Figueroa v. Sandiganbayan, Special Third Division, G.R. Nos. 235965-66, [February 15, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Figueroa v. Sandiganbayan, Special Third Division

 G.R. Nos. 235965-66, [February 15, 2022]

FIRST, LOPEZ, M.V 

Inordinate Delay; Speedy Disposition of cases

 

An accused has no duty to bring himself to trial. The accused must be spared from the rigors and expense of a full-blown trial where it is clear that inordinate and vexatious delays crept the conduct of preliminary investigation which are violative of the constitutional guarantee to speedy disposition of cases. 

 

The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) lodged a corruption complaint against Rene Figueroa and other officers, initiating a preliminary investigation on July 19, 2011. By July 29 of the same year, the Office of the Ombudsman directed Rene and his co-accused to submit their counter-affidavits within ten days. Subsequently, on August 16, 2011 Rene requested an extension of ten additional days to file his counter-affidavit, which was granted. He submitted his counter-affidavit on September 5,2011. The Ombudsman recommended filing charges against Rene and others for violation of Sections 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 on September 22, 2014. Charges were filed before the Sandiganbayan on June 3, 2016, and the amended informations were admitted on July 4, 2017. Rene moved to quash the informations on July 20, 2017, citing undue delay in case handling, as more than six years had passed since the complaint was filed without a decision on the charges to be filed. However, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash. 

 

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying Rene's motion to quash the informations. 

YES. The Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash. 

Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution safeguards individuals' entitlement to a speedy disposition of cases in all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. Cagang v. Sandiganbayan delineates the approach for assessing claims related to the right to speedy disposition of cases or speedy trial. The right to speedy trial applies only to criminal prosecutions before courts of law, while the right to speedy disposition of cases applies to any tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial. Notably, the period for fact-finding investigations before filing formal complaints is not counted in determining delays. As such, investigations preceding the filing of formal complaints are not counted in determining delay. Analysis of delay duration is not rigidly mechanical and must consider circumstances.

In the case at hand, the Ombudsman exceeded the time for preliminary investigation, warranting justification for the delay. However, the Ombudsman failed to provide sufficient explanation, merely arguing that any delay was reasonable. While Rene did not initially assert his right, he raised it in due time before the Sandiganbayan's ruling on the amended informations, sufficient to invoke constitutional protection against undue delay.

 

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Quiap y Evangelista v. People, G.R. No. 229183 (Resolution), [February 17, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Quiap y Evangelista v. People

 G.R. No. 229183 (Resolution), [February 17, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V 

Drug cases; Buy-bust Operation; Validity of Search warrant; Chain of Custody

 

The presence of the insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. RA 9165 Requires three (3) witnesses to be present during the physical inventory and taking of photographs of pieces of evidence seized from a suspect, namely representatives from the DOJ, media, and public elective official - necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drugs. 

 

PO2 Garcia received information from a confidential asset about a person named "Kacho" planning to buy shabu in Sta. Cruz, Laguna. The authorities organized an entrapment operation and intercepted a passenger jeepney carrying Kacho and the asset. During the interception, Kacho attempted to discard a wrapped object, but PO2 Garcia prevented him. Upon inspection, the object contained a sachet of white crystalline substance. Kacho, later identified as petitioner Leonides Quiap, was taken to the police station where the sachet was marked and sent for laboratory examination. The examination confirmed it contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. Leonides challenges the legality of his warrantless arrest and the admissibility of the seized item, citing procedural lapses in handling the evidence. 

 

Whether or not the chain of custody was properly observed. 

NO. The failure to adhere to required procedures has resulted in a significant gap in the chain of custody. The absence of mandated witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized item casts doubt on the integrity of the chain of custody. There was no representation from the media or the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. Additionally, the connection between the investigating officer and the forensic chemist was not definitively established, and precautions to prevent tampering were not adequately described. SPO2 Macabajon received the specimen but did not testify on its transfer to the forensic chemist. Due to these shortcomings, Leonides must be acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to establish a continuous chain of custody.

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

Tan y Sia v. People, G.R. No. 232611 (Resolution), [April 26, 2021]

 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.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

People v. Napoles, G.R. No. 247611 (Resolution), [January 13, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Napoles

 G.R. No. 247611 (Resolution), [January 13, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V 

Posting bail pending appeal; conviction of capital offense (Plunder); provisional release on humanitarian grounds

 

OCA Circular No. 91-2020 does not mandate blanket release of Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDLs) due to the pandemic but rather emphasizes the implementation of existing policies on bail and speedy trial. Bail becomes a matter of judicial discretion post-conviction and must be carefully weighed given the determination of guilt. In cases of capital offenses, bail should typically be denied.

