ASG Law

Tag: Section 21 R.A. 9165

  • Challenging Warrantless Searches: A Lone Tip is Not Enough for Drug Transportation Conviction

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a warrantless search based solely on an unverified tip from a confidential informant is unconstitutional and any evidence obtained from such a search is inadmissible in court. This decision underscores the importance of protecting individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, ensuring that law enforcement cannot bypass constitutional safeguards based on mere suspicion. The court emphasized that probable cause must be grounded in a confluence of circumstances, not just a single, uncorroborated tip. Consequently, the accused, JR S. Macarona and Meloy M. Macarona, were acquitted of transporting illegal drugs due to the unlawful search and seizure.

    From Tip-Off to Takedown: Did This Drug Bust Trample Constitutional Rights?

    The case began on January 2, 2015, when a confidential informant notified Police Officer 2 Sapalicio that the Macaronas were transporting illegal drugs from Davao City to Lupon. Acting on this tip, police set up a checkpoint where they stopped and searched the Macaronas’ vehicle, discovering sachets of shabu. The Macaronas were subsequently arrested and charged with violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The central legal question was whether the warrantless search, based solely on the informant’s tip, was lawful and whether the evidence obtained could be used against the accused.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially convicted the Macaronas, deeming the search valid based on probable cause. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed this decision. Undeterred, the Macaronas appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the search was illegal because a solitary tip did not constitute probable cause. They also raised concerns about the chain of custody of the seized drugs. The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversing the lower courts’ decisions and acquitting the Macaronas. This landmark ruling hinged on the interpretation and application of constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

    The Supreme Court anchored its decision on the fundamental right to privacy, protected by the Constitution. Section 2, Article III states that:

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

    The Court emphasized that warrantless searches are presumptively unreasonable unless they fall under specific exceptions. These exceptions include searches incident to a lawful arrest, searches of moving vehicles, and seizures of evidence in plain view. However, even within these exceptions, probable cause remains a prerequisite. Building on this principle, the Court clarified that a mere tip from an informant, without any corroborating circumstances, does not suffice to establish probable cause.

    In its analysis, the Supreme Court referenced the case of People v. Sapla, where it explicitly stated that probable cause cannot be based exclusively on an unverified tip. The Court reiterated that relying solely on a tip would undermine the essence of probable cause, which requires facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime has been committed and that evidence related to the crime is located in the place to be searched.

    law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of confidential or tipped information. A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arouse suspicion.

    The Court drew a parallel with People v. Yanson, where a similar situation occurred. In Yanson, police acted on a radio message about a vehicle transporting marijuana, setting up a checkpoint and discovering the drugs after stopping the vehicle. The Supreme Court ruled that the search was unlawful because it was based solely on the tip, without any additional suspicious circumstances. This approach contrasts with cases where warrantless searches were upheld due to additional factors, such as the accused’s suspicious behavior or failure to produce identification. In these cases, the finding of probable cause was premised on more than just the initial information relayed by assets; it was the confluence of initial tips and a myriad of other occurrences that ultimately sustained probable cause.

    The Supreme Court also noted the prosecution’s failure to establish a proper chain of custody for the seized drugs. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 outlines the procedures for handling seized drugs, including immediate physical inventory and photography in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media. These individuals are required to sign the inventory and receive a copy. Any deviation from this requirement leaves the door open for tampering, substitution, and planting of evidence.

    In this case, the police failed to ensure that the Macaronas signed the inventory, and a representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service was not present during the inventory and photography of the seized items. The forensic chemist also did not issue the certificate of examination results within 24 hours, as required. These procedural lapses further weakened the prosecution’s case and cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence. Given these combined failures, the Supreme Court had ample reason to overturn the conviction.

    The implications of this decision are far-reaching. It serves as a reminder that law enforcement must adhere strictly to constitutional safeguards when conducting searches and seizures. While tips from informants can be valuable, they cannot be the sole basis for a warrantless search. Probable cause must be established through a combination of factors that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed. This ruling reinforces the importance of protecting individual liberties and preventing abuse of power by law enforcement agencies. Moving forward, law enforcement agencies will need to ensure that their procedures for conducting searches and seizures comply with constitutional requirements, particularly when relying on information from confidential informants. Otherwise, evidence obtained may be deemed inadmissible, leading to the acquittal of accused individuals and hindering the prosecution of drug-related offenses.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a warrantless search based solely on a tip from a confidential informant constitutes probable cause, making the search and subsequent seizure of evidence legal. The Supreme Court ruled that it does not.
    What did the police find during the search? During the search of the Macaronas’ vehicle, police found four sachets containing a white crystalline substance, later identified as 92.2303 grams of shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride).
    Why did the Supreme Court acquit the Macaronas? The Supreme Court acquitted the Macaronas because the warrantless search was based solely on an unverified tip, which is insufficient to establish probable cause. Additionally, the police failed to follow the proper chain of custody procedures for the seized drugs.
    What is the chain of custody rule? The chain of custody rule requires that the handling of seized drugs be documented from the moment of seizure to ensure the integrity and identity of the evidence. This includes proper inventory, marking, and storage, as well as the presence of required witnesses.
    What is required under Section 21 of R.A. 9165? Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires that after seizure, a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be conducted immediately in the presence of the accused or their representative, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.
    Why is probable cause important in searches and seizures? Probable cause is essential because it protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, ensuring that law enforcement has a legitimate basis for intruding on their privacy. It prevents arbitrary actions by authorities.
    What was the role of the confidential informant in this case? The confidential informant provided the initial tip that the Macaronas were transporting illegal drugs. However, this tip was the only basis for the search, which the Supreme Court deemed insufficient to establish probable cause.
    How did the Court of Appeals rule on this case? The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court’s judgment, upholding the validity of the search and the conviction of the Macaronas. The Supreme Court later reversed this decision.
    What is the significance of People v. Sapla and People v. Yanson in this decision? People v. Sapla and People v. Yanson were cited to reinforce the principle that a warrantless search cannot be based solely on a tip from an informant. These cases established that additional circumstances are needed to establish probable cause.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Macarona underscores the vital importance of adhering to constitutional rights and proper procedures in drug-related cases. The ruling clarifies that a solitary tip is insufficient grounds for a warrantless search and reinforces the need for strict compliance with chain of custody requirements. This case serves as a critical reminder to law enforcement agencies to respect individual liberties while combating crime.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JR S. MACARONA AND MELOY M. MACARONA, G.R. No. 242017, October 06, 2021

  • Ensuring Integrity in Drug Seizures: The Critical Role of Immediate Inventory and Witness Presence

    The Importance of Adhering to Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act

    People of the Philippines v. Marlon Bob Caraniagan Sanico, G.R. No. 240431, July 07, 2020, 876 Phil. 514

    In the fight against drug trafficking, the integrity of evidence is paramount. Imagine a scenario where a person’s life hangs in the balance, their fate determined by the evidence seized during a police operation. This was the reality for Marlon Bob Caraniagan Sanico, whose conviction for selling marijuana was overturned due to procedural lapses in handling the evidence. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the critical importance of adhering to Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (R.A. 9165), which sets strict guidelines for the handling of seized drugs to ensure their integrity and evidentiary value.

