Scribd
Upload
5 views2 pages

People v. Tomas, G.R. No. 241631, March 11, 2019

In the case of People v. Tomas, the accused was acquitted of selling illegal drugs due to the prosecution's failure to meet essential legal requirements for evidence handling and witness presence during the buy-bust operation. The apprehending officers did not conduct the necessary physical inventory and marking of the seized drugs at the place of arrest, nor did they secure the required witnesses from the DOJ and media. The court found their justifications for these lapses unconvincing and insufficient to uphold the charges against Tomas.

Uploaded by

erehhhh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
5 views2 pages

People v. Tomas, G.R. No. 241631, March 11, 2019

In the case of People v. Tomas, the accused was acquitted of selling illegal drugs due to the prosecution's failure to meet essential legal requirements for evidence handling and witness presence during the buy-bust operation. The apprehending officers did not conduct the necessary physical inventory and marking of the seized drugs at the place of arrest, nor did they secure the required witnesses from the DOJ and media. The court found their justifications for these lapses unconvincing and insufficient to uphold the charges against Tomas.

Uploaded by

erehhhh
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

People v. Tomas, G.R. No.

241631, March 11, 2019

Facts:

● Responding on an information from a confidential informant that accused was


engaged in the sale of prohibited drugs, PDEA conducted a buy-bust operation.

● PDEA arranged to buy two bulto of shabu for Php 62,000, consisting of two Php1,000
genuine bill and 60 Php1,000 boodle money.

● The entrapment operation was made in Happy Mobile Phone and Gadget Store, from
the operation, the PDEA was able to recover marked money, one Nokia cellphone and the two
heat-sealed plastic sachets of shabu.

● The entrapment team then brought Tomas and the seized plastic sachets containing
white crystalline substance to their office at Camp Adduru.

● The marking, physical inventory, and photographs of the confiscated plastic sachets
were also done at the PDEA Office in the presence of Tomas, Barangay Chairman
Pagulayan, and media representative Cayetano B. Tuddao.

● IO 1 Binwag submitted the request and the seized plastic sachets to the crime
laboratory for analysis and examination.

Issue: WON accused was guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

Held:

No. Three (3) elements must be shown to successfully prosecute a charge for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs:

(1) the transaction or sale took place;

(2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and

(3) the buyer and the seller were identified.

On the second element , RA 9165, Section 21 points out the conditions for the conduct of the
physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items such that:

1. it must be done immediately after seizure or confiscation;

2. it must be done in the presence of the following personalities:

a. the accused or his representative or counsel;

b. representative from the media; c. representative from the DOJ; and

d. any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof; and

3. it shall be conducted at the following places:


a. place where the search warrant is served; or

b. at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless seizure. Apprehending officers failed to meet the above
specifications.

Apprehending officers failed to meet the above specifications.

Chain of Custody. PDEA conducted the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the
seized illegal drugs in their office at Camp Adduru simply averring that it was "the discretion" of
their team leader "to avoid being compromised in the area" but did not elaborate how the
conduct of the physical inventory and photographing at the place of seizure would unduly put its
members or the buy-bust operation at risk. Neither did the team clarify the dangers that
immediate inventory and photographing entail. Also, they did not mark the seized plastic
sachets of suspected shabu at the place of arrest even if they could have easily done so. Their
justification as to why it was not practicable to conduct the marking, inventory and photography
of seized items at the place of arrest is unacceptable.

Three-witnesses Rule. No DOJ representative was present during the physical inventory and
photographing of the seized items. IO 1 Cabanilla justified the absence of the DOJ
representative stating that they tried to contact the DOJ but nobody arrived since the buy-bust
operation fell on a Sunday, a non-working day. Also, Barangay Chairman Pagulayan did not
actually witness the physical inventory of the seized items.

The requirement of securing the presence of an elected public official, member of the DOJ, and
member of the media serves a vital purpose: to protect the accused against the possibility
of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Barangay Chairman Pagulayan's
arrival at the PDEA Office at the time when the seized illegal drugs have been subjected to
quantitative and qualitative examination defeated the very purpose of the three-witness rule
under Section 21. The prosecution failed to satisfactorily show that the apprehending team
exerted honest-to-goodness efforts to secure the presence of the DOJ representative during the
buy-bust operation or, at the very least, during the actual physical inventory and taking of
photographs at the PDEA Office.

The members of the apprehending team failed to proffer a justifiable and credible explanations
for the following lapses:

1) failure to conduct the marking, physical inventory, and taking of photographs immediately at
the place of apprehension and confiscation;

2) failure to secure the presence of the elected public official, DOJ representative, and member
of the media at the place of arrest and seizure;

3) failure to secure the presence of the elected public official and DOJ representative at the time
of the actual inventory and photographing of the seized illegal drugs at the PDEA Office.

The reasons cited by the apprehending officers i.e., that the area will be compromised; that the
entrapment operation fell on a nonworking day were not factual but rather tenuous and flimsy at
best. They were never substantiated nor corroborated by evidence. It was settled that the
justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact because the Court cannot
presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.

Accused was Acquitted.

You might also like