 

This is an Urgent Motion for Recognizance/Bail or House Arrest for Humanitarian Reason Due to COVID-19 filed by Janet Lim Napoles. The Sandiganbayan convicted Richard A. Cambe and Janet Lim Napoles of Plunder relative to the utilization of Senator Ramon "Bong" Revilla, Jr.'s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF). In her Motion, Napoles alleges that she is at risk of contracting COVID-19 inside the prison due to her Diabetes, an underlying COVID-19 health condition. She is entitled to be provisionally released on humanitarian grounds. She raises that the Nelson Mandela Rules, provide the basis for the release of persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) in times of public health emergencies. 

 

Whether or not the Constitution and the Rules of Court allow an accused to post bail pending the appeal of his, or her conviction of a capital offense.

NO. While the right to bail is linked to the fundamental presumption of innocence, it is not absolute after conviction for such offenses. Bail becomes a matter of judicial discretion post-conviction and must be carefully weighed given the determination of guilt. In cases of capital offenses, bail should typically be denied. In the case at hand, Napoles was convicted of Plunder by the lower court, a capital offense, making her ineligible for bail pending appeal of her conviction. Therefore, her motion for bail must be rejected.

 

Whether or not Napoles could be provisionally released on humanitarian grounds due to the risk of contracting COVID-19.

NO. There are no compelling reasons to justify granting provisional release on humanitarian grounds for Napoles. Previous cases like De La Rama and Enrile, where the Court considered special circumstances for bail, are exceptional and isolated. Napoles' claim of being at risk of contracting COVID-19 due to diabetes does not present a sufficient basis for release. OCA Circular No. 91-2020 does not mandate blanket release of Persons Deprived of Liberty (PDLs) due to the pandemic but rather emphasizes the implementation of existing policies on bail and speedy trial. Releasing an accused convicted of a capital offense goes against constitutional and legal provisions.

 

Whether or not the Nelson Mandela Rules and the international community's call for the temporary release of PDLs due to the threats of COVID-19, provide sufficient basis to grant bail post-conviction.

NO.  The Nelson Mandela Rules, which set international standards for prisoner treatment, do not justify granting bail post-conviction due to COVID-19. These rules outline standards for prisoner healthcare but do not support release on bail pending appeal of a capital offense conviction. Furthermore, the release of prisoners in other countries due to COVID-19 is limited, especially for high-risk inmates. Neither international rules nor global trends support releasing convicted individuals pending appeal for capital offenses. Additionally, Napoles is not entitled to release on recognizance, as it is only available to those who qualify for bail but cannot afford it due to poverty, as per RA No. 10389.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

People v. Mazo y Ybañez, G.R. No. 242273 (Resolution), [November 23, 2020]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Mazo y Ybañez

 G.R. No. 242273 (Resolution), [November 23, 2020]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Illegal Sale and Possesion of dangerous drugs; Buy-bust Operation;  Chain of Custody 

The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule outlined in RA 9165 to maintain the integrity of seized drugs as evidence. Provisions of Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 embody the constitutional aim to prevent the imprisonment of an innocent man. The Court cannot tolerate the lax approach of law enforcers in handling the very corpus delicti of the crime.

 

On January 12, 2017, the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group planned a buy-bust operation against Nico, based on information alleging drug selling activities in Barangay La Paz, Makati City. During the operation, PO1 Andrew O. Amante acted as the poseur-buyer, with PO1 Nathaniel Maculi and PO1 Stephanie Limjap as back-ups. Nico was identified by an informant and subsequently engaged in a transaction with the poseur-buyer, handing over sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Nico, Joey, and Joy were arrested, and the confiscated items were submitted for examination, resulting in positive drug identification. 

However, critical procedural lapses emerged concerning the chain of custody of the seized drugs. First, there was ambiguity regarding where and when the confiscated items were marked. Although PO1 Andrew O. Amante testified to marking the sachets, details on the actual marking process were lacking, creating uncertainty about the integrity of the evidence. Second, the inventory and photograph of the seized items were conducted not immediately after the seizure but at the barangay hall, without justification for the delay. Moreover, the absence of representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media during the inventory further undermined the integrity of the process. These lapses raised questions about the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, violating the chain of custody rule under RA 9165. 