    The case centered on a buy-bust operation conducted by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Davao City, where Sanico was accused of selling marijuana. The central legal question was whether the PDEA complied with the mandatory procedures under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, specifically the immediate inventory and photographing of the seized drugs in the presence of required witnesses.

    Legal Context: Understanding Section 21 of R.A. 9165

    Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is designed to safeguard the chain of custody of seized drugs, ensuring that the evidence presented in court is the same as what was confiscated during the operation. The law mandates that immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. This requirement aims to prevent tampering, planting, or switching of evidence.

    Key Provision: “The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.”

    In cases involving small quantities of drugs, strict adherence to these procedures is even more crucial due to the higher risk of evidence manipulation. The law provides a saving clause allowing for deviations from the protocol under justifiable grounds, but these must be adequately explained and documented to preserve the integrity of the seized items.

    Case Breakdown: The Journey of Marlon Bob Caraniagan Sanico

    On September 30, 2009, IO2 Janem Free Reyes of PDEA Region XI received a tip about Sanico selling marijuana in Davao City. A buy-bust operation was planned, with IO1 Rommel Adrian dela Peña acting as the poseur-buyer. The operation took place at Purok 12, Tibungco, where Sanico allegedly sold marijuana to dela Peña. However, Sanico fled after the transaction, and the PDEA team was unable to arrest him immediately.

    The PDEA team did not conduct the required inventory and photographing of the seized drugs at the scene. Instead, they returned to their office and conducted the inventory the following day, citing the inability to secure the necessary witnesses as the reason for the delay. This procedural lapse became the focal point of Sanico’s defense.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Sanico, and the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld this decision. However, Sanico appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the PDEA’s non-compliance with Section 21 compromised the integrity of the evidence.

    The Supreme Court, in its decision, emphasized the importance of immediate compliance with Section 21:

    “To merely state that the arresting officers were not able to contact the required witnesses during the immediate inventory of the confiscated item at the place where the incident happened, thus, leading them to postpone the inventory, is far from the justifiable ground contemplated by law and jurisprudence.”

    The Court found that the PDEA’s explanation for the delay did not meet the standards required for invoking the saving clause of Section 21. Consequently, the Supreme Court acquitted Sanico, highlighting the necessity of strict adherence to the law’s procedural requirements.

    Practical Implications: Ensuring Compliance in Future Operations

    This ruling has significant implications for law enforcement agencies conducting drug operations. It underscores the need for meticulous adherence to Section 21 to ensure the integrity of seized evidence. Agencies must plan operations to include the presence of required witnesses at the scene or immediately after the seizure to comply with the law.

    Key Lessons:

    • Immediate inventory and photographing of seized drugs are non-negotiable requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
    • The presence of required witnesses at the time of seizure is crucial to prevent evidence tampering.
    • Any deviation from the protocol must be justified and documented to invoke the saving clause effectively.

    For individuals and businesses, understanding these procedural requirements can be crucial in cases involving drug-related charges. Ensuring that law enforcement follows these protocols can be a vital defense strategy.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    What is Section 21 of R.A. 9165?
    Section 21 outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs, requiring immediate inventory and photographing in the presence of specified witnesses to ensure evidence integrity.

    Why is the presence of witnesses important during drug seizures?
    Witnesses from the media, DOJ, and an elected official help prevent tampering and ensure transparency in the handling of seized drugs.

    Can the police delay the inventory of seized drugs?
    Delays are only permissible under justifiable grounds, which must be documented and explained to maintain the evidentiary value of the seized items.

    What happens if the police do not follow Section 21?
    Non-compliance can lead to the acquittal of the accused due to doubts about the integrity of the evidence, as seen in the Sanico case.

    How can individuals protect themselves during drug-related arrests?
    Individuals should be aware of their rights and ensure that law enforcement follows Section 21 procedures, documenting any deviations for potential legal defense.

    ASG Law specializes in criminal defense and drug-related cases. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Reasonable Doubt: Safeguarding Individual Rights in Drug Cases Through Strict Chain of Custody

    In People v. Haron Ramos, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs. This ruling underscores the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards outlined in Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The decision reinforces the necessity for law enforcement to meticulously document and preserve the integrity of evidence, ensuring that individuals are not unjustly convicted based on compromised or questionable evidence.

    Entrapment or Frame-Up? Unpacking a Manila Drug Case

    Haron Ramos was apprehended in a buy-bust operation in Manila, accused of selling 47.3752 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “shabu.” The prosecution presented testimonies from the buy-bust team, asserting that Ramos sold the illegal drugs to an undercover officer. However, Ramos contested the charges, claiming he was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time, alleging a frame-up by the arresting officers. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Ramos, a decision later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Supreme Court (SC) ultimately reversed these decisions, focusing on the procedural lapses in handling the evidence.

    The SC emphasized that in cases involving illegal drugs, the chain of custody is paramount. This principle ensures that the substance presented in court is the same one confiscated from the accused, safeguarding the integrity of the evidence. The chain of custody, as defined in Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, encompasses:

    Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

    Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 10640, mandates that the apprehending team must conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation. This must be done in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official, all of whom are required to sign the inventory.

    In this case, the inventory and photograph were not conducted at the place of arrest, but rather at the PDEA Regional Office in Quezon City. The SC found this deviation from the prescribed procedure problematic, stating that the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for not conducting the inventory at the crime scene. The claim of a “commotion” was deemed insufficient to justify the non-compliance, as the buy-bust team could have sought refuge in the mall’s security office or a nearby police station to conduct the inventory.

    Furthermore, the SC noted the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory, a requirement under the original provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). The prosecution did not provide any explanation for this absence. This lack of justification was a critical factor in the SC’s decision, as the presence of these witnesses serves as a safeguard against evidence planting and ensures the integrity of the process.

    The SC emphasized that the procedural requirements of Section 21 are not mere technicalities but are matters of substantive law. The court quoted People v. Wilson Ramos y Cabanatan, stating:

    It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for “a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse.”

    The Court reiterated that while non-compliance with Section 21 is not automatically fatal to the prosecution’s case, the prosecution must demonstrate justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. In Ramos’ case, the prosecution failed to meet this burden.

