Title
People vs. Herdez
Case
G.R. No. 258077
Decision Date
Jun 15, 2022
Donato Hernandez was acquitted of drug charges due to prosecution's failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody, compromising evidence integrity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 45310)

Key Dates and Courts

Seizure/arrest occurred on or about September 16, 2017. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 36, Calamba City, Laguna rendered a decision on August 7, 2018 finding the accused guilty. The Court of Appeals affirmed on September 30, 2020. The Supreme Court (First Division) rendered the assailed decision on June 15, 2022.

Charges and Informations

Donato was charged in two Informations: Criminal Case No. 30374-2017-C for Illegal Sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (approx. 0.12 gram) in violation of Section 5, Article II, RA 9165; and Criminal Case No. 30375-2017-C for Illegal Possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride (approx. 11.69 grams) in violation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165. Donato pleaded not guilty at arraignment.

Prosecution’s Factual Narrative

A confidential informant (CI) allegedly informed SPO2 Colinares that Donato was selling drugs. A buy-bust team was formed with PO1 Villarino as poseur-buyer and PO2 Elauria as back-up. Villarino marked P500.00 buy-bust money with his initials “JV.” The operation was coordinated with the PDEA. Villarino, Elauria, and the CI went to Donato’s house; the CI introduced the officers as prospective buyers. Villarino handed the marked money to Donato, who allegedly retrieved a heat-sealed sachet from a black pouch and gave it to Villarino, who placed it in his pocket. The officers then announced themselves, arrested Donato, and frisked him, recovering the marked money; a search of the black pouch yielded four additional sachets. An inventory and marking of seized items was conducted at Donato’s house in the presence of Manila and Trinidad; items were marked with labels such as “JPV-ABB,” “JPV-1” through “JPV-4,” and “JPV-5” for the pouch. The seized items and requests for laboratory examination and drug test were purportedly turned over to the Regional Crime Laboratory (Camp Vicente Lim), where PCI Huelgas conducted chemical examination and produced Chemistry Report No. D-1339-17 showing positive tests for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The parties stipulated to PCI Huelgas’s qualifications and findings in lieu of her testimony.

Defense’s Factual Narrative

Donato denied the charges and claimed a frame-up: he alleged that on the morning of September 16, 2017 armed men identifying themselves as police barged in seeking “Kuya Boogie.” When he identified himself as such, the men allegedly forced him to surrender, threatened him with a gun, searched his bedroom, then produced a black pouch containing sachets and attributed its contents to him. Donato maintained that the drugs were planted. He acknowledged being taken to the barangay hall and later to the police station.

RTC Ruling and Reasoning

The RTC found Villarino’s testimony credible over Donato’s denial and rejected the frame-up theory. The trial court concluded that the police performed their official duties with regularity and that the prosecution preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs from confiscation until presentation in court. Accordingly, the RTC convicted Donato of both illegal sale and illegal possession, imposing life imprisonment and a P500,000 fine for each count, and ordered turnover of confiscated drugs to the PDEA for destruction.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision on September 30, 2020, upholding the conviction and the trial court’s findings regarding credibility and preservation of seized items.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

Whether Donato’s guilt for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt — principally whether the prosecution satisfactorily established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs.

Legal Framework on Chain of Custody

Under RA 9165 jurisprudence and implementing guidelines, the prosecution must establish with moral certainty the identity and integrity of the seized dangerous drug through four links in the chain of custody: (1) seizure and marking, if practicable, by the apprehending officer; (2) turn-over of the seized item to the investigating officer; (3) turn-over by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist/crime laboratory; and (4) turn-over and submission by the forensic chemist to the court. Failure to account for each link may render the corpus delicti unproven and warrant acquittal.

Supreme Court’s Assessment — First Link (Seizure and Marking)

The Supreme Court found the first link substantially complied with. Inventory and marking were conducted immediately after seizure in Donato’s house in the presence of two independent witnesses (barangay chairman Manalo and media representative Trinidad), who signed the Receipt of Physical Inventory. Although the markings were not exactly in the format prescribed by the PNP Manual (e.g., absence of date, time, place on the marking), the initials used by PO1 Villarino served to make the seized items visually and physically distinct and thus fulfilled the marking purpose.

Supreme Court’s Assessment — Second Link (Turn-over to Investigating Officer)

The Court concluded there was no break in the second link. Although the apprehending officer did not formally endorse the items to the investigating officer, Villarino retained custody and then presented the items to the crime laboratory. The movement of the seized items at each stage was recorded, and the identities of persons who had custody and the dates/times of transfers were established, which the Court considered a substantial compliance consistent with precedent such as People v. Casilang and People v. Macaspac.

Supreme Court’s Assessment — Third Link (Turn-over to Forensic Laboratory)

The Supreme Court found the third link defective. Villarino testified that he and PO2 Elauria delivered the items and the laboratory requests to the crime laboratory and that the receipt appeared stamped by PO2 Comia. However, PO2 Comia — the alleged recipient at the laboratory — was not presented to testify about receipt, the condition of the evidence on receipt, or precautions taken to preserve integrity. The absence of direct testimony from the person who allegedly received the seized items at the laboratory left the chain incomplete and raised reasonable doubt as to potential substitution, contamination, or alteration while the items were in transit or custody.

Supreme Court’s Assessment — Fourth Link (Forensic Chemist and Post-Examination Custody)

The Supreme Court held tha

...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