Title
People vs. Martin y Ison
Case
G.R. No. 231007
Decision Date
Jul 1, 2019
Appellant acquitted due to breaches in chain of custody, non-compliance with RA 9165 procedures, and failure to establish integrity of seized drugs.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 231007)

Proceedings Before the Trial Court

Antonio Martin was accused of selling one plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, popularly known as "shabu," on February 17, 2010, in San Leonardo, Nueva Ecija. During the trial, after pleading not guilty, Martin contended that the evidence against him was insufficient. The prosecution's case was built on testimonies from police officers, who conducted a buy-bust operation, and forensic evidence confirming the substance's illegal nature. The trial court found Martin guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fined him 500,000 pesos.

The Prosecution's Version

The police initiated a buy-bust operation following a tip from a confidential informant who allegedly had previous dealings with Martin. Under the supervision of Police Chief Inspector Francisco Mateo II, arrangements were made to send the informant to purchase drugs from Martin. During the operation, police officers observed the transaction from a distance, and after confirming the buy, apprehended Martin, collecting both the marked money and the suspected drugs.

The Defense's Version

In contrast, Martin testified that he was mistakenly apprehended while urinating outside his house and that he had no involvement in drug sales. He alleged coercion by the police to admit to crimes he did not commit while being transported to the station. A witness supported his claim, stating that there were no indications of illegal drug transactions taking place.

The Trial Court's Ruling

The Regional Trial Court concluded that the prosecution had established Martin’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court cited sufficient evidence, including testimonies and the positive result from forensic testing, leading to a conviction for a serious crime with severe penalties under the law. The court denied Martin's subsequent motion for reconsideration.

Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

On appeal, Martin challenged the trial court's findings, arguing that the prosecution failed to prove that a drug sale occurred and outlined inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly regarding the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The Court of Appeals, however, affirmed the trial court's decision, determining that the inconsistencies were not substantial enough to undermine the credibility of the prosecution's arguments.

The Present Petition

Martin sought further review, asserting that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming his conviction. Both parties opted not to submit additional briefs, relying instead on their previous submissions to the appellate court.

Ruling on Appeal

The Supreme Court reiterated that in drug cases, the identity of the recovered substance must be established with precision through a strict chain of custody. The prosecution failed to adequately account for each link in the chain, particularly concerning the immediate marking of the seized drug at the scene of the arrest. There were breaches identified in the procedures outlined by the law, including the absence of required witnesses during crucial phases, such as the inventory and the turnover of evidence.

Breach of the Chain of Custody

The Supreme Court noted that to preserve the integrity of a drug item, officers must immedia

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.