    Due to the substantial gaps in the chain of custody and the unjustified non-compliance with the procedural safeguards of Section 21, the SC concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were questionable. As a result, the Court acquitted Ramos, emphasizing that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody of the seized drugs, complying with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to justify deviations from the required procedures, casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence.
    What is the chain of custody in drug cases? The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of possession and handling of evidence, particularly seized drugs, from the moment of confiscation until its presentation in court. It ensures the integrity and identity of the evidence by tracking its movement and custody.
    What are the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165? Section 21 requires the apprehending team to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. These individuals must sign the inventory, and copies must be provided to them.
    What happens if there is non-compliance with Section 21? Non-compliance with Section 21 is not automatically fatal to the prosecution’s case if the prosecution can provide justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Without this, the evidence may be deemed inadmissible.
    Why is the presence of a DOJ representative important? The presence of a DOJ representative is intended to ensure impartiality and transparency during the inventory process, guarding against potential evidence planting or manipulation by law enforcement. Their presence helps maintain the integrity of the legal proceedings.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ decisions and acquitted Haron Ramos. The Court found that the prosecution failed to adequately establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs and did not justify the non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21.
    What is the significance of this ruling? This ruling underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect the rights of the accused. It reinforces the need for law enforcement to meticulously document and preserve evidence to ensure fair trials.
    Can the location of the inventory be changed? Yes, the inventory can be conducted at the nearest police station or office if it is impractical to do so at the place of seizure. However, the prosecution must provide valid reasons for the change in location.

    The People v. Haron Ramos case serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to upholding due process and protecting individual liberties. The stringent requirements for handling drug evidence aim to prevent abuse and ensure that convictions are based on reliable and untainted evidence. This decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance and the need for law enforcement to adhere to the safeguards enshrined in R.A. No. 9165.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V. HARON RAMOS Y ROMINIMBANG, G.R. No. 236455, February 19, 2020

  • Reasonable Doubt Prevails: Strict Adherence to Chain of Custody in Drug Cases

    The Supreme Court acquitted Joeson Aguilar, reversing the lower courts’ guilty verdict for illegal drug sale. The Court found that the prosecution’s evidence was questionable, particularly regarding the handling of the buy-bust operation and compliance with the chain of custody requirements for seized drugs. This decision underscores the importance of meticulous adherence to legal procedures in drug cases, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected and the integrity of evidence is maintained. This case reinforces the necessity for law enforcement to follow stringent protocols in drug operations to secure convictions.

    Bogus Money, Botched Procedures: When Buy-Busts Breed Doubt

    The case began with a tip received by the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (PAIDSOTG) concerning a certain “Tonton” engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. This led to a buy-bust operation where PO1 Panggoy acted as the poseur-buyer. The prosecution claimed that Aguilar, identified as “Tonton,” sold two heat-sealed plastic sachets containing 5.19 grams of shabu to PO1 Panggoy in exchange for P20,000, which included a genuine P500 bill and cut-up manila paper to resemble the full amount. Aguilar was subsequently arrested, and the seized items were inventoried at the police station.

    However, the Supreme Court cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution’s narrative, specifically questioning the use of bogus money in the buy-bust operation. The Court found it implausible that Aguilar would accept a payment consisting mostly of cut-up manila paper for a substantial amount of shabu. This skepticism about the factual basis of the alleged sale was a significant factor in the Court’s decision. Moreover, the court scrutinized the procedural aspects of the case, particularly the handling of the seized drugs and compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

    Section 21 of R.A. 9165 outlines the chain of custody rule, which mandates that the apprehending team must, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media. This provision aims to ensure the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs, preventing any tampering or substitution. The law states:

    (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

    In this case, the Court found that the inventory and taking of photographs were not conducted in compliance with Section 21. Witnesses Gallarde, Benlot, and Ragay testified that when they arrived at the police station, the seized items were already marked and placed on a table, and the inventory was already filled out. They merely compared the entries with the items before signing the inventory. The prosecution failed to provide any justifiable reason for this deviation from the prescribed procedure, leading the Court to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the importance of strict compliance with the chain of custody rule, stating that the prosecution has a positive duty to demonstrate observance with Section 21.

    This requirement is not a mere procedural technicality but a matter of substantive law, as highlighted in People v. Miranda:

    The procedure in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects.

    Non-compliance with Section 21 can be excused only if the prosecution can demonstrate a justifiable ground for the deviation and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. In the absence of such proof, the accused is entitled to an acquittal. The failure of the prosecution to adequately explain the deviations from the prescribed procedure raised serious doubts about the integrity of the evidence presented against Aguilar.

    The Court further noted that the witnesses’ arrival after the items were already prepared undermined the purpose of requiring their presence. This purpose is to prevent switching, planting, or contamination of evidence, as emphasized in People v. Cariño. Since the witnesses were not present during the initial stages of the inventory, their role in ensuring the integrity of the seized items was significantly diminished. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish Aguilar’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt, warranting his acquittal.

    The decision in People v. Aguilar serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to the procedural safeguards established by law in drug cases. The use of questionable tactics, such as bogus money in buy-bust operations, and the failure to comply with the chain of custody rule can undermine the prosecution’s case and lead to the acquittal of the accused. This case underscores the need for law enforcement officers to conduct buy-bust operations with utmost diligence and strict adherence to legal procedures, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected and the integrity of the evidence is maintained.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution proved Aguilar’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the questionable buy-bust operation and the failure to comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
    Why did the Supreme Court acquit Aguilar? The Supreme Court acquitted Aguilar due to doubts about the veracity of the buy-bust operation (specifically the use of bogus money) and the prosecution’s failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements for the seized drugs, compromising the integrity of the evidence.
    What is the chain of custody rule in drug cases? The chain of custody rule, outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165, requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media, to ensure the integrity of the evidence.
    What happens if the police fail to comply with the chain of custody rule? If the police fail to comply with the chain of custody rule, the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for the non-compliance and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved; otherwise, the evidence may be deemed inadmissible, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused.
    What did the witnesses testify regarding the inventory procedure? The witnesses testified that when they arrived at the police station, the seized items were already marked and placed on a table, and the inventory was already filled out, undermining the purpose of their presence to prevent evidence tampering.
    Why was the use of bogus money in the buy-bust operation questioned? The Court questioned the use of bogus money because it found it implausible that Aguilar would accept a payment consisting mostly of cut-up manila paper for a substantial amount of shabu, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation.
    What is the significance of this ruling? This ruling emphasizes the importance of strict adherence to legal procedures in drug cases, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected and the integrity of evidence is maintained, and serves as a reminder to law enforcement officers to conduct operations with due diligence and compliance with the law.
    Can non-compliance with Section 21 be excused? Yes, non-compliance can be excused if the prosecution provides a justifiable reason and proves the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, but the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

    The acquittal of Joeson Aguilar highlights the critical role of due process and adherence to legal procedures in drug cases. It serves as a reminder that law enforcement must act diligently and transparently to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected and the integrity of evidence is maintained. Any deviation from established protocols can raise reasonable doubt and undermine the prosecution’s case.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. JOESON AGUILAR Y CIMAFRANCA, G.R. No. 243793, November 27, 2019

  • Safeguarding Rights: The Importance of Chain of Custody in Drug Cases

    In drug-related prosecutions, strict adherence to the chain of custody is crucial. The Supreme Court has emphasized that failing to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of confiscated drugs can lead to the acquittal of the accused. This means law enforcement must meticulously follow procedures for handling evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. Any significant gaps or unexplained deviations from these procedures can cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence, potentially undermining the entire case against the accused. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting individual rights and ensuring that convictions are based on solid, untainted evidence.

