Title
Supreme Court
People vs. De Vera
Case
G.R. No. 229364
Decision Date
Oct 16, 2019
Appellants acquitted due to prosecution's failure to establish unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs, violating RA 9165's procedural requirements.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 46739)

Applicable Law

The relevant legal framework for the case is Republic Act No. 9165, specifically Section 21, which governs the chain of custody for seized illegal drugs, ensuring that their integrity and evidentiary value are preserved throughout the apprehension and prosecution process.

The Proceedings Before the Trial Court

The charge against the appellants stemmed from a buy-bust operation on October 9, 2011, in Laoag City, where they allegedly sold methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu." The prosecution presented several witnesses, including law enforcement officers who executed the operation. The defense, on the other hand, claimed unlawful arrest and presented testimonies to support their assertion.

Prosecution's Version

Under the prosecution's narrative, the police received a tip-off about Cacal selling shabu, leading to a buy-bust operation. After coordinating with a poseur buyer, PO1 Sugayen, they proceeded to the location, where De Vera allegedly delivered the drug to the buyer and received pay. Upon the completion of the operation, both appellants were arrested, and the drug was marked and submitted for forensic examination. The chemist confirmed that the substance was indeed methamphetamine.

Defense's Version

The defense argued that appellants were victims of police misconduct. Cacal claimed he was at the bar for a job interview, while De Vera testified that she was collecting money for her aunt. Both maintained that they had not engaged in any illegal activity and were falsely charged by corrupt police officers. Witness corroborations were provided to support their claims regarding their whereabouts and the nature of their interactions with law enforcement.

The Trial Court's Ruling

The trial court convicted both appellants, sentencing them to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of P500,000. The court relied heavily on the testimonies of the arresting officers and the confirmation from the forensic chemist regarding the nature of the seized substance.

The Court of Appeals' Ruling

Upon appeal, the appellants challenged the trial court's decision, insisting that there were significant procedural lapses during the buy-bust operation, particularly concerning the chain of custody of the seized drug. However, the appellate court upheld the conviction, asserting that the integrity of the evidence was adequately maintained despite procedural issues.

The Present Appeal

The appellants sought further relief, focusing on the alleged shortcomings in handling the chain of custody. The primary issue was whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s ruling despite these claims.

Ruling on the Chain of Custody Issues

The higher court found that the prosecution had failed to maintain an unbroken chain of custody as mandated by RA 9165. Testimonies during the trial highlighted several procedural breaches, including the failure to mark the drug immediately at the scene of the arrest, the absence of a proper inventory conducted in the presence of required witnesses, and discrepancie

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.