Besenio vs. People

The integrity and evidentiary value of seized dangerous drugs are not preserved where the forensic chemist fails to testify on the post-examination handling, resealing, and storage of the specimen, thereby breaking the fourth link in the chain of custody, notwithstanding a judicial admission by the defense that cures earlier procedural lapses.

Alex Besenio y Cledoro was charged with illegal possession of 0.1 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) allegedly seized from his house pursuant to Search Warrant No. 06-13. The warrant was implemented on August 24, 2006, by a police team from the PNP Camarines Sur Intelligence Section. The prosecution's evidence showed that a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing the suspected drug was found in one of the rooms. The police conducted an inventory at the scene with two barangay officials present and later conducted a second inventory at the police station with a media representative and a municipal councilor, but without a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). The seized item tested positive for shabu upon laboratory examination. Besenio interposed the defenses of denial and frame-up.

• Nature of the Charge: Besenio was indicted for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for illegal possession of 0.1 gram of shabu.
• Execution of the Search Warrant: On August 24, 2006, at around 5:00 a.m., a police team implemented Search Warrant No. 06-13 at Besenio's house. The team secured the presence of two barangay kagawads, Wilfredo Bayos and Agapito Baronio, Jr., as witnesses.
• Seizure and Initial Inventory: Inside a room, the team leader, PSINSP Ricardo Arce, discovered a heat-sealed plastic sachet suspected to contain shabu. The item was marked "AJA" by PO2 Andrew Alcomendas. A Certificate of Inventory/Inventory Receipt was prepared at the scene, witnessed by Besenio and the two barangay officials.
• Second Inventory at Police Station: At the Baao Police Station, a separate Certificate of Inventory was prepared and signed by media representative Joan Verdeflor and Municipal Councilor Ulysses Dato. No DOJ representative was present, which the police justified by stating it was too early in the morning.
• Laboratory Examination: The seized sachet was delivered to the crime laboratory, received by clerk Rosemarie Llona, and turned over to forensic chemist PINSP Richard Severo. Qualitative examination confirmed the substance was methamphetamine hydrochloride.
• Defense's Version: Besenio invoked denial and frame-up.
• Judicial Admission During Trial: During the testimony of PSINSP Arce, Besenio's counsel made a judicial admission, stating: "I am amenable that what is in the possession of the chemist from the laboratory is the same items the one he allegedly found." The RTC noted this admission in its Judgment.

• Chain of Custody Violations: Petitioner argued that the police officers failed to comply strictly with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as the required three insulating witnesses (a DOJ representative, a media representative, and an elected public official) were not present during the seizure and inventory. The absence of a DOJ representative was not justified.
• Unjustified Non-Compliance: Petitioner maintained that the police officers' excuse for the absence of a DOJ representative—that it was 5:00 a.m.—was flimsy and did not constitute a justifiable ground, especially since the search was a planned operation following surveillance and a test buy.

• Substantial Compliance: Respondent countered that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved despite the procedural lapse, as shown by the prosecution witnesses' testimonies.
• Presumption of Regularity: Respondent argued that the police officers' actions carried the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, which the defense's bare denial and frame-up allegation could not overcome.

• Chain of Custody Compliance: Whether the prosecution proved an unbroken chain of custody for the seized dangerous drugs, specifically satisfying the requirements for the first and fourth links.
• Effect of Judicial Admission: Whether the judicial admission made by the defense during trial cured the prosecution's non-compliance with the witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
• Sufficiency of Forensic Chemist's Testimony: Whether the testimony of the forensic chemist adequately established the fourth link in the chain of custody, pertaining to the handling and preservation of the seized drugs after examination.

• Chain of Custody Compliance: The prosecution failed to comply with the first link of the chain of custody rule. The required insulating witnesses (a DOJ representative, a media representative, and an elected public official) were not present during the seizure and immediate inventory. The police officers' justification for the absence of a DOJ representative was insufficient.
• Effect of Judicial Admission: The judicial admission made by petitioner's counsel during trial authenticated the identity of the seized drugs from the time of seizure up to their turnover to the forensic chemist (the first to third links). This admission cured the earlier procedural lapse regarding the insulating witnesses for those links.
• Sufficiency of Forensic Chemist's Testimony: The prosecution failed to prove the fourth link in the chain of custody. The forensic chemist did not testify on critical details: whether he resealed the specimen after examination, the manner of its handling and storage before, during, and after analysis, and the precautionary measures taken to preserve its integrity before court submission. This gap broke the chain and created reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti.

• Chain of Custody Rule — In illegal drugs cases, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. This involves four critical links: (1) seizure and marking; (2) turnover to the investigating officer; (3) turnover to the forensic chemist; and (4) turnover and submission to the court. The Court applied this doctrine to acquit the petitioner due to a failure in the fourth link.
• Judicial Admission in Criminal Cases — A judicial admission is a statement made by a party or counsel in the course of proceedings that does not require proof. It is binding on the admitting party and constitutes a waiver of proof on the admitted fact. The Court held that the defense counsel's admission authenticated the identity of the seized drugs up to the third link, curing earlier non-compliance with witness requirements.

• "The prosecution must still prove compliance with the fourth link. In order to do so, the forensic chemist must testify 'on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug[s] submitted for examination, i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drug[s] was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in.'" — This passage underscores the specific testimonial burden required to complete the chain of custody.
• "Considering that the prosecution failed to establish with moral certainty the identity and unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drugs purportedly bought and seized from Besenio, a verdict of acquittal is therefore in order." — This states the direct consequence of a broken chain of custody.

• Nisperos v. People, G.R. No. 250927, November 29, 2022 — Cited as the controlling precedent that established the detailed guidelines for marking, inventory, and photography of seized drugs, including the required insulating witnesses depending on the date of seizure.
• People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 252886, March 15, 2021 — Cited for the definition of the four critical links in the chain of custody.
• People v. Fandialan, G.R. No. 254412, July 6, 2022 — Cited for the required details of the forensic chemist's testimony to establish the fourth link.
• Tañamor v. People, 872 Phil. 982 (2020) — Cited for the principle that the presence of insulating witnesses protects against evidence tampering and that failure jeopardizes the corpus delicti.

• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — The provision governing the custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, requiring immediate inventory and photography in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. The Court found non-compliance with this provision.
• Section 4, Rule 129, Revised Rules on Evidence — The provision stating that a judicial admission may only be contradicted by showing it was made through palpable mistake or was not actually made. The Court applied this to hold the defense bound by its admission.

• Justice Caguioa (Chairperson)
• Justice Gaerlan
• Justice Singh