    When Procedure Protects: How a Faulty Drug Bust Led to Freedom

    This case revolves around Carmelo Carpio, who was convicted of illegal sale and possession of shabu. The prosecution presented evidence from a buy-bust operation, but the defense argued that the police officers failed to follow proper procedures in handling the seized drugs. Specifically, they claimed the chain of custody was broken because the drugs were not immediately marked at the crime scene and the required witnesses were not present during the inventory and photographing of the evidence. This raised questions about the integrity and reliability of the evidence presented against Carpio, leading to a critical examination of the police’s adherence to legal safeguards.

    The central issue in this case is whether the failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002, compromised the integrity of the evidence and warranted the acquittal of the accused. Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs, emphasizing the importance of immediate inventory and photographing of the drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. This is reinforced by the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which reiterate these requirements while providing for exceptions under justifiable circumstances.

    The Supreme Court, in its analysis, highlighted the critical role of establishing the corpus delicti in drug-related offenses. The Court emphasized that the prosecution must demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody to ensure the integrity of the seized drugs as evidence. In this case, the Court found that the police officers failed to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards, specifically noting that the drugs were not immediately marked at the crime scene but only upon arrival at the police station. According to People v. Alagarme, “the marking upon seizure serves a two-fold function: the first being to give to succeeding handlers of the specimens a reference, and the second being to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until their disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, thereby obviating switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.”

    Furthermore, the Court observed that the police officers dispensed with other essential safeguards, such as the inventory and photographing of the seized items in the presence of required witnesses. SPO1 Rivera admitted during cross-examination that no elected official, media representative, or DOJ representative was present during the arrest. While the law allows for exceptions to these requirements under justifiable grounds, the prosecution failed to provide any valid explanation for these deviations. This failure to justify the non-compliance with the prescribed procedures proved fatal to the prosecution’s case.

    The Supreme Court addressed the appellate court’s observation that the accused-appellant raised the issue of chain of custody for the first time on appeal. The Court reiterated that every appeal of a criminal conviction opens the entire case for review. According to the Court, it is the duty of the appellate court to correct errors made by the trial court, including errors of appreciation of facts and law. The Court emphasized that the accused did not waive any errors committed by the trial court, and therefore, the appellate court should have considered the procedural lapses in the chain of custody. The Court stated that criminal appeals differ significantly from civil appeals, as the former preserves the right of the accused not to be punished except upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, and that the police officers did not provide justifiable reasons for their non-compliance with the procedural safeguards outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. As a result, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, acquitted Carmelo Carpio, and ordered his immediate release from confinement. This case stands as a strong reminder of the importance of adhering to legal procedures in drug-related cases, and underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting the rights of the accused.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the police’s failure to follow proper procedures in handling seized drugs compromised the integrity of the evidence, warranting the accused’s acquittal. Specifically, the court examined compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 regarding chain of custody.
    What is the chain of custody in drug cases? The chain of custody refers to the documented process of tracking seized drugs from the moment of confiscation to their presentation in court as evidence. It includes detailing who handled the drugs, where they were stored, and when they were transferred to ensure their integrity and prevent tampering.
    What are the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165? Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires the apprehending team to immediately inventory and photograph seized drugs in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. These steps must be documented to ensure the integrity of the evidence.
    What happens if the police fail to follow these procedures? If the police fail to comply with the procedures outlined in Section 21 without justifiable reasons, the integrity of the evidence may be compromised. This can lead to the exclusion of the evidence and potentially the acquittal of the accused, as happened in this case.
    Why is immediate marking of seized drugs important? Immediate marking of seized drugs is crucial because it provides a reference for all subsequent handlers of the evidence. This helps to separate the marked evidence from other similar items, preventing switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence.
    Can the chain of custody be questioned for the first time on appeal? Yes, the Supreme Court clarified that the issue of chain of custody can be raised for the first time on appeal. A criminal appeal opens the entire case for review, and the appellate court has the duty to correct errors made by the trial court.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, acquitted Carmelo Carpio, and ordered his immediate release. The Court found that the police failed to comply with mandatory procedures, undermining the integrity of the evidence.
    What is the significance of this ruling? This ruling underscores the importance of strict compliance with procedural safeguards in drug cases to protect the rights of the accused. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement to meticulously follow the chain of custody to ensure the integrity of evidence.

    This case highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rights of the accused and ensuring that convictions are based on reliable evidence. Law enforcement agencies must adhere to the procedural safeguards outlined in R.A. No. 9165 to maintain the integrity of the chain of custody and prevent wrongful convictions.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS. CARMELO CARPIO Y TARROZA, G.R. No. 233200, September 09, 2019

  • Reasonable Doubt in Drug Cases: Integrity of Evidence and Chain of Custody

    In People vs. Wisco, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt in an illegal drug sale case. The Court emphasized the critical importance of maintaining an unbroken chain of custody for seized drugs, ensuring the integrity and identity of the evidence presented in court. This case highlights the strict standards to which law enforcement is held in drug-related prosecutions, reinforcing the constitutional right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

    Failing the Chain: How a Buy-Bust Operation Unraveled in Court

    This case began with a buy-bust operation conducted by the Pasuquin Municipal Police Station against Nomer Wisco, who was reported to be selling shabu. PO1 Rosal acted as the poseur-buyer, accompanied by a confidential informant. According to the prosecution, Wisco sold PO1 Rosal a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride. Wisco was then apprehended, and another sachet was found on his person.

    However, the Supreme Court found significant lapses in the chain of custody of the seized drugs, leading to Wisco’s acquittal. The chain of custody, as defined in Section 1 (b) of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, refers to “the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs… from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction.” This ensures that the evidence presented in court is the same as that seized from the accused.

    In this case, the Court identified several breaks in the chain. First, during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, not all the required witnesses were present. Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. While Barangay Chairman Aguinaldo was present, he denied witnessing the marking and photographing of the drugs, and no representatives from the DOJ or media were present.

