Title
Supreme Court
People vs. Holgado y Dela Cruz
Case
G.R. No. 207992
Decision Date
Aug 11, 2014
Two accused acquitted of illegal drug sale due to lapses in chain of custody and non-compliance with RA 9165 procedural safeguards.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 214762)

Charges Against the Accused

The information filed against the accused on January 19, 2007, alleged that they unlawfully sold and delivered drugs, specifically one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing five centigrams (0.05 grams) of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to PO1 Philip Aure, an undercover police officer. Although Holgado and Misarez faced additional charges related to possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia, they were acquitted of these charges during the trial.

Operational Background

Prior to the buy-bust operation, police received reports about Holgado's involvement in illegal drug activities. After surveillance, a search warrant was obtained, however, the police decided to execute a buy-bust operation instead of enforcing the search warrant immediately.

Execution of the Buy-Bust Operation

During the operation, PO1 Aure approached Holgado under the pretense of purchasing drugs while accompanied by a police informant. After some interaction, Misarez, having been called by Holgado, handed over the plastic sachet of drugs to PO1 Aure. Once the drug sale was completed, the police operatives intervened, which led to a chaotic escape by Holgado and Misarez into a neighboring house where they were eventually apprehended.

Evidence and Seizure

Following their arrest, police operations yielded various drug paraphernalia. However, during the trial, issues arose regarding the integrity of the evidence, particularly the chain of custody of the plastic sachet sold to PO1 Aure and the items seized during the search. The prosecution's failure to present key evidence ultimately became a focal point in the case.

Trial and Acquittal

In the Regional Trial Court, Holgado and Misarez were found guilty of illegal drug sale, leading to their conviction and a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine. However, they were acquitted of possession-related charges as the evidence was not properly established. The appellate court affirmed this conviction, triggering the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Decision Overview

The Supreme Court, reviewing the case, highlighted the necessity for strict adherence to the chain of custody requirements outlined in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. This provision mandates that a detailed process of inventorying and securing seized narcotics must be followed to preserve their integrity as evidence. The prosecution's inability to fulfill these requirements raised significant doubts regarding the custody and identity of the corpus delicti.

Chain of Custody and Legal Standards

The Court emphasized that compliance with the chain of custody requirements serves not only to ensure the integrity of evidence but also to prevent tampering or contamination—an essential factor considering the minuscule amount of drugs involved. Cases involving small quantities of drugs necessitate even greater scrutiny due to the heightened risk of evidence mishan

...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.