2025 Bar Chair's Cases Bar Q and A Criminal Law - Q1

 

On July 24, 2009, PO3 Adonis Estenzo received an informant’s report that a certain Roberto Valdez was selling illegal drugs in Homeland Subdivision, Panabo City. He instructed a member of the Panabo City Auxiliary Group (PCPAG), Glen Abellana, to coordinate with the informant and set up a buy-bust operation. PO3 Estenzo also coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

PCPAG Abellana, acting as the poseur-buyer, was given two marked P100 bills. On July 25, 2009, the team proceeded to Valdez's location. PO3 Estenzo, from his position, saw Valdez carrying a paper bag and meeting with PCPAG Abellana and the informant. After a brief conversation, Valdez received the marked money and handed something to Abellana. At that moment, Abellana executed the pre-arranged signal, prompting the team to arrest Valdez.

Upon frisking Valdez, PO3 Estenzo recovered the two marked P100 bills. The paper bag contained two large bundles of suspected marijuana, while Abellana handed over two additional packs of marijuana bought from Valdez. The evidence was properly marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of witnesses, including media representatives, a PDEA officer, and a barangay official. The items were submitted for laboratory examination.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted Valdez for violating Section 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) and Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs) of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction, ruling that all elements of the crimes were proven beyond reasonable doubt and rejecting Valdez's defense of frame-up.

Was Roberto Valdez guilty of violationof Section 5 and Section 11, ArticleII of R.A. No. 9165?

Ans:

Yes, Roberto Valdez was guilty of violation of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 because the chain of custody was strictly adhered to.

Under the chain of custody rule, The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, 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/s 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.

Here, the integrity of the drug items was accounted for. First, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer Abellana and Eztenzo; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer who made sure that the evidence was properly marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of witnesses, including media representatives, and a barangay official.; 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 by the forensic chemist to the court.

Hence, Roberto Valdez was guilty of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs.