PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee.

vs.

ORLY VISPERAS Y ACOBO, accused-Appellant.

g.r. no. 231010

June 26, 2019

Subject matter: Section 21, Art 2, RA 9165

Ponente: Del Castillo, J.
Facts:
Based on information received on September 29, 2010, that appellant Orly Visperas y Acobo
was engaged in illegal drug trade in Mapandan, Pangasinan, and PSI Dominick Soriano
Poblete (Poblete) ordered the conduct of a buy-bust operation against the appellant. SPO1
Roberto Molina a member of the buy-bust team approached the appellant through an
introduction from the police asset and proceeded with the transaction for the sale of shabu.
Upon the consummation of the sale. The buy-bust team through the signal given by SPO1
Molina apprehended the appellant taking into custody the sachet of shabu weighing 0.028
grams and the marked money. During his arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty thus
proceeding with trial.
In its decision dated April 1, 2013, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for violation of Sec 5, Art 2 of RA 9165 sentenced him to suffer the punishment of life
imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. The RTC favoured the prosecution’s version of
the incident and evidence that appellant was arrested for selling shabu to an undercover
police officer inflagrante delicto, with little consideration of the appellant’s uncorroborated
denial and version of the incident.
The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision on October 16, 2015 ruling that the prosecution was
able to preserve the integrity of the evidence. It held that the appellant failed to prove bad
faith or ill-intent on the part of the police officers who apprehended him.
Issue:
Whether or not the arresting officers preserved the integrity of the dangerous drugs which
is the corpus delicti, by following the mandated procedure for physical inventory and
photographing of the confiscated shabu and made earnest efforts to secure the attendance
of the required witnesses provided for under the law.
Held:
The court has thoroughly reviewed the records and cannot find any proof that the
mandated procedures were observed in the presence of the witnesses required by law. None
of the signatures of the elected public official, nor of a representative from the media, nor
of a representative from the DOJ appear in the inventory receipt. And there is nothing on
record which shows that the arresting team ever exerted an honest to goodness attempt to
secure their presence. Given the fact that none of these mentioned witnesses were present
during the physical inventory and the photographing of the seized shabu, the SC states that
that possibility of switching of “planting or contamination of the evidence challenged the
integrity of the alleged corpus delicti. Thus, granting the appeal on Oct 16, 2015 reversing
the decision of the CA and acquitting appellant Orly Visperas y Acobo ordering his
immediate release from confinement.