Title
People vs. Gerald Flores y Alagdon, et al.
Case
G.R. No. 262686
Decision Date
Oct 11, 2023
The Supreme Court reversed convictions for illegal sale and possession of drugs due to failure to prove chain of custody and noncompliance with Section 21 of RA 9165. Accused-appellants were acquitted.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 262686)

Indictment and evidence collected

Two Informations were filed: Criminal Case No. R‑QZN‑16‑14780‑CR (Section 5 – sale/trade) against all three accused and Criminal Case No. R‑QZN‑16‑14784‑CR (Section 13 – possession during party) against Louie Truelen. The Chemistry Report confirmed the seized specimens as methamphetamine hydrochloride. Chain of Custody and Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property Forms were introduced into evidence, bearing signatures of the alleged insulating witnesses.

Trial testimony and factual conflicts

Prosecution witnesses (arresting officers) essentially corroborated the Joint Affidavit, admitting, however, that (1) the buy‑bust team did not coordinate with PDEA prior to the operation, (2) no photographs were taken at the place of marking, (3) the inventory was conducted at the police station rather than at the place of arrest due to a perceived commotion, and (4) the media representative and barangay kagawad took at least 15 minutes or more to arrive at the station. Defense testimony asserted unlawful entry, beating, transportation to the station, and claimed various procedural irregularities including alleged drug testing and transit through another precinct.

RTC disposition and sentencing

The Regional Trial Court convicted the three accused for illegal sale (Section 5) and convicted Louie Truelen separately for possession during a social gathering (Section 13). The RTC relied on the credibility and positive testimony of the police, the Chain of Custody Form, and the Inventory Form; it applied the presumption of regularity to police acts in the absence of affirmatively shown bad faith, and sentenced the accused to harsh penalties and fines.

Court of Appeals disposition

The Court of Appeals affirmed with slight modification: it found all three guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and sentenced them to life imprisonment with fines; it likewise adjudged Louie Truelen guilty of illegal possession (but the CA’s modified disposition is reflected in the record). The CA expressly concluded there was no significant gap in the chain of custody and that the police had preserved the integrity of the seized substances.

Issue on appeal before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered whether, on review of the record and applicable jurisprudence and statutes, the convictions should be sustained given the evidence, compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 (as amended), and the integrity of the chain of custody.

Governing statutory and jurisprudential standards

Section 21, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 9165 (as amended by R.A. No. 10640) requires immediate marking, physical inventory and photographing of seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation, ordinarily at the place of seizure, and witnessed by the accused (or representative/counsel) and specified insulating witnesses (an elected public official and either a National Prosecution Service representative or a media representative, depending on the statutory period). Jurisprudence (People v. Ordiz, Tomawis, Nisperos, Mendoza, Somira, Holgado, and related authorities cited) emphasize: (a) the presumption of regularity in police duty does not override the accused’s constitutional presumption of innocence; (b) the mandatory insulating witnesses serve as safeguards against planting, switching, contamination, or other abuses; (c) where required witnesses are not readily available at the time of seizure or inventory, the protections intended by Section 21 are vitiated; and (d) noncompliance may be excused only with justifiable grounds plus proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

Supreme Court’s critical findings on compliance and evidentiary deficiencies

The Court identified multiple, significant defects in the prosecution’s proof: (1) a temporal discrepancy — the Joint Affidavit of Apprehension and the Inventory Form both indicate 9:00 p.m. as starting points in inconsistent ways and the Chain of Custody entries suggest other times (e.g., 9:40 p.m.) without explanation; (2) absence of photographic documentation at the place of arrest and marking; (3) the alleged insulating witnesses were not shown to have been “readily available” at or near the place of arrest, given admissions that they arrived some 15 minutes or more after being contacted; (4) the identity and credentials of one insulating witness (barangay kagawad Nelson N. Dela Cruz) were not established — no document in the record identifies his barangay or office; (5) the signature of the media representative on the inventory form did not match the signature on his presented identification card; and (6) the police offered no justifiable grounds to excuse these discrepancies or to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved despite procedural deviations.

Legal analysis on presumptions, burden of proof, and Rule 131 relevance

The Court reiterated that presumptions in favor of official acts must yield to the accused’s constitutional presumption of innocence. It applied the 2019 Revised Rules on Evidence (Rule 131) discussion: while there exists a disputable presumption that a person acting in public office is regularly appointed, Rule 131 Section 6 requires that if a presumed fact establishes guilt or is an element of the offense, the basic fact must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The status of Dela Cruz as an elected public official — an element relevant to compliance with Section 21 — thus required affirmative proof; the prosecution’s failure to produce such proof meant the prosecution did not establish the basic fact beyond reasonable doubt. The Court referenced Mabunga and other authorities to underscore that presumptions against an accused must be treated narrowly.

Effect on the chain of custody and corpus delicti identification

The Court concluded that the first link in the chain of custody — the marking and inventory immediately after seizure witnessed by the mandatory insulating witnesses — was defective and therefore the chain was not properly forged. Given that the first link is foundational, any subsequent chain links could not cure the initial failure. The uncertainties as to time, the late arrival and unverified identity/credentials of insulating witnesses, and the signature discrepancies created reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti ab initio.

Appl

...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