Title
People vs. Lacdan y Perez
Case
G.R. No. 208472
Decision Date
Oct 14, 2019
Accused acquitted as prosecution failed to prove chain of custody in drug buy-bust operation, violating R.A. 9165 procedural safeguards.
drug charges
handling of seized drugs
integrity of evidence

Case Summary (G.R. No. 208472)

Factual Background

The prosecution’s evidence, as taken from the records, began with a confidential informant who, on February 9, 2004 at around 5:00 p.m., reported to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Regional Office, Calabarzon, stationed at Camp Vicente Lim in Calamba City, Laguna, that he had negotiated a drug deal with accused-appellants involving 10.03 grams of shabu worth P18,000.00. The report was referred to Sgt. Amado Marquez (Sgt. Marquez), who in turn referred it to Police Senior Inspector Julius Ceasar Ablang (S/Insp. Ablang) for verification. S/Insp. Ablang then formed a buy-bust team led by himself, with Inspector Josefino Ligan as assistant team leader, SPO4 Marianito Villanueva as the arresting officer, PO3 Danilo Liona as a member, and PO3 Marino Garcia as the poseur-buyer.

The team’s agreed plan was that once the arresting officer observed the poseur-buyer handing the buy-bust money to accused-appellants, the team would immediately arrest them. S/Insp. Ablang gave PO3 Garcia two genuine P500.00 bills marked “MAG”, while the balance of the P18,000.00 consisted of boodle money—cut-out newspapers fashioned to look like money. The boodle money was placed between the two genuine marked bills.

At around 4:00 a.m. of February 10, 2004, the buy-bust team proceeded to the San Pedro Town Center in San Pedro, Laguna and waited until the early morning transaction. The confidential informant was in constant communication with accused-appellants through a cellular phone. After about one and a half hours of waiting, PO3 Garcia saw accused-appellants disembark from a tricycle. The informant introduced PO3 Garcia to accused-appellants, who asked if he had the agreed P18,000.00. PO3 Garcia pulled out and flashed the buy-bust money.

According to the prosecution, Vierneza then produced a large heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance and handed it to PO3 Garcia. When Lacdan demanded payment, PO3 Garcia handed the money to Lacdan. After the sale was allegedly consummated, the rest of the team rushed in, introduced themselves as members of the PDEA, and informed accused-appellants of their constitutional rights. Accused-appellants were brought to the PDEA Office in Camp Vicente Lim. There, PO3 Garcia placed his initials on the plastic sachet and inventoried the same in the presence of an elected official and a media representative. The sachet was thereafter submitted for forensic testing, which confirmed that the substance was shabu.

Defense Version

Accused-appellants denied the charges and presented testimonies supporting a claim of entrapment or improper circumstances. Lacdan testified that on February 10, 2004, he was resting at home when he received a call from a person named “Karen” asking him to go to Sogo Hotel in San Pedro, Laguna. Upon arriving, he went to Room 122, where he allegedly saw Karen with a companion who pointed a gun at him. Lacdan claimed that two more men entered the room and compelled him to bring them to a place where “Arnel” lived. He stated that at that location, about five to six people were conversing and were also arrested. Lacdan claimed that all were brought to Canlubang, Laguna and detained.

Vierneza likewise testified that, at the time of the incident, he was gathering food for his pigs. He claimed that he saw several people conversing and that, suddenly, a Toyota Revo arrived, from which five armed men alighted. He alleged that a gun was poked at him and that he was forced to ride the vehicle. On the way, he purportedly overheard the men say, “hindi naman ito ang tao,” suggesting that he was not the intended person. Two other witnesses corroborated Vierneza’s testimony.

Trial and Appellate Proceedings

On November 25, 2008, the RTC rendered a decision finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu under Section 5 of R.A. 9165. The RTC credited the police officers’ testimony and held that the prosecution had proven the elements of illegal sale beyond reasonable doubt, giving greater weight to the officers’ accounts over the defense version. It further sustained the handling of the evidence as adequate to establish the charged offense.

Accused-appellants appealed to the CA. On January 16, 2012, the CA affirmed the conviction. The CA found that the prosecution established both the elements of illegal sale and the observance of the chain of custody. It concluded—through the testimony of SPO4 Villanueva—that an illegal sale occurred between accused-appellants as sellers and PO3 Garcia as poseur-buyer, and that the sachet was submitted to the crime laboratory for testing. The CA regarded this as sufficient to prove the corpus delicti.

In their supplemental brief before the Supreme Court, accused-appellants challenged the prosecution’s compliance with Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165, specifically alleging that the illicit drugs were not photographed and that the inventory was not done in the presence of the required witnesses, including a DOJ representative and a representative from the media.

The Office of the Solicitor General manifested it would no longer file a supplemental brief and instead adopted the Appellee’s Brief filed before the CA.

Issues Raised

The Supreme Court framed the sole issue as whether the CA erred in upholding the conviction of accused-appellants for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165—particularly in light of alleged non-compliance with the evidentiary safeguards governing chain of custody under Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Supreme Court granted the appeal. It reversed and set aside the CA’s January 16, 2012 Decision and ordered the acquittal of accused-appellants, with immediate release unless held for another lawful reason. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt due to material non-compliance with the mandatory chain-of-custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court first addressed the prosecution’s narrative regarding the buy-bust operation and the use of boodle money. It explained that boodle money consisted of cut-out newspapers shaped like money bills and that they were not counterfeit money. The Court reasoned that because boodle money would appear obvious to ordinary observers, it would have been more in accord with human experience for accused-appellants to notice irregularities, especially because the transaction supposedly occurred at around 6:00 a.m., when it was already bright and the sun had risen. The Court found the police narration that accused-appellants accepted the transaction without alarm to be at best questionable, undermining credibility of the prosecution’s account.

More importantly, the Court emphasized that in illegal sale cases under R.A. 9165, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty, because the dangerous drug itself constitutes an integral part of the corpus delicti. Failure to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence insufficient to convict beyond reasonable doubt, warranting acquittal. The Court cited jurisprudence to that effect, including People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018 and People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018.

To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the Court held that the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 must be observed. Here, because the buy-bust operation occurred prior to the amendment of R.A. 9165, the apprehending team was mandated, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to conduct physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized (or that person’s representative or counsel) and required witnesses: (1) a representative from the media; (2) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (3) any elected public official.

The Court found that the records showed significant deviations from these requirements. It held that the inventory was conducted at the PDEA Office in Camp Vicente Lim in Calamba City, while the buy-bust operation occurred in San Pedro, approximately 20 kilometers away. The Court further found that the inventory was witnessed only by the accused, a media representative, and an elected public official. Crucially, the illicit drug was not photographed, contrary to the explicit mandate of Section 21. The Court also noted that there was no explanation for: why the inventory took place in Calamba City rather than in San Pedro; why there was no photograph; and why the inventory was not witnessed by a DOJ representative.

Given these “glaring non-compliance” with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, the Court concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were highly compromised. As a result, the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti with the required certainty, leading to acquittal.

The Court also underscored a broader enfor

...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