Title
People vs. Canete y Ferdez
Case
G.R. No. 242018
Decision Date
Jul 3, 2019
Accused acquitted due to procedural lapses in drug seizure handling, failing to preserve evidence integrity under RA 9165, creating reasonable doubt.
acquittal
selling dangerous drugs
procedural lapses
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 242018)

Factual Background

An Information alleged that on 17 January 2012 at 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, in Poblacion, Tukuran, Zamboanga del Sur, accused-appellants—conspiring with each other—without legal authorization, sold and delivered to IO1 Rolly Calangi, who posed as buyer, a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, for P300.00, knowing it to be a dangerous drug.

When arraigned, both accused-appellants pleaded not guilty, and trial proceeded on conflicting versions.

On the prosecution’s version, a confidential informant reported appellants’ drug activity to the PDEA Provincial Office, Pagadian City. Agent Pollisco conducted a buy-bust briefing with Agent Calangi as poseur-buyer, Agent Alerta as back-up arresting officer, and other members of the team. The team proceeded to the target area near a billiard hall behind Freedom Stage. The confidential informant went into the hall and then emerged with Peterlou Pimentel, who introduced Agent Calangi as a buyer. Pimentel indicated that a sachet cost P300.00, received the buy-bust money, and called someone from inside the hall. Canete emerged, received the money, went across the road, and returned after about five minutes with something wrapped in cigarette foil. Agent Calangi inspected the foil, found a sachet of shabu, put the foil and sachet in his pocket, and went to the team’s location to report the transaction. The team then returned to the billiard hall, where Agent Calangi arrested and identified himself as PDEA agent, with Agent Alerta arresting Pimentel. Both were bodily searched, and Agent Calangi recovered the buy-bust money from Canete. Agent Pollisco later moved the team out of the gathering crowd, and Agent Calangi marked the evidence in their service vehicle: a heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu, the aluminum foil and cigarette foil, and the buy-bust money with specified serial numbers.

After arrest and marking, the team proceeded to the PDEA Office in Pagadian City. Due to a power interruption, the buy-bust team allegedly conducted inventory at the Office of the Provincial Intelligence Branch at Camp Abelon. According to the narration, inventory was conducted in the presence of accused-appellants, a media representative (Vanessa Cagas), an elected public official (Ernesto Mondarte), and a Department of Justice representative (Prosecutor Mary Ann Tugbang-Torres). An investigator took photographs, a letter request for laboratory examination was submitted, and the crime laboratory tested the specimen positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

Accused-appellants presented a denial and a different account. Lyndon claimed he was working as a watcher for a billiard hall when unknown persons approached, pointed guns, grabbed him, and subjected him to bodily searches, recovering allegedly his game-related payments. He testified he was taken to a nearby place at Park-In-Go and again frisked, threatened, and asked who was selling. He asserted that armed persons later arrived with Peterlou and that both were taken for dinner, padlocked, and forced to sign a document, learning of the exact charge only during arraignment. Peterlou similarly testified he was watching a game at the billiard hall when two armed women entered, searched Lyndon, confiscated money, and arrested him. He claimed that after thirty minutes he was taken to Park-In-Go, where he was brought out and, together with Lyndon, later driven to Camp Abelon, where they were forced to sign a document and first saw Agent Calangi when the document was shown.

Trial and Ruling of the RTC

The RTC found accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, sentenced both to life imprisonment, and ordered a joint fine of PHP 500,000.00. The RTC directed the PDEA to coordinate with the Branch Clerk of Court for the destruction of the shabu pursuant to RA 9165.

While the RTC acknowledged lapses in procedure in handling the seized drug, it held that the integrity and evidentiary value were properly preserved and established through an unbroken chain of custody. It also gave weight to the police officers’ testimony by invoking the presumption that they performed their duties regularly.

Appellate Review and CA Disposition

Accused-appellants appealed to the CA, challenging the buy-bust process. The CA affirmed the RTC in toto. The CA agreed that inventory was not conducted immediately after seizure and at the place prescribed by law. Nevertheless, it held the lapses excusable under the circumstances, relying on the explanation that inventory and photographing were conducted at the Office of the Provincial Intelligence Branch at Camp Abelon, allegedly the most practicable location due to a power interruption and the nature of a warrantless arrest. The CA emphasized that inventory and photographing were allegedly done in the presence of the accused and required witnesses, and it accepted the view that marking needed to be immediate while inventory could be conducted at a practical location.

The Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

On appeal before the Supreme Court, accused-appellants faulted the buy-bust team for non-compliance with mandatory procedures, especially under Section 21 of RA 9165, contending that inventory and photographing were not done immediately after seizure and at the nearest required stations or offices as contemplated by law.

The prosecution and the CA had essentially treated the deviations as justified due to operational circumstances and the alleged presence of required witnesses during inventory and photographing, while maintaining that the evidentiary integrity of the seized item remained intact.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court held that the requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 and the IRR were mandatory and couched in strict terms. Section 21 required the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to physically inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or representative/counsel, as well as required representatives from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official, who had to sign the inventory and receive copies.

The IRR supplied a saving clause for non-compliance under justifiable grounds so long as integrity and evidentiary value were preserved. The Court clarified that to avail of the saving clause, the prosecution had to prove both (i) justifiable grounds for non-compliance and (ii) proper preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. The Court further explained that compliance with the procedure had to be evaluated under established jurisprudence, including People v. Musor, which interpreted the phrase “immediately after seizure and confiscation” as requiring inventory and photographing at the place of apprehension, with alternative locations permitted only if impracticable. Critically, Musor emphasized that the required witnesses must be physically present at the time of apprehension because their presence insulated the transaction against planting of evidence, a concern most acute when marking and control were exercised by law enforcement alone.

Applying these standards, the Court treated the RTC and CA findings as acknowledging patent deviations. The Court then focused on whether the prosecution proved justifiable grounds for deviation from the mandatory requirements. The Court found that it was not persuaded by the explanation offered by the CA.

The Court identified several undisputed factual elements: first, the buy-bust team at the arrest and seizure site consisted entirely of PDEA members; second, marking of the evidence was performed inside the service vehicle, not at the billiard hall; third, after marking, the buy-bust team went to Pagadian City but allegedly—due to power interruption—proceeded instead to Camp Abelon; fourth, Camp Abelon was neither the nearest police station nor the nearest PDEA office from the crime scene, the nearest being the PNP Station of Labanga and the PDEA Office in Dao, Pagadian City; fifth, inventory and photographing were conducted only at Camp Abelon; and sixth, the required witnesses from media, DOJ, and the elected official were present only during the inventory and photographing at Camp Abelon.

Given this concurrence of circumstances and the controlling jurisprudence, the Court concluded that the buy-bust team failed to justify the deviations from RA 9165. The Court considered the scenario particularly problematic because the evidence was marked inside a police vehicle with no insulating witnesses present, and only later did the required witnesses appear during inventory. The Court treated this as a blatant disregard of the safeguards meant to prevent doubts about identity and integrity, especially when prosecution and defense were polarized on the occurrence and circumstances of the alleged transaction.

The Court also held that the CA erred in reasoning that inventory and photographing could be conducted elsewhere independently of the place where the seized items were marked. It stressed that even assuming impracticability at the immediate place of apprehension, the team still bypassed the nearest contemplated stations without showing why those alternatives could not provide the necessary measure of security comparable to Camp Abelon. The Court treated the asserted reason—that people were already starting to gather—as insufficient because the deviations were attributed to the police team’s own choice, and they had not made of record a justifiable ground to transfer to another location.

The Court further noted an additional troubling deficiency. Upon examination of the Information, it observed that the Information inexplicably failed to specify the exact weight of the shabu allegedly seized and sold. Although accused-appellants had not moved to quash on sufficiency grounds, the Court considered

...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