Procedural lapses by the police team prompted the Court of Appeals to reverse the conviction of a Virac resident arrested in an alleged buy-bust operation in 2021 and order his immediate release.
In its decision rendered last Jan. 25, 2024, the CA’s Special Fourteenth Division granted the appeal of Jarbo Tadoy Aguilar, setting aside the Feb. 4, 2022 judgment of the Regional Trial Court Branch 43 and acquitting him of the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs based on reasonable doubt.
The accused-appellant had been sentenced by then Presiding Judge Lelu P. Contreras to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 after finding him guilty of selling a sachet of shabu weighing 0.019 gram to an undercover police officer in Sta. Elena, Virac in the evening of Jan. 8, 2020.
The prosecution’s version claimed that Aguilar gave the poseur-buyer a piece of paper containing a small plastic sachet after he was given the buy-bust money.
Once the officer executed a pre-arranged signal, other operatives posted nearby rushed in and arrested the suspect, who dropped the money to the ground and tried to evade arrest.
A subsequent drug test on the urine sample of Aguilar yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride and THC metabolite.
In denying the charge against him, Aguilar said he had just visited his common-law wife and child and was walking back to his motorcycle when two men suddenly grabbed him, handcuffed him and brought him to a nearby tree.
He claimed that the officer standing beside him tried to insert something in his buttocks using his foot. He testified that he did not throw anything after he was arrested as there was no opportunity to do so because he was already handcuffed.
A barangay kagawad and a bystander corroborated Aguilar’s allegations, with a storeowner telling the Court that he took a video of what happened about 15 minutes before the police car arrived.
In its ruling, the RTC held that Jarbo was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to the officer, with the integrity of the drug evidence preserved throughout the proceedings.
It disregarded Aguilar’s defense of denial and frame up, upholding the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty on the part of the police officers.
In his appeal, Aguilar argued that there was no valid buy-bust operation because the video and call log screenshot he submitted clearly showed that he was already arrested even before 7:26 PM, contrary to the police testimony that it occurred at 7:42 PM.
He pointed out that the officer’s testimony on the illegal sale of shabu remained uncorroborated by the other seven members of the team while the prosecution failed to provide details as to who gave the buy-bust money and what steps were taken to preserve its authenticity.
The appeal likewise cited the discrepancy in the markings stated in the Receipt of Inventory of Property Seized and the request for laboratory examination. In addition, he said, the receiving officer and the evidence custodian were not presented as witnesses.
In acquitting Aguilar on reasonable doubt, the CA division composed of Associate Justices Pedro Corales, Carlito Calpatura and Jennifer Joy Ong, agreed with the RTC finding that the transaction between the poseur-buyer and Aguilar already transpired even before 7:26 PM.
However, it pointed out based on the evidence that the police merely called the mandatory witnesses after they had already apprehended the suspect.
“It is evident…that the mandatory witnesses were not at or near the place of apprehension and not readily= available to witness the inventory,” the CA stated.
The buy-bust team had ample time to make sure the witnesses would be at or near the place of apprehension but it did not exert earnest effort to comply with the law requiring the physical inventory of seized items immediately after seizure.
Neither Aguilar or his representative or counsel signed the inventory receipt, which indicates that he was unaware of its contents or that those listed therein were the items supposedly seized from him, the appeals court said.
“This is not a simple error, but a grievous omission which creates a gap in the chain of custody,” it added, noting that the buy-bust team did not explain the absence of Aguilar’s signature in the receipt and there was no indication that he refused to sign the same.
Aside from the gross violation of Section 21 of Republic Act 9165, the CA found significant gaps in the chain of custody, notably the discrepancy in the markings of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from the accused and the failure to specify the weight of the shabu in the inventory, the chain of custody form and the request for lab examination.
It also noted that the investigating officer who handled the seized item in the case was not identified.
“The Court cannot simply disregard the foregoing procedural lapses and presume that the arresting officers performed their duties in a regular manner,” the division stressed.