G.R. No. 263341 , February 4, 2025
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALFREDO ACDANG Y BALANGEN AND ALLAN ACDANG Y BALANGEN, Accused, ALLAN ACDANG Y BALANGEN, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Allan Acdang y Balangen was acquitted by the majority for violating Section 16, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002). The majority found that while Allan was arrested in flagrante delicto cultivating marijuana plants, the arresting officers’ failure to strictly adhere to the chain of custody rule, specifically the absence of required witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized marijuana plants, cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence. The prosecution failed to show that the officers exerted earnest efforts to secure the presence of these witnesses during their planned police operation. The case stemmed from “Oplan Farmville,” a joint operation targeting marijuana plantations. Team Omega, after a long hike and surveillance, discovered a plantation and later observed Allan weeding and cleaning the marijuana beds, leading to his warrantless arrest. Subsequent searches led to the discovery of a second plantation and more evidence at a house.

ISSUE

Whether the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant and the subsequent warrantless searches and seizures were valid and justified under the exceptions to the warrant requirement, and whether the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 were satisfied or excusably non-complied with.

RULING

Justice Leonen, in his dissenting opinion, disagreed with the majority’s acquittal. He argued that: (1) The accused-appellant was validly arrested in flagrante delicto as his overt act of tending to the marijuana plants, corroborated by prior surveillance, provided the police with probable cause. (2) The warrantless searches that followed the valid arrest were justified as continuations of the search incidental to a lawful arrest and under the plain view doctrine, and were not rendered invalid simply because multiple sites were searched. (3) Regarding the chain of custody, while the three-witness requirement applies to seizures of cultivated plants, deviations are allowed when risks of non-compliance are addressed. The dissent implies that the operational circumstances—the remote, mountainous location of the plantation—presented justifiable grounds for the absence of the required witnesses during the inventory, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.