GR 240596; (April, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. 240596 April 3, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner vs. NOVO TANES y BELMONTE, Respondent
FACTS
Respondent Novo Tanes y Belmonte was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The prosecution alleged that on December 14, 2010, Tanes sold a sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride to a poseur-buyer. After pleading not guilty, Tanes filed a petition for bail. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the bail application, finding that the evidence of guilt was not strong. The RTC anchored its ruling on a perceived break in the chain of custody, noting that the required witnesses—a media representative, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and an elected public official—were not present during the actual buy-bust operation and seizure but were merely called to sign the inventory sheet later.
The People filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition, upholding the RTC’s finding. The CA agreed that the prosecution’s evidence was tarnished by a broken chain of custody, as the witnesses were absent during the seizure and their presence was only secured for the inventory. The CA also found that the prosecution failed to adequately justify these lapses. The People elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a Rule 45 petition.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s grant of bail based on a perceived violation of the witness requirement under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, relating to the chain of custody.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the assailed CA Decision. The Court held that the grant of bail was justified as the prosecution failed to establish that the evidence of Tanes’ guilt was strong. The legal logic centers on the application of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and its chain of custody requirements in the context of a bail hearing.
In a bail application for a capital offense, the prosecution bears the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is strong. The RTC and CA correctly found the evidence wanting due to unjustified deviations from the witness mandate. The law requires the inventory and photography to be conducted immediately after seizure in the presence of the accused or his representative, and crucially, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. The Court clarified that while the presence of all three witnesses is ideal, their absence may be excused if the prosecution proves a justifiable ground for non-compliance. Here, the prosecution offered no such justification. The witnesses were not present at the time of seizure and confiscation; they were only summoned later to sign the inventory. This failure to adhere to the procedure, without explanation, compromised the integrity of the seized item and created reasonable doubt regarding the chain of custody. Consequently, the evidence of guilt could not be deemed strong, warranting the grant of bail. The Court emphasized that this finding is preliminary and without prejudice to a full trial on the merits.