    The Court acknowledged that strict compliance with Section 21 may not always be possible, citing the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which provides a saving clause for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, “as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.” However, the prosecution failed to provide any justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses, thus compromising the integrity of the evidence.

    Second, discrepancies arose regarding the turnover of the seized drugs from PO1 Rosal to PO3 Bulosan. PO3 Bulosan’s testimony was inconsistent, and his name and signature were absent from the Chain of Custody Form as the immediate recipient. Third, the prosecution failed to present PO2 Bacud, who allegedly delivered the seized drugs to the crime laboratory, to testify on how he handled the drugs in his custody. Finally, PO3 Padayao, who had custody of the drugs after the forensic examination, also did not testify, further breaking the chain of custody.

    The Court emphasized that the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense. In Mallillin vs. People, the Court stated:

    More than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.

    Because of the numerous gaps in the chain of custody, the Court found reasonable doubt as to the identity of the drugs allegedly seized from Wisco. As a result, the Court acquitted Wisco, reinforcing the principle that the prosecution must prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a conviction. The decision underscores the importance of meticulously following the procedures outlined in R.A. No. 9165 to protect the rights of the accused and maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

    The ruling emphasizes that any failure to strictly adhere to these procedures can lead to the exclusion of critical evidence and the acquittal of the accused. This serves as a stark reminder to law enforcement agencies about the critical importance of meticulous documentation and adherence to protocol in handling evidence in drug-related cases. The case highlights the balance between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual liberties, ensuring that the rights of the accused are not sacrificed in the pursuit of justice.

    This case serves as a clear illustration of how procedural lapses can undermine even the most seemingly straightforward drug cases. The Court’s decision reinforces the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, and places the burden squarely on the prosecution to establish every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. By strictly enforcing the chain of custody requirements, the Court safeguards against potential tampering or substitution of evidence, ensuring the fairness and integrity of the judicial process.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs, thereby proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the drugs presented in court were the same as those seized from the accused.
    Why was the accused acquitted? The accused was acquitted because the Supreme Court found significant gaps in the chain of custody of the seized drugs, raising reasonable doubt as to their identity and integrity.
    What is the chain of custody? The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of custody and control of evidence, ensuring that it has not been tampered with or altered from the time of seizure to its presentation in court.
    What witnesses are required during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs? Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 requires the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official during the physical inventory and photographing of seized drugs.
    What happens if the required witnesses are not present? The absence of the required witnesses does not automatically render the confiscated items inadmissible, but the prosecution must provide a justifiable reason for their absence and show genuine efforts to secure their presence.
    What was the significance of the conflicting testimonies of the police officers? The conflicting testimonies of the police officers regarding the turnover of the seized drugs raised doubts about the integrity of the evidence and created a gap in the chain of custody.
    Why was the testimony of PO2 Bacud important? The testimony of PO2 Bacud was important because he allegedly delivered the seized drugs to the crime laboratory, and his testimony could have clarified how he handled the drugs in his custody.
    What is the corpus delicti in drug cases? In drug cases, the corpus delicti refers to the dangerous drug itself, and its existence must be established beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction to stand.
    What is the effect of R.A. No. 10640 on Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165? R.A. No. 10640 amended Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 to require the presence of “[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media” during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs. However, the original Section 21 applies to incidents that occurred before July 15, 2014, the date of effectivity of R.A. No. 10640.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Wisco serves as a critical reminder of the stringent requirements for proving guilt in drug-related cases. Law enforcement agencies must adhere meticulously to the chain of custody requirements to ensure the integrity of the evidence and protect the rights of the accused. This decision reinforces the importance of upholding constitutional rights and ensuring that convictions are based on solid, credible evidence.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People of the Philippines vs. Nomer Wisco y Failano, G.R. No. 237977, August 19, 2019

  • Chain of Custody: Safeguarding Drug Evidence Integrity in Philippine Law

    In People v. Analyn Advincula, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. This ruling reinforces the critical importance of adhering to stringent procedural safeguards in drug-related cases. It underscores the necessity for law enforcement to meticulously document and preserve the integrity of drug evidence from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court, ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected and the reliability of the evidence is beyond doubt.

    Cracks in the Chain: When Drug Evidence Fails to Convict

    The case revolves around Analyn Advincula’s conviction for selling 0.008 grams of shabu during a buy-bust operation. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s guilty verdict, but the Supreme Court reversed this decision, focusing on the prosecution’s failure to adequately demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. This failure raised significant doubts about the integrity and authenticity of the evidence presented against Advincula.

    At the heart of this case lies the legal principle of chain of custody, which is vital in drug-related prosecutions. The **chain of custody** refers to the documented sequence of possession and handling of evidence, particularly from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. This ensures that the evidence presented is the same as that recovered from the accused, without any tampering or substitution. The importance of maintaining a clear and unbroken chain is to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

    The Supreme Court emphasized that even when the illegal sale of drugs is proven, the prosecution still bears the burden of proving the integrity of the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. This means the prosecution must establish with moral certainty that the drugs sold by the accused are the same drugs examined in the laboratory and presented in court. Failure to do so creates reasonable doubt and warrants acquittal. According to the Court, this requirement removes unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence.

    To guarantee the integrity of the evidence, the prosecution must comply with the chain of custody requirements. The Dangerous Drug Board (DDB) Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, defines **chain of custody** as:

    b. “Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in court as evidence, and the final disposition.”

    The Supreme Court in *People v. Kamad* outlined the essential links in the chain of custody:

    [F]irst, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

    In Advincula’s case, the Court found a critical missing link in the chain of custody. While PO2 Caballero, the poseur-buyer, testified about seizing and marking the drug and turning it over to the investigating officer, the prosecution failed to establish how the specimen came into the possession of PSI Johnny Gaspar, who delivered it to the crime laboratory. Neither the investigating officer, PO2 Ireneo Salazar, nor PSI Gaspar testified, leaving a gap in the chain of custody. This lack of personal knowledge regarding the handling of the seized drug, the court reasoned, made the evidence presented insufficient.

    Moreover, the buy-bust team’s actions deviated from the procedure outlined in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. This section requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. PO2 Caballero admitted that there was no photograph and inventory of the seized items, and no representatives from the DOJ, the media, or any elected public official were present during the marking of the shabu.

    The Court underscored that these procedural safeguards are designed to prevent the pernicious practice of planting evidence, which has plagued drug-related cases in the past. The absence of these safeguards casts doubt on the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation, ultimately affecting the trustworthiness of the evidence against the accused. Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, provides an exception for non-compliance with these requirements, but only if there are justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, the prosecution failed to provide any justification for the buy-bust team’s failure to comply with the required procedure.

