SC acquits 2 in drug case over mishandled evidence

In a decision promulgated in July 2023, but released only on Friday, the SC’s Second Division reversed a ruling of a regional trial court and the Court of Appeals, which convicted Francis Valencia and Ryan Antipuesto of the sale of illegal drugs.
Philstar.com / EC Toledo

MANILA, Philippines — Two persons convicted of illegal drugs have been acquitted by the Supreme Court (SC) due to lapses in the handling of evidence against them.

In a decision promulgated in July 2023, but released only on Friday, the SC’s Second Division reversed a ruling of a regional trial court and the Court of Appeals, which convicted Francis Valencia and Ryan Antipuesto of the sale of illegal drugs.

The two were arrested in a sting in Dumaguete City in 2016, during which a big sachet of shabu was found in their possession.

The arresting officer, Crisanto Panggoy, marked the sachet “FLV/RA-BB-01-16-16” and placed it in a brown envelope.

Panggoy brought the sachet of shabu to the Negros Oriental crime laboratory for examination.

However, in a letter of request for specimen transfer, the sachet of shabu was referred to as “FLV/RA-BB-01-16-2016” instead of “FLV/RA-BB-01-16-16.”

Panggoy was allowed to remove 20 in 2016 to match the marking in the evidence.

In acquitting Valencia and Antipuesto, the SC said the marking in the seized evidence is an ”important component“ of the first link of the chain of custody, and should be done immediately after seizure to preclude any doubt.

The high court said failure to mark the evidence at the point of seizure “endangers” the chain of custody.

“Taking of inventory and photographing were conducted only at the police station and not at the place of arrest or seizure. It was not shown that witnesses were at or near the place of arrest to witness the taking of the inventory,” the decision read.

The SC said this was a ”blatant disregard” of the immediacy requirement under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

“While Panggoy was the seizing officer, he had no authority to modify the letter request reflecting the chain of custody,” the high court said.

“When the forensic chemist examined and presented the specimen to the trial court, it was no longer certain that they were the same drugs seized from accused-appellants,” the SC noted.

Show comments