People v. Lacdan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: A confidential informant relayed to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) that accused-appellants Eduardo Lacdan y Perez @ "Edwin" and Romualdo Vierneza y Bondoc @ "Ulo" negotiated a drug deal involving 10.03 grams of shabu worth P18,000.00. A buy-bust team was formed, with PO3 Marino Garcia as the poseur-buyer, armed with two genuine P500.00 bills and the rest as "boodle" money. The operation took place at the San Pedro Town Center parking lot in San Pedro, Laguna. PO3 Garcia introduced himself and presented the buy-bust money. Vierneza handed over a sachet of shabu, and Lacdan demanded payment, after which PO3 Garcia gave the money to Lacdan. The team apprehended the accused-appellants, and the confiscated sachet was submitted to the crime laboratory, yielding a positive result for shabu. The defense claimed entrapment and presented alibi witnesses. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31, found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 each. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. Accused-appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, questioning the non-compliance with Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 regarding the conduct of the buy-bust operation and subsequent arrest, specifically the lack of photography of the illicit drugs and the inventory not being done in the presence of required witnesses. The Petition: Accused-appellants questioned the CA's affirmation of their conviction, primarily arguing non-compliance with the procedural requirements of R.A. 9165, specifically Section 21 thereof, concerning the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the conviction of accused-appellants for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 due to procedural lapses in the buy-bust operation. Whether the buy-bust operation was conducted in compliance with the procedural requirements of R.A. 9165, particularly Section 21 thereof, regarding the handling of seized evidence and chain of custody.
Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Eduardo Lacdan y Perez @ "Edwin" and Romualdo Vierneza y Bondoc @ "Ulo" are ACQUITTED of the crime charged and ORDERED to be immediately released, unless lawfully held for other reasons.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Issue of Non-Compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and the Integrity of the Buy-Bust Operation: The Court found that the buy-bust operation and the subsequent handling of the seized evidence suffered from significant procedural lapses that compromised its integrity. The Court noted the questionable use of "boodle money" in the transaction, stating that it is more in accord with human experience that the accused would have been alerted by the apparent lack of genuine currency, making their acceptance of the payment without alarm "questionable and not credible." On the Issue of Non-Compliance with Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165 and the Chain of Custody: The Court highlighted the non-compliance with Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, which mandates the physical inventory and photographing of seized items immediately after seizure and confiscation. In this case, the inventory was conducted in Calamba City, approximately 20 kilometers away from where the operation took place in San Pedro, Laguna. Crucially, the illicit drug was not photographed, and the inventory was not witnessed by a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), although it was witnessed by the accused, a media representative, and an elected public official. The Court emphasized that the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty, and the chain of custody rule is essential for this purpose. The glaring non-compliance with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 rendered the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items highly compromised, thus warranting the acquittal of the accused-appellants. The Court reiterated that prosecutors have a duty to prove compliance with Section 21 or present justifications for deviations, and the Court will not hesitate to overturn convictions in cases of non-compliance or failure to justify deviations.
Main Doctrine
The failure to strictly comply with the procedural safeguards under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, particularly the proper inventory and photographing of seized dangerous drugs in the presence of mandatory witnesses, compromises the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items, warranting the acquittal of the accused.