**Facts:**
1. **Initial Incident (July 2009):** On July 9, 2009, PDEA agent Von Rian Tecson received a report alleging that Michael Frias and his live-in partner Marichu Suson were involved in selling shabu at Purok Mahigugmaon, Brgy. 22, Bacolod City. Surveillance confirmed suspicious activities at Frias’s residence.
2. **Formation of Buy-Bust Team:** A buy-bust team was assembled comprising Tecson as the team leader, Pinanonang as the poseur-buyer, Solar as the arresting officer, and other PDEA agents. They prepared P500 as marked money.
3. **Operational Execution (July 15, 2009):** The team proceeded to the target location. Upon confirming the shabu sale, Agent Pinanonang signaled for the arrest of Frias. During the arrest, shabu and buy-bust money were recovered from Frias, and a plastic sachet was also recovered from Suson.
4. **Procedural Follow-up:** The items were marked, inventoried, and photographed at the arrest scene in the presence of media representatives and barangay officials. Frias and Suson were taken to the police station for documentation. Subsequent laboratory examination confirmed the substance as methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
5. **Trial Court Proceedings:** Frias pleaded not guilty to charges of illegal possession (Criminal Case No. 09-32569) and sale (Criminal Case No. 09-32570) of dangerous drugs. The trial court convicted him on both counts, imposing life imprisonment and fines.
6. **Court of Appeals Proceedings:** On appeal, Frias contested the procedural integrity of the buy-bust operation, citing failures in surveillance, lack of a warrant, and inconsistencies in testimonies. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s conviction.
**Issues:**
1. **Legality of Warrantless Arrest and Search:** Whether the warrantless arrest and subsequent search of Frias aligned with legal protocols.
2. **Validity of Prior Surveillance:** Whether the absence of effective surveillance prior to the buy-bust operation compromised the integrity of the arrest and conviction.
3. **Failure to Dust Buy-Bust Money with Ultraviolet Powder:** Whether the absence of ultraviolet powder on the buy-bust money affected the legality of the operation.
4. **Chain of Custody Compliance:** Evaluation of whether the chain of custody rule was followed, ensuring the integrity of the seized drugs as evidence.
**Court’s Decision:**
1. **Warrantless Arrest and Search:** The Supreme Court ruled that the arrest and search during an entrapment operation were lawful since Frias was caught in flagrante delicto. The operation did not necessitate a search warrant under Rule 113, Section 5(a) of the Revised Rules of Court.
2. **Surveillance Requirements:** The Court held that prior surveillance was not essential for a valid buy-bust operation, provided constitutional rights were respected and no authority abuse was evident.
3. **Ultraviolet Powder:** The Court found that ultraviolet marking of the buy-bust money was not mandatory as per RA 9165 or its implementing rules.
4. **Chain of Custody Rule:** Crucially, the Supreme Court identified failures in following the mandatory chain of custody rule. Specifically, the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory and photographing of the confiscated drugs was unexplained and unjustified, leading to significant questions about the drugs’ integrity.
5. **Final Ruling:** Because of the fundamental breach of the chain of custody requirements, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction, resulting in Frias’s acquittal and ordered his immediate release.
**Doctrine:**
– **Chain of Custody Rule:** This case underscores the obligation for strict adherence to the chain of custody requirements, ensuring identifiable preservation of evidence to uphold the integrity in drug-related offenses.
**Class Notes:**
– **Mandatory Presence Required for Chain of Custody:** The presence of the accused, media, elected official, and DOJ representative during the immediate post-operation inventory is vital for the chain of custody.
– **Justifiable Grounds for Deviations:** Justifications must be documented and proven for any deviations from established protocol.
– **Legal Provision Reference:** Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules detail the requirements for handling seized dangerous drugs.
**Historical Background:**
– This case occurred within the context of heightened anti-drug trafficking operations following the enactment of RA 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, which intensified punitive measures and procedural regulations related to drug offenses in the Philippines.
Leave a Reply