G.R. No. 237422 , February 14, 2024
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Ben G. Bation, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

Accused-appellant Ben G. Bation was charged with violation of Section 16, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (illegal planting and cultivation of marijuana). The Information alleged that on March 1, 2010, in Lazi, Siquijor, Bation was caught in the act by police authorities watering and tending to marijuana plants without legal authority. The prosecution’s version established that based on intelligence information, a police team, led by a confidential informant, proceeded to a bushy area near Bation’s house on the evening of February 28, 2010. The informant pointed out 15 grown marijuana plants in pots and bags. The police staked out and at around 5:50 a.m. on March 1, 2010, observed Bation approach the plants, sprinkle fertilizer, and water them. He was then arrested. Photographs were taken at the scene with barangay officials. The physical inventory of the seized plants was commenced at the scene but was continued at the police station in the presence of a Department of Justice representative and barangay officials, as a media representative was unavailable. The samples tested positive for marijuana. Bation denied the charges, claiming he was merely feeding his animals and defecating when arrested, and that the police forced him to water the plants. The Regional Trial Court convicted Bation, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Ben G. Bation for violation of Section 16, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 .

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the appeal and AFFIRMED the July 20, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that all elements of illegal cultivation of marijuana were proven beyond reasonable doubt: (1) the accused planted and cultivated marijuana plants; (2) he did so without authority. Bation was caught in flagrante delicto watering and fertilizing the plants, which constituted the overt acts of cultivation. His warrantless arrest was lawful as he was apprehended in the act of committing an offense. The defense of denial, being uncorroborated, could not prevail over the positive identification by the police. Regarding the chain of custody, the Court ruled there was substantial compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 . The conduct of the inventory at the police station was justified under the implementing rules, which allow it in cases of warrantless arrest. The absence of a media representative was sufficiently explained, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved through proper marking, photography, documentation, and testimonies.