 

Whether or not the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs, as required by law, thus ensuring the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 

NO. The court acquitted Nico and Joey due to a broken chain of custody. It found that the prosecution failed to satisfy the essential requirement of proving the movement and custody of the seized drugs from the time of confiscation to their presentation in court. In illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offenses and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.20 Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court.21 Indeed, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court.22 Here, the records reveal a broken chain of custody.

In this case, the prosecution failed to provide adequate explanations for deviations from these procedural requirements. The apprehending team failed to provide justifiable reasons for non-compliance with Section 21 Chain of Custody Rule, and they likewise failed to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved despite procedural lapses. Specifically, there were deficiencies in the marking, inventory, and witness presence during the seizure, casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence. The police officers only made a general statement that the place of arrest was hostile without elaborating any threat on their security. The operatives also failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved. Worse, it appears that the barangay official was absent when the drugs were seized. Lastly, no representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media as an insulating were present to witness to the inventory and photograph of the seized items.

The court emphasized the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements to prevent the imprisonment of innocent individuals. Therefore, Nico and Joey were acquitted, and the resolution reversed and set aside, with immediate release ordered unless lawfully held for another cause.

CLICK LINK TO VIEW FULL TEXT

People v. Sualog, G.R. No. 250852, [October 10, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Sualog

 G.R. No. 250852, [October 10, 2022]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Murder; Qualifying Circumstance of treachery not proved - charged modified to homicide on appeal 

Any Information which alleges that a qualifying or aggravating circumstance is present, must state the ultimate facts relative to such circumstance. In order for aggravating circumstances to be appreciated, they must be specifically alleged in the information and proven during trial. Likewise, it is insufficient for the prosecution to merely indicate the presence of qualifying circumstances without describing the acts that constitute those circumstance. Failure to do so may result in the disregard of such circumstances in determining the appropriate penalty. 

 

John Francis Sualog was charged with three counts of murder for the deaths of Amado Chavez Maglantay, Eppie U. Maglantay, and Jessa Amie U. Maglantay. The incidents occurred on October 12, 2003, in the Municipality of Libertad, Province of Antique, Philippines. The charges were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Culasi, Antique, with each count alleging that John Francis, armed with a bolo, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously attacked, assaulted, hacked, and stabbed the victims, causing their instantaneous deaths. The prosecution asserted the presence of qualifying aggravating circumstances, including evident premeditation, treachery, taking advantage of nighttime, and superior strength, with the commission of the offenses characterized by cruelty and adding ignominy to the natural effects of the crime. John Francis pleaded guilty to the charges, and the RTC convicted him of three counts of murder, imposing the death penalty for each case. 

 

Whether or not the killings qualify as murder and whether the aggravating circumstances alleged by the prosecution were properly proven. 

NO. While the killings were initially charged as murder with qualifying aggravating circumstances, the Court found that the aggravating circumstances of treachery and evident premeditation were not sufficiently alleged in the Information. The Court ruled out treachery due to a lack of clear evidence on how the attack commenced and developed. The prosecution also did not establish with moral certainty that the three victims were utterly oblivious to the impending attack or that they had no opportunity to mount a meaningful defense. Inarguably, there was reasonable doubt on how the aggression started, developed, and ended.

Likewise, evident premeditation was not proven, as there was no evidence of when John Francis decided to commit the crime and had sufficient time to reflect on its consequences. The Court discounted evident premeditation because there is no proof as to how and when the plan to kill was decided, and how much time had elapsed before it was carried out.The aggravating circumstances of nighttime, abuse of superior strength, cruelty, and ignominy were also disregarded due to insufficient evidence. Therefore, John Francis was found guilty of three counts of homicide instead of murder.

Considering his plea of guilt, the Court applied the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilt and imposed an indeterminate sentence of six years and one day of prision mayor to twelve years and one day of reclusion temporal for each count. Civil liability was also modified, with John Francis directed to pay P50,000.00 civil indemnity, P50,000.00 moral damages, and P50,000.00 temperate damages for each count, all with legal interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The grant of exemplary damages was deleted due to the absence of aggravating circumstances.

