Nogales vs People

FACTS

Several electronic devices including desktop computer CPUs and softwares were seized by virtue of a search warrant
in violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended in relation to R.A. No. 8972.The RTC issued an
order to keep the seized items in the NBI evidence room with the undertaking to make said confiscated items
available whenever the court would require them. Aggrieved by the issuance of the said order, the named persons in
the search warrant filed a Motion to Quash Search Warrant and Return Seized Properties, but were denied.

The Court of Appeals, in resolving the petition for certiorari filed with it against the RTC judge, ordered the release of
the seized CPUs and softwares with the condition that the hard disk be removed from the CPUs and be destroyed,
and if the softwares are determined to be unlicensed or pirated copies, they shall be destroyed in the manner allowed
by law.

Petitioners argue that there is no evidence showing that they were the source of pornographic printouts presented by
the NBI to the RTC or to the City Prosecutor of Manila. Since the hard disks in their computers are not illegal per se
unlike shabu, opium, counterfeit money, or pornographic magazines, said merchandise are lawful as they are being
used in the ordinary course of business, the destruction of which would violate not only procedural, but substantive
due process.

ISSUE

Whether or not the removal and destruction of the hard disks containing the pornographic and obscene materials
violates the property rights of its owner, considering the criminal case for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal
Code was dismissed.

RULING

NO.

The argument of petitioners is totally misplaced considering the undisputed fact that the seized computer units
contained obscene materials or pornographic files. Had it been otherwise, then, petitioners argument would have
been meritorious as there could be no basis for destroying the hard disks of petitioners computer units.

While it may be true that the criminal case for violation of Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code was dismissed as
there was no concrete and strong evidence pointing to them as the direct source of the subject pornographic
materials, it cannot be used as basis to recover the confiscated hard disks. At the risk of being repetitious, it appears
undisputed that the seized computer units belonging to them contained obscene materials or pornographic files.
Clearly, petitioners had no legitimate expectation of protection of their supposed property rights.

[T]he Court holds that the destruction of the hard disks and the softwares used in any way in the violation of the
subject law (Article 201, RPC) addresses the purpose of minimizing if not totally eradicating pornography. This will
serve as a lesson for those engaged in any way in the proliferation of pornography or obscenity in this country. The
Court is not unmindful of the concerns of petitioners but their supposed property rights must be balanced with the
welfare of the public in general.
People vs John Alejandro

Facts:

The prosecution charged the appellant with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 before the RTC.

That on or about the 1st day of September 2002, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, John Alejandro, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell and deliver 0.06 gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug. The appellant pleaded
not guilty to the charge.

The evidence for the prosecution established that in the afternoon of September 1, 2002, SPO1 Tan was in the office
of the District Drug Enforcement Group, Southern Police District, Taguig, Metro Manila, when a confidential informant
called and told him about the illegal drug activities of the appellant, alias "Nog-nog." A briefing was conducted and
then the officers were dispatched to meet the informant.
At around 5:00 p.m., the police met with the informant at the Pio Del Pilar Elementary School. Thereafter, SPO1 Tan,
PO1 Mengote and the informant went to M. Dela Cruz Street in Pasay City to conduct a surveillance.There, the
informant pointed to a person standing at the corner of Mary Luz Street and M. Dela Cruz Street, and identified him
as the appellant.They observed the appellant for about half an hour, and saw that there were people approaching
him. They also observed that there was an "exchange of goods" between the appellant and the people who
approached him.The police thereafter returned to the station where they underwent another briefing and planned an
entrapment operation. Under the plan, PO1 Mengote was designated as the poseur-buyer.

SPO2 Banzuela, SPO1 Tan, SPO1 Sangalang, PO1 Mengote, PO3 Cachapero and the informant returned to M. Dela
Cruz Street to conduct the buy-bust operation. When they arrived at the place at around 6:00 p.m., they saw the
appellant sitting in front of a sari-sari store. The informant introduced PO1 Mengote to the appellant as a buyer (i.e., a
"shabu scorer"). The appellant asked, "Magkano ba?" PO1 Mengote answered, "Halagang piso." PO1 Mengote then
gave the one hundred peso marked money to the appellant. The appellant, in turn, pulled out a plastic sachet from
his right pocket and handed it to PO1 Mengote. Upon receiving the plastic sachet, PO1 Mengote made the pre-
arranged signal (i.e., wiped his face with a towel) to his companions. Immediately, the other members of the buy-bust
team approached the appellant. They introduced themselves as police officers, recovered the buy-bust money from
the appellant, and arrested him. They then brought him and the confiscated items to the police station. At the police
station, they forwarded the seized items to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory where they were
examined by P/Insp. Gural.

