Title
People vs. Valencia y Lorenzo
Case
G.R. No. 250610
Decision Date
Jul 10, 2023
Two accused acquitted of illegal drug sale due to chain of custody irregularities, including altered markings, compromising evidence integrity.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 250610)

Petitioner

People of the Philippines, represented by the National Prosecution Service and officers of the law enforcement agencies.

Respondents

Francis Valencia y Lorenzo and Ryan Antipuesto, charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by RA 10640.

Key Dates

• January 15–16, 2016: Surveillance and buy‐bust operation.
• December 18, 2017: Conviction by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Dumaguete City.
• May 31, 2019: Affirmation by the Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
• July 10, 2023: Reversal and acquittal by the Supreme Court.

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (due process and integrity of evidence).
• Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), Section 5 (sale of dangerous drugs) and Section 21 on custody and disposition of seized items.
• Republic Act No. 10640 (2014 amendments to Section 21).

Facts of Operation

Police officers, acting on a confidential informant’s tip regarding Antipuesto’s alleged drug trade, conducted prior surveillance. On January 16, 2016, Panggoy posed as buyer, exchanged marked buy‐bust money for a heat‐sealed sachet of shabu delivered by Valencia at the Dumaguete City Port exit gate. Antipuesto fled; Valencia was arrested. The sachet was marked “FLV/RA-BB-01-16-16,” placed in a brown envelope, and inventoried and photographed first at the police station, then submitted to the PDEA crime laboratory where forensic examinations confirmed the presence of shabu in the sachet and in Valencia’s urine sample.

Procedural History

The trial court found both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, sentenced them to life imprisonment and fine, and ordered forfeiture of the evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Both appellants filed a timely appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues on Appeal

  1. Whether the prosecution established that the transaction indeed took place.
  2. Whether the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti (the seized shabu) were preserved through strict compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, RA 9165, as amended.

Supreme Court Analysis on Buy-Bust Validity

The Court held that prior surveillance, while not indispensable, was in fact conducted and adequately supported by testimony from Panggoy and Basa–Aez. The confidential informant introduced the poseur buyer to Antipuesto the night before, and corroboration by officers on the day of the operation dispelled the alibi defenses. Law enforcement officers enjoy discretion in buy-bust operations, and the identification of the accused by the poseur buyer and corroborating witness was credible.

Supreme Court Analysis on Chain of Custody

Section 21 of RA 9165 (as amended) mandates immediate marking, inventory, and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of specified witnesses, preferably at the place of seizure or, if impracticable, at the nearest police station or office, provided that noncompliance for justifiable grounds does not void custody if integrity is preserved. The Court outlined three provisos:

  1. Immediate conduct of inventory and photographing with required witnesses.
  2. Alternative venues only when impracticable or dangerous to remain on site.
  3. A saving clause requiring acknowledgment of deviations and proof of preserved integrity.

Fatal Chain of Custody Defect

Although marking was e

...continue reading

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