G.R. No. 229183 , February 17, 2021
Leonides Quiap y Evangelista, Petitioner, vs. People of the Philippines, Respondent.

FACTS

On March 4, 2011, Police Officer (PO) 2 Jerome Garcia received information from a confidential asset that an alias “Kacho” was on his way to Sta. Cruz, Laguna to obtain shabu. The asset later informed PO2 Garcia that they were on board a “Touch Mobile” passenger jeepney heading to Calamba Crossing, with Kacho described as a small, slightly bald man seated in front of him. An entrapment team was formed and flagged down the identified jeepney at a gasoline station in Barangay Labuin, Pila, Laguna. PO2 Garcia boarded the jeepney and saw Kacho, later identified as petitioner Leonides Quiap y Evangelista, about to throw out of the window a small object wrapped in electrical tape. PO2 Garcia held his hand, asked him to unwrap the object, which revealed a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. The sachet was confiscated, and Leonides was brought to the police station. At the station, PO2 Garcia marked the sachet with “LQE-1” and turned it over to SPO1 Sales, who prepared a request for laboratory examination. The item was delivered to the crime laboratory, received by SPO2 Macabajon, and examined by PSI Grace Bombasi, who found it positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Leonides was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 . The Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted him, and the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the conviction. Leonides filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, questioning the validity of his warrantless arrest and the compliance with the chain of custody rule for the seized drug.

ISSUE

Whether the conviction of petitioner Leonides Quiap y Evangelista for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs should be upheld despite his claims of an illegal warrantless arrest and non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the convictions. On the issue of the warrantless arrest, the Court held that any defect was deemed waived due to Leonides’ arraignment and active participation in the trial without prior objection. Alternatively, the arrest was valid as a “stop and frisk” based on reasonable suspicion from the tipped information and Leonides’ suspicious behavior (attempting to throw an object and panicking). However, the Court found a broken chain of custody. The prosecution failed to establish compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules, which require the physical inventory and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. The records showed no such insulating witnesses were present during the inventory. The prosecution also did not offer any justifiable ground for this non-compliance or prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were preserved. The testimony of the forensic chemist was stipulated, and she admitted she had no knowledge of the specimen’s source, did not receive it personally, and that Leonides was not present during the examination. Consequently, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti were compromised, warranting Leonides’ acquittal.