The RTC and CA found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

In his brief, the appellant claims that the trial court erred in convicting him of the crime charged despite the
prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He claims that the integrity of the seized item had
been compromised due to the failure of the apprehending police to mark it.

Issue:
Whether or not the seized item has been compromised.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court acquit the appellant, for the prosecutions failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of custody
as "the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of
dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.

Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are
seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her
initials and signature on the items seized. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, this Court has consistently
held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs casts reasonable doubt on the authenticity of
the corpus delicti. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized
contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as
reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or
related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal
proceedings, thus preventing switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence

In the present case, the records do not show that the apprehending team marked the seized items with their initials
immediately upon confiscation

Consistency with the chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized items be done:

(1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and

(2) immediately upon confiscation.

We clarified in People v. Manuel Resurreccion that "[m]arking upon immediate confiscation" does not exclude the
possibility that marking can be at the police station or office of the apprehending team. In the present case, the
testimonies of the apprehending officers do not indicate that they ever marked the seized items, either at the place of
seizure or at the police station. How the police could have omitted such a basic and vital procedure in the initial
handling of the seized drugs truly baffles us. Going back to what we earlier discussed, succeeding handlers of the
specimen will use the markings as reference. If at the first instance or opportunity, the apprehending team did not
mark the seized item/s, then there is nothing to identify it later on as it passes from one hand to another.

Curiously, the seized item already bore the markings "TM-1-010902" when it was examined by the forensic chemist.
In the absence, however, of specifics on how, when and where this marking was done, and who witnessed the
marking procedure, we cannot accept this marking as compliance with the chain of custody requirement required by
the law.

The second link in the chain of custody is the turnover of the confiscated drug from PO1 Mengote to the police
station. To recall, after PO1 Mengote allegedly received the plastic sachet from the appellant, he made the pre-
arranged signal to his companions. The other members of the buy-bust team approached the appellant, introduced
themselves as police officers, and arrested him. Thereafter, they brought him and the confiscated item to the police
station.

Notably, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses failed to identify the person who took custody of the seized item
at the police station. Although the request for laboratory examination was signed by P/Supt. Fegarido, the Chief of the
District Drug Enforcement Group, we cannot assume that he was the person who received the seized item from PO1
Mengote, in the absence of any testimony proving such fact.

For the succeeding links in the chain of custody, the evidence shows that the confiscated item was forwarded to the
PNP Crime Laboratory by one SPO2 Pepano, and then received by a certain "Relos." P/Insp. Gural examined the
submitted specimen, and found it positive for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. As previously
discussed, there was a missing link in the custody of the confiscated item after it left the possession of PO1 Mengote.
The police did not only fail to mark the specimen immediately upon seizure; it likewise failed to identify the police
officer to whose custody the confiscated item was given at the police station. Thus, we cannot conclude with certainty
that the item seized from the appellant was the same as that presented for laboratory examination and, later on,
presented in court

That the defense admitted the existence of the Booking and Information Sheet (Exh. "C"), the Request for
Laboratory Examination (Exh. "D") and Physical Science Report No. D-1331-02 (Exh. "E") during the pre-trial did not
amount to an admission of the identity of the seized specimen. What the admissions proved were merely the
existence and authenticity of the request for laboratory examination and the result of this examination, not the
required chain of custody from the time of seizure of evidence. Simply put, the admission regarding the existence of
Exhibits "C," "D" and "E" has no bearing on the question of whether the specimen submitted for chemical analysis
was the same as that seized from the appellant.] To interpret the stipulations as an admission that the appellant was
the source of the specimen would be contrary to the pre-trial order (stating that Exhibits "C", "D" and "E" were
admitted as to their existence only and not as to the source); it would also bind the appellant to an unceremonious
withdrawal of his plea of not guilty

