G.R. No. 205823 , August 17, 2015
People of the Philippines, Appellee, vs. Regie Breis y Alvarado and Gary Yumol y Tuazon, Appellants.

FACTS

Appellants Regie Breis and Gary Yumol were charged with violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165 for possession of 8,181 grams of marijuana. On February 10, 2010, based on information from an informant, PDEA-CAR agents conducted an entrapment operation at the Genesis Bus terminal in Baguio City. The informant described the appellants and stated they would transport a box of marijuana via bus to Pampanga. Without a warrant, agents Mangili and Peralta boarded the bus, saw appellants matching the description with a “Ginebra San Miguel” box, and confronted them. When asked, Yumol claimed ownership of the box. Yumol attempted to leave but was blocked, and Breis shoved Mangili when asked about the box’s contents. The agents subdued the appellants, opened the box, found bricks of marijuana, and marked the items on site. The appellants were arrested, informed of their rights, and brought to the PDEA-CAR office where an inventory was conducted around 7:43 PM in the presence of media, barangay, and DOJ representatives. A laboratory examination confirmed the substance was marijuana. The defense claimed frame-up, alleging they were in Baguio to visit an acquaintance, failed to find him, and were boarding a bus home when the agents apprehended them, planted the marijuana, and coerced them into admitting ownership.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in finding the appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding compliance with the procedure on seizure and custody of drugs under Section 21 of RA 9165 and the legality of the warrantless search and arrest.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the appellants’ conviction. The Court held that the PDEA agents substantially complied with Section 21 of RA 9165. The physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, though conducted at the PDEA office and not immediately at the bus terminal, were justified by the agents’ need to secure the area and ensure their safety, as the seizure occurred in a public bus terminal. The presence of the required witnesses (media, barangay, and DOJ representatives) during the inventory at the office satisfied the law’s intent to prevent tampering. The Court found no break in the chain of custody, as the marking was done at the site of seizure, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The warrantless search and arrest were deemed valid as they fell under the “stop and frisk” exception and were based on probable cause arising from the informant’s tip and the agents’ personal verification of the appellants’ suspicious actions and the box matching the description. The defense of frame-up was rejected for lack of clear and convincing evidence, and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the PDEA agents prevailed. The penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P5,000,000.00 for each appellant was affirmed.