Title
People vs. Flores y Casero
Case
G.R. No. 246471
Decision Date
Jun 16, 2020
A buy-bust operation led to Diego Flores' arrest for illegal drug sale, but the Supreme Court acquitted him due to a broken chain of custody and lack of required witnesses during evidence handling.
A

Case Digest (G.R. No. 164815)

Facts:

  • Background of the case
    • The appeal assailed the Court of Appeals’ Decision dated May 31, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08634, which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court.
    • Accused-Appellant Diego Flores y Casero was convicted for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
  • Conduct of the buy-bust operation
    • On October 12, 2009, the Muntinlupa City Police Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group planned a buy-bust operation against Diego based on information and a surveillance report that he was selling shabu to jeepney drivers.
    • After the briefing, PO1 Michael Leal was designated as the poseur-buyer, PO3 Agosto Enrile as back-up, and other team members as perimeter guards.
    • On the following day, the confidential informant arranged a meeting in Diego’s house at #355 National Road, Barangay Alabang, Muntinlupa City.
    • In the target area, the confidential informant introduced PO1 Leal to Diego.
    • Diego greeted the informant’s companion and asked, in substance, whether he was the one the informant had mentioned as a “kumpare” who would “iiskor.”
    • The confidential informant replied in the affirmative.
    • Diego showed a gun and stated, in substance, not to worry because “they” feared him there.
    • Thereafter, PO1 Leal gave Diego the boodle money.
    • Upon receipt of the payment, Diego handed PO1 Leal a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance.
    • At that moment, PO1 Leal drew his gun and introduced himself as a police officer.
    • The rest of the entrapment team rushed in and arrested Diego.
    • The team recovered from Diego a gun, three ammunitions, and the buy-bust money.
    • The team proceeded immediately to the police station because a crowd was forming, including Diego’s relatives, and their presence might cause a commotion.
  • Handling, marking, inventory, and laboratory examination of the seized items
    • At the station, PO1 Leal marked the sachet with Diego’s initials “DF.”
    • The police officers conducted an inventory and photograph of the seized items witnessed by a representative from the City Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Office.
    • PO1 Leal and PO3 Enrile personally delivered the marked item to Ma. Victoria Meman, a non-uniformed personnel of the SPD Crime Laboratory Office.
    • Ma. Victoria Meman gave it to the forensic chemist, PCI Abraham Verde Tecson.
    • After examination, the substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
    • PCI Tecson marked the sachet with his initials “AVT” and sealed it; he also applied the designation “D-475-09S.”
    • PCI Tecson handed the sachet to the evidence custodian, PO3 Aires Abian, for safekeeping.
  • Filing of the charge and identity of the corpus delicti
    • Diego was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
    • The RTC docketed the case as Criminal Case No. 09-681.
    • The information alleged that Diego, not being authorized by law, willfully and unlawfully sold, traded, delivered, and gave away a white crystalline substance weighing 0.03 grams, contained in a heat transparent plastic sachet, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
  • Accused’s denial and claim of extortion
    • Diego denied the accusation.
    • He claimed that he was on his way to work when a police mobile parked beside him.
    • He asserted that three armed men in civilian clothes alighted, pointed guns at him, and searched him but found nothing.
    • He alleged that he was forcibly brought to the poli...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

  • Whether the prosecution proved an unbroken chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs
    • Whether the corpus delicti—the methamphetamine hydrochloride tested by the forensic chemist—was shown to be the same item seized from Diego, offered in court, and continuously handled without a material break.
  • Whether the prosecution’s compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR was sufficient despite omissions in the inventory and photograph
    • Whether the absence of required insulating witnesses during the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items created a serious gap in the chain of custody.
    • Whether the replacement or substitution by a representative from the City Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Office could cure the non-compliance.
  • Whether ...(Subscriber-Only)

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.