Title
People vs. Buniag y Mercadera
Case
G.R. No. 217661
Decision Date
Jun 26, 2019
Accused acquitted due to prosecution's failure to comply with chain of custody rules under RA 9165, compromising evidence integrity.
acquittal
marijuana
prosecution failure
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217661)

Factual Background and Charged Offense

The Information charged that, on or about 7:30 P.M. of August 9, 2008 in Olape St., Zone 2, Bayabas, Cagayan de Oro City, and within the court’s jurisdiction, Buniag, without legal authority, wilfully, unlawfully, criminally, and knowingly sold and/or offered for sale and gave away and delivered to a poseur-buyer one LG black and red travelling bag marked “NVP,” containing three bundles of dried marijuana fruiting tops with stalks, wrapped and marked as NVP-1, NVP-2, and NVP-3, with corresponding net weights of A-1 (NVP-1) 154.7 grams, A-2 (NVP-2) 118.8 grams, and A-3 (NVP-3) 36.5 grams. The charge was anchored on Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, in relation to Section 26, Article II.

Upon arraignment, Buniag entered a plea of not guilty.

Prosecution’s Version: Buy-Bust Operation and Seizure

As summarized by the CA, the prosecution’s narrative began with a plan involving PDEA operatives. PDEA Agent IO1 Rubylyn S. Alfaro (IO1 Alfaro), with a confidential informant, met Buniag outside Bayabas High School in Cagayan de Oro City. The plan was that IO1 Alfaro would purchase marijuana worth Php 5,000.00, with delivery scheduled between 7:00 and 7:30 in the evening along Olape Street.

A briefing followed at the PDEA office. IO1 Alfaro was designated as the poseur-buyer, while IO2 Neil Vincent Pimentel (IO2 Pimentel) was tasked as the back-up and arresting officer. The buy-bust team—composed of various PDEA and police personnel, including the CI—proceeded to the target area using an unmarked service vehicle. When the team arrived at around 7:10 P.M., IO1 Alfaro and the CI were dropped off along Olape Street, while the rest of the team observed from a distance of five to seven meters.

Buniag later arrived carrying a black traveling bag. He approached IO1 Alfaro, demanded payment, and agreed to allow IO1 Alfaro to see the narcotics first. He opened the bag. IO1 Alfaro and the CI inspected the contents and reportedly found three bundles of marijuana (stalks and leaves). IO1 Alfaro then executed the pre-arranged signal—a “missed call” to IO2 Pimentel. The team rushed to the site. IO2 Pimentel arrested Buniag after informing him of his rights. IO2 Pimentel took custody of the black traveling bag and the three bundles of marijuana.

At the station, IO2 Pimentel reportedly marked the bag with his initials “NVP,” and the marijuana bundles were marked successively as “NVP 1” to “NVP 3.” An inventory of the seized items was prepared, a letter request for laboratory examination was made, and photographs were taken. The seized items were brought to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office, received at 9:10 P.M. The qualitative examination by PSI Erma Condino Salvacion tested positive for marijuana, reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-154-2008.

Defense’s Version: Denial, Alleged Framing-Up, and Alleged Lack of Knowledge

The defense version, as summarized by the CA, denied ownership and knowledge. Buniag claimed that on August 8, 2008, he went to Cagayan de Oro City to check his brother’s house. On the evening of the next day, he left the house merely to buy food. He alleged that a vehicle stopped in front of him and two persons—later identified as IO2 Pimentel and IO1 Alfaro—alighted and ran toward him. They handcuffed him and told him he was a suspect because of marijuana in Wao, which he denied. He further alleged that while inside the vehicle, IO2 Pimentel demanded Php 20,000.00 for release, and asked about his supposed title or house, which he said he did not have.

At the PDEA office, Buniag said he was made to point to a black bag, was photographed, and was later brought to the crime laboratory where he was instructed to urinate. He stated he was made to sign documents without understanding their contents. He expressly denied owning the black bag or the bundles inside it and claimed ignorance of marijuana.

RTC Ruling: Conviction for the Charged Offense and Chain of Custody

The RTC found that the prosecution proved Buniag’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The RTC concluded that while there may have been an “attempt,” it ruled Buniag was also liable for delivery because he allegedly delivered the bag containing marijuana to the poseur-buyer. It also ruled that the chain of custody was adequately established despite the defense challenge, and it affirmed the seized evidence as the basis for conviction.

