(EN BANC Decision)
Facts
On February 11, 2011, members of a joint PDEA-PNP team (“Team Omega”), during a planned operation to destroy marijuana plantations in Kibungan, Benguet, saw Allan Acdang and his brother Alfredo cleaning and uprooting weeds in a marijuana plantation. The team immediately arrested them for cultivating dangerous drugs, an act punishable under Section 16 of Republic Act No. 9165.
The arresting officers seized marijuana seedlings and plants, which they inventoried and photographed on-site. However, this was done without the presence of the three insulating witnesses required by law at the time: an elected public official, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and a media representative.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both found Allan guilty, ruling that the integrity of the seized items (corpus delicti) was preserved despite procedural lapses. Allan appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, arguing that the chain of custody was broken from the outset.
Issues
The primary issue is whether accused-appellant Allan Acdang is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 16 of R.A. 9165.
This revolves around the key question of whether the prosecution successfully established the integrity of the corpus delicti despite the arresting officers’ failure to comply with the mandatory witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 during the seizure, inventory, and photography of the illegal drugs.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the appeal and acquitted the accused-appellant. The dispositive portion of the decision states:
“ACCORDINGLY, the Appeal is GRANTED. The June 21, 2022 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 14950 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Allan Acdang y Balangen is ACQUITTED of the charge of violation of Section 16 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being held for some other lawful cause”.
Essential Elements of Jurisprudence
- In Flagrante Delicto Arrest: For a warrantless arrest to be valid under this doctrine, two elements must concur: first, the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he or she has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and second, such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. The Court found the arrest in this case valid on this basis.
- Chain of Custody Rule: Strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is mandatory. The first link in the chain of custody requires that the seizure, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized dangerous drugs be conducted immediately at the place of confiscation and in the presence of the accused (or his/her representative or counsel) and the required insulating witnesses.
- For seizures that occurred on February 11, 2011 (prior to the amendment by R.A. 10640), the law mandated the presence of three (3) witnesses: (1) an elected public official, (2) a DOJ representative, and (3) a media representative.
- The Saving Clause: Non-compliance with the witness requirement does not automatically invalidate the seizure if the prosecution can prove both of the following elements:
- There are justifiable grounds for the non-compliance; and
- The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
- Burden of Proof for the Saving Clause: The prosecution bears the burden of acknowledging and proving the justifiable grounds for any deviation from the prescribed procedure.
- In planned police operations, as in this case, the prosecution’s failure to show that the police exerted earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the required witnesses is fatal to its case. The excuse that the plantation was in a remote area is insufficient to justify the complete absence of insulating witnesses, as the police had prior knowledge and time to prepare.
Sample Q&A
Question:
The PDEA conducted a planned raid on a suspected marijuana plantation in a remote, mountainous area. Upon arrival, they caught “X” in the act of watering the marijuana plants and arrested him. The officers immediately conducted an inventory and took photographs of the seized plants on-site. However, only a barangay councilor was present as a witness; no representative from the DOJ or the media was present. The prosecution argued that the remote location of the plantation and the urgency of the operation were justifiable grounds for the absence of the other witnesses. Will the charge for cultivation of marijuana against “X” prosper? Explain.
Answer:
No, the charge against “X” will not prosper.
The case will fail due to the apprehending officers’ non-compliance with the mandatory chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and the prosecution’s failure to validly invoke the saving clause.
- Strict Compliance Required: The law mandates that the physical inventory and photography of seized dangerous drugs must be conducted in the presence of the accused and the required insulating witnesses. For a planned operation conducted before the amendment by R.A. 10640, this means the presence of an elected public official, a DOJ representative, and a media representative was required. Here, two of the three witnesses were absent.
- Failure to Invoke the Saving Clause: While the law provides a saving clause for non-compliance, the prosecution must prove two requisites: (a) justifiable grounds for the failure, and (b) the preservation of the integrity of the seized items.
- No Justifiable Ground for a Planned Operation: As established in People v. Acdang, in a planned police operation, the excuse of a remote location is not a valid “justifiable ground” for the complete absence of the required witnesses. The police had sufficient time and opportunity to ensure that the witnesses would be present during the raid. The prosecution must show that the police exerted earnest efforts to contact and secure them, and mere statements of unavailability or difficulty are insufficient.
Because the prosecution failed to provide a justifiable reason for deviating from the mandatory procedure, the first link in the chain of custody was broken. This failure creates reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, warranting the acquittal of “X”.
#PeopleVsAcdang #GR263341 #RA9165 #ChainOfCustodyRule #CorpusDelicti #FlagranteDelicto #Section21Compliance #PhilippineJurisprudence #DrugCasesPH #SavingClauseDoctrine #SupremeCourtPH
#PhilippineLaw #LegalDoctrine #CaseDigestPH #PhilippineJurisprudenceDigest #BarExamPH #LawStudentPH #LegalEducationPH #CriminalLawPH #EvidenceLaw #RuleOfLawPH
#LawSchoolLife #JusticeMatters #KnowYourRightsPH #LegalCommunity #SCDecision #LawInFocus #LegalUpdate #CaseLaw #LegalAwareness #PhilippinesLaw
Leave a Reply