View full case

PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY v. RICHARD BRODETT

FACTS:

Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph were charged with a violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26(b), of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for unlawfully selling and delivering drugs. Brodett was also charged with unlawful possession of various drugs. During his arrest, PDEA seized personal non-drug effects from Brodett, including a 2004 Honda Accord car. Brodett filed a motion to return his personal effects, claiming that PDEA refused to return them. He requested that his personal effects be tendered to the trial court for safekeeping. The Office of the City Prosecutor objected to the return of the car, but the RTC directed its release to its rightful owner, Myra S. Brodett, while ordering the personal properties of both accused to be brought to the court for safekeeping. PDEA filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. PDEA then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, claiming that the orders of the RTC were issued with grave abuse of discretion. The CA dismissed the petition, stating that the Honda Accord owned by Myra S. Brodett should be exempted from confiscation as she was not charged with any crime.

The case involves the seizure of a Honda Accord car registered under the name of Myra S. Brodett. PDEA argued that the car should remain in custodia legis as it was an instrument of the offense. The court ruled that there was no reason why the car could not be exempted from confiscation and forfeiture. PDEA appealed the decision, asserting that the car should not be released from custody as it was seized during a legitimate operation. Brodett argued that the car should be released to her as a third person not liable for the offense. The pivotal issue in the case is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the order for the release of the car to Brodett.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the trial court has the discretion to dispose of property claimed as evidence, including returning it to its rightful owner.

  2. Whether the confiscation and forfeiture of proceeds or instruments of the unlawful act, including properties derived from illegal drug trafficking, apply to property owned by a third person who is not liable for the unlawful act.

  3. Whether the car used in the commission of the violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 should be released from custody during the pendency of the trial.

  4. Whether the car is subject to forfeiture under Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165.

  5. Whether or not the trial court's orders to release the car used in the commission of the crime before the rendition of judgment was in contravention with Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165.

  6. Whether or not the failure of the prosecution to establish all the links in the chain of custody of the evidence was fatal to the case.

RULING:

  1. Yes, the trial court has the legal discretion to dispose of property claimed as evidence, including returning it to its rightful owners.

  2. No, the confiscation and forfeiture of proceeds or instruments of the unlawful act, including properties derived from illegal drug trafficking, do not apply to property owned by a third person who is not liable for the unlawful act.

  3. No, the car should not be released from custody during the pendency of the trial. Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165 expressly forbids the disposition, alienation, or transfer of any confiscated property during the proceedings, and it should remain in custodialegis.

  4. Yes, the car is subject to forfeiture under Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165. The car was used as an instrument in the commission of the offense, and forfeiture would be a part of the penalty to be prescribed. The determination of whether or not the car (or any other confiscated article) would be subject to forfeiture can only be made when the judgment is to be rendered.

  5. The trial court's orders to release the car used in the commission of the crime before the rendition of judgment were issued with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction for being in contravention with the express language of Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165.

  6. The failure of the prosecution to establish all the links in the chain of custody of the evidence was fatal to the case, resulting in the acquittal of the accused. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions should bow down to the presumption of innocence of the accused.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The trial court has considerable legal discretion in disposing of property claimed as evidence, including returning it to its rightful owners.

  • Property used as evidence must be returned once the criminal proceedings to which it relates have terminated, unless it is subject to forfeiture or other proceedings.

  • Confiscation and forfeiture in drug-related cases apply to all proceeds and properties derived from the unlawful act, unless they are owned by a third person who is not liable for the unlawful act.

  • Statutory construction requires the court to apply the law according to its clear language when it is clear and unambiguous.

  • Judicial construction is only necessary to remove doubt and uncertainty when the law is not clear and unambiguous.

  • The literal interpretation of the law should be consistent with the Constitutional guarantee of due process and the protection of life, liberty, and property.

  • Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code provides for the confiscation and forfeiture of the proceeds and instruments of a crime.

  • Forfeiture of tools and instruments belonging to a third person can only be barred if the person is charged as a principal, accessory, or accomplice.

  • Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165 prohibits the disposition, alienation, or transfer of confiscated property during the pendency of the trial and requires it to remain in custodialegis.

  • Forfeiture under Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165 is part of the penalty to be prescribed and can only be determined when the judgment is rendered.

  • The trial court must comply strictly with the provisions of Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165 and should not release articles, whether drugs or non-drugs, for the duration of the trial and before the rendition of judgment, even if owned by a third person who is not liable for the unlawful act.

  • The failure to establish all the links in the chain of custody of the evidence is fatal to the case and may result in the acquittal of the accused.

  • The presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions should bow down to the presumption of innocence of the accused.