People vs Relato

Facts:

At 6:00 pm of August 29, 2002, PO3 Sonny Evasco of the Bulan Police Station received a tip from his asset to the
effect that Relato would be peddling illegal drugs around midnight in Barangay Aquino, Zone 7, Bulan, Sorsogon.
PO3 Evasco immediately reported the tip to SPO1 Elmer Masujer, the chief of the Intelligence Department of the
police station. In turn, SPO1 Masujer formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation against Relato consisting of
himself, PO3 Evasco, PO1 Wilfredo Lobrin and SPO2 Adolfo Villaroza. SPO1 Masujer prepared a P500.00 bill to be
the buy-bust money by marking the bill with his initials.[3]

The team waited for the informant to call again. At 10:00 pm, PO3 Evasco finally received the call from his asset, who
confirmed that the proposed transaction would take place beside the lamp post near the ice plant in Barangay
Aquino. With that, the team hastened to the site. PO3 Evasco and SPO2 Villaroya concealed themselves about
seven to 10 meters from the lamp post, while SPO1 Masujer and PO1 Lobrin provided area security from about 10 to
15 meters away from where PO3 Evasco and SPO2 Villaroya were.

A few minutes later, Relato and a companion (later identified as Pido Paredes) arrived together on board a
motorcycle. Relato alighted to confer with the asset who was the poseur buyer. After the transaction was completed,
PO3 Evasco signaled to the rest of the team, who drew near and apprehended Relato. Seized from Relato was the
marked P500.00 buy-bust bill. The poseur buyer turned over to PO3 Evasco the two transparent sachets containing
crystalline substances that Relato sold to the poseur buyer. Paredes escaped.[4]

SPO1 Masujer marked the two transparent sachets with his own initials “EM” upon returning to the police station.

Forensic Chemical Officer Josephine Clemen of the PNP Crime Laboratory in Region V conducted the laboratory
examination on the contents of the two transparent sachets and found the contents to have a total weight of 0.991
gram. She certified that the contents were positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Issue:

Whether or not there was a procedural lapse committed by the buy-bust team on the chain of custody.

Ruling:

Yes. Supreme Court acquitted the accused.

A review of the records establishes that the aforestated procedure laid down by Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR
was not followed. Several lapses on the part of the buy-bust team are readily apparent. To start with, no photograph
of the seized shabu was taken. Secondly, the buy-bust team did not immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene
of the crime and in the presence of Relato and witnesses. Thirdly, although there was testimony about the marking of
the seized items being made at the police station, the records do not show that the marking was done in the presence
of Relato or his chosen representative. And, fourthly, no representative of the media and the Department of Justice,
or any elected official attended the taking of the physical inventory and to sign the inventory.

Under the foregoing rules, the marking immediately after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, because
succeeding handlers of the prohibited drugs or related items will use the markings as reference. It further serves to
segregate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar and related evidence from the time they are
seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching,
“planting,” or contamination of evidence.

While the last paragraph of Section 21(a) of the IRR provides a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of
non-compliance irreversibly prejudices the State’s evidence, it is significant to note that the application of the saving
mechanism to a situation is expressly conditioned upon the State rendering an explanation of the lapse or lapses in
the compliance with the procedures. Here, however, the Prosecution tendered no explanation why the buy-bust team
had failed to mark the seized shabu immediately after the arrest. Nevertheless, even assuming that marking the
shabu at the scene of the crime by the buy-bust team had not been practical or possible for the buy-bust team to do,
the saving mechanism would still not be applicable due to the lack of a credible showing of any effort undertaken by
the buy-bust team to keep the shabu intact while in transit to the police station.
The procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team underscored the uncertainty about the identity and integrity of
the shabu admitted as evidence against the accused. They highlighted the failure of the Prosecution to establish the
chain of custody, by which the incriminating evidence would have been authenticated. An unavoidable consequence
of the non-establishment of the chain of custody was the serious doubt on whether the shabu presented as evidence
was really the shabu supposedly seized from Relato.

