In People v. Sitti Domado, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the crime of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, specifically shabu. The Court emphasized that while strict adherence to the procedural requirements in handling seized drugs is ideal, the primary concern is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. This means that even if there are lapses in procedure, the seizure and custody of the drugs remain valid if the prosecution can prove that the evidence presented in court is the same substance confiscated from the accused and that its integrity has not been compromised. Therefore, the case underscores the importance of maintaining a clear and unbroken chain of custody in drug-related cases.

Entrapment at Damortis: When Does a Broken Chain Weaken Drug Evidence?

The case began with an entrapment operation set up following the arrest of Augustus D’Vince Castro, who implicated a source in Dagupan City. PSI Lizardo arranged for Augustus to contact his source, leading to a planned delivery of shabu in Damortis, Sto. Tomas, La Union. The operation resulted in the arrest of Sitti Domado and Jehan Sarangani after they delivered an envelope containing three plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride to Augustus inside a van. The key issue revolved around whether the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody of the seized drugs, especially given the appellant’s claims of procedural lapses in the handling of the evidence.

The defense argued that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the prohibited drugs beyond reasonable doubt, citing that PSI Lizardo did not immediately mark the seized items and that the inventory was not properly conducted. They contended that these lapses compromised the integrity of the evidence. However, the Court disagreed, highlighting that the defense did not contest the admissibility of the evidence during the trial. According to People v. Hernandez, objections to the admissibility of evidence must be raised during the trial, not for the first time on appeal. Failure to object constitutes a waiver of the right to question the evidence’s admissibility.

The Court then delved into the procedural requirements for handling seized dangerous drugs, as outlined in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. The law mandates that the apprehending officer/team must immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. However, the rules also provide an important caveat:

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

The Court emphasized that the overriding concern is the maintenance of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized and confiscated drugs. This means that procedural lapses do not automatically invalidate a seizure if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items can be shown to have been preserved.

In this case, the Court found that PSI Lizardo took immediate steps after the arrest to secure the evidence and ensure proper procedure. He locked the van’s door, identified himself as a member of the PDEA, arrested the suspects, and brought them to the police station. At the station, he marked each plastic sachet with his initials, prepared a marking sheet report, and conducted an inventory of the seized items. The certificate of inventory was signed by a barangay kagawad and two media representatives. Furthermore, PSI Lizardo prepared a written request for laboratory examination and a request for the medical and physical examination of the accused. The records showed that the accused waived their rights under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code and were present at the police station during the marking and inventory of the seized items.

The Court acknowledged that the apprehending team failed to photograph the seized items, which is typically part of the required procedure. However, it noted that PSI Lizardo immediately conducted an inventory at the police station in the presence of a barangay kagawad and two media representatives. The presence of these third parties, as required by law, sufficiently safeguarded the seized evidence from possible alteration, substitution, or tampering. Thus, the absence of photographs did not undermine the prosecution’s case.

The Court also addressed the issue of the marking of the seized shabu at the police station rather than at the scene of the arrest. It reasoned that the unique circumstances of the case justified this deviation from the standard procedure. The entrapment took place inside a vehicle where all the actors were riding together. Since PSI Lizardo appeared to be the only one handling the seized items while the van was en route to the police station, the possibility of planting, switching, or tampering with the evidence was substantially negated.

Building on this, the Court cited several precedents where convictions were upheld even when the marking of confiscated items occurred at the police station rather than at the place of seizure. In People v. Resurreccion, the Court clarified that “marking upon immediate confiscation” does not preclude the possibility of marking at the police station. The Court has consistently emphasized that the key is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, rather than strict adherence to procedural formalities.

The Court affirmed the lower court’s findings that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items. PSI Lizardo positively identified the items seized from the appellant as the same items he marked at the police station and turned over to the laboratory for examination. PI Laya, the forensic chemist, confirmed that the items he examined tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride and that they bore the same markings. This unbroken chain of custody, coupled with the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, supported the conviction of the appellant.

Concerning the proper penalties, the appellant was caught delivering a total of 12 grams of shabu. The illegal delivery, dispensation, distribution, and transportation of drugs are punishable under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which prescribes a penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00). However, because of R.A. No. 9346, which prohibits the imposition of the death penalty, only life imprisonment and a fine can be imposed. Thus, the Court found that the penalty imposed by the RTC and affirmed by the CA was within the range provided by law.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody of the seized drugs, despite alleged procedural lapses in the handling of the evidence. The defense argued that these lapses compromised the integrity of the evidence and warranted acquittal.
What does “chain of custody” mean in drug cases?	“Chain of custody” refers to the sequence of transfers and handling of evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. Each person who handled the evidence must be accounted for to ensure that the integrity and identity of the evidence are preserved.
What are the requirements for handling seized drugs under R.A. No. 9165?	R.A. No. 9165 requires the apprehending officer to immediately inventory and photograph the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. However, non-compliance with these requirements does not automatically invalidate the seizure if the integrity of the evidence is preserved.
What happens if there are lapses in the chain of custody?	Lapses in the chain of custody can cast doubt on the integrity and identity of the evidence, potentially leading to acquittal. However, the prosecution can still secure a conviction if they can demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, despite the lapses.
Why was the conviction upheld in this case despite the lack of photographs?	The conviction was upheld because the inventory was conducted in the presence of a barangay kagawad and two media representatives, which the Court deemed sufficient to safeguard the evidence from alteration or tampering. Also, the defense did not question the integrity of the evidence during trial.
Where should the seized drugs be marked?	Ideally, the seized drugs should be marked immediately at the place of seizure. However, the Court has recognized that marking can also be done at the police station or office of the apprehending team, especially if the circumstances warrant it.
What is the penalty for illegal delivery of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165?	Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty for illegal delivery of dangerous drugs is life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00). Due to R.A. No. 9346, the death penalty is not imposed.
What is the significance of this case for law enforcement?	This case emphasizes the importance of following proper procedures in handling seized drugs but also recognizes that substantial compliance is sufficient if the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs are preserved. It also highlights that defense must be asserted at the proper time.

The People v. Sitti Domado case reaffirms the principle that while strict adherence to procedural rules is preferred in drug-related cases, the paramount consideration is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. This ruling balances the need for effective law enforcement with the protection of individual rights, ensuring that convictions are based on reliable evidence and due process is observed.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. SITTI DOMADO, APPELLANT., G.R. No. 172971, June 16, 2010