People of The Philippines VS Manansala

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS BABYLYN MANANSALA Y CRUZ
GR NO. 229509
FACTS:
In the morning of December 8, 2011, a confidential informant came to the Manila Police District Anti-
Illegal Drugs - Special Operations Task Unit to report that he had set a drug deal at 6:00 Pm at Taft
Avenue, corner Kalaw Street, with a certain alias 'Bek Bek", later identified as herein appellant. Acting on
said information, the Chief of DAID-Special Operation Task Group, PCINSP Robert Casimiro Domingo,
formed a buy-bust team, with PO3 Taruc as poseur-buyer and SPO1 Melany Amata, PO3 Modesto
Bomel and PO3 Enrique Lalu as back-up.
The buy bust money consisting of P1,000.0 bill bearing serial No. HW675766 was marked with PO3
Taruc's initials. The team arrived at the target area at 6:00PM upon meeting appellant, the confidential
informant introduced PO3 Taruc as the buyer of the shabu. PO3 Taruc then gave appellant the marked
P1,000.00 bill. Appellant placed the marked money in the right pocket of her pants and brought out a
small plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance which she handed over to PO3 Taruc.
Thereafter, PO3 Taruc removed his bull cap, which was the pre-arranged signal, to summon the back-up
operatives to come forth as the transaction had been consummated. Appellant was then immediately
arrested and ordered to empty her pockets. The marked money and another plastic sachet of shabu were
recovered from apellant. PO3 Taruc proceeded to mark the purchased plastic sachet as DAID and the
other sachet as DAID-1, while SPO1 Amata took pictures. An inventory of the seized items was then
made in the presence of one media representative named Rene Crisostomo.
After the inventory, appellant was brought to the face of the MPD DAID, and seized items were turned
over to the Police Investigator, PO2 Voltaire S. Yap and to police inspector Eduardo Vito Pama who them
prepared and signed the request for laboratory examination of the seized items. After this, PO3 Taruc and
PI Pama brought the specimen to the crime laboratory. The seized items were received by forensic
chemist PI Elisa G. Reyes, who then conducted tests on the white crystalline substance contained in the
two plastic sachets, both of which tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride
commonly known as shabu. RTC and CA convicted him for illegal selling and possession.
On appeal, appellant content that the prosecution failed to prove the integrity of the seized shabu as the
apprehending officers did not strictly comply with the Chain of Custody Rule spelled out in Section 21 of
RA 9165
ISSUE: Whether or not the accused be held guilty of the crime charged.
RULING:
NO.
Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that (1)the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately
after seizure or confiscation; and (2)the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the
presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel (b) an elected public official (c)
representative from the media and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice , all of whom shall
be required to sign the copes of the inventory and be given copy of the same and the seized drugs must
be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four hours from confiscation for examination.
The Court understands that strict compliance with the above-mentioned rule is not always possible.
However, in case of non-compliance therewith, the prosecution is mandated to prove that (a) there was
justifiable ground for compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were
property preserved
Here, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to comply with the rule requiring the presence of the
three insulating witnesses. As can be gleaned from the testimony of PO3 Taruc, only one out of the three
required witnesses was present at the time of seizure and apprehension:
Q. In this Inventory as appears a name of Rene Crisostomo as witness. DO you know who it this person?
A: A media Person sir.
In the landmark case of People v Lim, this Court stressed the importance of the presence of the three
insulating witnesses and ruled that where they are absent, the prosecution must allege ad prove the
reasons for their absence and likewise show that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance. The
court explained:
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical
inventory and photograph of illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such
as
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2)
their safety during the inventory and photograph o the seized drugs was threatened by
an immediate retaliatory action of he accused or any person/s acting for an in his/her
behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought
to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media
representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article
125 of the Revised Penal Code proved futile through no fault of the arresting officers,
who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention or (5) time constraints
and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets,
prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses
even before the offenders escape,
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proved.
Regrettably, in this case the prosecution made no effort at all to explain or justify why two of the three
required witnesses - a representative from the DOJ and an elected public official - were not present during
the buy-bust operation against appellant, nor did it show that earnest efforts were in fact exerted to secure
or obtain their presence or attendance thereat.
The Court in a plethora of cases, has repeatedly stressed that the presence of the required insulating
witnesses at the time of the inventory is mandatory and that their presence thereat serves both a crucial
and a critical purpose. Indeed, under the law, the presence o the so-called insulating witnesses is a high
prerogative requirement, the non-fulfilment of which casts serious doubts upon the integrity of the corpus
delicti itself the very prohibited substance itself – and for that reason imperils and jeopardizes the
prosecution’s case.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The February 9, 2016 decision of the Court of Appeals is CA-
G.R CR-HC NO. 07017 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, appellant Babylyn Manansala y
Cruz is ACQUITTED n reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from
detention, unless she is being lawfully held for another cause.

People of The Philippines VS Manansala

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines VS Manansala

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People of The Philippines VS Manansala

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, VS BABYLYN MANANSALA Y CRUZ

A: A media Person sir.

You might also like