People vs Kamad

Facts:

Prosecution version: PNP Drug enforcement unit of southern police unit( Taguig police) received information from an asset that certain zenaida was engaged in illegal sale of shabu at Purok 4, silverio compound in paranaque. Tagui police then formed a buy-bust team composed of inspector Parillas, Maulit Manfoste, Sanchez and Velasco. Sanchez acted as poseur –buyer and used marked-money. Thereafter, the team proceeded to the target place where they immediately saw accused-appellant and Leo. The asset and Sanchez approached the 2 while the team watched from the distance; the accused then handed Sanchez a plastic sachet containing substance suspected to be shabu. Sanchez lighted his cigarette as signal for the team to approach. The team arrested Leo and Kamad. Thereafter, the team brought sample of the substance to Crime Lab and the test yielded positive results for metamphetamine hydrochloride.

Defense version: Leo and the accused denied the charge and claimed that she and her boyfriend Leo were framed up; that they went to the house of Leo’s cousins and that they waited for Leo’s cousin when 4 armed men entered the house and introduced themselves as police officers. Leo and Zaida were frisked but nothing was found in their possession; that she was asked where she kept the shabu; that she replied that she was not selling shabu; afterwards, they were taken to the PNP headquarters where they were gain frisked and asked the same questions and they were detained for about a day and brought them to Prosecutor’s office for inquest without showing them any shabu.

RTC: Declared the accused guilty as charged.

Accused questioned the regularity of their arrest and or the buy-bust operation. She argued that no presumption of regularity could arise considering that the police violated NAPOLCOM rules by using the asset; the rules prohibit the deputation of private persons as PNP civilian agents. Accused likewise pointed out the material inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses : a. uncertainty of Sanchez regarding the time the buy-bust team was dispatched at the target area; confusion of po3 Maulit on the identity of the team leader of the team; mistake of Maulit that only the recovered sachet was marked ES, while marked money was marked MF; and contradcting statements of the policemen as to whom between the accused and Leo who sold the shabu.

CA: Affirmed in toto. Brushed aside the alleged inconsistencies on the ground that the accused were caught in flagrante delicto for illegal sale of shabu committed in the presence of police officers.

Issue: Whether there was a presumption of regularity in the conduct of buy-bust operation by the police?

HELD: NO. Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in the handling of the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the officer act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. This discrepancy and the gap in the chain of custody immediately affect proof of the corpus delicti without which the accused must be acquitted. Additionally, the prosecution’s failure to establish with moral certainty all the elements of the crime and

to identify the accused as perpetrator signify that it failed to overturn the presumption of innocence that every accused enjoys in criminal prosecution. Accused acquitted.

Compliance with the prescribed procedure

1. The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall immediately after seizure physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or person from whom such items were confiscated or seized, representative from media and DOJ or his counsel, or any elected official who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory ;In case of non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by apprehending officers, shall not render void or invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

In the case, SPO2 Sanchez testified on the seizure and handling of the seized shabu. The records showed that Sanchez failed to provide SPECIFIC DETAILS on how the seized shabu was marked before it was sent to forensic laboratory. He failed to state whether the marking was done immediately AFTER the seized or DURING INVESTIGATION. He likewise failed to disclose whether physical inventory and photography had taken place or if done in the presence of the accused or persons mentioned above. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish CORPUS DELICTI.

Compliance with chain of custody

A. 1 st link of custody SPO2 Sanchez lacks the specifics on how seized shabu was handled immediately after the accused appellants arrest. Although no records show that SPO2 sanchez testified that he actually seized the shabu when he arrested the accused, he never disclosed the identity of the person who had the custody of the shabu after its seizure nor he retained possession of the shabu from the place of the arrest until they reached the police station. Sanchez failed to state the time and place as well as to identify the person who made the markings on 2 plastic sachets.

B. 2nd linkSanchez and Maulit failed to provide particulars on whether shabu was turned over to the investigator. Thus, this big gap exist on who had the custody and possession of shabu prior to , during, and immediately after the police investigation, and how the shabu was stored, preserved, labelled, and recorded from the time of seizure up to its receipt by forensic lab.

C. 3rd linkThe documents revealed that the specimen arrived at the laboratory sealed in one small brown envelope bearing unidentified signatures of Edwin Plopinio. The pieces of evidence failed to identify the person who personally brought the seized shabu to PNP Crime lab and the person who received the same in the laboratory was Mangalip.

D. 4th linkDifferent dates of seizure