    Given these lapses and the broken chain of custody, the Supreme Court concluded that there was serious doubt about the integrity of the corpus delicti. This constituted a fatal procedural flaw, undermining the reliability of the evidence. The Court emphasized that it could not presume the police officers performed their duties regularly, as the records raised doubts about the regularity of their actions. Ultimately, the prosecution failed to overcome the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, leading to her acquittal.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs to prove the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti.
    What is the chain of custody? The chain of custody refers to the documented sequence of possession and handling of evidence, ensuring that the evidence presented is the same as that recovered from the accused.
    Why is the chain of custody important in drug cases? It ensures that the drug presented in court is the same one seized from the accused, without any tampering or substitution, thereby preserving its integrity and evidentiary value.
    What are the required steps in the chain of custody? The steps include seizure and marking of the drug, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and submission of the marked drug to the court.
    What did Section 21 of R.A. 9165 require? It required the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized drugs immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused and representatives from the media, DOJ, and any elected public official.
    What happens if the police fail to follow Section 21 of R.A. 9165? Non-compliance can invalidate the seizure and custody of the drugs, unless there are justifiable grounds for the non-compliance and the integrity of the seized items is properly preserved.
    Why were the procedural safeguards in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 implemented? These safeguards were implemented to prevent the planting of evidence and ensure the integrity of the evidence presented in court.
    What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case? The Supreme Court acquitted Analyn Advincula due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody and the police’s non-compliance with the procedural safeguards in Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in *People v. Analyn Advincula* serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of strict adherence to procedural rules in drug-related cases. This ruling emphasizes that the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody to safeguard the integrity of drug evidence, protect the rights of the accused, and ensure the fairness and reliability of the justice system.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANALYN ADVINCULA Y PIEDAD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 201576, July 22, 2019

  • Chains Unbroken? Safeguarding Rights in Drug Cases Through Strict Evidence Handling

    In a ruling that reinforces protections against unlawful convictions, the Supreme Court acquitted Jordan Casaclang Dela Cruz due to critical failures in the chain of custody of evidence. The court emphasized that strict adherence to protocols for handling seized drugs is paramount, and any unjustified noncompliance invalidates the presumption of regularity in police procedures, upholding the accused’s constitutional right to presumption of innocence.

    When Missing Witnesses Lead to Reasonable Doubt: The Case of Jordan Dela Cruz

    The case of People of the Philippines v. Jordan Casaclang Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 229053, July 17, 2019) revolves around Dela Cruz’s conviction for the illegal sale and possession of marijuana. The prosecution presented evidence stemming from a buy-bust operation, but significant procedural lapses in handling the seized drugs led to a critical examination of the evidence’s integrity. The central legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the absence of mandatory witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs, as required by Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act), warranted Dela Cruz’s acquittal.

    The arrest and initial handling of evidence are governed by Section 21 of R.A. 9165, which outlines stringent procedures. This section requires an immediate physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the National Prosecution Service or the media. These requirements aim to ensure transparency and prevent tampering or planting of evidence. Compliance with these rules is not merely procedural; it is fundamental to protecting the accused’s rights. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized that the integrity of the corpus delicti—the actual body of the crime—must be preserved to sustain a conviction.

    The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation. However, it was undisputed that no elected official, Department of Justice representative, or media representative was present during the inventory of the seized drugs. This absence raised serious questions about the integrity of the evidence. The prosecution argued that there was substantial compliance with the law, citing the fact that the buy-bust team photographed the seized items and marked them at the crime scene. However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, highlighting the importance of strict compliance with the law.

    The Court referred to the four critical links in the chain of custody, as laid out in People v. Nandi:

    [T]he following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

    The absence of third-party witnesses at the initial stage compromises the first link, casting doubt on whether the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from Dela Cruz. In addressing this gap, the Court examined whether the prosecution had presented justifiable grounds for non-compliance, as provided under the amended Section 21 of R.A. 9165. This amendment allows for deviations from the strict requirements if the prosecution can demonstrate justifiable reasons and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

    In this case, the prosecution offered the excuse of time constraints and uncertainty about Dela Cruz’s appearance at the meeting place. The Supreme Court found this justification insufficient. The court noted that the police officers had conducted a week-long surveillance of Dela Cruz, providing ample time to coordinate with potential witnesses. The Court emphasized that “earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven,” referencing People v. Ramos. The prosecution failed to show that they made any genuine attempts to secure the presence of the required witnesses. A mere statement of unavailability is not enough; the police must demonstrate that they took serious steps to find other representatives.

    Building on this principle, the Supreme Court rejected the prosecution’s reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. The Court stated that non-compliance with Section 21 “negates the presumption of regularity accorded to acts undertaken by police officers in the pursuit of their official duties.” As the Court explained in People v. Kamad:

    Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise.

    The Supreme Court underscored the importance of upholding the constitutional presumption of innocence. The prosecution’s failure to establish all the elements of the crime and to properly identify the seized drugs as the same ones presented in court created reasonable doubt. This doubt required the Court to acquit Dela Cruz. This ruling sends a clear message to law enforcement agencies: strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases is not optional; it is a constitutional imperative.

    The Court did not simply offer a slap on the wrist. It emphasized that the war on drugs must be waged within the bounds of the law. Shortcuts and deviations from established procedures undermine the integrity of the justice system and erode public trust. This decision underscores the importance of protecting individual rights, even in the face of pressing social problems. By strictly enforcing the chain of custody requirements, the Court aims to prevent wrongful convictions and ensure that only those who are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are punished.

    The implications of this decision extend beyond the specific facts of Dela Cruz’s case. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to prioritize compliance with procedural safeguards in all drug-related operations. This includes ensuring the presence of mandatory witnesses during the seizure and inventory of drugs, as well as maintaining a clear and unbroken chain of custody. Failure to do so can result in the suppression of evidence and the acquittal of the accused.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the absence of an elected public official, a Department of Justice representative, and a media representative during the buy-bust operation and inventory of seized drugs warranted the accused’s acquittal. The Supreme Court focused on the strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
    What is the ‘chain of custody’ in drug cases? The chain of custody refers to the sequence of transfers and handling of evidence, from the moment of seizure to its presentation in court. Each person who handles the evidence must be identified, and a record must be kept to ensure the integrity and identity of the evidence.
    Why is the chain of custody so important? Maintaining the chain of custody prevents tampering, substitution, or loss of evidence, which could compromise the fairness and accuracy of the trial. It ensures that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused.
    What does Section 21 of R.A. 9165 require? Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory and photograph seized drugs immediately after seizure, in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and representatives from the Department of Justice or the media.
    What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21? Non-compliance with Section 21 can render the seized evidence inadmissible in court, potentially leading to the acquittal of the accused, unless the prosecution can provide justifiable reasons for the non-compliance and prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved.
    Can the prosecution rely on the presumption of regularity in drug cases? The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties does not apply if there are significant lapses in following the procedures outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165. Compliance with the law is required before the presumption can be invoked.
    What is the role of third-party witnesses? Third-party witnesses, such as elected officials and media representatives, serve as safeguards against the possibility of planting evidence or tampering with seized drugs. Their presence helps ensure transparency and accountability.
    What is required to show that the prosecution exerted effort to secure the attendance of the third party witnesses? The prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for “a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse.”

