Title
People vs. Abdul Azis Y Sampaco a.k.a. Mohammad Macapundag Guimbor and Alibair Macadato Y Macadato
Case
G.R. No. 258873
Decision Date
Aug 30, 2023
Two accused convicted for illegal possession of 622.78 grams of shabu; warrantless arrest upheld, chain of custody deemed intact despite procedural lapses.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 129486)

Charges and Pre-trial Proceedings

On June 16, 2016, separate informations charged Azis with possession of 491.69 g and Macadato with 131.09 g of shabu, in violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The RTC consolidated both cases on July 8, 2016. Both accused pleaded not guilty.

The Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution presented testimonies of PO1 Alcova, PO1 Lacson, and PO2 Pascual, and stipulated the report of Forensic Chemist Cejes. After marking the seized items at the arrest site, officers retreated due to a hostile crowd and conducted inventory and photography at the police station in the presence of a media representative. Laboratory tests confirmed the seized material as methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The Defense Version

Azis alleged that officers forcibly entered his home earlier in the day, destroyed property, planted evidence, and later introduced Macadato at the station. Imam Sharief and Monacaya purportedly witnessed Macadato’s arrest but admitted they did not know why he was taken into custody. The defense contested the legality of the arrest and challenged the chain of custody.

RTC Findings and Decision

The RTC found the arrests lawful in flagrante delicto and the subsequent search valid as incidental to arrest. It upheld that marking occurred at the place of apprehension and that inventory and photography at the station were justified by safety concerns. The court rejected the frame-up defense for lack of credible corroboration and sentenced both appellants to life imprisonment and a ₱500,000 fine each.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The CA affirmed. It held that Alcova’s close-range observation and hearing of “tamok” established probable cause for warrantless in flagrante delicto arrests. The incidental search rendered the seized drugs admissible. The absence of an elected official or DOJ representative during inventory was excused by justifiable operational exigencies, with a media witness sufficing to preserve evidentiary integrity.

Issues on Appeal and Governing Principles

Under the 1987 Constitution, the Court reiterated that possession of a dangerous drug requires proof of unauthorized, conscious control over the substance. A warrantless arrest is lawful when the offense is witnessed by the arresting officer (Rule 113, Sec. 5[a]). The chain of custody rule demands evidence of an unbroken sequence—from seizure and marking to laboratory analysis and court presentation—but allows “substantial compliance” where justifiable grounds exist and integrity is preserved.

Lawful Warrantless Arrest

Alcova’s testimony of hearing “tamok” and observing the handover of suspected shabu from 1.5 meters away satisfied probable cause for an in flagrante delicto arrest. The search that yielded 622.78 g of shabu was valid as incidental to a lawful arrest, rendering the seized items admissible.

Chain of Custody and Substantial Compliance

The Court identified four links: marking at seizure, turnover to the investigator, submission to the forensic chemist, and presentation to the court. Although inventory and photography occurred at the police station d

...continue reading

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