Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 99 views

    Ricardo Verino Y Pingol V. People of The Philippines G.R. No. 225710 - June 19, 2019 - Third Division - LEONEN, J

    Uploaded by

    Alvin Motilla
    1) State agents must strictly comply with Section 21 safeguards for seized drug evidence. 2) In this case, the inventory of seized drugs from Verino was only witnessed by a barangay official and not Verino's representative as required. 3) The prosecution also failed to present photos of the inventory as evidence, despite testimony that photos were taken, or explain its noncompliance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ricardo Verino Y Pingol V. People of The Philippines G.R. No. 225710 - June 19, 2019 - Third Division - LEONEN, J

    Uploaded by

    Alvin Motilla
    99 views2 pages
    1) State agents must strictly comply with Section 21 safeguards for seized drug evidence. 2) In this case, the inventory of seized drugs from Verino was only witnessed by a barangay official and not Verino's representative as required. 3) The prosecution also failed to present photos of the inventory as evidence, despite testimony that photos were taken, or explain its noncompliance.

    Original Description:

    Mang Jose

    Original Title

    81

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) State agents must strictly comply with Section 21 safeguards for seized drug evidence. 2) In this case, the inventory of seized drugs from Verino was only witnessed by a barangay official and not Verino's representative as required. 3) The prosecution also failed to present photos of the inventory as evidence, despite testimony that photos were taken, or explain its noncompliance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    99 views2 pages

    Ricardo Verino Y Pingol V. People of The Philippines G.R. No. 225710 - June 19, 2019 - Third Division - LEONEN, J

    Uploaded by

    Alvin Motilla
    1) State agents must strictly comply with Section 21 safeguards for seized drug evidence. 2) In this case, the inventory of seized drugs from Verino was only witnessed by a barangay official and not Verino's representative as required. 3) The prosecution also failed to present photos of the inventory as evidence, despite testimony that photos were taken, or explain its noncompliance.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    81. RICARDO VERINO Y PINGOL v.

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

    G.R. No. 225710 | June 19, 2019 | Third Division | LEONEN, J.

    DOCTRINE:

    State agents are expected to strictly comply with the legal safeguards under Section 21 of
    Republic Act No. 9165, as amended. Should there be non-compliance, the prosecution must
    prove that a justifiable cause existed and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
    item were preserved for the saving clause in Section 21 to be appreciated in favor of State agents.

    FACTS:

    In April 2014, POI Verde of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs of the Valenzuela Police
    Station received a phone call tagging Ricardo Verino as a dangerous drugs seller in Marulas
    Public Market, Valenzuela City. Because of this, Chief Inspector Ruba created a group
    composed of POI Verde, SPO3 Ronald Sanchez , PO3 Fabreag, and PO3 Hernandez to conduct
    the buy-bust operation.

    Three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing zero point zero two
    (0.02) gram, zero point zero five (0.05) gram and zero point zero five (0.05) gram of white
    crystalline substance found to be methamphetarnine hydrochloride (shabu), knowing them to be
    dangerous drugs were confiscated by the buy-bust team. POI Verde then placed the three (3)
    seized sachets in two (2) small brown envelope bags, marked with his initials HTV-I, HTV-2,
    and HTV-3 before sealing and signing the envelopes in the other officers' presence. The whole
    team then went to Barangay Marulas and inventoried the seized items in the presence of
    Barangay Kagawad Ivan Viray.

    In his defense, Verino pointed out that he did not sign the inventory, and no
    representative from the Department of Justice or the media was present when the inventory was
    conducted. Furthermore, the prosecution allegedly failed to present as evidence the photographs
    that were allegedly taken when the seized sachets were being inventoried. Verino maintains that
    the prosecution failed to proffer any justifiable ground for the procedural lapses.

    ISSUE:

    Did the prosecution prove Ricardo Verino’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite its
    failure to show strict compliance with the required procedure under Section 21 of the
    Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended?

    RULING:
    No. When it comes to Section 21, the handling officers must observe strict compliance to
    guarantee the integrity and identity of seized drug. Thus, acts that approximate compliance but
    do not strictly comply with Section 21 have been considered insufficient.

    Nonetheless, while strict compliance is the expected standard, the Comprehensive


    Dangerous Drugs Act recognized that it may not always be possible in every situation. Hence,
    the law's Implementing Rules and Regulations introduced a saving clause, which was eventually
    incorporated in Section 21 when the law was amended by Republic Act No. 10640. The saving
    clause reads: “Provided, finally, that noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable
    grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
    preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and
    custody over said items”.

    Here, an inventory of the items seized from Verino was prepared by SPO3 Sanchez, the
    investigating officer. However, despite the clear requirements under Section 21, the inventory
    was only witnessed by an elected public official. The prosecution failed to explain why the
    inventory was not signed by petitioner or his representative and a representative of the National
    Prosecution Service or the media, as mandated by law.

    Another lapse was the prosecution's failure to present a photograph of the inventory,
    despite POI Verde's testimony that at least two (2) people took photos during the inventory.
    Again, the prosecution failed to explain this blatant noncompliance with Section 21.

    You might also like