Case Digest (G.R. No. 241261)
Facts:
People of the Philippines v. Albert Perez Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019, Supreme Court Second Division, Perlas‑Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.The prosecution filed two Informations against Albert Perez Flores for Illegal Sale (Section 5, Article II, RA 9165) and Illegal Possession (Section 11, Article II, RA 9165) of dangerous drugs, arising from a buy‑bust on the evening of March 7, 2015 in Ginatilan, Cebu. The buy‑bust team recovered two sachets (totaling 0.12 gram) from Flores during the operation; because a motocross contest had drawn a crowd at the scene, the officers brought Flores and the seized items to the police station where, after a body search in the presence of two barangay councilors, eight more sachets (totaling 0.43 gram) were recovered. The seized items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the police station in Flores’ presence and in the presence of the barangay councilors; the Certificate of Inventory was dated March 7, 2015. Chemistry testing yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
At trial, Flores denied the charges and gave an alibi account that he was at a gas station waiting for his brother when men in civilian clothes and patrol officers seized him and searched his bag with no contraband found. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 62, Oslob, Cebu, convicted Flores in Decisions dated August 25, 2016 in Crim. Case Nos. OS‑15‑1031 and OS‑15‑1032, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine for illegal sale, and to an indeterminate prison term of 12 years and one day to 12 years and one month with a P300,000 fine for illegal possession. The RTC found the buy‑bust team’s testimony credible and that the chain of custody was substantially complied with.
Flores appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which, in a Decision dated March 23, 2018 (CA‑G.R. CR‑HC No. 02404), affirmed the RTC, holding that the pro...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the prosecution’s non‑compliance with the witness requirement of the chain of custody rule—specifically, the absence of representatives from the Department of Justice or the media—justified under the saving clause of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640?
- Given the procedural lapses, did the prosecution nonetheless establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity and integrity of the seized drugs and the elements of Illegal Sale...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)