People vs Jaafar, G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017

People v. Jaafar, G.R. No. 219829, January 18, 2017
 
Facts:
In an Information, accused-appellant Monir Jaafar y Tambuyong and Ahmad Gani y Idjirani
were charged with violation of R.A. No. 9165. According to the prosecution, at 8:00 a.m. on
September 10, 2009, a male civilian informant reported to Chief of Police, Police Superintendent
Alberto Capacio Larubis that a certain "Mana" was selling methamphetamine hydrochloride
(shabu) at the port area barangay located just beside the police station. Mana was later identified
as Jaafar, who sold shabu between 12:00 m.n. and 4:00 a.m. to facilitate the sale of the drug and
evade arrest. Jaafar allegedly peddled shabu in his house. Chief Larubis instructed SP04 Enrico
Morales to form a team composed of SPO3 Tabunyag, PO3 Perez, P03 Hasim, PO2 Canete, PO2
Bobby Rey Bucoy, POl Insang, and PO1 Marlon Takazi M. Look and to schedule a buy-bust
operation the next day. He also instructed the team to coordinate with agents from the PDEA. PO1
Look was designated as the poseur-buyer while PO2 Bucoy and PDEA Agent Mark Dela Cruz
were designated as the arresting officers. On September 11, 2009, the buy-bust team left the police
station at 1:45 a.m. and went to Jaafar's house. Jaafar met PO1 Look and the informant at the door
of his house and asked them if they were buying shabu. PO1 Look answered in the affirmative and
gave Jaafar a marked ₱500.00 bill. Jaafar called for Gani inside the house. Gani came out and
handed Jaafar a sachet containing shabu. Jaafar gave the sachet to PO1 Look, who immediately lit
a cigarette-the pre-arranged signal agreed upon by the buy-bust team. The police officers rushed
to arrest Jaafar, but he managed to escape. Eventually, the arresting officers caught up with him
30 meters away from his house. In his defense, Gani testified that he was at an internet cafe located
near the police station at 2:00 a.m. on September 11, 2009. After stepping out of the establishment,
Gani was suddenly apprehended by unknown persons, who later identified themselves as PO1
Look and P02 Bucoy. Meanwhile, Jaafar testified that he was at the internet cafe at 12:00 m.n. on
September 11, 2009, watching people play video games. He left after two hours and made his way
home. Upon entering an alley, Jaafar saw six persons headed towards him. One of them pointed a
gun at him and told him not to run. Out of fear, he ran towards the main road. However, the six
persons, who turned out to be police officers, caught up with him. They conducted a body search
but found nothing since Jaafar was only wearing boxer shorts and at-shirt. Jaafar was detained
after his arrest and brought to the Office of the City Prosecutor at the City Hall of Isabela the next
day. In its Decision dated May 15, 2012, the RTC convicted Jaafar for violation of Article II,
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. However, it acquitted Gani for insufficiency of evidence.
Jaafar filed an appeal before the CA and raised the following errors: (1) the prosecution failed to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; and (2) the arresting team violated the chain of custody
rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The CA ruled that although the sachet of shabu
was not formally offered in evidence during trial, it was nevertheless identified by PO1 Look and
the forensic chemist. Being part of their direct testimonies, the shabu formed part of the records of
the case. Hence, the Court of Appeals ruled that the Regional Trial Court did not err in considering
the shabu as evidence.
 
Issue:
Whether or not the guilt of accused-appellant was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite
the non-observance of the required procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
 
Ruling:
While it may be true that non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is
not fatal to the prosecution's case provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers, this exception will only be triggered by
the existence of a ground that justifies departure from the general rule. This Court finds that the
 prosecution failed to show any justifiable reason that would warrant non-compliance with the
mandatory requirements in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Although the buy-bust team
marked and conducted a physical inventory of the seized sachet of shabu, the records do not show
that the seized sachet had been photographed. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence to show
that the physical inventory was done in the presence of accused-appellant or his representative,
representatives from the media and the DOJ, and an elected public official. The buy-bust team had
an entire day within which to coordinate with the persons required by law to be present during the
physical inventory of the seized drugs. The Chief of Police received the confidential tip early in
the morning. He immediately instructed SP04 Morales to form a buy-bust team and coordinate
with agents from the PDEA. The buy-bust team had ample time to contact an elected public official
and representatives from the media and the DOJ. The prosecution established during trial and on
appeal that the buy bust operation had been carefully planned by narrating the events with intricate
detail. However, at the same time, the prosecution relied heavily on the exception to the chain of
custody rule. Worse, the prosecution did not even offer any explanation on why they failed to
comply with what was mandated under the law. Indeed, if the police authorities had carefully
planned the buy-bust operation, then there was no reason for them to neglect such important
requirements. They cannot feign ignorance of the exacting standards under Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165. Police officers are presumed and are required to know the laws they are charged with executing.
 
Accused-appellant Monir Jaafar y Tambuyong is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.