PEOPLE VS ALCUIZAR decided him guilty of the illegal possession of shabu when it relied on the
presumption that when prohibited drugs are found in a house or building
FACTS: belonging to and occupied by a particular person, such person in Accused was charged with violation of Sec 5 (illegal sale), Sec 6 possession of drugs in violation of law. CA affirmed decision of RTC. (maintaining a drug den), Sec 11 (illegal possession) and Sec 12 ( illegal possession of drug paraphernalia) of R.A. 9165. The accused was found guilty of illegal possession (Sec 11) of R.A. 9165 so this decision is the one ISSUE: being appealed. He pleaded not guilty upon arraignment. WON it was proven by the prosecution that the integrity and evidentiary The antecedent facts are: On June 15, 2003 (2:00 pm at Awayan, Carcar, value of the evidence has been preserved. Cebu): he was found in possession, custody and control of the ff: 26 RULING: heat-sealed packets containing total weight of 0.52 grams, 1 heat-sealed plastic pack containing 10.26 grams of crystalline substance, 2 strips of foil No. The Chain of Custody Rule requires the marking of the seized items containing traces of white crystalline powder and 1 heat-sealed containing should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and 0.02 gram positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items SPO1 Agadier who was the lone witness testified that he stood across a that enter the chain of evidence. The steps initiate the process of store across the house of the appellant. He witnessed the poseur buyer protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches and of hand the marked money in exchange for one deck of shabu. So he protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based immediately pursued the appellant, who ran to his parent’s house where on planting of evidence and allegations of robbery or theft. The dangerous he was eventually caught. After arrest, he and his team went back to the drug is the very corpus delicti which requires that the identity and integrity house of appellant to conduct a search which yielded the seized items: 1 must be shown to have been reserved. This requirement is from the unique big pack f shabu, 2 packs containing 13 decks each of shabu, 3 disposable characteristic of drugs that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, lighters, a tooter, tin foil with traces of shabu residue and an improvised and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution. Thus, evidence lamp. A receipt of the seized items was prepared and the brgy captain, brgy must show that illegal drugs presented in court is the same illegal drug tanod and 2 photographers were asked to sign the receipt. The items were actually recovered from the accused initially in custody of SPO1 Navales which were turned over to SPO1 However, in Sec 21(a): non-compliance with the prescribed procedures Agadier for marking , then turned over back to Navales after the former does not necessarily result in the conclusion that the identity of the prepared the request for laboratory examination. Navales then delivered seized drugs has been compromised so that an acquittal should follow as the items to and request to PNP crime lab which the latter issued a report long as the prosecution can demonstrate that the integrity and confirming that the specimen submitted are positive for shabu. RTC evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved. GAPS in the chain of custody in the case at bar: 1. Vague recollection of SPO1 Agadier regarding the transfer of custody of the shabu 2. Who made the request for the crime laboratory (Agadier said he prepared it but the signature found was PSI Sanchez) 3. The brgy tanod who signed the receipt testified that they came late during the operation, he did not witness the actual discovery of the shabu. When they came, the shabu was already placed on the table. Therefore, it cannot be indicated who had the initial control and custody of the shabu upon confiscation. Agadier (1) did not specify whether Navales received the shabu while they were still in the appellant’s house or at the police station; (2) not also clear who was in possession of the shabu while in transit; (3) Navales did not testify to confirm Agadier’s statement. In here, SPO1 Agadier only marked the seized items at the police station. While the rule allows marking of evidence to be done in the nearest police station, this contemplates a case of warrantless searches and seizures. However, here the police officers were able to secure a search warrant prior to the operation. Agadier was not able to justify why he did not immediately mark the shabu notwithstanding that an inventory receipt was even prepared. It was also pointed out that they also failed to leave or give a copy of the inventory receipt to the accused or his family.The failure of the police officers to mark the shabu immediately after seizure and the vague recollection of SPO1 Agadier concerning the custody of the drugs from the residence of the appellant up to the time submitted to crime lab constitute a HUGE AND SIGNIFICANT GAP in the chain of custody which substantially affects the identity of the corpus delicti of the crime. Decision was reversed and set aside. Alcuzar was ACQUITTED.