Case Digest: ELPIDIO BONDAD JR., Y BURAC v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

ELPIDIO BONDAD JR., Y BURAC v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

           Elpidio Bondad, Jr. was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Marikina City, for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. During the trial, the prosecution witnesses averred that Bondad was arrested pursuant to a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted where he was allegedly found to have been in possession likewise of two other sachets of white crystalline substance, later on found to be the prohibited drug, shabu.

       The prosecution witnesses admitted and confirmed that there was no physical inventory taken of the seized drugs, neither were there photographs taken thereof, immediately after its seizure and confiscation, contrary to the mandate of Section 21(1), R.A. 9165.
Bondad denied that a buy-bust operation was conducted and claimed that he was really arrested while he was playing billiards. he further contested that, assuming a buy-bust operation had really been conducted, still the evidence presented by the prosecution could not really be admissible in evidence, as its integrity has clearly become highly questionable in the light of the unjustified failure of the prosecution witnesses, while acting as apprehending officers, to comply with the mandate of Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165.

        The RTC found Bondad guilty of the offense charge. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirned the lower Court‘s decision. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the object evidence are admissible against Bondad despite non-compliance with Section 21 (1) of R.A. 9165

HELD:

In the present case, by the claim of one of the prosecution witnesses, he immediately marked the seized items which were brought to the Crime Laboratory for examination. By his admission, however, he did not conduct an inventory of the items seized. Worse, no photograph of the items was taken. There was thus failure to faithfully follow the requirements of the law.

Parenthetically, unlike in Pringas, Bondad in the present case questioned early on, during the cross examination of one of the prosecution witnesses, the failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the inventory and photographing requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, despite their awareness of such requirements.

In fine, as the failure to comply with the aforesaid requirements of the law compromised the identity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged against Bondad, his acquittal is in order.