The main thrust of the RTC's Order granting bail is that based on the evidence presented during the bail hearings, the prosecution failed to prove that the chain of custody over the seized drug had been preserved; hence, the evidence of Tanes' guilt was not strong. The Court wholeheartedly agrees.
To recall, Tanes was charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The elements for conviction under said provision are: (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 therefor.[36] The burden is on the State to prove not only these elements but also the corpus delicti or the body of the crime.
In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.[37] Consequently, compliance with the rule on chain of custody over the seized illegal drugs is crucial in any prosecution that follows a buy-bust operation. The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.[38]
In this regard, Section 21,[39] Article II of R.A. 9165 lays down the following procedure to be followed in order to maintain the integrity of the confiscated drugs used as evidence: (1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team.[40] In this connection, this also means that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of the conduct of the physical inventory of the seized items which, as mentioned, must be immediately done at the place of seizure and confiscation - a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity.
In the present case, it appears that the buy-bust team committed several procedural lapses concerning the chain of custody of the seized drug. In particular, the RTC and the CA found that: (1) there was no representative from the DOJ present during the buy-bust operation and the inventory; (2) the two other witnesses (i.e., the media representative and the elected public official) were not present during the apprehension and seizure of the illegal drug but were merely called to sign the inventory sheet; and (3) no photograph was presented showing the inventory of the seized shabu in the presence of Tanes and the witnesses. These lapses in the chain of custody created doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized drug. Consequently, the evidence as to Tanes' guilt cannot be characterized as strong.
To recall, Tanes was charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The elements for conviction under said provision are: (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 therefor.[36] The burden is on the State to prove not only these elements but also the corpus delicti or the body of the crime.
In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.[37] Consequently, compliance with the rule on chain of custody over the seized illegal drugs is crucial in any prosecution that follows a buy-bust operation. The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.[38]
In this regard, Section 21,[39] Article II of R.A. 9165 lays down the following procedure to be followed in order to maintain the integrity of the confiscated drugs used as evidence: (1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team.[40] In this connection, this also means that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of the conduct of the physical inventory of the seized items which, as mentioned, must be immediately done at the place of seizure and confiscation - a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity.
In the present case, it appears that the buy-bust team committed several procedural lapses concerning the chain of custody of the seized drug. In particular, the RTC and the CA found that: (1) there was no representative from the DOJ present during the buy-bust operation and the inventory; (2) the two other witnesses (i.e., the media representative and the elected public official) were not present during the apprehension and seizure of the illegal drug but were merely called to sign the inventory sheet; and (3) no photograph was presented showing the inventory of the seized shabu in the presence of Tanes and the witnesses. These lapses in the chain of custody created doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized drug. Consequently, the evidence as to Tanes' guilt cannot be characterized as strong.
No comments:
Post a Comment