G.R. No. 228958 - People vs. Baer

Accused-appellant Eutiquio Baer, also known as “Tikyo,” was charged in two separate criminal cases under Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
Criminal Case No. H-1176 alleged illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Section 11, Article II), while Criminal Case No. H-1177 involved the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs (Section 5, Article II).

In Criminal Case No. H-1176, it was alleged that on December 3, 2002, at around 5:45 p.m. in Bato, Leyte, Baer was found in possession and control of:

Seven heat-sealed transparent plastic bags containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) weighing 25.6 grams;
One small heat-sealed transparent plastic bag containing 1.6 grams of shabu; and
142 decks of small sealed plastic sachets containing a total of 4.26 grams of shabu, collectively amounting to 31.46 grams of dangerous drugs.

In Criminal Case No. H-1177, it was further charged that on the same day, at around 5:42 p.m., the accused unlawfully sold one deck of shabu to a poseur buyer for P100.00, using a bill as mark money.

During arraignment on May 29, 2003, Baer pleaded not guilty.
Baer was detained at the Hilongos Sub-Provincial Jail while awaiting trial.
A pre-trial conference was held, and a Pre-Trial Order was issued on July 9, 2003.
During the trial, the RTC rendered a decision on January 12, 2009, convicting him for illegal possession (Criminal Case No. H-1176) and acquitting him for illegal sale (Criminal Case No. H-1177) due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

A team comprising members of the Provincial Anti-Narcotics Unit (PANU) and barangay officials executed a search warrant at Brgy. Iniguihan, Bato, Leyte.

Upon arrival at the rented stall of Baer, the police announced their authority and read the contents of the search warrant.
Baer admitted the presence of prohibited drugs and escorted the team to his bedroom.

The box was opened by personnel who obtained a key from Virgilio Notarte, as Baer did not possess the key.
Inside the box, seven plastic sachets and 142 sealed decks allegedly containing shabu were found.

The evidence was subsequently inventoried, marked (with labels such as “AD ET-1” to “AD ET-7” for big plastic sachets, and specific markings for the small bag and decks), and forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory where a Chemistry Report confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.

On the afternoon of December 2, 2002, Baer was at his public market stall watching a basketball game when Notarte, known as “Ondo,” requested to leave a steel box at the stall.
Baer refused to accept the box but later brought it inside his stall to prevent it from being lost, only to later surrender it when approached by police.

Baer had no knowledge of the contents of the steel box as the box was not his property but belonged to Notarte, who owned and controlled it.
The police failed to present any search warrant or proper documentation during the surrender of the steel box.

The RTC convicted Baer for illegal possession but acquitted him for illegal sale, with the conviction based on the notion of constructive possession since the drug containers were located in his rented stall.
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, relying on the premise of constructive possession due to the location of the steel box.
However, significant lapses were noted regarding:

The chain of custody, as the inventory and marking of the seized evidence were not conducted immediately at the location of seizure but later at the municipal building.
The absence of required witnesses mandated by Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 (media, DOJ representative, and elected public official).
Irregularities in the marking of evidence, including incomplete or non-proper identification on the seized items.

Whether the trial court and the appellate court erred in convicting Baer for violating Section 11, Article II (illegal possession of dangerous drugs) of RA 9165.

Whether Baer’s possession of the drugs was to be considered constructive possession given that the drugs were found inside a steel box not owned nor controlled by him.
Whether the procedural requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 were complied with during the seizure, inventory, and marking of the evidence.
Whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug specimens were maintained in view of the deviation from the mandatory procedures.