G.R. No. 208472 , October 14, 2019
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Eduardo Lacdan y Perez @ “Edwin” and Romualdo Vierneza y Bondoc @ “Ulo”, Accused-Appellants.

FACTS

An Information was filed charging accused-appellants Eduardo Lacdan and Romualdo Vierneza with violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) involving 10.03 grams of shabu. The prosecution’s version states that on February 10, 2004, a buy-bust team was formed after a confidential informant negotiated a drug deal. PO3 Garcia acted as poseur-buyer and was given two genuine P500 bills marked with “MAG” and boodle money totaling P18,000. The team proceeded to San Pedro Town Center. Accused-appellants arrived, and after confirming the money, Vierneza handed a heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO3 Garcia, who then gave the buy-bust money to Lacdan. The team arrested them, brought them to the PDEA Office in Camp Vicente Lim, where an inventory was conducted in the presence of an elected official and a media representative. The substance tested positive for shabu. The defense presented a different version, claiming they were forcibly taken from other locations and framed. The RTC and CA convicted them, finding the elements of illegal sale and chain of custody established.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the conviction of accused-appellants for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the appeal, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the CA Decision, and ACQUITTED accused-appellants. The Court found the conduct of the buy-bust operation questionable, noting the use of boodle money (newspaper cut-outs) with only two genuine P500 bills in a P18,000 payment, made in daylight, which would have been obvious to the accused and should have alerted them, making the police narration not credible. More critically, the Court found glaring non-compliance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The inventory was conducted at the PDEA Office in Calamba City, approximately 20 kilometers from the place of seizure in San Pedro, Laguna. It was witnessed only by the accused, a media representative, and an elected official, but not by a DOJ representative as required. Furthermore, there was no photograph taken of the seized illicit drug. The prosecution offered no justification for these deviations. These lapses compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, warranting acquittal.