Title
People vs. Carpio y Tarroza
Case
G.R. No. 233200
Decision Date
Sep 9, 2019
The accused was acquitted of drug charges due to police failure to adhere to required procedural safeguards in evidence handling.
Font Size

Case Digest (G.R. No. 233200)

Facts:

  • Carmelo Carpio y Tarroza was charged with illegal sale and possession of shabu under Republic Act No. 9165.
  • The events occurred on August 20, 2004, in Zamboanga City, Philippines.
  • A civilian informant reported Carmelo's alleged drug-peddling to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation Task Force.
  • A buy-bust operation was conducted, led by SPO1 Amado Mirasol, Jr., with SPO1 Sergio Rivera as the poseur-buyer.
  • Rivera approached Carmelo outside his rented house, exchanged a marked P100 bill for a sachet of shabu, and identified himself as a police officer upon receiving the drug.
  • Carmelo resisted arrest but was subdued with assistance from other officers.
  • A search revealed two additional sachets of shabu in his possession.
  • The seized items were marked later at the police station, not at the scene.
  • Carmelo pleaded not guilty during his arraignment on September 15, 2005.
  • The Regional Trial Court found him guilty on May 28, 2014, sentencing him to life imprisonment for sale and 12 years and 1 day to 14 years for possession, along with fines.
  • The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on April 7, 2017, prompting Carmelo's appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, acquitting Carmelo Carpio y Tarroza.
  • The Court determined that the prosecution did not establish the integrity of the chain of custody...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court highlighted that the prosecution must prove the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, including establishing the corpus delicti.
  • This requires a clear demonstration of the integrity of the seized drugs and a complete chain of custody.
  • Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates specific procedural safeguards for handling seized drugs, including immediate marking, inventory, and photographing in the presence of the accused or their representative, a media representative, and an elected official.
  • In this case, the police officers did not comply with these require...continue reading

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.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.