The Supreme Court granted a Motion for Reconsideration and acquitted accused-appellant Joseph Espera y Banfiano alias "Jojo" of violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the buy-bust team did not comply with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of the same law.
The Case
In a September 3, 2010 Information, Espera was charged with violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 for allegedly selling 0.17 grams of shabu to Investigating Officer 1 Johnny A. Sumalag (IO1 Sumalag) in a buy-bust operation. The Information stated that on September 2, 2010, in the City of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan, the accused sold and distributed one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.17 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride to IO1 Johnny A. Sumalag, who acted as a poseur buyer.
During his arraignment, Espera pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented five witnesses: IO1 Sumalag; Intelligence Officer 1 Jun Clyde Cabanilla (IO1 Cabanilla); media representative Dina Tuddao; Police Senior Inspector Glenn Ly Tuazon (PSI Tuazon); and Intelligence Officer 2 Joseph Sacolles.
According to the prosecution, on September 2, 2010, at about 10:00 a.m., IO2 Sacolles received information from a confidential informant that Espera distributed shabu in Atulayan Norte, Tuguegarao City. A buy-bust team was formed. The confidential informant introduced IO1 Sumalag to Espera, and the transaction proceeded. Espera handed over a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, and IO1 Sumalag gave the marked money consisting of two genuine PHP 500.00 bills and PHP 2,000.00 in boodle money. IO1 Sumalag removed his bull cap as the pre-arranged signal.
At the crime scene, IO1 Sumalag marked the confiscated plastic sachet with his initials, "JAS 09-02-10," and signed it. The buy-bust team then returned to the PDEA Regional Office No. 02, where IO1 Ventura prepared the Inventory of Seized Properties/Items. The inventory was witnessed by Espera; media representatives; Barangay Captain Jimmy Pagulayan; and DOJ representative Ferdinand Gangan. Based on Chemistry Report No. D-37-2010, the seized item tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
The Issue
Espera argued that the apprehending team failed to comply with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 on the chain of custody rule. He pointed out that the representatives from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official were present only during the inventory at the PDEA Regional Office, and not at the place where the shabu was allegedly seized from his person. He further asserted that the inventory was conducted at the PDEA Regional Office No. 02, rather than at the place of arrest.
The Ruling
The Court ruled that substantial compliance and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot excuse the absence of the insulating witnesses at or near the place of arrest. The Court found that the prosecution's own submissions showed that the buy-bust team deviated from the standard conduct required by Section 21: the inventory and photographing were not done at the place of apprehension, and no insulating witnesses were present at or near the place of arrest. The prosecution also failed to allege, identify, and prove any justifiable ground for deviating from Section 21.
The Court disposed of the case as follows: "ACCORDINGLY, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The November 21, 2018 Decision of this Court in G.R. No. 227313 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and a new one is entered ACQUITTING accused-appellant Joseph Espera y Banfiano alias "Jojo" of violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt."
The Court ordered Espera immediately released from detention, unless he is confined for some other lawful cause, and directed that a copy of the Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation, with a report to be submitted within five days from receipt.
By the Numbers
- G.R. No. 227313
- Date of alleged sale: September 2, 2010
- Information dated: September 3, 2010
- Quantity of shabu: 0.17 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride
- Marked money: two genuine PHP 500.00 bills (Serial Nos. MA127213 and ZF114638)
- Boodle money: PHP 2,000.00, consisting of four PHP 500.00 bills
- Total agreed purchase price: PHP 3,000.00
- Chemistry Report No. D-37-2010
- Earlier Court Decision reversed: November 21, 2018
- Report deadline for Bureau of Corrections: five days from receipt
The Court's Reasoning
The Court explained that the presumption of regularity applies only when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law. Because the prosecution's own submissions showed a deviation from Section 21, the prosecution could not invoke the presumption of regularity to excuse its noncompliance.
Citing People v. Dela Cruz, the Court stated that the prosecution cannot conveniently seek sanctuary in the presumption of regularity and the substantial compliance umbrella to disregard the law enforcers' glaring lapses, and that the presumption of regularity should not be a license to forgo prudence or to further violate the rights of an accused.
The Court emphasized that the requirements in Section 21 are a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. It added that even with the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 10640, the inventory and photographing of the seized items must be conducted at the place of arrest, and the insulating witnesses must be present at or near the place of arrest. Failure to comply with Section 21, absent any justifiable grounds, warrants the acquittal of the accused.
Source: Supreme Court Resolution in G.R. No. 227313.
This report summarizes a public Supreme Court decision and is not legal advice.