People vs Arnold CASTRO June 15, 2011 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 Illegal sale of dangerous drugs

s what is material? Actual transaction or sale + presentation of substance seized as evidence in court o Sec 5, Art. II of RA9165 1. Identities of BUYER, SELLER, OBJECT and CONSIDERATION 2. The DELIVERY of the thing sold and the PAYMENT Denials a bare denial is an inherently weak defense and is viewed with disfavour for it can easily be concocted but difficult to prove an is common standard line of defense in most prosecutions under RA 9165 CA affirmed RTC of QC decision: RTC : accused guilty of violating sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 Feb 26, 2004 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride + another 0.07 gram

Amalia Infante (neighbour) testified that she saw Castro was surrounded by 4 men. Amor Castro (father) saw Catro taken by the police and was told to follow them at the Galas Police station o Was told that PO2 Zamora was demanding 30,000

RTC Jan 6, 2009 convicted (GUILTY of 2 offenses) Section 5 drug pushing life imprisonment + Php 500,000 Section 11 possession 12.1 -13 years + 300,000

CA affirmed ISSUE: (1) WON Castro is liable to both offenses (selling and possession) YES! (2) WON Castro can be convicted despite the prosecutions failure to preserve INTEGRITY and IDENTITY of the CORPUSE DELICTI of the offenses YES! RATIO: (1) YES! RTC obiter: do not agree with jurisprudence because the 2 sachets confiscated are also intended to be sold, hence also in violation of Sec 5, not section 11. Elements of POSSESION: (a) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug (b) such possession is not authorized by law (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed said drug Illegal possession of dangerous drugs possession constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus posidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. burden of evidence is shifted to the accused (2) YES! Testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always possible to obtain an unbroken chain. Nonetheless, what is of utmost importance is the PRESERVATION OF INTEGRITY and the EVIDENTIARY VALUE of the seized items (sec12)

PROSECUTION Buy-bust operation team: o P/Insp. Armenta poseur-buyer P100 (JA) Prepared and sent the Pre-Op report o PO2 Zamora Buy-bust operation: o confidential informer introduced JA to Castro as prospective buyer of shabu. o piso = Php 100 transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance (JA-AC) o JA scratched his head as a signal that transaction was already consummates o Recovered (2) more sachets and the marked money NZ-AC

DEFENCE Feb 24, 2004 (9pm) Castro was taking a rest in their house, taken by 4 policemen to Galas Police station where a plastic sachet was shown to him. was told that he will only be released I he had money

People vs Bacus ALCUIZAR April 6, 2011 FACTS Guilty of illegal possession (Sec 11) decision appealed Charged with violation of Sec 5 (illegal sale), Sec 6 (maintaining a drug den), Sec 11 (illegal possession) and Sec 12 ( illegal possession of drug paraphernalia) June 15, 2003 2:00 pm I Awayan, Carcar, Cebu: in possession, custody and control of the ff: o 26 heat-sealed packets containing total weight of 0.52 grams o 1 heat-sealed plastic pack containing 10.26 grams of crystalline substance o 2 strips of foil containing traces of white crystalline powder o 1 heat-sealed containing 0.02 gram positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride SPO1 Agadier lone witness o stood across a store across the house of the appellant o witnessed the poseur buyer hand the marked money in exchange for one deck of shabu o immediately pursued the appellant, who ran to his parents house o after arrest went back to the house of appellant to conduct a search: 1 big pack f shabu 2 packs containing 13 decks each of shabu 3 disposable lighters A tooter Tin foil with traces of shabu residue Improvised lamp o A receipt of the seized items was prepared and the brgy captain, brgy tanod and 2 photographers were asked to sign the receipt o Initially in custody of SPO1 Navales SPO1 Agadier for marking Navales PNP crime lab -

shabu found were found inside his room assumption of possession Acquitted based on reasonable doubt for the other charges

CA affirmed

ISSUE: WON he can be convicted notwithstanding the failure of prosecution to prove the corpus delicti of the crime (chain of custody is unreliable) NO! RATIO: the dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti identity and integrity must be shown to have been reserved. Why? This requirement is from the unique characteristic of drugs that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution. Thus, evidence must show that illegal drugs presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused

CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE: Requires the marking of the seized items shoud be done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain of evidence

** SPO1 Agadier only marked the seized items at the police station contemplates a case of warrantless searches and seizures. Agadier was not able to justify this. *** he also failed to leave or give a copy of the inventory receipt to the accused or his family However, in Sec 21(a): non-compliance with the prescribed procedures does not necessarily result in the conclusion that the identity of the seized drugs has been compromised so that an acquittal should follow as long as the prosecution ca demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence have been preserved

RTC: Guilty Sec 11 (possession) life imprisonment + Php 400,000

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. hence, 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 appellants 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 Agadiers statement. Th 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 WHEREFORE CA decision affirming the RTC decision is hereby REVERESED and SET ASIDE. Alcuzar is ACQUITTEDand ordered immediately RELEASED from detention People vs Ricky UNISA September 28, 2011 FACTS (1) Illegal sale of 0.02 gram of shabu, a dangerous drug, sec 5, RA 9165 life imprisonment + 500,000 fine (2) Illegal possession of 0.43 gram of shabu, sec 11 indeterminate penalty f 12 years and 1 day to 15 years + 300,000