By Rey Panaligan  The Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the conviction of two persons in illegal drugs cases, but acquitted four others for failure of law enforcement agents and the prosecution to preserve the integrity of the seized dangerous drugs as evidence. Affirmed were the convictions of Eric L. Sevilla of Panabo City in Davao del Norte and Frankie M. Magalong of Dagupan City in Pangasinan. The life imprisonment imposed on them by the trial courts was upheld by the Court of Appeals (CA). Acquitted were Hermogenes L. Managat and Dindo S. Caracuel of Los Banos, Laguna; Jonathan B. Vistro of Urbiztondo, Pangasinan; and Eduardo V. Catinguel of Bugallon, Pangasinan. They were ordered released from prison unless being held for other valid cause. The SC decisions on the five cases were released last month. The four decisions on the Sevilla, Vistro, and Managat and Caracuel, and Catinguel cases were written by Associate Justice Mariano C. del Castillo. Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta wrote the decision in Magalong case. Sevilla was arrested in 2010 for selling two packs of dried marijuana leaves to a policeman who acted as a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation. He was charged in two cases – one for selling and the other for possessing dangerous drugs. On Dec. 1, 2014, he was sentenced to life in prison for the sale of marijuana, and 12 years for possession of the illegal drug by the Panabo City regional trial court (RTC). The rulings were affirmed by the CA based in Mindanao on July 29, 2016. The SC found Sevilla’s appeal unmeritorious. Magalong was arrested on July 10, 2013 in a buy-bust operation in Dagupan City where the police confiscated from him 4.031 grams of shabu. When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty to the charge of selling illegal drugs. After trial, he was convicted by the RTC in a decision dated Feb. 11, 2015. The ruling was upheld by the CA in a decision issued on Oct. 21, 2016. In ruling on Magalong’s appeal, the SC said: “Verily, the prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty and prove to the Court beyond reasonable doubt that there is an unbroken chain of custody over the confiscated illegal drug, from the time it was lawfully seized and came into the possession of the apprehending officers up to the time it was presented and offered in evidence before the trial court. “The prosecution presented every person who touched the exhibit. They described how and from whom the seized shabu was received, where it was and what happened to it while in their possession, the condition in which it was received, the condition it was delivered to the next link in the chain, and the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. “Against the overwhelming evidence for the prosecution, Magalong merely denied the accusations against him. We have invariably viewed with disfavor the defense of denial and frame-up because it can easily be concocted and it is a common and standard defense ploy in prosecutions for violation of R.A. No. 9165. “The burden of proof is on Magalong to defeat the presumption that the police officers properly performed their official duties. He failed.” Managat and Caracuel were arrested on Feb. 1, 2007 in Barangay San Antonio in Los Banos, Laguna for selling 3.92 grams of dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops in a buy-bust operation. After trial, the Calamba City RTC convicted them on May 26, 2014. The conviction was affirmed by the CA on Aug. 31, 2016 with a ruling that while there was no strict compliance with the chain of custody requirements, the identity of the seized drug was duly proven and each link in the chain of custody was accounted for. On appeal, the SC ruled: “After a careful examination of the records of the case, we find that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drug.” The SC said that “aside from the gaps in the chain of custody of the seized specimen, the Court observes that no photograph and inventory of the seized item were made in the presence of an elected public official, a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and of the media.” It pointed out that under Section 21 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, clearly requires the apprehending team to mark, conduct a physical inventory, and to photograph the seized item in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, and witnessed by an elected public official and representatives of DOJ and the media. It stressed that “the law mandates that the insulating witnesses be present during the marking, the actual inventory, and the taking of photographs of the seized items to deter the common practice of planting evidence.” “While strict compliance may not always be possible, the prosecution has the burden to prove justifiable reasons for non-compliance. No explanation was, however, offered for non-compliance with Section 21of RA 9165,” it said. “Evidently, the prosecution's non-presentation of the necessary witnesses constituted gaps in the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drug,” it added. In the case of Vistro, the CA affirmed on Sept. 4, 2015 his conviction handed down by the San Carlos City RTC on Nov. 14, 2013 for selling 0.01 gram of shabu to an agent of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in Poblacion, Urbiztondo, Pangasinan. Vistro’s co-accused, Teresita A. Baysic, was acquitted by the trial court. On his appeal, the SC acquitted Vistro and ordered his release from jail. The SC ruled: “In this case, while a barangay official signed as a witness in the Certificate of Inventory, there was no mention that the inventory and photograph of the seized shabu was done in the presence of representatives from the media and the DOJ. “The arresting officer merely testified that the buy-bust team marked the seized shabu in the police station since the barangay captain and other officials of the place where the crime was committed were relatives of the appellant. He failed to provide a justifiable ground for the absence of the representatives from the media and the DOJ during the inventory and photograph of the seized shabu at the police station. “The failure of the prosecution to secure the attendance of these witnesses, without providing any reasonable justification therefor, creates doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu. Thus, there is no recourse for this Court other than to reverse the conviction of appellant” (Vistro). In the case of Catinguel, the Lingayen RTC found him guilty of selling one plastic sachet of marijuana leaves to a policeman who acted as a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation in Poblacion, Bugallon, Pangasinan on March 3, 2014. The Aug. 26, 2014 RTC decision was affirmed by the CA on March 4, 2016. On appeal before the SC, Catinguel said the police failed to comply with the requirements in the handling of seized drugs in a buy-bust operation, particularly on the making of the seized item at the place of arrest. In granting Catinguel’s appeal and ordering his release from jail, the SC said: “The prosecution was clearly amiss in showing that the chain of custody was complied with in the present case which gives this Court no other course of action but to reverse the assailed rulings and acquit accused-appellant.” In earlier decisions, the SC had pointed out that RA 9165, the marking, physical inventory, and taking of photograph of the seized drugs be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. “The said law further requires that the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, any elected public official, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ);17 or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, any elected public official and a representative from either the National Prosecution Service or the media,” the SC had stressed. It pointed out that “the procedure in Section 21 of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects."