Case Summary (G.R. No. L-23851)
Petitioner and Respondents
- Petitioner: PDEA, challenging the release of the seized vehicle.
- Respondents: Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph, accused of unlawful sale and possession of dangerous drugs.
Key Dates
- September 19, 2008: Alleged sale and seizure of dangerous drugs and non-drug personal effects.
- April 13 & 16, 2009: Informations filed in Muntinlupa RTC (Criminal Cases Nos. 09-208, 09-209).
- July 30, 2009: Brodett’s motion to return non-drug evidence.
- November 4, 2009: RTC orders return of the Honda Accord to Myra S. Brodett.
- February 17, 2010: Denial of PDEA’s motion for reconsideration.
- March 31, 2011: Court of Appeals (CA) denies PDEA’s certiorari petition.
- September 28, 2011: Supreme Court resolves appeal under the 1987 Constitution.
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution: Due process and protection against deprivation of property.
- Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), Section 20: Confiscation and forfeiture rules; mandate that property subject to forfeiture remain in custodia legis during trial.
- Revised Penal Code, Article 45: Analogous provision on forfeiture of instruments of crime belonging to third persons not liable for the offense.
- Rules of Court, Rules 126 and 126.3: Authority to seize evidence by search warrant or incident to arrest.
Procedural History
- The RTC admitted the motion to return non-drug evidence and ordered the PDEA to photograph and return the Honda Accord to the registered owner, Myra S. Brodett, while holding other personal effects for safekeeping.
- PDEA’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- PDEA filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which dismissed it, ruling that Section 20 exempts third-party property from forfeiture.
- PDEA appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether the release of the Honda Accord to a third party prior to final judgment violated Section 20’s requirement that properties subject to confiscation remain in custodia legis for the duration of the trial.
- Whether mere third-party ownership automatically authorizes interim release of the seized instrumentality.
Supreme Court Ruling
- Principle of Custodia Legis: Section 20 expressly prohibits disposition, alienation, or transfer of property subject to forfeiture during pendency of the case; all such property must remain in custodia legis and no bond may be admitted for its release.
- Instruments and Tools: While third-party property not liable for the unlawful act is exempt from ultimate forfeiture, its status pending judgment remains unchanged—it must be preserved as evidence.
- Prematurity of Release: The RTC’s order returning the vehicle before final adjudication constituted grave abuse of discretion and was in contravention of the clear language of Section 20. Photographs alone were insufficient to preserve evidentiary value.
- Mootness and Clarification: Subsequent RTC acquittal orders returned non-drug ev
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-23851)
Antecedents
- On April 13, 2009, the City Prosecutor of Muntinlupa City filed Criminal Case No. 09-208 against Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph for violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26(b) of R.A. No. 9165, alleging sale of 60 blue tablets containing methamphetamine.
- On April 16, 2009, Criminal Case No. 09-209 was filed against Brodett alone for violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, charging him with possession of ecstasy (MDMA), cocaine and marijuana in specified sachets.
- On July 30, 2009, Brodett moved in the RTC for the return of non-drug personal effects seized at arrest, including a 2004 Honda Accord (plate no. XPF-551) belonging to his wife, Myra S. Brodett.
- The Office of the City Prosecutor, in its August 27, 2009 Comment and Objection, proposed safekeeping of non-drug items in court custody and opposed release of the car as it appeared to have been used in the drug transaction.
- On November 4, 2009, the RTC ordered PDEA to photograph and return the Honda Accord to Myra S. Brodett and to bring other non-drug effects to court for safekeeping.
- PDEA’s motion for reconsideration was denied on February 17, 2010, upholding the November 4 order.
- PDEA petitioned for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which on March 31, 2011 dismissed the petition, holding that Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165 exempts third-party property not liable for the unlawful act from forfeiture.
- The Supreme Court granted PDEA’s petition for review on certiorari, challenging the CA’s affirmation of the pre-judgment release.
Issues
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s order to release the Honda Accord before final judgment.
- Whether ownership by a third person not charged ipso facto authoriz