GR 196390; (September, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No. 196390; September 28, 2011
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Petitioner, vs. Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph, Respondents.
FACTS
On April 13 and 16, 2009, Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph were charged with violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City. During Brodett’s arrest, PDEA seized several personal effects, including a 2004 Honda Accord car registered in the name of Myra S. Brodett. On July 30, 2009, Brodett filed a “Motion to Return Non-Drug Evidence” seeking the return of these personal effects. The Office of the City Prosecutor objected to the return of the car, arguing it appeared to be an instrument in the commission of the crime. On November 4, 2009, the RTC ordered PDEA to return the car to its rightful owner, Myra S. Brodett, and to bring other personal properties to the court for safekeeping. PDEA’s motion for reconsideration was denied. PDEA then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), which dismissed the petition on March 31, 2011, ruling that the car, being owned by a third person not charged with any crime, was exempt from confiscation and forfeiture under Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165. PDEA appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the RTC’s order for the release of the Honda Accord car to Myra S. Brodett, a third-party owner, pending trial and before judgment.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court ruled that while objects of lawful commerce confiscated during the enforcement of R.A. No. 9165 that are the property of a third person not liable for the unlawful act are subject to be returned to the lawful owner, the trial court may not release such objects pending trial and before judgment. The Court held that the release of the car was premature. The determination of whether the third-party owner had no knowledge of the unlawful act and is thus entitled to recover the property must be made only after trial on the merits, where such owner can prove lack of knowledge. The property must remain in custodia legis (in the custody of the law) during the pendency of the criminal case to preserve its potential evidentiary value and to ensure it is available for forfeiture proceedings if the accused is convicted. The RTC’s order for release was issued with grave abuse of discretion. The case was remanded to the RTC with instructions to retain custody of the car until the criminal cases are terminated.