2025 Bar Chair's Cases Bar Q and A Remedial Law - Q2

 

Corazon Nazareno and her son Jefferson were charged and convicted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that they were caught in a legitimate buy-bust operation where Jefferson accepted marked money from a poseur-buyer, retrieved shabu from Corazon, and delivered it to the buyer. The trial court gave full credence to the prosecution’s testimony and found that there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule.

On appeal, Corazon and Jefferson argued that they were unlawfully arrested, framed, and that the police failed to properly observe the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically the presence of an independent witness during the inventory of the seized drugs. They further alleged that the police officers attempted to extort money from them at the station.

DidtheCourt of Appeals errwhenit affirmedappellants'convictionfor violationof Section5(illegal sale of dangerous drugs) ofArt. II of RA 9165?

Ans.

Yes, the Court of Appeals err when it affirmed appellants' conviction for violation of Section5 because the buy bust team failed to comply with the insulating witnesses requirement of section 21 of RA 9165.

Under section 21 of RA 9165, 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.

Here, the failure of the arresting officer to present witnesses such as the National prosecution service or the media which is an insulating witnesses together with the elected public official made the seized and seizure not in compliance with the chain of custody rule. Hence, the absence of the insulating witnesses casts serious doubts upon the integrity of the corpus delicti itself, and for that reason imperils and jeopardizes the prosecution's case.