CA Ruling: Modification to Attempted Illegal Sale; Downplaying Inventory and Witness Compliance

On appeal, the CA affirmed conviction but modified the offense. The CA held that the Information indicated that Buniag was charged in relation to Section 26 and that the conduct constituted an attempted illegal sale rather than consummated sale, because the sale was aborted when IO1 Alfaro made the pre-arranged “miss-call” and Buniag was arrested.

The CA reasoned that, from the witnesses’ testimony, the prosecution established an attempt to sell marijuana. Accordingly, it ruled that the RTC should have convicted Buniag under Section 26(b), Article II of RA 9165.

The CA further ruled that failure to conduct inventory and photograph the seized items strictly as allegedly required under Section 21 of RA 9165 was not fatal. It also held that marking at the police station and in the presence of the accused was sufficient for chain of custody purposes. It added that since the police officers had no motive to falsely testify, the presumption that they performed their duties regularly should be upheld.

Supreme Court Issue

The Supreme Court framed the issue as whether the CA erred in finding Buniag guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 26(b), Article II of RA 9165.

Supreme Court Ruling: Acquittal Based on Failure to Prove Corpus Delicti and Chain of Custody Breaches

The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted Buniag. While it agreed with the CA’s characterization that the acts supported liability only for attempted illegal sale because the sale was never consummated, the Court held that Buniag still could not be convicted because the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court reiterated the doctrine on variance: the accused could not be convicted for consummated illegal sale where the sale had not been completed. However, the attempt to sell was treated as necessarily included in the illegal sale offense. The Court also recalled the concept of attempt, requiring that the offender commenced commission of a felony by overt acts but did not complete it due to some cause other than spontaneous desistance.

In applying these principles, the Court accepted that Buniag commenced the overt acts of selling marijuana but the arrest occurred once the pre-arranged signal was made after the poseur-buyer confirmed the marijuana in his possession. It therefore affirmed that attempted illegal sale was the proper offense conceptually.

The acquittal, however, rested on the evidentiary necessity of proving the elements for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, which the Court treated as including attempted sale. For conviction, the Court required proof of: (one) the transaction or sale; (two) the corpus delicti or illicit drug presented as evidence; and (three) identification between the buyer and the seller.

The Court emphasized that in dangerous drug cases, the confiscated drug is the very corpus delicti, and that exact identity must be established with exactitude. Thus, even if the prosecution version were believed, the Court found that the second element was missing because the prosecution did not establish the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt due to blatant non-compliance with Section 21 procedures governing custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Non-Compliance with Section 21; Presence of Required Witnesses; Unexplained Deviation

The Court found multiple unexplained breaches of Section 21 of RA 9165. It held first that the buy-bust team did not perform the required marking, photography, and inventory at the place of arrest. Instead, the seized items were brought to the police station for such acts. IO2 Pimentel testified that pictures were taken and marking was done only in the office.

Second, the Court held that although a media representative signed an inventory report, such subsequent participation was not enough because the statute required the mandatory witnesses to be present during the actual inventory. The Court further found the absence of required witnesses during the critical time of seizure, including representatives from the DOJ and an elected public official, at both inventory and photography at the police station.

The Court reviewed testimony showing that the media representative was the only witness during inventory making and appeared after the team had arrived at the office, before the crime laboratory trip and after around the time the team arrived. The Court underscored that the three required witnesses must already be physically present at the time of inventory, and that inventory and photographing must be done immediately at the place of seizure and confiscation. It noted that a buy-bust operation is planned and thus compliance was feasible.

Although the Court acknowledged jurisprudence clarifying that strict compliance with Section 21 may not always be possible under varied field conditions, it stressed that non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the seizure. In that framework, the prosecution must still show a justifiable ground for non-compliance and that integrity and evidentiary value were preserved. The Court found no valid excuse for deviation. The police claimed fear due to people gathering, yet the Court considered the explanation weak because there were seven personnel, they were armed, and the area had many people; nonetheless, the team did not ensure compliance with Section 21’s straightforward steps.

The Court concluded th

...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