Title
Supreme Court
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.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 217661)

Facts of the Case

The Information against Buniag indicated that on August 9, 2008, he was accused of knowingly selling marijuana to a poseur-buyer, which was a violation of the aforementioned law. A detailed account of the events noted that a buy-bust operation was conducted by agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), during which Buniag was arrested while attempting to sell marijuana packaged in bags.

Prosecution's Version

The prosecution presented a narrative wherein PDEA agent IO1 Rubylyn S. Alfaro, accompanied by a confidential informant, arranged a drug purchase from Buniag. The agents conducted surveillance and identified Buniag at the agreed location. During the transaction, upon Alfaro's prearranged signal, other officers intervened and arrested Buniag, retrieving the black bag containing three bundles of marijuana. Subsequent testing confirmed the substance as marijuana, documented under a chemical report.

Defense's Version

Buniag denied the allegations, asserting a complete lack of involvement with the drugs. He claimed that he was in Cagayan de Oro City merely to check on his brother's house at the latter’s request. He alleged that he was ambushed by the PDEA agents with no lawful reason and suggested that the officers sought a bribe for his release, which he could not afford.

Ruling of the RTC

On December 23, 2013, the RTC ruled against Buniag, asserting that the prosecution had effectively met the burden of proof necessary to establish his guilt for the attempt to sell dangerous drugs. The court concluded that even though the exchange of money had not occurred prior to arrest, Buniag was culpable for possessing and delivering the marijuana. Consequently, he was sentenced to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Php 500,000, with the seized drugs ordered for forfeiture.

Ruling of the CA

The Court of Appeals upheld the RTC decision on January 30, 2015, noting that Buniag had clearly intended to sell the drugs, and the prosecution had sufficiently demonstrated the attempt. Although the RTC had initially identified Buniag's conviction under Section 5, the CA modified the ruling to align it with Section 26(b), noting the failed attempt to complete the sale did not preclude his liability for attempted illegal sale.

Issue on Appeal

The central issue on appeal was whether the CA erred in affirming Buniag's guilt for violating Section 26(b) of RA 9165.

Court's Ruling

The appellate court found merit in Buniag's appeal, determining that, while the prosecution could legitimately argue that an attempt to sell had occurred, the proceedings showed significant procedural failings that necessitated his acquittal. Notably, the requirement for establishing the corpus delicti was unmet due to the failure of law enforcement to comply with strict evidence preservation protocols as mandated by Section 21 of RA 9165. The ruling underscored the importance of maintaining a clear chain of custody from the time of seizure through to the court presentation of evidence.

Procedural Violations and Their Impact

Th

...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.