PEOPLE VS. CARDENAS G.R. No. 190342 By : Marcelo, MJ
Facts:: Facts
(DSOD-CIDG) in Camp Crame received a report from its confidential informant regarding the rampant selling of shabu by shabu by a certain Cipriano Cardenas (a.k.a. Ope!) at the "ayatas #rea in $%e&on City. #cting on the information' a team as organi&ed to cond%ct a b%y-b%st operation. "O "alacio recovered to (*) other clear plastic sachets from the acc%sed+s right pocket. ,he three sachets ere marked CC-'! CC-*! and CC-! CC! representing the initials of the acc%sed' Cipriano Cardenas. /e as then bro%ght to Camp Crame' here he as booked and investigated. ,he plastic sachets recovered from him ere transmitted to the "0" Crime 1aboratory for analysis %pon the re2%est of "olice Chief Inspector 3icardo 0. Sto. Domingo' 4r. of the DSODCIDG. ,he res%lts of the Initial 1aboratory 3eport dated 56 4an%ary *55 shoed that the hite crystalline s%bstance contained in the three () heat-sealed plastic sachets tested positive for methyl amphetamine hydrochloride' or shabu or shabu'' ith a total eight of 5.57 gram. ,he 3,C convicted him of the crime charged' giving credence to the testimonies and pieces of evidence presented by the prosec%tion. It r%led that the police police operation had folloed the normal co%rse of a dr%g entrapment entrapment operation' and that the arresting officers presented as prosec%tion itnesses ere credible based on their candid and honest demeanor. ,he 3,C 3,C considered as abs%rd the allegation of the acc%sed that he had been himsically arrested by the police officers d%ring the operation. It fo%nd as eak and inconceivable his %ncorroborated denial of the charge. C# affirmed in toto the toto the 3,C+s Decision' hich it fo%nd to be s%pported by the facts and la.
Issue8
9hether 9hether or not there as complian compliance ce ith the re2%irements re2%irements for the proper c%stody of sei&ed sei&ed dangero%s dangero%s dr%gs %nder 3.#. :;7.
Rul!":: Rul!"
<=S> In People In People v. Salonga' Salonga' e held that it is essential for the prosec%tion to prove that the prohibited dr%g confiscated or recovered from the s%spect is the very same s%bstance offered in co%rt as e?hibit. Its identity m%st be established ith %navering e?actit%de for it to lead to a finding of g%ilt. ,h%s' dr%g enforcement agents and police officers involved in a b%y-b%st operation are re2%ired by 3.#. :;7 and its implementing r%les to mark all sei&ed evidence at the b%y-b%st scene. ,he chain of c%stody is defined in Section (b) of Dangero%s Dr%gs @oard 3eg%lation 0o. 'Series of *55*' hich implements 3.#. 0o. :;7. ,o protect the civil liberties of the innocent' the r%le ens%res that the prosec%tion+s evidence meets the stringent standard of proof beyond reasonable do%bt. 9e have held' hoever that s%bstantial compliance ith the proced%ral aspect of the chain of c%stody r%le does not necessarily render the sei&ed dr%g items inadmissible. In People In People v. v. Ara, Ara, e e r%led that 3.#. :;7 and its I33 do not re2%ire strict compliance ith the chain of c%stody r%le. @riefly stated' non-compliance ith the proced%ral re2%irements %nder 3# :;7 and its I33 relative to the c%stody' photographing' and dr%g-testing of the apprehended persons' is not a serio%s fla that can render void the sei&%res and c%stody of dr%gs in a b%y-b%st operation.
#ltho%gh e find that the police officers did not strictly comply ith the re2%irements of Section *' #rticle II of the I33 implementing 3.#. :;7' the noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary eight of the dr%gs sei&ed from the acc%sed' beca%se the chain of c%stody of the evidence as shon to be %nbroken %nder the circ%mstances of the case. #e $o !ot %!$ a!& '(o)so! o( state*e!t ! sa$ la+ o( ! a!& (ule t,at +ll -(!" a-out t,e !o! a$*ss-lt& o% t,e co!%scate$ a!$/o( see$ $(u"s $ue to !o!co*'la!ce +t, Secto! 21 o% Re'u-lc Act No. 91. ,e ssue t,e(e%o(e % t,e(e s !o!co*'la!ce +t, sa$ secto! s !ot o% a$*ss-lt& -ut o% +e",t 5 e)$e!ta(& *e(t o( '(o-at)e )alue 5 to -e ")e! t,e e)$e!ce. ,e +e",t to -e ")e! -& t,e cou(ts o! sa$ e)$e!ce $e'e!$s o! t,e c(cu*sta!ces o-ta!!" ! eac, case. (=mphasis s%pplied.)