    This Supreme Court ruling reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in drug cases, emphasizing that strict adherence to the chain of custody requirements is essential to protect the rights of the accused and ensure fair trials. Law enforcement agencies must prioritize compliance with these requirements to avoid the suppression of evidence and the potential acquittal of guilty individuals.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 229053, July 17, 2019

  • Safeguarding Rights: Acquittal Due to Procedural Lapses in Drug Cases

    In People of the Philippines vs. Aiza Sampa y Omar, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to adhere to mandatory procedural safeguards in handling seized illegal drugs. This ruling emphasizes the strict adherence to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, requiring the immediate marking, inventory, and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of specific witnesses. The Court found that the prosecution’s deviations from these procedures created reasonable doubt, highlighting the importance of protecting individual rights and preventing evidence tampering in drug-related cases. This decision serves as a crucial reminder of the necessity for law enforcement to meticulously follow protocol to ensure the integrity of evidence and uphold justice.

    When ‘Commotion’ Becomes a Convenient Excuse: Examining Chain of Custody in Drug Cases

    The case revolves around the arrest of Aiza Sampa y Omar (accused-appellant Sampa) and Jan Jan Tayan y Balviran (accused Tayan) for allegedly violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution presented evidence indicating a buy-bust operation where accused Tayan allegedly sold a plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) to an undercover agent, with accused-appellant Sampa acting as an accomplice. However, the defense contested the legality of the arrest and the handling of evidence. This led to a critical examination of whether law enforcement complied with the strict chain of custody requirements outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The central legal question is whether procedural lapses in handling the seized drugs warrant acquittal, even if the accused are allegedly caught in the act.

    The Supreme Court meticulously dissected the events following the arrest. It scrutinized the actions of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) agents concerning the seized drugs. According to the prosecution, after the arrest, the PDEA agents left the scene of operation to conduct the inventory and photographing of the seized item at their office in Camp Vicente Lim, Laguna. During this period, IO1 Asaytono placed the marking “JBA EXH A 2/24/14” and his signature on the plastic sachet of suspected shabu, allegedly in the presence of the two accused. However, this account raised serious concerns regarding compliance with Section 21, which mandates specific procedures to safeguard the integrity of the evidence.

    The Supreme Court highlighted critical deviations from the prescribed legal procedure. One of the most crucial aspects of the case was the **marking, physical inventory, and photograph taking** of the seized drugs. IO1 Asaytono did not mark the seized item at the place of arrest but inside the service vehicle. This action directly contravenes the best practices stipulated by law and jurisprudence. Further, the physical inventory and photograph taking were not conducted immediately after the confiscation but only when the team arrived at their office in Camp Vicente Lim, Laguna. The prosecution attempted to justify these actions by citing a “commotion” at the Jollibee outlet where the arrest occurred.

    However, the Court found this justification insufficient. Existing jurisprudence dictates that the phrase “immediately after seizure and confiscation” refers to conducting these procedures at the place of apprehension. While exceptions exist for situations where immediate compliance is impractical, the law mandates adherence at the nearest police station or office. The Court noted the prosecution’s failure to provide sufficient detail about the alleged commotion. In particular, they did not mention the measures taken to ensure that the seized plastic sachet of shabu remained untainted. This lack of transparency further eroded the credibility of the prosecution’s case.

    Another critical aspect of the case was the **three-witness rule**. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) require the presence of a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. These witnesses must be present during the marking, physical inventory, and photograph taking of the seized prohibited drug immediately at the place of seizure and confiscation. This requirement serves as a safeguard against potential abuses and ensures the integrity of the evidence. However, the apprehending team failed to secure the presence of these mandatory witnesses.

    IO1 Asaytono admitted that the entrapment team did not strive to obtain a representative from the DOJ. The reason given was unavailability, which was never supported by convincing evidence. This admission is damning, as the presence of these witnesses is not merely a procedural formality; it is a vital safeguard against the planting, switching, or tampering of evidence. The court emphasized the critical role of these witnesses, citing People v. Dela Cruz:

    It bears emphasis that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose.

    The absence of the three insulating witnesses, without a plausible reason, during the anti-narcotics operation against accused Tayan and accused-appellant Sampa, created serious doubts about the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illicit drugs. This deviation from the law’s requirements raised concerns about the reliability of the prosecution’s case, particularly regarding the identity and handling of the seized substance.

    The prosecution had the opportunity to invoke the “saving clause” under Section 21 (a) of the IRR, R.A. No. 9165. This provision allows for non-compliance with the procedural requirements if there are justifiable grounds and a clear showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the police officers. However, the prosecution failed to meet these requirements. There was an absence of credible explanation for the police officers’ deviation from the procedures outlined under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The prosecution did not adequately explain or justify the police officers’ failure to conduct the marking, physical inventory, and photographing at the place of seizure and confiscation.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversing the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court acquitted accused-appellant Aiza Sampa y Omar due to the prosecution’s failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug cases, especially regarding the handling of evidence. Failure to comply with these safeguards can lead to the acquittal of the accused, even if there is evidence suggesting their involvement in drug-related activities. This ruling serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to meticulously follow the prescribed procedures to ensure the integrity of evidence and uphold the principles of justice.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution proved the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the procedural lapses in the handling of seized drugs during the buy-bust operation. The court focused on the police’s non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, which outlines the chain of custody requirements.
    What is Section 21 of R.A. 9165? Section 21 of R.A. 9165 outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs. It mandates the immediate marking, inventory, and photographing of seized drugs in the presence of the accused and representatives from the media, DOJ, and an elected public official.
    Why is the presence of the three witnesses (media, DOJ, public official) important? The presence of the three witnesses is crucial to ensure transparency and prevent planting, switching, or tampering of evidence. Their presence serves as a check on law enforcement, safeguarding the integrity of the process and protecting the rights of the accused.
    What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21? Failure to comply with Section 21 can raise doubts about the integrity of the evidence and may lead to the acquittal of the accused. However, there’s a “saving clause” that allows for non-compliance if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity of the evidence is preserved.
    What is the ‘saving clause’ in relation to Section 21? The ‘saving clause’ allows for deviations from Section 21 if the prosecution can prove justifiable grounds for non-compliance and demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. It is applied on a case-by-case basis.
    What was the main reason for acquittal in this case? The main reason for acquittal was the prosecution’s failure to provide a credible explanation for the police’s non-compliance with Section 21. The court found that the police did not adequately justify their failure to conduct the marking, inventory, and photographing at the place of seizure.
    Can a commotion excuse non-compliance with Section 21? While a commotion may be considered a justifiable reason for delaying the procedures, the prosecution must provide sufficient evidence to support this claim. They must also demonstrate that the police took measures to ensure the integrity of the evidence despite the commotion.
    What does this case tell us about the handling of drug evidence? This case underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in handling drug evidence. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies to meticulously follow the prescribed procedures to ensure the integrity of evidence and uphold the principles of justice.

