People v. Feriol
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case originated from an information filed against Benjamin Feriol y Perez (Feriol) for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on January 28, 2014, Feriol unlawfully sold 0.23 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, for P500.00. The alleged sale occurred in Makati City. Procedural History: Following the information, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 65, conducted a trial. In a Decision dated November 27, 2014, the RTC found Feriol guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. Feriol appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA, in a Decision dated June 14, 2016, affirmed the RTC's ruling in its entirety. Aggrieved by the CA's decision, Feriol filed the present ordinary appeal before the Supreme Court. The Petition: Feriol, through his appeal, assails the decision of the Court of Appeals which upheld his conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The core of his argument, and the Court's review, centers on the alleged procedural lapses in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug. Specifically, the Court examined whether the apprehending officers complied with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, particularly the presence of a DOJ representative and media representative during the inventory and photography of the seized items. The prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the deviation from these requirements, leading the Supreme Court to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were compromised, warranting Feriol's acquittal.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly upheld Feriol's conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, considering the chain of custody. Whether the chain of custody over the seized dangerous drug was properly established, preserving its integrity and evidentiary value, and whether deviations from Section 21 of RA 9165 were justified.
Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. The Court REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and accordingly, ACQUITTED accused-appellant Benjamin Feriol y Perez of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections was ordered to cause his immediate release, unless lawfully held for another reason.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of the Propriety of Feriol's Conviction: To secure a conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must prove the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, the consideration, the delivery, and the payment, establishing the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody. Failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, which outlines the procedure for handling seized drugs, can compromise the integrity of the evidence and undermine the conviction. On the Issue of Chain of Custody and Compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165: The procedure in Section 21 is a matter of substantive law, requiring inventory and photography in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. While the IRR of RA 9165 provides a saving clause for non-compliance under justifiable grounds, the prosecution bears the burden to prove these grounds and the preservation of the evidence. In this case, the apprehending officers failed to secure the presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media, without any justification. This failure compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the alleged seized drug, thus militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and warranting Feriol's acquittal.
Main Doctrine
The failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. However, in the absence of justifiable grounds for non-compliance and a failure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, an acquittal is in order.