FACTORS AFFECTING THE

TITLE PETITIONERS RESPONDENT WHAT HAPPENED ISSUE RTC CA SC

RULING OF THE SC

- In the morning of December 8, WON the Court of The RTC of Manila ruled in favor of The Court of Appeals The Supreme Court While generally the findings of the
2011, an informant came to Appeals erred in its the petitioner, finding appellant denied appellants granted the appeal. RTC, as affirmed by the CA, are
Manila Police District Anti-Illegal decision on the guilty beyond reasonable doubt of appeal. The Cour of The decision of the binding and conclusive; the
Drugs-Special Operations Task contention that the violation of Sections 5 and 11 Appeals affirmed the Court of Appeals is Supreme Court, after careful
Unit (MPD DAID-SOTU) to report prosecution failed to RA9165. decision of the RTC. reversed and set examination of the records of the
that he had set a drug deal with a prove the integrity of the aside. Accordingly, case, found that the lower courts
certain alias “Bek Bek”, who was seized shabu as the The RTC upheld the validity of the appellant Babylyn overlooked some significant facts
later identified as the appellant. apprehending officers buy-bust operation and gave more Manansala y Cruz is and circumstances which must
- With the said information, did not strictly comply credence to the testimony of PO3 acquitted on compel appellant’s exoneration.
PCINSP Robert Domingo, the with the chain of Custody Taruc than to the denial of the reasonable doubt,
Chief of DAID-SOT Group formed Rule spelled out in appellant. RTC likewise found that and is ordered To secure conviction of the
a buy-bust team. Section 21 of RA9165. the chain of custody of the seized immediately released appellant for violation of Section 5
- The buy bust money was marked items was established by the from detention. and Section 11 of RA 9165, all the
by P03 Taruc, who also served as prosecution. elements of the crime charged must
the poseur-buyer of the buy-bust be proven. The prosecution carries
team, with his initials. the burden to establish the integrity
- Upon meeting the appellant, the of the dangerous drug; wherein, in
informant introduced PO3 Taruc such case the seized dangerous
as the buyer; after which, the drug itself is the corpus delicti of the
latter gave the appellant the case. This, however, presupposes
marked money as payment. that an unbroken chain of custody
- When the appellant received the over the subject drug, from the time
GR Babylyn
People of the money, she brought out a small of its confiscation until its
No.229509 Manansala y
Philippines plastic sachet containing a white presentation in court, must be
July 3, 2019 Cruz
crystalline substance which she clearly and sufficiently proved.
handed over to P03 Taruc.
- Thereafter, the appellant was The Chain of Custody Rule under
immediately arrested, and was Section 21, Article 2 of RA9165
ordered to empty her pockets. requires that: (1) the seized items
The marked money and another be inventoried and photographed
sachet of shabu was recovered. immediately after seizure or
- The objects recovered were confiscation; and (2) the physical
marked and photographed. inventory and photographing must
- An inventory of the seized item be done in the presence of (a)
was then made in the presence of accused or his/her representative
1 media representative name or counsel, (b) an elected public
Rene Crisostomo. official, (c) a representative from the
- After the inventory of the items, media, and (d) a representative
the appellant was brought to the from the DOJ, all of whom shall be
office of the MPD DAID and the required to sign the copies of the
seized items were turned over. inventory and be given a copy of the
After which, the seized objects same and the seized drugs must be
were brought to the crim turned over to the PNP Crime
laboratory for testing. Laboratory within 24 hours from
- However, the appellant denied confiscation for examination. In
the accusations. She testified that case of non-compliance, the
while she was on her way home, prosecution is mandated to prove
five men in civilian boarded the that (a) there was a justifiable
jeepney that she was in and ground for non-compliance; and (b)
instructed her to alight therefrom. the integrity and evidentiary value of
She was then brought to the DAID the seized items were properly
office wherein she alleged that preserved.
police officers demanded money
for her release. Under the law, the presence of the
insulating witnesses is a high
prerogative requirement, the non-
fulfillment of which casts doubts
upon the integrity of the corpus
delicti itself, and for that reason
imperils and jeopardizes the
prosecution’s case.

In this case, the Court finds that the

prosecution failed to comply with
the rule requiring the presence of
the 3 insulating witnesses. As
bases from the testimony of PO3
Taruc, only 1 out of 3 required
witnesses was present at the time
of seizure and apprehension.

In the landmark case of PP vs Lim,

the Court stressed the importance
of the presence of the 3 insulating
witnesses and ruled that where they
are absent, the prosecution must
allege and prove the reasons for
their absence and likewise show the
earnest efforts were made to secure
their attendance.

In this case, the prosecution made

no effort to explain or justify why 2
of the 3 required witnesses were not
present during the buy-bust
operation, nor did it show that
earnest efforts were in fact exerted
to secure or obtain their presence or
attendance.

The Court, in the case of PP vs

Malana, also took the view that a
buy-bust team can easily gather the
3 required witnesses, considering
that its operation is a planned
activity. In this case, the
apprehending team had more than
enough time to comply with the
requirements under RA 9165.