Case Summary (G.R. No. 230964)
Incident and Arrest
On March 8, 2006 at approximately 12:30 a.m., police officers conducting an anti-drug operation peered through a slightly ajar door of “Shabu Hotel” and observed four individuals—XXX, YYY, Jed, and Jonathan—seated around two plastic sachets containing suspected marijuana and an improvised glass pipe. The officers entered, identified themselves, confiscated the items, arrested the subjects, advised them of their rights, and brought them to the DEU of the xxxxxxx City Police Station. The seized items were marked by the investigating officer (PO2 Holanda) at the station, then submitted for laboratory examination; forensic testing confirmed the presence of marijuana.
Procedural History
Two Informations were filed on March 10, 2006: Criminal Case No. 06-0260 for illegal possession of marijuana (2.50 grams) and Criminal Case No. 06-0261 for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia (glass pipe). All accused pleaded not guilty. The RTC, Branch 254, in its December 20, 2012 Joint Decision, found the prosecution witnesses credible, upheld the physical science report, and convicted all four for both charges, sentencing them to varying terms and fines. The CA affirmed in its December 14, 2016 Decision (modified only by reducing one fine) and denied reconsideration on April 3, 2017.
Issues on Review
- Whether the minor petitioners are exempt from criminal liability for lack of alleged discernment in the Informations.
- Whether police testimonies are credible and support conviction.
- Whether evidence is inadmissible as fruits of an illegal warrantless arrest.
- Whether the prosecution failed to establish a continuous and unbroken chain of custody for the seized items.
Supreme Court Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The convictions for violations of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of RA 9165 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. All accused are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Rationale
- Standard of proof in criminal cases under the 1987 Constitution is proof beyond reasonable doubt.
- Although the elements of illegal possession were present, the police failed to comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR: there was no immediate inventory, marking, or photography of the seized items in the presence of required witnesses, nor any justification for these omissions.
- The chain of custody was broken at multiple links: the arresting officers did not mark the items at the seizure site; the investigating officer marked them instead without firsthand knowledge; an unidentifed “Relos” purportedly received
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 230964)
Facts of the Case
- On March 8, 2006 at around 12:30 a.m., Police Officer 2 Wilson Paule and other officers conducted an anti-criminality operation in a locale notorious for drug sales.
- Acting on information that four individuals were about to have a “pot session” in a place known as “Shabu Hotel,” officers peeked through a partially open door.
- Inside they saw petitioners CICL XXX, CICL YYY, Jed Barba, and Jonathan Solina seated around two transparent sachets of suspected marijuana and an improvised glass tube pipe.
- The officers entered, identified themselves, confiscated the sachets and pipe, arrested the suspects, advised them of their rights, and brought them to the Drug Enforcement Unit of the city police station.
Prosecution’s Evidence
- Arresting officers (PO2 Paule, PO2 Dalagdagan, P/Insp. Solero, P/Insp. Torred, P/Supt. Romero) executed immediate seizure of the items.
- PO2 Michael Holanda marked the seized items before the accused, prepared the investigation report, and requested laboratory examination.
- At about 2:35 a.m., the confiscated items and request form were turned over to the Philippine National Police crime laboratory in Makati.
- Forensic Chemical Officer PI Richard Allan Mangalip, in Physical Science Report No. D-184-06S, testified the items tested positive for marijuana.
- Affidavits of arrest and the testimonies of PO2 Paule and PO2 Dalagdagan corroborated the handling of the evidence.
Defense’s Version
- Petitioners claimed that around 11:00 p.m. on March 8, 2006, XXX was preparing for bed when YYY and Jonathan asked him to accompany them to Jed’s rented room to borrow a CD.
- They allege PO2 Paule ordered them into Jed’s room without a warrant, showed them a sachet from the sink, and escorted them to a basketball court with other arrested gamblers.
- At the court, a video recording allegedly captured them with the sachets and the pipe, but no inventory or photographs were taken.
- They denied any possession, pleaded not guilty, and highlighted that XXX (16) and YYY (17) were minors at the time.
Procedural History
- March 10, 2006: Separate Informations filed for Illegal Possession of Marijuana (Crim. Case No. 06-0260) and Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia (Crim. Case No. 06-0261).
- Petitioners pleaded not guilty; pre