Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Dela Cruz
Case
G.R. No. 229053
Decision Date
Jul 17, 2019
Jordan Dela Cruz acquitted by Supreme Court due to prosecution's failure to comply with chain of custody requirements under RA 9165, undermining evidence integrity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 229053)

Charges and Lower Court Decisions

On July 23, 2012, two Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), outlining allegations against Dela Cruz: Criminal Case No. L-9497 for possession of marijuana and Criminal Case No. L-9498 for the selling of marijuana. Dela Cruz pleaded not guilty during arraignment. In its July 20, 2015 Decision, the RTC found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed severe penalties, including a life sentence for the sale of drugs.

Evidence Presented

The prosecution's case relied on testimonies from five witnesses, including police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. The operation's details indicate that Dela Cruz was apprehended after allegedly selling two plastic sachets of marijuana to a poseur-buyer, Police Officer 1 (PO1) Denver Santillan. After the arrest, additional sachets were found in Dela Cruz's possession. Laboratory tests confirmed the confiscated items were indeed marijuana.

Defense Argument

In his defense, Dela Cruz asserted that he was not involved in any drug-related activities and claimed he was unlawfully detained by individuals posing as police officers before being brought to the police station. He maintained that he had not sold any drugs and that he was coerced into making false admissions of guilt.

Appellate Court Proceedings

The case was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the RTC's decision but modified the penalty for illegal possession. The court ruled that certain procedural requirements under the law were satisfied despite allegations of lapses.

Chain of Custody and Procedural Compliance

Central to Dela Cruz's appeal is the contention that the prosecution did not comply with the chain of custody requirements mandated by the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. According to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, strict compliance is required involving immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of third-party witnesses. Dela Cruz’s counsel emphasized that there was neither a proper inventory nor the presence of required witnesses during the buy-bust operation.

Court’s Analysis and Findings

The Supreme Court reiterated that the prosecution bears the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Noncompliance with established chain of custody procedures affects the integrity and admissibility of evidence. The ruling emphasized that without strict adherence to these

...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.