People v. Nazareno
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Appellants Corazon Nazareno y Fernandez (@ "Cora") and Jefferson Nazareno y Fernandez (@ "Toto") were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) for allegedly selling 0.01 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) - Branch 204, Muntinlupa City, found both appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 each. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Petition: Appellants assailed their conviction, arguing the illegality of their warrantless arrests and the prosecution's failure to establish the corpus delicti due to non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
Issue(s)
Did the Court of Appeals err when it affirmed appellants' conviction for violation of Section 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) of Art. II of RA 9165? Were the appellants' warrantless arrests valid? Did the buy-bust team comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165?
Ruling
The appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 29, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07558 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Appellants Corazon Nazareno y Fernandez @ "Cora" and Jefferson Nazareno y Fernandez @ "Toto" are ACQUITTED of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women and the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison are directed to immediately release the appellants from custody, unless they are being held for some other lawful cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the main issue: The Court found that because the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 were not met and the prosecution failed to provide a justifiable reason for the non-compliance, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs were deemed compromised. The Court stated that "there is no point anymore in determining if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs had been satisfied" when the saving clause was not triggered. The absence of the required insulating witnesses, without any justifiable reason, casts serious doubts upon the integrity of the corpus delicti itself, thereby jeopardizing the prosecution's case. Consequently, the appellants must be acquitted. On the validity of the warrantless arrest: The Court held that the warrantless arrest was valid as it was made during a buy-bust operation where the appellants were caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu. This falls under Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, which allows arrest without a warrant when a person is committing an offense in the presence of an officer. Furthermore, the appellants were deemed to have waived their right to question the validity of their arrest by not objecting to it before their arraignment, pleading not guilty, and actively participating in the proceedings, including stipulating on the court's jurisdiction during pre-trial. On compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165: The Court found that the buy-bust team failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Specifically, the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs were not conducted in the presence of the required witnesses: a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The testimony of PO3 Villareal revealed the absence of these witnesses during the inventory and photograph. The reason given for not conducting the inventory in the area, "to avoid commotion," was not considered a "justifiable ground" for non-compliance under the saving clause of Section 21(a). The prosecution also failed to acknowledge or explain the absence of these witnesses. The Court emphasized that the presence of these insulating witnesses is crucial to insulate against the police practice of planting evidence and to preserve the integrity of the corpus delicti. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot substitute for this mandatory compliance.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution must strictly comply with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, including the presence of the required insulating witnesses (media, DOJ, elected official) during the inventory and photographing of seized drugs, unless non-compliance is justified and the integrity of the evidence is preserved. Failure to do so, without valid explanation, warrants acquittal.