PUGONG's Law Office & Notarial Services

22/02/2024

SC Acquits Accused in Drug Case for Law Enforcers’ Failure to Comply with Mandatory Witness Rule │

Without the insulating presence of the mandatory witnesses during the seizure and marking of evidence in warrantless drug arrests, the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence negates the integrity and credibility of the seized items, casting reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused.

Thus reiterated the Supreme Court’s Third Division, in a Decision penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, granting the appeal of Gerald Flores (Flores) and Harrold Francisco (Francisco) who challenged their conviction by the lower court for violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.

Flores and Francisco, along with Louie Truelen (Truelen), were charged in 2016 for the sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu following a buy-bust operation conducted by the Quezon City Police Department (QCPD).

The evidence for the prosecution included a Chain of Custody Form and Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property Form accomplished by the arresting officers. At the bottom of the latter form, appear the names and signatures of the following insulating witnesses: Jun E. Tobias (Tobias), a senior reporter for the media outlet Hirit/Saksi, and Nelson N. Dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), a barangay kagawad. The press identification card of Tobias was also attached. However, no other document identifies Dela Cruz as kagawad.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 77 found the accused guilty, noting that the validity of the buy-bust operation was not affected by the fact that there was no preparatory coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. The RTC also held that the police officers’ actions enjoyed the presumption of regularity absent any showing of ill motive or intent on the part of the police officers to illegally incriminate the accused.

The RTC was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, prompting the present petition from Flores and Francisco. As to Truelen, his criminal liability was extinguished in 2021 following his death while in detention.

In granting Flores and Francisco’s appeal, the Court stressed the importance of complying with the mandatory insulating witness rule under Section 21 of RA 9165, which requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation, to be done in the presence of the accused, his counsel or representative, a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, and an elected public official. These witnesses shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-acquits-accused-in-drug-case-for-law-enforcers-failure-to-comply-with-mandatory-witness-rule/.

22/02/2024

26/01/2024

SC: Receipts Showing Chain of Custody of Seized Drugs Cannot be Altered While in Transit |

The Supreme Court has ruled that even a minimal change in the receipts recording the movement of seized drugs is fatal to the integrity of the chain of custody in drug cases.

Thus held the Supreme Court’s Second Division, in a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, as it granted the appeal by Francis Valencia (Valencia) and Ryan Antipuesto (Antipuesto). The appeal challenged the ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) affirming the Regional Trial Court’s (RTC) conviction of Valencia and Antipuesto for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

In granting Valencia and Antipuesto’s appeal, the Court held that to be convicted of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must be proved beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the transaction took place; and (2) the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, or the fact of the commission of the crime, were established.

While the Court found that the transaction happened, as evidenced by the conducted prior surveillance and the buy bust operations, the prosecution, however, failed to establish the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.

Under RA 9165, among the requirements for the custody and disposition of the confiscated dangerous drugs and other paraphernalia is the marking of the seized contraband, which is an important component of the first link of chain of custody.

The act of marking separates the marked illegal drugs “from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until disposition at the end of criminal proceedings,” said the Court.

“The entire chain of custody is founded on the correct marking of the specimen because the marking serves as a reference point for all succeeding handling of the dangerous drugs,” the Court stressed.

The Court also held that given its crucial purpose, marking should be done immediately right after the seizure of dangerous drugs to preclude unnecessary doubts on the first custodial link. “Failure to mark at the point of seizure endangers the integrity of the chain of custody,” said the Court.

The paper trail or the receipts recording the movement of seized specimen are likewise important evidence showing the chain of custody. “These documents must accurately reflect the marking written on the confiscated drugs and the series of transfers. Succeeding handlers of the seized contraband will have to rely on the marking stated in these documents and compare it with the actual marking on the specimen,” stressed the Court.

Thus, to preserve the chain of custody, the specimen must bear the reference marking stated in the paper trail, the Court held.

In the present case, while the Court found that the marking was done at the place of arrest, there was, however, a discrepancy in the paper trail recording the movement of the seized drugs.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-receipts-showing-chain-of-custody-of-seized-drugs-cannot-be-altered-while-in-transit/. Read G.R. No. 250610 (People v. Valencia and Antipuesto, July 10, 2023) at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/250610-people-of-the-philippines-vs-francis-valencia-y-lorenzo-and-ryan-antipuesto/.

26/01/2024

SC Finds Lawyer Guilty of Grave Misconduct for Unlawful Taking of Case Records re: Murder of Ruby Rose Barrameda-Jimenez |

The Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal of a former lawyer in the then Office of the Deputy Executive Secretary for Legal Affairs for grave misconduct and serious dishonesty after being found in possession of the missing case records in connection with the murder of Ruby Rose Barrameda-Jimenez (Barrameda), whose body was found covered in hardened concrete inside a steel drum in Navotas City in 2009.

In a Decision penned by Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen, the Court En Banc denied the petition for review on certiorari filed by Jerik Roderick V. Jacoba and granted the petition for review on certiorari filed by the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and former Executive Secretary Paquito N. Ochoa, Jr. (ES Ochoa). The consolidated petitions assailed the rulings of the Court of Appeals (CA) finding Jacoba guilty of simple misconduct.

In resolving the petitions, the Court first stressed that findings of facts of administrative bodies and quasi-judicial agencies, such as the CSC, when supported by substantial evidence, are treated with great respect and even finality by courts in recognition of the former’s specialty in their respective fields. The CSC, in particular, as the central personnel agency of the Government, is empowered to discipline its officials and employees in accordance with law, to ensure that only persons with proven integrity and fitness get the privilege of serving the public.

Among the transgressions investigated by the CSC are misconduct, or such unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer. When attended with corruption, willful intent, or disregard of established rules, such misconduct is considered grave. Dishonesty, on the other hand, is the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive, or defraud, which is considered serious when it causes serious damage and grave prejudice to the government, exhibits moral depravity, or employs fraud, among other analogous circumstances.

In the present case, the Court found that the evidence on record substantially supports the CSC’s findings of fact that Jacoba committed grave misconduct and serious dishonesty. As noted by the CSC, the missing case records were never previously assigned to Jacoba, yet they were found in a cabinet owned and controlled by him.

Such grave misconduct and serious dishonesty warrant Jacoba’s dismissal and perpetual disqualification from government service, concluded the Court.

The Court also imposed the following accessory penalties on Jacoba: forfeiture of all retirement benefits; perpetual disqualification from re-employment in the government service; cancellation of civil service eligibility; and bar from taking the civil service examinations.

Read more at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/sc-finds-lawyer-guilty-of-grave-misconduct-for-unlawful-taking-of-case-records-re-murder-of-ruby-rose-barrameda-jimenez/. Read G.R. No. 240517 (CSC v. Executive Secretary Ochoa, Jr.) and G.R. No. 240688 (Jacoba v. CSC and Executive Secretary Ochoa, Jr., June 7, 2023) in full at https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/240517-240688-civil-service-commission-and-paquito-n-ochoa-jr-executive-secretary-vs-jerik-roderick-v-jacoba-jerik-roderick-v-jacoba-vs-civil-service-commission-and-paquito-n-ochoa-jr-exec/.