Alex Besenio y Cledoro vs. People of the Philippines (G.R. No. 237120, June 26, 2024)
SYLLABUS:
The failure of the prosecution to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule, particularly the absence of key witnesses during the inventory, the incomplete testimony of the forensic chemist, and the lack of justifiable grounds for deviation, led the Supreme Court to conclude that the integrity and identity of the drugs were not adequately preserved. Consequently, the Court held that Besenio's conviction could not stand and ordered his acquittal. This ruling underscores the importance of safeguarding procedural rights in criminal cases, especially when the corpus delicti (the drugs) is central to the charge.
FACTS:
On August 24, 2006, a search warrant was issued and implemented by the Philippine National Police (PNP) at the residence of Alex Besenio y Cledoro in Barangay Sta. Teresita, Baao, Camarines Sur. The search was based on information gathered from surveillance and a "test buy" operation, which led the authorities to believe that Besenio was in possession of illegal drugs, specifically methamphetamine hydrochloride (commonly known as "shabu").
During the early morning operation at around 5:00 AM, the police, accompanied by two barangay officials, conducted the search in the presence of Besenio, his family, and the barangay officials. The search resulted in the discovery of a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu, found inside one of the rooms of Besenio's house.
Upon seizing the sachet, the police team took photographs of the evidence and marked the sachet with the initials of the investigating officer. A Certificate of Inventory was prepared on the spot, but it was only witnessed by the two barangay officials, and no media or DOJ representatives were present. Later, another Certificate of Inventory was prepared at the Baao Police Station, this time with the signature of a media representative, but still no DOJ representative.
The seized drugs were then brought to the crime laboratory, where forensic chemist Police Inspector Richard Severoconducted a qualitative examination. The laboratory report confirmed that the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
Besenio was charged under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for illegal possession of dangerous drugs. During the trial, Besenio denied the charges and claimed that the drugs were planted as part of a frame-up by the police. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Besenio, sentencing him to 12 years and one day as minimum, to 13 years and eight months as maximum, and imposed a fine of PHP 300,000.
Besenio appealed the conviction, but the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision. The CA ruled that despite some lapses in the chain of custody, the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved, and the conviction was valid. The appellate court held that the police officers' testimonies were credible and outweighed Besenio’s defense of denial and frame-up.
Besenio then brought the case to the Supreme Court, challenging his conviction. He argued that the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 was not properly followed, particularly the absence of required witnesses during the inventory and handling of the seized drugs, which raised doubts about the integrity of the evidence.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the chain of custody of the seized drugs was properly established by the prosecution.
2. Whether the conviction of Besenio for illegal possession of dangerous drugs should be upheld.
HELD:
The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted Besenio. The Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs. The Court ordered the immediate release of Besenio unless he is detained for other lawful causes.
Chain of Custody Requirement and its Importance
The chain of custody refers to the duly recorded, authorized movements and custody of the seized drugs at each stage from the moment of confiscation to its presentation in court. It ensures that the evidence remains untampered and is the same item initially seized from the accused.
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the specific procedural requirements for handling confiscated drugs:
- Physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs must be done immediately after confiscation.
- These procedures must be conducted in the presence of the accused (or their representative or counsel) and three "insulating witnesses": a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.
- Any deviation from these procedures requires the prosecution to show that the non-compliance was justified and that the integrity of the evidence was preserved despite the lapse.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that strict compliance with these safeguards is essential because these witnesses are meant to prevent the possibility of tampering, planting, or contamination of evidence. This safeguards the accused’s constitutional rights by ensuring that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused.
Unjustified Deviation from the Chain of Custody Rule
In Besenio's case, the Supreme Court found that there were unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule:
- During the initial inventory at the place of seizure, only two barangay officials were present. There was no media representative or DOJ representative, as required by law.
- At the police station, when the second inventory was prepared, a media representative was present, but still no DOJ representative, contrary to the requirement of the law.
The Court ruled that these lapses were not justified by the prosecution. The police offered the reason that it was "too early in the morning" to secure the presence of a DOJ representative. The Court held that this was not an acceptable justification, especially considering that the search was conducted pursuant to a search warrant, which allowed for advance planning and preparation.
Furthermore, Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 was strictly applicable since the incident occurred in 2006, before the law was amended in 2014 to require only two insulating witnesses. The failure to comply with the original requirement of three insulating witnesses (DOJ, media, and an elected public official) was a substantial procedural defect that compromised the chain of custody.
Judicial Admission and its Limits
The Court acknowledged that during the trial, Besenio's counsel made a judicial admission that the drugs seized and presented were the same ones sent to the forensic chemist for testing. However, this admission only covered the first three links in the chain of custody:
- Seizure of the drugs at the scene.
- Marking and initial turnover to the investigating officer.
- Submission to the forensic chemist for examination.
While this judicial admission may have addressed issues with the first three stages of the chain of custody, it did not absolve the prosecution from proving the fourth link: how the drugs were handled, stored, and preserved after they were examined by the forensic chemist and before they were presented in court.
Failure to Prove the Fourth Link
The fourth link in the chain of custody involves ensuring that after the forensic examination, the drugs were properly handled and stored, and that their integrity was preserved before they were presented in court. The Supreme Court emphasized that this requires:
- Testimony from the forensic chemist about how the drugs were resealed and secured after examination.
- Testimony regarding how the drugs were stored, who handled them, and how they were kept until trial.
- Testimony on the precautionary measures taken to prevent tampering.
In this case, Police Inspector Richard Severo, the forensic chemist, testified regarding the receipt and examination of the drugs, but he failed to explain whether the drugs were resealed after examination or how they were stored and safeguarded before they were presented in court. This omission raised doubts about the integrity of the drugs during the final stage of the chain of custody.
Prosecution’s Burden of Proof
The Court reiterated the long-standing principle that the prosecution bears the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, including proving compliance with the chain of custody rule. The presumption of innocence guaranteed to the accused requires strict adherence to the procedural requirements for handling evidence.
Since the prosecution failed to prove with moral certainty that the drugs seized from Besenio were the same ones presented in court, the Supreme Court ruled that reasonable doubt existed as to his guilt. The breaks in the chain of custody and failure to meet the required procedural safeguards led to the acquittal of Besenio.