People of the Philippines vs Samin Zakaria

Facts:

PO2 Aninias declared that at about 1:00 p.m. on January 6, 2005, a confidential informant went to the CALABARZON
Regional Office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Camp Vicente Lim in Calamba, Laguna and
informed Chief Supt. Abe Lemos that he had entered into a drug deal for 35 grams of shabu worth P98,000.00 with
alias Danny and alias Joana to take place at 287 Tamayo Compound on Caliraya Drive, in Taguig City. Thereafter,
Chief Supt. Lemos tasked Insp. Julius Ceasar Ablang to form a team for a buy-bust operation.

At about 3:00 p.m. of January 6, 2005, PO2 Aninias, PO3 Valdez and the confidential informant surveyed the target
area in order to confirm if drug activities were taking place there. PO2 Aninias observed there about ten persons
going in and out of the target area. The persons were thin and looked haggard, and had deep set eyes and protruding
cheeks. About 30 minutes later, PO2 Aninias and his companions left the target area and returned to the Regional
Office to report their observations.

In the morning of January 7, 2005, the confidential informant contacted Danny to tell him that he had a buyer. They
agreed to have the deal at the target area.

The buy-bust team arrived at the targeted area. The confidential informant then called Danny and told him that he
and the buyer were already in the vicinity, but Danny advised them to wait for the shabu to be prepared, since the
shabu was with her wife.

After nearly 15 minutes, Danny returned with a woman. The confidential informant requested the two to board the
Revo. Danny introduced the woman to PO2 Aninias as his wife Joana. Danny again asked for the money. PO2
Aninias once more flashed the white window envelope to Danny and asked to see the shabu. Danny pulled three
sachets containing white crystalline substance from his pocket and handed the sachets to PO2 Aninias, who turned
over the white window envelope to Joana and forthwith made a missed call to PO3 Valdez. The missed call was the
pre-arranged signal indicating that the transaction was consummated. As Danny was about to count the money in
the envelope, PO2 Aninias drew and pointed his gun at Danny and Joana. The rest of the team, who had meanwhile
rushed towards the Revo as soon as PO3 Valdez received PO2 Aninias’ missed call, quickly arrested the two
suspects.

PO2 Aninias immediately placed his initials on the three sachets received from Danny, while PO3 Valdez recovered
the boodle money from Joana.The team then brought Danny and Joana to Camp Vicente Lim for investigation. Danny
was identified as Samin Zakaria y Makasulay and Joana as Joana Zakaria y Silungan.
Bearing the Request for a Laboratory Examination prepared by Chief Supt. Lemos, PO2 Aninias turned over the
seized sachets and their contents to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory, where Forensic Chemist Sr. Insp. Donna
Villa Huelgas conducted qualitative and quantitative examinations on the contents. The examinations yielded positive
results for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

Issue:

Whether or not the chain of custody was properly observed.

Ruling:

No.

The records show that the buy-bust team did not observe the mandatory procedures under Republic Act No. 9165
and its IRR. Although PO2 Aninias supposedly marked the confiscated shabu with his initials immediately upon
seizure, he did not do so in the presence of the accused or of their representatives and any representative from the
media and Department of Justice (DOJ), or any elected public official. If he had, he would have readily stated so in
court. In fact, both PO2 Aninias and PO3 Valdez themselves revealed that no media or DOJ representative, or
elected public official was present during the buy-bust operation and at the time of the recovery of the evidence at the
target area. Instead, the media were only around in the PDEA regional headquarters.

The certificate of inventory, although signed by a media representative and a barangay official, was nonetheless
discredited by PO2 Aninias’ admission that only the confidential informant and the members of the buy-bust team
were present at the time of the recovery of the sachets of shabu from Samin. Verily, although PO2 Aninias declared
having personally seen the media representative and the barangay official affixing their signatures on the certificate of
inventory, he gave no indication at all that the certificate had been signed in the presence of the accused or of their
representative.

Another serious lapse committed was that the buy-bust team did not take any photographs of the sachets of shabu
upon their seizure. The photographs were intended by the law as another means to confirm the chain of custody of
the dangerous drugs.