View full case

PEOPLE v. BERNIE DELOCIEMBRE Y ANDALES

FACTS:

Accused-appellants Bernie Delociembre and Dhats Adam were charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The prosecution alleged that on April 7, 2010, a buy-bust team conducted an operation against Bernie, who was reportedly selling drugs in Quezon City. The designated poseur-buyer, IO1 Avenido, arranged a meeting with Bernie and his companion, Dhats. During the meeting, Dhats handed over a folded cardboard paper containing a white crystalline substance to IO1 Avenido, who paid Bernie using marked money. Accused-appellants were then apprehended by the buy-bust team. The seized drugs were later confirmed to be methamphetamine hydrochloride and meferonex, dangerous drugs. Accused-appellants raised the defenses of denial and alibi. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Accused-appellants appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision. Accused-appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court (SC). The SC motion for reconsideration challenged the compliance with the mandatory procedures under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 in the handling and disposition of the seized drugs.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the police officers complied with the chain of custody rule in the seizure of the drugs.

  2. Whether the failure to have representatives from the media and DOJ during the inventory of the seized drugs is a justifiable ground for non-compliance.

  3. Whether the police officers complied with the procedural requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 in conducting the inventory of seized drugs and in securing the presence of witnesses from the media and DOJ during the inventory.

  4. Whether the procedural lapses committed by the police officers affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

  5. Whether the acquittal of the accused is warranted due to the prosecution's failure to provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

  6. Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that a contract of loan existed between the parties.

  7. Whether or not the trial court erred in ruling that the loan was not discharged due to novation.

  8. Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering the petitioner to pay interest on the loan.

RULING:

  1. The court found that the police officers did not comply with the chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

  2. The failure to have representatives from the media and DOJ during the inventory of the seized drugs is not a justifiable ground for non-compliance. The police officers failed to proffer a plausible explanation for their failure to do so.

  3. The Supreme Court held that the acquittal of the accused is warranted due to the non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 by the police officers. The Court emphasized that the procedure in Section 21 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be ignored or brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. The prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the non-compliance, and the procedural lapses, which were unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. Thus, the accused should be acquitted.

  4. The trial court did not err in finding that a contract of loan existed between the parties. The existence of a contract is a question of fact, and the trial court's findings on factual matters are generally binding on the appellate court.

  5. The trial court did not err in ruling that the loan was not discharged due to novation. Novation is the extinguishment of an obligation by the creation of a new one, and it requires the concurrence of four essential requisites. In this case, the petitioner failed to establish that there was an agreement to substitute the original obligation with a new one.

  6. The trial court did not err in ordering the petitioner to pay interest on the loan. It is well-settled that a debtor who is found liable for an obligation is also liable to pay interest in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.

PRINCIPLES:

  • In every prosecution for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration, as well as the delivery of the drugs and payment, must be proven with moral certainty.

  • The identity of the prohibited drugs must be established beyond reasonable doubt since it forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime.

  • There must be an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drugs to eliminate doubts on their identity due to switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.

  • Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 sets out the procedure for handling seized drugs to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value.

  • Strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not always be possible, but there must be justifiable grounds for non-compliance and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items must still be preserved.

  • The failure to strictly comply with the procedure does not automatically render the seizure and custody void and invalid.

  • The prosecution must explain the reasons behind procedural lapses, and the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact.

  • Compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be disregarded as a procedural technicality.

  • The prosecution has the positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165.

  • Procedural lapses committed by the police officers can affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.

  • The Court is duty-bound to examine whether the procedural requirements have been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If no such reasons exist, the accused should be acquitted.

  • The existence of a contract is a question of fact, and the trial court's findings on factual matters are generally binding on the appellate court.

  • Novation is the extinguishment of an obligation by the creation of a new one, and it requires the concurrence of four essential requisites.

  • A debtor who is found liable for an obligation is also liable to pay interest in the absence of any agreement to the contrary.