of arrest, nor were the same witnessed by a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ).


In a Decision dated April 25, 2017, the CA affirmed Tecson's conviction. It found that the integrity of the seized drugs had been properly preserved, and that the conduct of marking, inventory, and photography at the PDEA office constituted sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule


Hence, this appeal seeking that Tecson's conviction be overturned.


The Court's Ruling


The appeal is without merit.


In every prosecution for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: 

(a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and 

(b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.


Here, the courts a quo correctly found that Tecson committed the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, as records clearly show that she was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer, Intelligence Officer 1 Frederic B. Allosada (IO1 Allosada), during a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted by the PDEA.  Since there is no indication that the said courts overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied the surrounding facts and circumstances of the case, the Court finds no reason to deviate from their factual findings. In this regard, it should be noted that the trial court was in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of the witnesses presented by both parties.


In an attempt to escape conviction, Tecson contends that the chain of custody rule had been violated since the requisite marking, inventory, and photography of the purported drugs were not immediately accomplished at the place of arrest, nor was a representative of the DOJ present when these were conducted.[24]


Such contention is untenable.


In cases of Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal. 


To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime.[ As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In this regard, case law recognizes that "[m]arking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team."Hence, the failure to immediately mark the confiscated items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient compliance with the rules on chain of custody


The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: 

(a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official; or 

(b) if after the amendment of 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service[32] or the media.


The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence;"


In this case, it is clear from the records that after the conduct of the buy-bust operation, bystanders had already started to crowd the place of arrest, prompting the PDEA operatives to immediately bring Tecson to their office in Quezon City, where IO1 Allosada conducted the requisite marking, inventory, and photography of the seized drugs in the presence of Tecson herself, as well as an elected public official, i.e., Kgd. Palma, and a media representative, i.e., Mendoza. Subsequently, the seized drugs were delivered by IO1 Allosada to the PDEA crime laboratory, where they were received and examined  by Ronald Jefferson A. Narceda, then turned over to evidence custodian Jag Soliven, who took custody of the same until it was brought to court for presentation as evidence.


As earlier stated, the failure to immediately conduct the marking, inventory, and photography at the place of arrest does not impair the integrity of the confiscated drugs, as their accomplishment at the office of the apprehending team, whenever practicable is deemed sufficient compliance with the chain of custody rule. Moreover, the absence of a DOJ representative as a witness is not fatal since the crime took place on September 9, 2014, after the effectivity of 10640,  which merely requires that the inventory and photography of the seized drugs be witnessed by an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, which was complied with in this case.


In view of the foregoing, the Court holds that the chain of custody over the seized drugs remained unbroken, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been properly preserved; hence, Tecson's conviction must stand.


WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated April 25, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08264 is hereby AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Jenny Tecson y Avecilla is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, as amended by RA 10640, and accordingly, sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00.


SO ORDERED.

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

Election Laws: Requirements Before Election

REQUIREMENTS BEFORE ELECTION A. Registration Registration of Voters The right of a citizen to vote is necessarily conditioned upon certain procedural requirements he must undergo, among others, the process of registration. Registration regulates the exercise of the right of suffrage .  It is not a qualification for such right.  R.A. No. 8189, the Voter's Registration Act of 1996 (approved June 11, 1996) : Sec. 2. Declaration of Policy. It is the policy of the State to systematize the present method of registration in order to establish a clean, complete, permanent and updated list of voters. Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act: Registration refers to the act of accomplishing and filing of a sworn application for registration by a qualified voter before the election officer of the city or municipality wherein he resides and including the same in the book of registered voters upon approval by the Election Registration Board; Registration Record refers to an ...
Read more

Special Rules and Proceedings: Rule 75

Special Rules and Proceedings RULE 75 Production of Will; Allowance of Will Necessary Section 1. Allowance necessary. Conclusive as to execution. — No will shall pass either real or personal estate  unless it is proved and allowed in the proper court.  Subject to the right of appeal,  such allowance of the will shall be conclusive as to its due execution. Probate  A special proceeding to establish the validity of a will. Kinds of wills A will has been defined as a species of conveyance whereby a person is permitted, with the formalities prescribed by law, to control to a certain degree thze disposition of his estate after his death.   Under the Civil Code, there are two kinds of wills which a testator may execute.  The first is the notarial will , which must be acknowledged before a notary public by a testator and the attesting witness and is governed by Articles 804 to 809 of the Civil Code. The second is the holographic will , which Article 810 ...
Read more