People vs. Bahoyo y Dela Torre

G.R. No. 238589
Bahoyo acquitted as prosecution failed to justify absence of elected official during drug inventory, creating a gap in chain of custody.
drug charges unbroken chain of custody violation

Case Summary (G.R. No. 238589)

Factual Background

On July 17, 2016, a confidential informant reported to the Makati Police Station’s Station Anti‑Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group information implicating Bahoyo in illegal drug activities. A buy‑bust team of ten police officers was formed. Police Officer 2 Sherwin Limbauan acted as the poseur‑buyer and was furnished with a marked P500 bill. According to the prosecution, Limbauan handed the marked cash to Bahoyo in exchange for a heat‑sealed plastic sachet; Limbauan signalled consummation of the sale by removing his ballcap. The arresting officers then conducted a search of Bahoyo and allegedly recovered three additional heat‑sealed sachets. The items taken from the buy‑bust were marked by the arresting officers as “SCL,” “SCL‑1,” “SCL‑2,” and “SCL‑3.” An inventory and photographs were taken at the Makati Police Station in the presence of Bahoyo and Cesar Morales, a media representative who signed the inventory form. Forensic testing by Police Senior Inspector Ofelia Vallejo produced Physical Science Report No. D‑981‑2016, which showed the four sachets were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Trial Court Proceedings

Bahoyo pleaded not guilty to separate Informations charging violation of Section 11 and Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The prosecution presented PO2 Limbauan and PO2 Leonard Sebial, among others, and introduced the seized sachets and the chemist’s report. The defense presented Bahoyo as its lone witness; he denied involvement and alleged that armed men forcibly brought him to the SAID‑SOTG. The RTC found Bahoyo guilty of illegal sale under Section 5 and illegal possession under Section 11. The RTC sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP500,000.00) for the sale conviction, and to imprisonment of twelve years and one day to fourteen years and eight months and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP300,000.00) for the possession conviction.

Appellate Court Proceedings

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s judgment in toto. The CA held that the corpus of the crime was properly secured and that the absence of a representative from the Department of Justice and an elected public official during the inventory was not fatal to the prosecution’s case. The CA accepted the penalties imposed by the trial court as proper under R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 9346 for the sale penalty and applicable provisions for the possession penalty.

Issues on Appeal

The Supreme Court considered whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession under R.A. No. 9165, and whether the prosecution preserved an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs in accordance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 as amended by R.A. No. 10640. The Court also addressed whether the saving clause of Section 21 excused the absence of the required witnesses during the inventory.

Parties’ Contentions

The People of the Philippines contended that the buy‑bust was proper, that the seized items were marked and inventoried, that photographs were taken, that an independent media representative witnessed and signed the inventory, and that the chain of custody remained intact. Allen Bahoyo y Dela Torre contended that he was not lawfully in possession of illegal drugs, alleged that he was forcibly taken to the police station, and argued that the prosecution failed to show the required witnesses during the inventory and thus failed to establish the integrity and identity of the purported corpus.

Applicable Law and Legal Standards

To convict for illegal possession under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt: (a) that the accused possessed dangerous drugs; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused was knowingly in possession. To convict for illegal sale under Section 5, Article II, the prosecution must prove the identity of buyer and seller, the object of sale and consideration, and the actual delivery and payment. The seized dangerous drug itself forms part of the corpus delicti. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, prescribes the procedures for inventory and photography and requires the presence of the accused or his counsel, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, with a saving clause that excuses noncompliance only when the arresting officers show justifiable grounds and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items were preserved. Jurisprudence has held that substantial gaps in the chain of custody raise reasonable doubt on the identity of the seized items. The Court relied on prior decisions including People v. Relato, People v. Mendoza, and People v. Umipang for the governing principles on chain of custody and the consequences of procedural lapses.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined the prosecution’s compliance with Section 21 and the adequacy of any justification for noncompliance under the saving clause. The Court observed that the inventory form bore the signature of media representative Cesar Morales as the lone independent witness. The prosecution, however, did not establish that Morales personally witnessed the actual inventory or that an elected public official or a representative from the National Prosecution Service was present. The Court emphasized that the amendments effected by R.A. No. 10640 reduced the number of required witnesses but retained the presence of an elected public official as indispensable. The Court reiterated that the saving clause may excuse noncompliance only when the arresting officers allege and prove that they made earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the mandatory witnesses and were thwarted by justifiable grounds. The record showed no allegation or proof of such efforts or justifiable reasons for the absence of the elected public official. The Court fo

...continue reading