Title
Bondad, Jr. y Burac vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 173804
Decision Date
Dec 10, 2008
Appellant acquitted due to procedural lapses in buy-bust operation; failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 compromised evidence integrity.
Font Size:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 173804)

Facts:

Background and Charges: Elpidio Bondad, Jr., y Burac (appellant) was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Marikina City for two violations under Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002):

  1. Illegal Sale of Shabu (Section 5, Article II): On January 29, 2004, appellant allegedly sold 0.02 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) to a poseur buyer.
  2. Illegal Possession of Shabu (Section 11, Article II): On the same date, appellant was found in possession of 0.04 grams of shabu contained in two heat-sealed plastic sachets.

Prosecution’s Version:

  • A confidential informant reported rampant shabu sales in a billiard hall in Marikina City, naming appellant as the seller.
  • A buy-bust team was formed, with PO2 Edwin Dano as the poseur buyer. The operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
  • During the operation, appellant sold shabu to PO2 Dano and was subsequently arrested. The seized items were marked and brought to the police station.
  • Laboratory tests confirmed the substances were shabu.

Defense’s Version:

  • Appellant claimed he was framed. He alleged that PO2 Brubio, a policeman he knew, handcuffed him without cause and took his wallet containing P2,000.
  • His son and a billiard hall referee corroborated his testimony.

Trial Court Ruling:

  • Appellant was convicted of both charges and sentenced to life imprisonment for illegal sale and 12 years and 1 day for illegal possession, with corresponding fines.

Court of Appeals Ruling:

  • The appellate court affirmed the conviction but modified the penalty for illegal possession to an indeterminate sentence of 12 years and 1 day to 13 years.

Issue:

  1. Whether the conviction was valid based solely on the testimony of the poseur buyer against the corroborated statements of the accused and his witnesses.
  2. Whether the prosecution’s evidence was admissible despite alleged violations of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (custody and disposition of seized drugs).
  3. Whether irregularities in the conduct of the buy-bust operation compromised the integrity of the evidence.

Ruling:

The Supreme Court granted the petition and acquitted the appellant. The Court found that the apprehending officers failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, specifically:

  • No physical inventory or photographing of the seized items was conducted in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, or an elected public official.
  • The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised due to these lapses.

The Court emphasized that while non-compliance with Section 21 is not always fatal, the prosecution must provide justifiable grounds for such lapses and prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved. In this case, the prosecution failed to do so.

Ratio:

  • (Unlock)

Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.