People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Jayson Torio Y Paragas at "BABALU," Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 225780, December 03, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAYSON TORIO Y PARAGAS @

"BABALU," Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 225780, December 03, 2018
Facts:
On December 18, 2012, SPO1 Delos Santos received a text message from a civilian
asset informing him of an upcoming transaction of drugs involving the appellant at
Primicias St., Barangay Poblacion, Lingay, Pangasinan. SPO1 Delos Santos informed his
Chief of Police about the tip. A briefing was immediately conducted where a buy-bust
team was formed composed of SPO1 De los Santos as the team leader, PO1 Jethiel Vidal
(PO1 Vidal) as the arresting officer, the civilian asset as the poseur-buyer, and Barangay
Kagawads Edward Cuesta (Kagawad Cuesta) and Michael Angelo Disini (Kagawad Disini)
as witnesses. SPO1 De los Santos informed the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) of the buy-bust operation. SPO1 De los Santos then gave the civilian asset a
P500.00 bill with serial number AEO86542 and marked with his initials "MDS."
The buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. The drug transaction then took place.
Appellant handed to the civilian asset a plastic sachet suspected to contain shabu while
the latter handed the P500.00 marked money. After the exchange, the civilian asset
raised his left hand, which was the pre-arranged signal for the buy-bust team that the
sale of drugs had been consummated. The buy-bust team quickly arrested appellant.
SPO1 Delos Santos and PO1 Vidal introduced themselves as police officers and
informed appellant of his constitutional rights. The civilian asset handed the plastic
sachet to SPO1 Delos Santos. Appellant was then subjected to a body search where the
marked money and another transparent sachet suspected to contain shabu were
recovered. Immediately thereafter, SPO1 Delos Santos marked the sachet subject of the
sale with the initials "MDS1" and the sachet recovered from appellant's possession with
"MDS2." Kagawad Cuesta and Kagawad Disini were present during the arrest and
confiscation. The members of the buy-bust team were not able to invite members of the
media since the operation was sudden and to avoid leakage of the impending
operation.
After the marking of the sachets of suspected shabu, SPO1 Delos Santos prepared the
confiscation receipt. Photographs were taken at the police station showing the appellant
with the confiscated terns and marked money. An inventory was also conducted.
Afterwards, SPO1 Delos Santos brought appellant, together with the sachets recovered
from him and the requests for examination, to the Provincial Crime Laboratory.
PSI Malojo-Todeño received the requests for examination and the sachets
of shabu marked as MDS1 and MDS2. After examination, the sachet marked as MDS1
was found positive of containing 0.022 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu, while the sachet marked as MDS2 likewise tested positive of containing 0.125
gram of shabu.6 After the examination, PSI Malojo-Todeño placed both sachets inside a
sealed white envelope and turned it over to the evidence custodian. She retrieved the
envelope only after she was summoned by the court.
For his defense, appellant denied the accusation against him and claimed that he was
framed-up. Appellant alleged that a person, who turned out to be the civilian asset,
boarded his tricycle and told him to go to Primicias Street. On the way, appellant
noticed a car following his tricycle. When they arrived at Primicias Street, five to six
police officers got out of the car and proceeded to arrest him and brought him to the
police station where he was interrogated. Later on, SPO1 Delos Santos and PO1 Vidal
brought him back to Primicias Street where Kagawad Cuesta and Kagawad Disini were
waiting. The police officers then took pictures of him inside the tricycle. SPO1 Delos
Santos pulled out a sachet from his own pocket and asked appellant to point at it while
being photographed. Thereafter, he was brought back to the police station.
Appellant further testified that he had a misunderstanding with SPO1 Delos Santos in
the past when the latter suspected him of robbery. However, no case was filed against
appellant then since there was no complainant.
Issue:
Whether the failure to present the poseur-buyer was not fatal to the prosecution's
case?
Held:
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article
II of RA 9165, it is necessary that the prosecution duly prove the identities of the buyer
and the seller, the delivery of the drugs, and the payment in consideration thereof. 13 On
the other hand, in cases where an accused is charged with illegal possession of
dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish
the following elements: "(a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (b) such
possession was not authorized by law[;] and (c) the accused was freely and consciously
aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs." 14 In both cases, it is essential that the
identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty since the drug itself
forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime.15 Thus, to remove any doubt or
uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug on account of the possibility
of switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence, the prosecution must be able to
show an unbroken chain of custody and account for each link in the chain from the
moment the drugs are seized until its presentation in court as evidence of the crime.
RA 9165 requires that the marking, physical inventory, and taking of photograph of the
seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. The
said law further requires that the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the
seized items be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items
were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses,
namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640,16 any elected public
official, a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ);17 or (b)
if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, any elected public official and a
representative from either the National Prosecution Service OR the media.18
In People v. Macapundag,19 the Court held that "the procedure in Section 21 of RA 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." While this rule is not without exceptions, it is incumbent upon the
prosecution to satisfactorily prove that (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance
with the chain of custody rule; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved.20 For the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must
duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses. 21 Moreover, non-compliance
with the three-witness rule may be excused provided the prosecution proves that the
arresting officers exerted genuine efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit
they eventually failed to appear.
In this case, since the buy-bust operation against appellant was conducted in 2012, or
prior to the enactment of RA 10640 in 2014, the physical inventory and taking of
photograph of the seized items must be witnessed by the following persons: (a) any
elected public official; (b) a DOJ representative; and (c) a media representative.
However, while SPO1 De los Santos marked the seized items in the presence
of Kagawad Cuesta and Kagawad Disini, the prosecution failed to establish that the
physical inventory and taking of photograph were made in the presence of the
appellant or his representative, as well as representatives from the DOJ and media. In
fact, the members of the buy-bust team deliberately did not invite members of the
media to avoid leakage of the impending operation. 22 Thus, it is clear that the arresting
officers did not comply with the rule requiring the presence of representatives from
both the DOJ and the media.
In view of the foregoing, the Court is constrained to acquit the appellant for failure of
the prosecution to provide a justifiable reason for the non-compliance with the chain of
custody rule thereby creating doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized drugs.

People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Jayson Torio Y Paragas at "BABALU," Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 225780, December 03, 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Jayson Torio Y Paragas at "BABALU," Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 225780, December 03, 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, V. Jayson Torio Y Paragas at "BABALU," Accused-Appellant. G.R. No. 225780, December 03, 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAYSON TORIO Y PARAGAS @

In People v. Macapundag,19 the Court held that "the procedure in Section 21 of RA 9165 is

You might also like