Title
People vs. Delociembre y Andales
Case
G.R. No. 226485
Decision Date
Jun 6, 2018
Accused acquitted due to police failure to comply with chain of custody rules under RA 9165, compromising evidence integrity in a buy-bust operation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 152329)

Facts of the Buy-Bust Operation

On April 7, 2010, a buy-bust team, acting on an informant’s arrangement, met Bernie (alias “Axe”) and Dhats at NIA Road. The informant’s poseur-buyer (IO1 Avenido) received five sachets of white crystalline substance marked “MPA 4/7/2010” in exchange for marked money. Upon the pre-arranged signal, law enforcement officers arrested the two accused. The substances were marked, inventoried, photographed, and later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) and meferonex at the PDEA laboratory.

Accused-Appellants’ Defense

Bernie claimed he was at home when PDEA agents arrested him, denied knowledge of the transaction, and first saw Dhats and the drugs at the PDEA office. Dhats asserted he was at lunch when armed men arrested him, then accompanied Bernie to Camp Crame for medical examination, was extorted for money, and only saw the drugs at the inquest. Both raised denial and alibi defenses.

Regional Trial Court Judgment

The RTC of Quezon City (Branch 78) found all elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 proven: identity of parties, delivery and payment, and positive forensic results. It rejected the alibi defense as unsubstantiated, sentenced each accused to life imprisonment, and imposed a ₱500,000 fine.

Court of Appeals Decision

The CA affirmed the RTC: it held that despite minor lapses in Section 21 procedures (inventory and presence of required witnesses), the chain of custody remained unbroken. It accepted justifications related to crowding in a Muslim compound and the presence of an elected official in lieu of a DOJ or media representative.

Supreme Court Initial Resolution

In April 2017, the Court upheld the CA decision, finding guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of shabu under the 1987 Constitution and RA 9165. The accused-appellants filed a motion for reconsideration.

Appellate Review of Procedural Requirements

Under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 (as amended by RA 10640) and its IRR, seized drugs must be inventoried and photographed immediately in the presence of the accused (or counsel), a DOJ or media representative, and an elected public official. Non-compliance may be excused only on justifiable grounds, provided integrity and evidentiary value are preserved (People v. Almorfe, People v. De Guzman).

Supreme Court’s Findings on Non-Compliance

The Court found that the buy-bust team conducted inventory only with the accused and an elected official, omitting DOJ and media witnesses without plausible justification. Testimony showed the DOJ office was a five-minute walk away, yet no effort was credibly made to secure a representative. No team leader testified to excuse th

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.