 

 

 

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

People v. Leocadio y Labrador, G.R. No. 227396, [February 22, 2023]

 CASE DIGEST

People v. Leocadio y Labrador

 G.R. No. 227396, [February 22, 2023]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Rape with Homicide; Exempting Circumstance of Accident; Circumstantial Evidence of Guilt 

The court emphasized that for accident to be considered an exempting circumstance, there must be a complete absence of intent or negligence on the part of the accused. In this case, the court upheld the conviction based on circumstantial evidence, that constitute an unbroken chain of events leading to one fair and reasonable conclusion, that points to the accused's guilt to the exclusion of all others. Despite the absence of direct witnesses to the crime, the court found the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution to be sufficient for conviction.

 

On March 26, 2002, AAA, a 12-year-old girl, was sent by her parents, BBB and CCC, to collect payment from their neighbor, Milo Leocadio y Labrador (Milo), for rice cakes. AAA did not return home, causing her parents to search for her. The next day, they reported her disappearance to the police. It was later discovered that AAA's lifeless body was found in Milo's house. She was found under Milo's bed with a cloth wrapped around her mouth and nose, hands tied behind her back, and signs of sexual assault and multiple injuries. 

During the trial, Milo admitted to killing AAA but claimed it was accidental. He stated that he was sleeping when AAA suddenly touched his shoulder, causing him to unconsciously throw a punch that led to her death. Milo denied any sexual assault and maintained that he did not rape AAA. He asserted that the injuries sustained by the victim were caused by a single blow he delivered, which led to her accidental death. 

 

Whether or not Milo is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the complex crime of rape with homicide. 

YES. The Court affirms the decision finding Milo guilty of rape with homicide. Despite Milo's claim of accidental killing, the circumstances do not support the exemption from criminal liability due to accident. The court emphasized that accident requires the absence of intent or negligence on the part of the accused, and Milo's actions did not meet this standard.

In crimes against persons, such as rape with homicide, the intent to kill is presumed if the victim dies as a result of a deliberate act of the perpetrator. The court noted that AAA's death, caused by asphyxia and multiple injuries, indicated a deliberate and intentional act by Milo. The extent and nature of the injuries sustained by the victim suggested an intent to kill, which belies Milo's claim of accidental killing.

The defense of accident is struck down due to Milo's failure to establish it with clear and convincing proof. Additionally, circumstantial evidence convincingly links Milo to the rape and murder of AAA. In this case, the prosecution presented a chain of events and medical findings that pointed to Milo's guilt. Despite the absence of direct witnesses to the rape and murder, the circumstantial evidence, including AAA's disappearance after visiting Milo's house and the nature of her injuries, formed a solid basis for conviction. Hence, Milo is sentenced to suffer reclusion perpetua without parole and ordered to pay various damages to the victim's heirs with legal interest. 

 

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Cacdac v. Mercado, G.R. No. 242731, [June 14, 2021]

CASE DIGEST

Cacdac v. Mercado

 G.R. No. 242731, [June 14, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Civil Liability despite Acquittal; Demurrer to Evidence without Leave of Court; Estafa 

When a demurrer to evidence is filed without leave of court and is granted, the accused is deemed to have waived the right to present evidence on both the criminal and civil aspects. In such cases, the trial court is called upon to decide the entire case based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The required quantum of proof, preponderance of evidence, to establish civil liability, even when the criminal action is dismissed. 

On December 8, 2004, Roberto Mercado, a gasoline station owner, delivered 10,000 liters of diesel fuel worth P235,000.00 to Byron Express Bus Company through its clerk, Jaivi Mar Juson. Juson executed a trust receipt, committing to remit the proceeds on December 15, 2004. However, Juson failed to fulfill this obligation, prompting Mercado to file an estafa complaint against Juson and Byron Cacdac, the alleged owner of Byron Express. Mercado claimed that Cacdac ordered the fuel, while Juson received the delivery. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) instituted criminal charges against Cacdac and Juson under Article 315 paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code. At the trial, Mercado testified that Cacdac owned Byron Express but did not present supporting evidence. Cacdac, through a demurrer to evidence, argued that he was not criminally and civilly liable. The RTC dismissed the criminal case against Cacdac but held him civilly liable for P235,000.00. Dissatisfied, Cacdac moved for reconsideration, and the RTC clarified that his civil liability was only civil in nature. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's findings with a modification in the interest computation.

 

Whether or not Byron Cacdac's civil liability was validly adjudged despite his demurrer to evidence and acquittal in the criminal aspect. 

