In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court acquitted Rodel Velasco y Luzon of illegal possession of explosives, emphasizing the critical importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for evidence. The Court found that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove that the fragmentation hand grenade presented in court was the same one allegedly seized from Velasco. This decision underscores that even with evidence suggesting possession, failure to adhere to strict evidentiary procedures can lead to acquittal, safeguarding the constitutional presumption of innocence.

Hand Grenade’s Journey: When Missing Links in Evidence Chain Lead to Freedom

The case began on March 20, 2012, when police officers conducting “OPLAN SITA” along G. Araneta Avenue in Quezon City stopped a vehicle in which Rodel Velasco was a passenger. Allegedly, a gun was spotted on another passenger, Roberto Alegre, prompting a search. During this search, PO3 Jason Taguba claimed to have found a fragmentation grenade on Velasco. Velasco and his companions were arrested and charged with violating Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9516, for unlawful possession of explosives.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Velasco, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). However, the Supreme Court reversed these decisions, focusing on a critical flaw in the prosecution’s case: the compromised chain of custody. The Court emphasized that to convict someone of illegal possession of explosives, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the explosive and the accused’s lack of a license or permit. While Velasco admittedly had no permit, the integrity of the evidence itself came under scrutiny.

The Supreme Court highlighted the importance of an unbroken chain of custody, which ensures that the evidence presented in court is the same item seized from the accused and that it has not been tampered with or altered. The Court cited People v. Punzalan, stating that maintaining the chain of custody requires “testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it was offered in evidence.” This includes detailing how and from whom the evidence was received, its location, its condition, and the precautions taken to prevent alteration.

In Velasco’s case, the prosecution’s evidence revealed significant gaps in this chain. PO1 Bacani testified that the grenade was turned over to the investigator after Velasco’s arrest. However, the record was silent on how the investigator handled and stored the grenade and what precautions were taken to maintain its integrity. Adding to these concerns, PO3 Taguba admitted that a chain of custody form was not executed when the grenade was transferred to the investigator. This failure to document the handling of the evidence created a significant doubt regarding its authenticity.

Moreover, the transfer of the grenade from Police Station 1 of the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) to PO3 Rodillas of the Explosives Ordinance Disposal Division was also unclear. PO3 Rodillas testified that he received a request for a certification from Police Station 1, but there was no testimony or documentation detailing how the grenade was physically transferred to him. This lack of clarity further weakened the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court has consistently held that strict adherence to chain of custody procedures is crucial in drug and explosives cases to prevent tampering and ensure the integrity of the evidence.

Another critical flaw was the failure to produce a confiscation or seizure receipt. The Supreme Court has previously stated in People v. Bansil that “[r]eceipts for seized items are mandatory on the part of apprehending and seizing police officers.” While the CA considered a referral letter and a certification as seizure receipts, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation. The referral letter merely recommended charges against Velasco and his companions, while the certification from PO3 Rodillas only confirmed the receipt of a grenade from Police Station 1, not its examination or connection to Velasco.

The Court also pointed out a crucial inconsistency regarding the markings on the grenade. PO3 Taguba testified that he marked the grenade with his initials. However, PO3 Rodillas stated that the grenade he examined bore the markings “R.V. – J.D.,” which stood for “Rodel Velasco – Jason Dagupan.” This discrepancy cast serious doubt on whether the grenade examined by PO3 Rodillas was the same one allegedly seized from Velasco. This directly undermines the prosecution’s ability to prove the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime.

Even the testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses, PO3 Taguba and PO1 Bacani, contained inconsistencies. PO1 Bacani stated that Velasco and his companions were frisked inside the vehicle, while PO3 Taguba claimed they were already outside the vehicle when frisked. While the CA dismissed this as trivial, the Supreme Court emphasized that these inconsistencies relate directly to how the authorities discovered the grenade and therefore cannot be considered inconsequential. The conflicting accounts raise serious questions about the credibility of the officers’ testimonies and the validity of the arrest.

The Supreme Court concluded that these cumulative failures created reasonable doubt as to Velasco’s guilt. The Court emphasized that in criminal cases, the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Given the compromised chain of custody, the lack of a proper seizure receipt, the conflicting testimonies, and the discrepancy in the markings on the grenade, the Court had no choice but to acquit Velasco.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The primary issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the fragmentation grenade presented in court was the same one allegedly seized from Rodel Velasco, considering the compromised chain of custody. The Supreme Court focused on the integrity of the evidence and adherence to proper procedures.
What is the chain of custody rule?	The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It involves documenting and accounting for the location and possession of evidence from its initial discovery until its presentation in court.
Why is the chain of custody important?	The chain of custody ensures the integrity and authenticity of evidence by preventing tampering, substitution, or alteration. It establishes that the item presented in court is the same item recovered from the crime scene or the accused.
What is a corpus delicti?	The corpus delicti refers to the body of the crime, or the actual commission of the crime charged. In illegal possession cases, it includes proving the existence of the prohibited item and the accused’s possession of it.
What is the effect of failing to issue a seizure receipt?	The failure to issue a seizure receipt for seized items is a significant procedural lapse that casts doubt on the legitimacy of the seizure and the integrity of the evidence. The Supreme Court has emphasized that issuing receipts is a mandatory duty of apprehending officers.
What does reasonable doubt mean in a criminal case?	Reasonable doubt is the state of mind in which a person cannot say they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. If reasonable doubt exists, the accused must be acquitted.
What was the basis for Velasco’s acquittal?	Velasco was acquitted due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the fragmentation grenade, inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers, and the lack of a proper seizure receipt. These issues created reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
What law did Velasco allegedly violate?	Velasco was charged with violating Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9516, for unlawful possession of explosives. This law penalizes the illegal possession of explosive devices without the necessary license or permit.

The Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Velasco serves as a reminder of the stringent requirements for evidence handling in criminal cases, particularly those involving illegal possession of firearms or explosives. It reinforces the importance of meticulous documentation and adherence to established procedures to protect the rights of the accused. This case highlights that even apparent possession is not enough for a conviction if the integrity of the evidence is compromised.

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 vs. Rodel Velasco y Luzon, G.R. No. 231787, August 19, 2019