People vs Kamad

Facts:
Prosecution version: PNP Drug enforcement unit of southern police unit( Taguig
police) received information from an asset that certain zenaida was engaged in
illegal sale of shabu at Purok 4, silverio compound in paranaque. Tagui police then
formed a buy-bust team composed of inspector Parillas, Maulit Manfoste, Sanchez
and Velasco. Sanchez acted as poseur buyer and used marked-money. Thereafter,
the team proceeded to the target place where they immediately saw accusedappellant and Leo. The asset and Sanchez approached the 2 while the team
watched from the distance; the accused then handed Sanchez a plastic sachet
containing substance suspected to be shabu. Sanchez lighted his cigarette as signal
for the team to approach. The team arrested Leo and Kamad. Thereafter, the team
brought sample of the substance to Crime Lab and the test yielded positive results
for metamphetamine hydrochloride.
Defense version: Leo and the accused denied the charge and claimed that she and
her boyfriend Leo were framed up; that they went to the house of Leos cousins and
that they waited for Leos cousin when 4 armed men entered the house and
introduced themselves as police officers. Leo and Zaida were frisked but nothing
was found in their possession; that she was asked where she kept the shabu; that
she replied that she was not selling shabu; afterwards, they were taken to the PNP
headquarters where they were gain frisked and asked the same questions and they
were detained for about a day and brought them to Prosecutors office for inquest
without showing them any shabu.
RTC: Declared the accused guilty as charged.
Accused questioned the regularity of their arrest and or the buy-bust operation. She
argued that no presumption of regularity could arise considering that the police
violated NAPOLCOM rules by using the asset; the rules prohibit the deputation of
private persons as PNP civilian agents. Accused likewise pointed out the material
inconsistencies in the testimony of the witnesses : a. uncertainty of Sanchez
regarding the time the buy-bust team was dispatched at the target area; confusion
of po3 Maulit on the identity of the team leader of the team; mistake of Maulit that
only the recovered sachet was marked ES, while marked money was marked MF;
and contradcting statements of the policemen as to whom between the accused
and Leo who sold the shabu.
CA: Affirmed in toto. Brushed aside the alleged inconsistencies on the ground that
the accused were caught in flagrante delicto for illegal sale of shabu committed in
the presence of police officers.
Issue: Whether there was a presumption of regularity in the conduct of buy-bust
operation by the police?
HELD: NO. Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in the
handling of the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of
custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made

in this case. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the
law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law;
where the officer act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. This
discrepancy and the gap in the chain of custody immediately affect proof of the
corpus delicti without which the accused must be acquitted. Additionally, the
prosecutions failure to establish with moral certainty all the elements of the crime
and to identify the accused as perpetrator signify that it failed to overturn the
presumption of innocence that every accused enjoys in criminal prosecution.
Accused acquitted.
Compliance with the prescribed procedure
1. The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall
immediately after seizure physically inventory and photograph the same
in the presence of the accused or person from whom such items were
confiscated or seized, representative from media and DOJ or his counsel, or
any elected official who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory ;
In case of non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable
grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by apprehending officers, shall not
render void or invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
In the case, SPO2 Sanchez testified on the seizure and handling of the
seized shabu. The records showed that Sanchez failed to provide SPECIFIC
DETAILS on how the seized shabu was marked before it was sent to
forensic laboratory. He failed to state whether the marking was done
immediately AFTER the seized or DURING INVESTIGATION. He likewise
failed to disclose whether physical inventory and photography had taken
place or if done in the presence of the accused or persons mentioned
above. Hence, the prosecution failed to establish CORPUS DELICTI.
Compliance with chain of custody
A. 1st link of custody
SPO2 Sanchez lacks the specifics on how seized shabu was handled
immediately after the accused appellants arrest. Although no records show
that SPO2 sanchez testified that he actually seized the shabu when he
arrested the accused, he never disclosed the identity of the person who had
the custody of the shabu after its seizure nor he retained possession of the
shabu from the place of the arrest until they reached the police station.
Sanchez failed to state the time and place as well as to identify the person
who made the markings on 2 plastic sachets.
B. 2nd link
Sanchez and Maulit failed to provide particulars on whether shabu was turned
over to the investigator. Thus, this big gap exist on who had the custody and
possession of shabu prior to , during, and immediately after the police
investigation, and how the shabu was stored, preserved, labelled, and
recorded from the time of seizure up to its receipt by forensic lab.
C. 3rd link

The documents revealed that the specimen arrived at the laboratory sealed
in one small brown envelope bearing unidentified signatures of Edwin
Plopinio. The pieces of evidence failed to identify the person who personally
brought the seized shabu to PNP Crime lab and the person who received the
same in the laboratory was Mangalip.
D. 4th link
Different dates of seizure