Case Summary (G.R. No. 237422)
Facts of the Case and Prosecution’s Version
The police received intelligence that Bation and a cohort had been cultivating marijuana since 2009. A police team led by PI Edgar Almaden conducted an anti-illegal drug operation on the early morning of March 1, 2010. At approximately 1:00 a.m., the team confirmed the presence of 15 marijuana plants planted in plastic pots and polybags in a bushy area near Bation’s residence. After waiting in concealment, the police observed Bation approaching with a pail and plastic bag, which he used to fertilize and water the plants. He was then arrested in flagrante delicto. Officials from the barangay and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) witnessed the taking of photographs and inventory of the plants, which was partially conducted on-site and continued at the police station. Samples were submitted to the forensic laboratory in Dumaguete City and tested positive for marijuana.
Defense Version and Contestation
Bation denied the charges, asserting that he went near the area to gather foliage and care for his animals. He claimed the land belonged to a person named “Bayuyong,” and the police forced him at gunpoint to water the plants, threatening him. Bation alleged there was no inventory conducted at the site, and he was unlawfully detained. He admitted knowing some police officers but denied any wrongdoing.
Regional Trial Court’s Decision
The RTC found Bation guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 16, Article II of RA 9165 for planting and cultivating marijuana. The court held that the overt acts of fertilizing and watering the marijuana plants established his culpability. The warrantless arrest was justified as he was caught in flagrante delicto. The RTC ruled that substantial compliance with the chain of custody requirements was observed despite the absence of a media representative during inventory, as earnest efforts to secure one were made. The 15 plants were ordered confiscated, and Bation was sentenced to life imprisonment and a PHP 6 million fine.
Issues on Appeal and Arguments of the Parties
Bation appealed, arguing that the warrantless search was illegal since it preceded his arrest and was not incidental to a lawful arrest. He contended that a search warrant should have been procured and that the prosecution failed to comply with the chain of custody, citing improper inventory procedures, absence of a media witness, and inconsistent handling of seized items. The prosecution countered that the plants were in an open area not owned by Bation, thus not requiring a warrant for inspection. His arrest was lawful as he was caught planting marijuana. The prosecution asserted that the chain of custody was substantially complied with and that the police made sincere efforts to involve a media representative.
Court of Appeals’ Ruling
The CA affirmed Bation’s conviction, holding the warrantless search and arrest valid since Bation was caught in the act of cultivating marijuana. It rejected the applicability of the plain view doctrine as the search was deliberate, not inadvertent. The CA found the chain of custody complied with, noting that markings and inventory at the police station were permissible, and justified the absence of a media witness due to unsuccessful attempts to contact one. It ruled the seized plants’ integrity and evidentiary value were preserved.
Supreme Court’s Findings: Validity of Arrest
The Supreme Court found Bation’s warrantless arrest valid under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court because he was caught in flagrante delicto committing the offense of planting marijuana. The Court underscored that the overt acts of fertilizing and watering constituted active cultivation. The Court held that the warrantless inspection of the marijuana plants located in an open and visible area was lawful, noting that the police's waiting for the actual person cultivating the plants was a legitimate enforcement strategy.
Supreme Court’s Findings: Legality of Search and Seizure
The Court ruled that, even assuming the warrantless search was invalid, Bation had no standing to contest it because he was neither the owner nor the occupant of the property where the plants were found. The law affords the right to challenge an unlawful search only to those whose rights have been violated. Since the property belonged to another (Bayuyong) and Bation admitted this, he could not claim an illegal search of the plants located thereon.
Supreme Court’s Findings: Chain of Custody Non-Compliance
Despite affirming the lawfulness of the arrest and search, the Supreme Court acquitted Bation due to non-compliance with the chain of custody requirement under Section 21 of RA 9165. The statute mandates that the confiscated dangerous drugs or their plant sources be inventoried, marked, photographed, and documented in the presence of three witnesses: a representative from the media, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. This requirement is designed to prevent evidence tampering and ensure integrity from seizure to courtroom presentation.
Deficiency in the Chain of Custody and Absence of Media Representative
In this case, only a DOJ representative and two barangay officials were present during the inventory and marking; the media representative was absent despite attempts. The Court found the prosecution’s explanation—that calls to a single media outlet went unanswered and no alternative media witness was sought—inadequate to excuse this critical omission. The failure to secure a media representative and the substitution with other witnesses contravened the statutory essential witnesses provision and created a fatal gap in the chain of custody.
Legal Precedents on Exceptions to the Three-Witness Rule
The Court acknowledged exception
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 237422)
Background and Procedural History
- The case arose from Criminal Case No. 1510 filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 46 of Larena, Siquijor.
- Accused-Appellant Ben G. Bation was charged with illegal planting and cultivation of marijuana under Section 16, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
- The RTC convicted Bation on December 9, 2014, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine of PHP 6 million.
- The Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01985, affirmed the RTC decision on July 20, 2017.
- Bation appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging both the legality of the warrantless search and the compliance with the chain of custody rule.
- The Supreme Court considered the appeal without further briefs from the parties and rendered its decision on February 14, 2024.
Facts of the Case
- On the evening of February 28, 2010, the Lazi, Siquijor police received intelligence from a confidential informant about ongoing marijuana cultivation by Bation and an accomplice near Bation's house in Barangay Kinamandagan.
- A police team was formed and coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
- At approximately 1:00 a.m. on March 1, 2010, police arrived at the site and identified 15 mature marijuana plants planted in seven plastic pots and two poly bags amidst tall grass.
- Police officers waited strategically for the person tending the plants; the informant left after pointing out the plants.
- Around 5:50 a.m., Bation approached with a pail and a plastic bag, sprinkled fertilizer, and watered the plants.
- Police arrested Bation in flagrante delicto while watering the marijuana plants. Photographs were taken by PO1 Zerna.
- Barangay officials were called to the scene; however, inventory of the seized plants was postponed to the police station due to difficulties.
- At the police station, in the presence of a DOJ representative and barangay officials, markings and inventory of the plants and samples were conducted.
- Attempts to procure a media representative were unsuccessful; only DOJ and two local officials witnessed the inventory.
- Samples were sent to the PDEA forensic laboratory and tested positive for marijuana.
- Bation denied the charges, claiming he was tending to his animals and was forced by police to water the plants, which were on land owned by a third party, "Bayuyong," located some distance away from his house.
Issues Presented
- Whether the warrantless search and seizure of the marijuana plants were lawful.
- Whether Bation’s warrantless arrest was valid.
- Whether the police complied with the chain of custody rule in handling the seized marijuana plants.
- Whether the conviction of Bation for illeg