CASE 2019-0008: CHARBEN DUARTE Y OLIVEROS VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES (G.R. NO. 238971. AUGUST 28, 2019, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.) (SUBJECT/S: DRUGS; HOW TO GET ACQUITTAL) (BRIEF TITLE: DUARTE VS PEOPLE)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

“WHEREFORE, the petit10n is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 7, 201 7 and the Resolution dated April 4, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39090 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petit10ner Charben Duarte y Oliveros is ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

 

SO ORDERED.”

  

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

 

THE INVENTORY AND PHOTOGRAPHY OF THE ITEMS SEIZED FROM DUARTE WERE NOT CONDUCTED IN THE PRESENCE OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DOJ AND THE MEDIA.

 

THUS THE CASE WAS DISMISSED.

 

 In this case, it appears that the inventory and photography of the items seized from Duarte were not conducted in the presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media, as evinced from the Receipt of Physical Inventory,44 which only showed a signature from an elected public official, i.e., Kgd. Ulderico, contrary to the mandatory procedure laid down in RA 9165. This is confirmed by the testimony of PO 1 Galauran on crossexamination, . . . . .

 

…………

 

As earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for the aforesaid witnesses’ absence by presenting a justifiable reason therefor, or at the very least, by showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their presence. Here, the defense lawyer, through the cross-examination of POI Galauran, had already pointed out that only an elected public official was present during the inventory and photography of the seized items. At this point, the prosecution should have already noted the absence of the representatives from the DOJ and the media and interrogated PO 1 Galauran, or any other witness for that matter, on whether or not earnest efforts were exerted in ensuring the presence of all the required witnesses during the conduct of the inventory and photography. Absent any determination of earnest efforts, the Court is constrained to hold that there was an unjustified deviation from the chain of custody rule, resulting in the conclusion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Duarte were compromised. Perforce, his acquittal is warranted under these circumstances.

  

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SCD-2019-0026-Charben Duarte y Oliveros Vs. People of the Philippines

 

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.