G.R. No.
234648, March 27, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ELIZALDE JAGDON Y BANAAG
A.K.A. "ZALDY," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
DECISION
J. REYES, JR., J.:
In two separate Information3 both dated March 23, 2010, Jagdon was charged with violation of
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The accusatory portions of the information read: cralawred
In its February 24, 2016 Decision, 11 the RTC convicted Jagdon for violation of Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The trial court opined that the testimony of PO2 Piano categorically
established all the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It pointed out that he positively
identified Jagdon as the one who gave the sticks of marijuana and received the marked money as
payment. The RTC upheld the validity of the buy bust operations highlighting that the CAID-SOTG
conducted the operation with the coordination of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. The trial
court expounded that Jagdon was also guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs as 45 more
sticks of suspected marijuana were recovered from him after he was searched as an incident of a
lawful arrest.
The RTC upheld the integrity of the drugs seized on account of the observance of the procedure in
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The trial court noted that the seized drugs were marked in front of
Jagdon and the two barangay officials. It added that the chain of custody was unbroken as all the
links of the chain, from the time the drugs were seized until its presentation in court, were
satisfactorily proven. The RTC disregarded Jagdon's unsubstantiated claim of frame-up especially
since the legitimacy and regularity of the buy bust operation had been established. The dispositive
portion reads:cralawred
Further, the CA postulated that Jagdon never questioned the chain of custody before the trial court
and was raised only for the first time on appeal. The appellate court pointed out that he never
assailed the police's non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Thus, the CA
surmised that it was too late for Jagdon to question the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items. It ruled: cralawred
WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF
SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF R.A.NO. 9165.
In the present case, Jagdon laments that the police did not comply with the requirements or
procedure set forth in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Particularly, he notes that the witnesses required
by law were not present during the marking and inventory of the drugs allegedly recovered from him.
Thus, Jagdon believes that the identity and intergrity of the drugs in question had been tainted.
Meanwhile, the CA points out that there was substantial compliance with the requirements under
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. The CA likewise opined that Jagdon can no longer assail the police's
alleged failure to comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165
because he did not challenge the same during trial. The appellate court explained that he is
precluded from questioning it for the first time on appeal.
To recount, the CA held that "[any] [l]apses [sic] in the safekeeping of the seized illegal drugs[,]
[which affect] their integrity and evidentiary value should be raised at the trial court level." As basis,
the CA cited the case of People v. Mendoza (Mendoza), which in turn, cited the case of People v.
Sta. Maria (Sta. Maria) wherein it was opined that: cralawred
In this case, the Court cannot simply turn a blind eye against the unjustified deviations in the chain of
custody on the sole ground that the defense failed to raise such errors in detail before the trial court.
Considering the nature of appeals in criminal cases as above-discussed, it is then only proper to
review the said errors even if not specifically assigned. Verily, these errors, which go to the
sufficiency of the evidence of the corpus delicti itself, would indeed affect the court's
judgment in ultimately ascertaining whether or not the accused should be convicted and
hence, languish in prison for possibly a significant portion of his life. In the final analysis, a
conviction must prudently rest on the moral certainty that guilt has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt. Therefore, if doubt surfaces on the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, regardless that it
does only at the stage of an appeal, our courts of justice should nonetheless rule in favor of the
accused, lest it betray its duty to protect individual liberties within the bounds of law. (Citations
omitted; emphases supplied)
Jagdon can challenge the police's compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 even if he merely
raised it for the first time on appeal. The issue whether the procedure under the law was observed is
relevant as it touches upon the corpus delicti itself or the drugs seized from Jagdon as a result of the
buy bust operation and his subsequent arrest. Matters which relate to the sufficiency of evidence to
convict an accused may be raised at any time, even for the first time on appeal.
Having settled that Jagdon can raise the issue of compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 for
the first time on appeal, the Court finds that the police had unduly deviated from the prescribed
procedure warranting the acquittal of the accused.
