Title
People vs. Ilagan y Garcia
Case
G.R. No. 244295
Decision Date
Nov 9, 2020
Accused acquitted due to broken chain of custody; lapses in evidence handling, absence of required witnesses, and failure to document transfers compromised integrity of seized drugs.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 238873)

Antecedents

In response to information received from a confidential agent, the Calamba City Police Intelligence Section conducted a buy-bust operation targeting Leo Ilagan y Garcia, suspected of selling illegal drugs. On January 14, 2017, collaborating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), an undercover police officer, PO1 Malate, approached the accused with a pre-arranged plan. During the operation, the accused sold a plastic sachet of suspected shabu to PO1 Malate for ₱500.00, after which the police team apprehended him, conducted a search, and seized further evidence, including additional sachets of shabu found at the scene.

Charges and Trial

Accused-appellant was charged with illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, drafting two separate Informations against him. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found him guilty of both charges, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the sale and a prison term of 12 years and one day to 14 years for possession, along with monetary fines. Accused-appellant denied the allegations, claiming mistaken identity and challenging the integrity of the evidence collection process.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision, leading to the accused's appeal to the Supreme Court. Accused-appellant argued insufficient proof of the charges and raised concerns regarding the procedural irregularities in the marking and inventory of the confiscated drugs, which he claimed compromised the chain of custody of the evidence.

Ruling

The Supreme Court acquitted accused-appellant Leo Ilagan y Garcia, citing a significant break in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The Court underscored the importance of ensuring the integrity of evidence, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to meet its burden of establishing a clear and unbroken chain leading from the apprehension of the drugs to their presentation in court. Central to this ruling was the absence of required witnesses during the inventory and marking of the seized drugs, which raised reasonable doubt about the authenticity and handling of the evidence.

Chain of Custody Analysis

The Supreme Court meticulously examined each link in the chain of custody, noting:

  1. First Link: The absence of representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media during the inventory undermined the initial integrity of the evidence collection.
  2. Second Link: Discrepancies in documentation indicated that the seized items were not transferred to the investigating officer as required, casting doubt on the handling of the evidence.
  3. Third Link: Lack of clarity regarding how the seized drugs were managed post-investigation accentuated concer

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.