In Zaragga v. People, we held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti. Thus, the accused were acquitted due to the prosecution’s failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu. In People v. Sitco, we enumerated other occasions wherein acquittal was proper for failure of the prosecution to establish a complete chain of custody, such as:
In a string of cases, we declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu, and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the evidence before it was finally offered in court, fatally conflicts with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused.
As in People v. Partoza, this case suffers from the failure of the prosecution witness to provide the details establishing an unbroken chain of custody. In Partoza, the police officer testifying did not relate to whom the custody of the drugs was turned over. The evidence of the prosecution likewise did not disclose the identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination and pending presentation in court. (People v. Ulat, G.R.No. 180504, December 5, 2011)
The prosecution failed to
show how SPO1 Pamor ensured the integrity of the seized items from the time it
was entrusted to him at the place of confiscation until the team reached the
police station until he eventually handed them over again to PO2 Lagmay for the
marking of the sachets. Neither did the prosecution show to whom the
confiscated articles were turned over and the manner they were preserved after
the laboratory examination and until their final presentation in court as
evidence of the corpus delicti. Clearly, these lapses raise doubt on the
integrity and identity of the drugs presented as evidence in court.
Further, on the basis of
the testimony of PO2 Lagmay, the confiscated items were not immediately marked
at the scene of the crime. More significantly, although these items were
allegedly marked in the police station, there was no showing that it was done
in the presence of the accused-appellant or his chosen representative (People of the Philippines Vs. Jose Alex Secreto, G.R. No. 198115. February 27, 2013).
No comments:
Post a Comment