Title
People vs. Briones y Espina
Case
G.R. No. 239077
Decision Date
Mar 20, 2019
Garry Briones acquitted due to lapses in drug seizure procedures, failing to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165, creating reasonable doubt.
unbroken chain of custody
procedural requirements
acquittal
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 239077)

Factual Background

The Information alleged that on or about April 16, 2013, within the jurisdiction of the trial court, Garry, “not being authorized by law,” did “knowingly, willfully, and criminally sell, dispense[,] or deliver” one (1) transparent plastic sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.15 gram.

The prosecution’s version, as adopted from the CA’s factual narration, described a planned buy-bust operation. PO1 Carandang was assigned as poseur-buyer, accompanied by the police asset. The buy-bust team coordinated with the police and the PDEA, and before leaving the station, the officers’ departure was recorded in the logbook. The team proceeded to the barangay hall of Brgy. Gulod Labac to have the operation recorded in the barangay blotter and later moved to a gasoline station area where the buy-bust transaction was to occur.

At the gasoline station, after about five (5) minutes, a man referred to as alias “Garry” arrived. The asset spoke with him while PO1 Carandang stood nearby. Garry handed the asset a plastic sachet and uttered “point three yan, two five yan.” The asset immediately passed the sachet to PO1 Carandang. PO1 Carandang then arrested Garry. Other officers stationed a short distance away alighted when they witnessed the transaction. PO1 Carandang marked the plastic sachet with his initials “RBC” and the date of arrest 04/16/13, taking pictures while marking the evidence. The team brought the accused to the barangay hall, and after calling for an inventory, SPO1 Adelantar and a DOJ representative allegedly arrived; an inventory and photographing were conducted, and a Certificate of Inventory was signed by the required persons who were present. The police then processed the evidence for laboratory examination, where it tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride under Chemistry Report No. BD 204-2013.

The defense denied guilt and narrated that Garry was at home eating when policemen arrested him while searching for a person named Ranie. Garry testified that he did not have an altercation with the officers before his arrest and that he learned about the charge only after being brought to the station.

Trial Court Proceedings

The RTC held that the absence of payment or consideration to the asset did not preclude conviction under the Information because the prosecution’s evidence showed that Garry personally passed the plastic sachet to the asset, thereby establishing liability under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The RTC further found that the identity of the seized dangerous drug was proven and that the prosecution established Garry’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The RTC imposed life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 500,000.00.

Appellate Review by the Court of Appeals

The CA affirmed the conviction. It reasoned that even if the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were not established due to lack of proof of consideration or payment, Garry could still be held liable for illegal delivery under Section 5, Article II because the provision punishes delivery in addition to sale. The CA also treated Garry’s alleged procedural lapses as minor and found them insufficient to defeat the integrity of the seized drug. The CA accepted the explanation for the absence of a media representative and ruled that non-strict compliance with Section 21, paragraph 1 of Article II of R.A. 9165 did not prevent the presumption of regularity.

Issue Presented on Appeal

The determinative issue was whether Garry’s guilt for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Legal Basis and Reasoning of the Supreme Court

The Court held that the appeal should be granted and the accused acquitted. In drug prosecutions, the seized drug is the very corpus delicti, and its existence is vital to sustain conviction. Thus, the prosecution must establish the identity and integrity of the seized drugs with moral certainty. To achieve this, the prosecution must prove an unbroken chain of custody, accounting for each link from seizure up to presentation in court.

The Court applied Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, the applicable law at the time of the offense. The provision requires that the seized items be immediately inventoried and photographed after seizure or confiscation, in the presence of the accused or representative/counsel, an elected public official, a media representative, and a DOJ representative, with all required witnesses signing and receiving copies of the inventory. It also requires turnover to the forensic laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation.

The Court explained that “immediately after seizure and confiscation” means the inventory and photographing should be done at once, at or near the place of apprehension, and only when it is not practicable may the IRR allow the inventory and photographing to be conducted once the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the office of the apprehending team. Critically, the Court held that the law also requires that the three mandatory witnesses must be physically present at the time the inventory is conducted and the photographs are taken, at the place of seizure and confiscation. A buy-bust operation, the Court emphasized, is planned by nature, so compliance is expected to be feasible.

While the Court acknowledged jurisprudence clarifying that strict compliance may not always be possible under varied field conditions, it stressed two requirements before non-compliance can be excused: the prosecution must show (a) justifiable ground for non-compliance and (b) that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were nevertheless properly preserved. The Court reiterated that the prosecution has the positive duty to explain procedural lapses as facts, and without such explanation, the evidence of the corpus delicti becomes unreliable, requiring acquittal on reasonable doubt.

Applying these standards, the Court found multiple breaches of the mandatory safeguards under Section 21. It held that the buy-bust team failed to comply because the prosecution only attempted to contact the mandatory witnesses when the officers were already at the barangay hall after the arrest and seizure. As a result, only the DOJ representative and a barangay official arrived to witness the inventory and photographing. The prosecution offered no sufficient explanation for the absence of the media representative. The Court anchored this conclusion on the testimony of PO1 Carandang stating that the team contacted the media representative but “nobody arrived,” after the barangay blotter entry had already been made in the barangay hall.

The Court further held that the belated participation of the witnesses after the arrest and seizure defeated the central purpose of the statutory requirement. It emphasized that the presence of the witnesses at the time of inventory and photographing prevents or insulates against planting of drugs. In this case, the witnesses did not participate at the place of apprehension at the required time; hence, the statutory purpose was undermined.

The Court also rejected the view that the deviations could be brushed aside. It stated that the prosecution bears the burden not only of proving compliance with Section 21, but also of providing a sufficient explanation when there is non-compliance. It cited the Court’s framework in People v. Lim, which requires allegations and proof that the witnesses’ absence was due to circumstances such as remote area, threatened safety, involvement of the elected officials, earnest efforts proven futile through no fault of the arresting officers, or urgency preventing attendance before offenders could escape. The Court held that none of these circumstances were shown or sufficiently established. The officers merely “called in” the mandatory witnesses after the buy-bust operation had been completed, without any demonstrated excuse.

The Court found it implausible that the buy-bust team could not have ensured witness presence earlier. It noted that PO1 Carandang testified that Garry had been under surveillance and in the watch list since 2010, and that the informant, who had served as the asset for about five months, provided information about the transaction at 10:00 a.m. The team left the station at 11:15 a.m., coordinated with barangay officials, and conducted recordings prior to the actual operation. The Court also noted PO1 Carandang’s experience in anti-illegal drugs operations and concluded that the team had adequate time and foresight to secure compliance with Section 21 before the buy-bust.

The Court then addressed the interplay between the presumption of regularity and the accused’s constitutiona

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms