Title
People vs. Ben G. Bation
Case
G.R. No. 237422
Decision Date
Feb 14, 2024
Accused acquitted due to chain of custody lapse; absence of media rep during inventory compromised evidence integrity, warranting reasonable doubt.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 237422)

Key Dates and Procedural Posture

Offense date alleged: March 1, 2010. Information filed: March 3, 2010. RTC decision: December 9, 2014 (conviction). CA decision: July 20, 2017 (affirmation). Supreme Court decision: February 14, 2024 (appeal granted, conviction reversed, accused acquitted). The 1987 Philippine Constitution governs constitutional questions in this decision.

Applicable Law

Statutory provisions principally relied upon: Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) — Section 16 (cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs or sources thereof) and Section 21 (custody and disposition of confiscated/seized plant sources of dangerous drugs and related items, including the three‑witness inventory requirement). Procedural rule on warrantless arrests: Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court (arrest without warrant when the person is committing an offense in the presence of an officer). Constitutional protections under the 1987 Constitution (Bill of Rights) frame the analysis of searches, seizures, and arrests.

Factual Summary — Prosecution Version

Police received confidential informant intelligence that since 2009 the accused had been planting and cultivating marijuana near his house in Barangay Kinamandagan. On the night of February 28, 2010, a police team, accompanied by the informant, located 15 grown marijuana plants in seven plastic pots and two polybags in a bushy area. Police observed the plants, confirmed they appeared to be marijuana, and concealed themselves to await the person tending the plants. At about 5:50 a.m. on March 1, 2010, officers observed Bation approaching and watering/fertilizing the plants; he was photographed and then arrested. Only photographs were taken at the site; inventory, marking, sampling (15 samples), and sealing of samples were performed later at the police station in the presence of the DOJ representative and barangay officials. The police attempted to contact media but none answered. The samples were submitted to the forensic laboratory and qualitatively tested positive for marijuana.

Factual Summary — Defense Version

Bation denied planting or cultivating marijuana. He testified that at about 5:30 a.m. he went out to gather foliage for livestock and to relieve himself, carrying a pail of water. He claimed police surprised him, pointed a gun, forced him to water the plants, and then brought him to the police. He asserted the land belonged to a person named “Bayuyong,” was some distance from his house, and that no inventory was conducted at the scene. He said he had no prior acrimony with the police and identified certain officers by sight.

RTC Ruling

The RTC convicted Bation under Section 16 of RA 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 6,000,000. The court found that (a) the prosecution proved the elements of cultivation by showing Bation’s acts of watering and fertilizing the plants, (b) the warrantless arrest was valid because he was caught in the act, (c) Bation’s denial was uncorroborated and failed to overcome the presumption of regularity of police acts, and (d) there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody because the inventory and marking done at the police station were permitted in cases of warrantless arrest and the absence of a media representative was justified by the police’s alleged attempts to contact the media.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC judgment. It held that the search and seizure and the arrest were valid because Bation was caught cultivating the plants. The CA treated the warrantless search as justified since the items were in Bation’s possession and within his immediate control at arrest. It concluded that the chain of custody requirements were satisfied: marking at the police station was permissible, the absence of a media representative was excused by attempted contact, and the integrity and identity of the seized items were adequately preserved and established in evidence.

Issue on Appeal to the Supreme Court

The dispositive issue presented was whether Bation’s conviction for planting and cultivating marijuana under Section 16 of RA 9165 was properly supported by law and evidence, considering (1) the legality of the warrantless search and arrest, and (2) compliance with the statutory chain of custody and three‑witness inventory requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165.

Supreme Court: Legality of Arrest and Warrantless Search

The Supreme Court accepted that Bation was validly arrested under Section 5(a), Rule 113 (caught in flagrante delicto) because his overt act of fertilizing and watering the plants occurred in the presence of officers and the laboratory confirmed the plants were marijuana. The Court further held that the warrantless search of the property was not invalid in the circumstances: the plants were located in an open, visible area; the police did not effect an unlawful intrusion into a private domicile; and the officers’ tactic of waiting to arrest the person tending the plants instead of first obtaining a search warrant was permissible and resulted in a lawful arrest. The Court also noted that because Bation admitted he was not the owner or occupant of the land, he lacked standing to contest an assertedly unlawful search of that property.

Supreme Court: Chain of Custody and Section 21 Requirements

Although the Court found the arrest valid, it reversed and acquitted based on a fatal break in the chain of custody under Section 21 of RA 9165 as it then stood. Section 21 required that, immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team physically inventory and photograph the seized plant sources in the presence of (1) the accused or the person from whom the items were seized or his representative/counsel, (2) a representative from the media, (3) a DOJ representative, and (4) any elected public official — who must sign copies of the inventory. The statutory scheme was adopted to prevent planting of evidence and frame-ups and to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized items. The three‑witness requirement (media, DOJ, elected official) is strict, but prior jurisprudence recognized limited exceptions if the prosecution proves why attendance could not be secured (e.g., remote area, danger to witnesses, involvement of officials, earnest but futile efforts to secure attendance, or urgent operational constraints).

Application of Chain of Custody Rules to the Case

In this case the marking, inventory, and photographing were conducted only in the presence of a DOJ representative and two barangay officials; there was no media representative. The police testimony was that they had called Siquijor Mirror and nobody answered. The prosecution conceded the absence of a media representative. The Supreme Court found these explanations insufficient: the police could and should have contacted alternative media outlets or exerted more earnest efforts to secure a media witness; the mere fact that a single outlet did not answer and that it was located two towns away did not justify noncompliance. Substituting another elected official for the required media representative was not permissible under the statutory text. The Court concluded the pros

    ...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