    This case reinforces the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the constitutional rights of individuals, ensuring that law enforcement adheres to established procedures. The decision serves as a significant precedent, reminding law enforcement agencies to prioritize compliance with legal protocols in drug-related operations. It calls for continuous training and stringent oversight to safeguard the integrity of evidence and the fairness of legal proceedings.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. AIZA SAMPA Y OMAR, G.R. No. 242160, July 08, 2019

  • Safeguarding Rights: The Chain of Custody Rule in Drug Cases

    In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Desiree Dela Torre y Arbillon, the Supreme Court acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to adequately establish an unbroken chain of custody for the seized drugs. This means that the prosecution did not sufficiently prove that the drugs presented in court were the same ones seized from the accused, raising doubts about the integrity of the evidence. This ruling reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases to protect individual rights and prevent wrongful convictions.

    Drug Busts and Broken Chains: When Evidence Falls Short

    The case revolves around Desiree Dela Torre’s arrest and subsequent charges for violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The prosecution alleged that Dela Torre sold and possessed methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, during a buy-bust operation. However, the Supreme Court focused on whether the prosecution had properly established the chain of custody for the seized drugs. This legal principle ensures that the integrity and identity of the evidence are preserved from the moment of seizure until presentation in court. The failure to maintain this chain can cast doubt on the reliability of the evidence and ultimately affect the outcome of the case.

    To understand the significance of the chain of custody, it’s essential to examine the requirements outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. This section mandates specific procedures for handling seized drugs, including immediate inventory and photography in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. The law states:

    Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

    (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]

    In Dela Torre’s case, the Supreme Court found critical deviations from these requirements. Only a barangay official was present during the inventory and photography of the seized items. There was no representative from the DOJ or the media. Furthermore, the marking and inventory of the drugs were not done immediately at the place of arrest but later at the barangay hall. These lapses raised concerns about the potential for tampering or mishandling of the evidence.

    The Court emphasized the importance of having representatives from the media and the DOJ present during the seizure and marking of drugs. Citing People v. Mendoza, the Court underscored that these witnesses serve as safeguards against switching, planting, or contamination of evidence, which can undermine the integrity of buy-bust operations. The Court explained, “without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice (DOJ), or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the seized drugs, the evils of switching, ‘planting’ or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of R.A. No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the said drugs that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.”

    While strict compliance with Section 21 is ideal, the law recognizes that there may be justifiable grounds for non-compliance. However, the prosecution must convincingly demonstrate these grounds and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. The Supreme Court noted that, in this case, the prosecution failed to provide any reasonable explanation for the absence of the required witnesses. The Court pointed out that “Certainly, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to show valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that, during the proceedings before the trial court, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the law.”

    The Court underscored the high standard of proof required in criminal cases, stating that “If doubt surfaces on the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, regardless that it does only at the stage of an appeal, our courts of justice should, nonetheless, rule in favor of the accused, lest it betrays its duty to protect individual liberties within the bounds of law.” Because of the significant procedural lapses and the lack of justification for these lapses, the Supreme Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to prove Dela Torre’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court reversed the lower court’s decision and acquitted Dela Torre of the charges.

    The Court’s decision reinforces the principle that the chain of custody rule is not a mere technicality but a vital safeguard to ensure the reliability and integrity of evidence in drug-related cases. When law enforcement officers fail to follow these procedures, it can create reasonable doubt and lead to the acquittal of the accused. This is especially important in cases where the quantity of drugs seized is small, as such evidence is more susceptible to tampering or planting. The Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the need for strict adherence to Section 21 to protect individual rights and prevent wrongful convictions.

    The implications of this ruling extend beyond the specific facts of this case. It serves as a reminder to law enforcement agencies of the importance of meticulous adherence to the chain of custody rule in drug cases. It also highlights the crucial role of defense attorneys in scrutinizing the prosecution’s evidence and challenging any irregularities in the handling of seized drugs. Ultimately, this decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the constitutional rights of individuals accused of crimes and ensuring that convictions are based on reliable and credible evidence.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody for the seized drugs, ensuring their integrity and identity from seizure to presentation in court. The Supreme Court focused on whether the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were properly followed.
    What is the chain of custody rule? The chain of custody rule refers to the documented process of tracking evidence from the time of seizure to its presentation in court. It involves meticulously recording each transfer of possession, ensuring that the evidence remains untainted and identifiable.
    Why is the chain of custody important? It is crucial because it safeguards the integrity and reliability of the evidence, preventing tampering, contamination, or substitution. A broken chain of custody can cast doubt on the authenticity of the evidence, potentially leading to an acquittal.
    What are the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165? Section 21 mandates that seized drugs be immediately inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. These individuals must sign the inventory, and a copy must be provided to them.
    What happens if the police fail to comply with Section 21? Non-compliance does not automatically invalidate the seizure, but the prosecution must provide justifiable grounds for the deviation and prove that the integrity of the evidence was preserved. Failure to do so can result in the evidence being deemed inadmissible.
    Who has the burden of proof in establishing the chain of custody? The prosecution has the burden of proving that the chain of custody was properly maintained. This includes demonstrating that the procedural requirements of Section 21 were followed or that any deviations were justified and did not compromise the integrity of the evidence.
    What was the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision in this case? The Court based its decision on the prosecution’s failure to adequately justify the deviations from the requirements of Section 21. The absence of the required witnesses and the delay in marking and inventorying the drugs created reasonable doubt about the integrity of the evidence.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling? This ruling underscores the importance of strict adherence to the chain of custody rule in drug cases. It reminds law enforcement agencies to follow the prescribed procedures diligently to ensure the admissibility of evidence and avoid wrongful convictions.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in People vs. Dela Torre serves as a powerful reminder of the critical importance of procedural safeguards in drug cases. By strictly enforcing the chain of custody rule, the Court protects individual rights and ensures that convictions are based on reliable evidence. This case reinforces the need for law enforcement agencies to meticulously follow the prescribed procedures and for defense attorneys to vigilantly scrutinize the prosecution’s evidence.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. DESIREE DELA TORRE Y ARBILLON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT., G.R. No. 238519, June 26, 2019