A SUSPECTED drug pusher has been ordered released from jail by the Supreme Court (SC) not because he was innocent but due to the lapses committed by the police in the handling and custody of the prohibited drugs reportedly seized from him in a buy-bust operation in 2012.
Ordered released after six years of detention was Jayson P. Torio, alias “Babalu,” of Lingayen, Pangasinan.
On Oct. 22, 2013, Torio was found guilty of illegal sale and possession of shabu in a buy-bust operation conducted by the police on Dec. 18, 2012.
For the illegal sale of shabu, he was sentenced by the Lingayen regional trial court (RTC) to life imprisonment with a fine of P500,000.
For illegal possession, he was sentenced to a prison term ranging from 14 years and eight months to 17 years and four months in prison.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the trial court’s verdict in a decision handed down on Sept. 29, 2015. Torio elevated the case to the SC.
In his appeal, Torio told the SC the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the drugs allegedly seized from him, and to prove the identity of the civilian asset who acted as poseur-buyer.
The SC agreed with Torio in a decision written by Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo.
It said that in the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, “it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty since the drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime.”
“Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug on account of the possibility of switching, ‘planting,’ or contamination of evidence, the prosecution must be able to show an unbroken chain of custody and account for each link in the chain from the moment the drugs are seized until its presentation in court as evidence of the crime,” it said.
It pointed out that under Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the marking, physical inventory, and taking of photograph of the seized drugs be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation.
“The said law further requires that the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, any elected public official, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ);17 or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, any elected public official and a representative from either the National Prosecution Service or the media,” the SC said.
It pointed out that “the procedure in Section 21 of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects.”
“Non-compliance with the three-witness rule may be excused provided the prosecution proves that the arresting officers exerted genuine efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear” it said.
“Since the buy-bust operation against Torio was conducted in 2012, or prior to the enactment of RA 10640 in 2014, the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items must be witnessed by the following persons: (a) any elected public official; (b) a DOJ representative; and ( c) a media representative,” it said.
But it said that while the marking of the seized items were done in the presence of two barangay kagawads (village councilmen), “the prosecution failed to establish that the physical inventory and taking of photograph were made in the presence of the appellant or his representative, as well as representatives from the DOJ and media.”
“In fact, the members of the buy-bust team deliberately did not invite members of the media to avoid leakage of the impending operation. Thus, it is clear that the arresting officers did not comply with the rule requiring the presence of representatives from both the DOJ and the media,” it stressed.
“In view of the foregoing, the Court is constrained to acquit the appellant for failure of the prosecution to provide a justifiable reason for the non-compliance with the chain of custody rule thereby creating doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs,” the SC ruled.
A copy of the decision promulgated on Dec. 3, 2018 was sent to the director of the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor) in Muntinlupa City. The BuCor director was ordered to report in five days from receipt of the decision if the release order has been complied with. (Rey Panaligan)
