G.R. No. L-32613-4 - People vs. Ferrer

The case originated from an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) charging petitioner Romeo Asis y Briones with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.”

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was linked to the rampant proliferation of illegal drug activities in Barangay Luklukan Sur, Jose Panganiban, Camarines Norte.

On February 18, 2009, operatives of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) executed one of the four obtained search warrants at the petitioner’s residence.

The search was conducted in the presence of local witnesses, notably Barangay Chairman Ranilo Jerez, Sr., Barangay Kagawad Salvador Alvarez, and media representative Jonathan Magistrado of ABS-CBN Naga.

During the search, a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance—suspected to be shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride)—was recovered.

The seized item was then duly marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of the petitioner and the available witnesses before being processed and taken to a crime laboratory for analysis, which confirmed its identity as a dangerous drug.

The petitioner contended that he was asleep with his family and that the PDEA operatives forcefully entered and searched his house without his knowledge of where the sachet was recovered.

Despite his defense, in a Judgment dated May 18, 2016, the RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to an indeterminate period of imprisonment along with a fine of ₱300,000.00.

The RTC ruled that the evidence, including the integrity of the seized item, was properly preserved and that the petitioner had been in possession of shabu.

The petitioner appealed the RTC decision, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction with a modification of the imprisonment term to a range between twelve (12) years and one (1) day, and fourteen (14) years and one (1) day.

A motion for reconsideration by the petitioner was denied through a Resolution dated August 16, 2018.

The petitioner subsequently elevated the case to the Supreme Court on certiorari, challenging the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidence, particularly the integrity of the chain of custody.

Critical to the case was the chain of custody protocol for the seized evidence which mandates the immediate marking, inventory, and photography in the presence of required witnesses.

Evidence revealed that the inventory was conducted without the presence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative—a stipulated requirement under the law.

Testimonies from the PDEA operatives confirmed that while barangay officials and a media representative were present, no DOJ representative was involved during the inventory, thereby raising questions on the integrity of the seized evidence.

Whether the absence of a required DOJ representative during the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized item violated the prescribed chain of custody procedures under RA 9165.
Whether the failure to strictly comply with the chain of custody requirements undermined the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug.
Whether the prosecution provided a justifiable explanation or demonstrated that sufficient genuine efforts were made to secure the required witness presence during the execution of the search warrant.
Whether the compromised chain of custody is sufficient to warrant the petitioner’s acquittal given the inherent risks of evidence tampering or contamination.
Whether procedural lapses, despite being potentially excusable under varying field conditions, could still lead to an overturning of a conviction in light of the strict evidentiary standards in drug possession cases.