NO. The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversing the CA's decision. It ruled that Cacdac's civil liability was not validly adjudged. The Court held that the trial court properly decided the civil aspect of the case as Cacdac filed a demurrer without leave of court. However, the evidence did not preponderantly establish Cacdac's civil liability. There was no conclusive proof that Cacdac ordered the diesel fuel or that Juson acted as his agent. The trust receipt agreement and demand letter implicated only Juson and Byron Express. The burden of proof rested on Mercado, and without adequate evidence, Cacdac could not be held liable for corporate obligations. The Court emphasized the need for preponderant evidence to establish civil liability, and since it was lacking, Cacdac's civil liability was deleted.

 

 

  CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Reyes, Jr. y De Los Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 244545 (Resolution), [February 10, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Reyes, Jr. y De Los Reyes v. People

 G.R. No. 244545 (Resolution), [February 10, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Drug cases; Chain of Custody Rule; Required Witness during inventory and markings 

The constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt cannot be overridden by the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by law enforcement. 

The Laoag City Police Station conducted a buy-bust operation targeting Franklin Reyes (Reyes), based on information from a police asset. During the operation, PO1 Irving Lorenzo acted as the poseur-buyer, and PO1 Jay Joemar Corpuz and other officers provided backup. Reyes was accused of selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). The police asset arranged a drug transaction, and when Reyes handed over the drugs to PO1 Lorenzo, a pre-arranged signal was given, leading to Reyes' arrest. During the inventory and photographing of seized items, there was a notable absence of an insulating witness from the National Prosecution Service or the media. The police conducted an inventory of the seized items in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Helen Bulaun only. Reyes denied the accusations, claiming he was alone in his apartment, and alleged that the police arrested him, beat him, and planted the drugs.

 

Whether or not the prosecution established the guilt of Reyes beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. 

NO. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, acquitting Reyes of the charges. The Court found a broken chain of custody, emphasizing the absence of an insulating witness during the inventory and photographing of the seized items. The chain of custody must be established to ensure the integrity and admissibility of seized drugs as evidence. It involves marking, turnover, and documentation at each stage, with the presence of insulating witnesses. The Court stressed that the presence of insulating witnesses is crucial to ensuring the integrity of the seized drugs. The absence of a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media as an insulating witness to the inventory and photograph of the seized item puts serious doubt as to the integrity of the first link. Since the prosecution failed to provide a justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses and did not show earnest efforts to secure their attendance, the chain of custody was compromised. Law enforcers must strictly comply with prescribed procedures in drug-related operations, and any deviation may compromise the admissibility of seized items.

Also, the Court also highlighted the presumption of innocence, which cannot be overridden by the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties by law enforcers. Due to the lapses in handling the evidence, Reyes was acquitted, and the decision ordered his immediate release from detention.

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

PEOPLE V. BALUYOT Y BIRANDA [G.R. No. 243390, October 5, 2020]

 CASE DIGEST

PEOPLE V. BALUYOT Y BIRANDA

G.R. No. 243390, October 5, 2020

SECOND DIVISION, HERNANDO J.

 

RA 9165, Illegal Sale, Chain of Custody Rule

Doctrine: Strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial to preserve the integrity of the evidence in drug-related cases. Failure to clearly establish the chain of custody from the time of seizure to the time of presentation in court, will raised doubts about the integrity and identity of the evidence, which will warrant acquittal.

 

Alex Baluyot was charged with 2 separate information relating to violation of dangerous drugs law based on a buy-bust operation conducted by PDEA officers. The prosecution presented evidence of the sale and positive drug test results. The RTC found him guilty of illegal sale. However, the RTC acquitted him of illegal possession of dangerous drugs due to uncertainty in establishing the identity of the seized specimens. CA denied the appeal but modified the ruling to make Alex ineligible for parole.

Alex now appeals to the Supreme Court, arguing that the chain of custody rule was not followed, and the testimonies of the PDEA officers were inconsistent. The OSG, maintains that the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved, and the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were credible. The case is now before the Supreme Court for review.

 

Whether or not Alex is guilty of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.

 

NO. The appeal of Alex Baluyot is granted, and he is acquitted of the charge of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs). The court found that the prosecution successfully established the elements of the crime through testimonies and evidence. However, there was a failure to properly observe the chain of custody rule during the operation, as only two witnesses were present during the marking of the seized items instead of the required three. The absence of a representative from the DOJ was not justified, and the prosecution failed to show justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the three-witness requirement. This lapse compromised the integrity of the seized items, creating reasonable doubt on Alex's guilt. Therefore, he is acquitted.

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT OF THE CASE