CASE DIGEST
Tan y Sia v. People
G.R. No. 232611 (Resolution), [April 26, 2021]
SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V
Drug cases; Buy-bust
Operation; Validity of Search warrant; Chain of Custody
In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
"objective test" requires that the prosecution paint a clear picture
of how the initial contact between the buyer and the pusher was made. It is not
enough to show that there was an exchange of money and illegal drugs. The
details that led to such exchange must be clearly and adequately accounted for.
Failing in which will certainly cast a doubt on the veracity of the whole
buy-bust operation.
Jasper Tan was arrested in a buy-bust operation after police officers conducted surveillance on him and obtained a search warrant for his house. During the operation, police officers observed Jasper conducting a drug transaction at his house, and later searched his room in the presence of Barangay Captain Emerenciana Velasco. Jasper challenges the validity of the search warrant, arguing that it lacked specific descriptions of the premises to be searched. He also claims his right to personally witness the search was violated as he was already arrested and his movement restricted when the search was conducted. Additionally, he claims that the prosecution failed to comply with the chain of custody rule.
Whether or not the prosecution was able
to establish the buy-bust operation through the "objective test."
NO. The prosecution failed to establish the buy-bust
operation through the "objective test." This test requires specific
details of the transaction to be clearly presented, including the initial
contact between the poseur-buyer and the seller, the offer, payment, and
delivery of the illegal drug. However, the prosecution did not adequately establish
these elements. There is no clear indication of the initial contact, offer, or
agreement on the purchase price. Additionally, there is a lack of direct
observation of the drug sale by the police officer involved. Moreover, crucial
witnesses, such as the poseur-buyer, were not presented to provide firsthand
accounts of the transaction. As a result, Jasper's guilt regarding the illegal
sale of drugs becomes doubtful based on these inconsistencies and gaps in the
prosecution's case.
Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain
of custody.
NO. The
prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. There are
critical gaps in the chain of custody process, including uncertainties
regarding how the item subject to the buy-bust operation was transferred to the
police officers and what happened to the item while in the poseur-buyer's
possession. Furthermore, there is no clear testimony regarding the marking of
the seized items or their identification in court. These lapses raise doubts
about the identity and integrity of the evidence recovered from Jasper. As a
result, the evidence loses its evidentiary value due to the violation of
mandatory legal requirements.
Whether or not the search conducted after Jasper's
arrest was proper.
NO. The search conducted was improper. The search warrant authorized the
search of Jasper's room inside a house where he resides, but the transaction
occurred at the gate of the same house. During the search, Jasper wasn't
brought to his room to observe the search, as required by law. According to
Section 8 Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, the search of a house or room should
be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant or witnesses. The absence
of such presence renders the search unreasonable, and any evidence obtained
becomes inadmissible. Since the confiscated shabu is the main evidence, its
exclusion leads to the conclusion that there's insufficient evidence to convict
Jasper, warranting his acquittal on both charges.
No comments:
Post a Comment