Title
Supreme Court
Padillo vs. People
Case
G.R. No. 271012
Decision Date
Oct 9, 2024
Padillo was found guilty of illegal possession of shabu but appealed claiming violations of his rights and issues with the search warrant validity and evidence handling. The Court acquitted him.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 271012)

Antecedents and Initial Charges

On March 24, 2018, Padillo was accused of possessing illegal drugs, specifically methamphetamine hydrochloride, or "shabu." An Information was filed against him, accusing him of having multiple sachets of shabu weighing a total of approximately 51.7805 grams without the necessary legal authorization. Padillo pleaded not guilty, and trial proceedings commenced, involving testimonies from both the prosecution and defense.

Prosecution's Version of Events

The prosecution presented several witnesses, including forensic chemist Romelisa A. Ibale and various PDEA agents. Testimony indicated that a search warrant had been issued, allowing a team of PDEA agents to search Padillo's residence for illegal drugs. Despite attempts to announce their presence and authority, the agents entered the premises through the main door after Padillo did not respond. A search yielded multiple sachets containing shabu, which were seized in the presence of barangay officials and media representatives who documented the proceedings.

Defense's Version of Events

The defense presented a differing narrative, asserting that Padillo and his family were asleep when the PDEA agents forcibly entered the house. Padillo testified that the agents did not initially identify themselves adequately and that he only learned of the search warrant after he was ordered to vacate his room. Witnesses corroborated Padillo's claim but did not offer direct knowledge of the events occurring inside the master bedroom during the search.

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The Regional Trial Court ruled against Padillo, finding him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court determined that the chain of custody for the seized drugs was established and favored the prosecution's testimonies, which were considered more credible compared to Padillo's denial of ownership and claims of planted evidence. Consequently, Padillo was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined two million pesos.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Padillo appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the RTC's decision, maintaining that the prosecution met its burden of proof regarding both the crime and the integrity of the chain of custody. The appellate court observed that the absence of certain witnesses did not undermine the overarching validity of the prosecution's evidence regarding the drug seizure.

Issues Raised

In his petition for review, Padillo raised three significant issues for resolution: (1) the validity of the search warrant; (2) the establishment of the chain of custody; and (3) whether his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court found merit in Padillo's petition and ultimately acquitted him. The Court analyzed the search warrant’s issuance and execution, determining that the prosecuting authorities failed to adhere strictly to the constitutional requirements governing unreasonable searches and seizures. The lack of judicial inquiry into probable cause, as required by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution, coupled with unclear justification for the nighttime execution of the warrant, invalidated the search.

Key Observations on Chain of Custody

Moreover, the Court highlighted significant lapses in the chain

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.