A Virac convicted of possession of dangerous drugs four years ago has been freed by the Court of Appeals after it reversed the decision of the Regional Trial Court last week.
In the ruling issued Dec. 17, 2024, the CA Fifth Division granted the appeal of Dennis Talaro Sarmiento and acquitted him of the charge of violation of Section 11 of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
It directed the Bureau of Corrections at the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City to cause his immediate release from confinement.
On Nov. 15, 2019, then RTC Branch 42 Presiding Judge Genie G. Gapas-Agbada sentenced Sarmiento, a resident of barangay Capilihan, Virac, to life imprisonment and ordered him to pay a fine of P1 million
Information filed before the Court stated that prior to his arrest 10 years earlier, the San Andres police learned that Sarmiento brought shabu from Manila and stayed at a lodging house in Timbaan before transferring to another inn in Bon-ot.
After eluding authorities for the 3rd time, the police received a report from its asset that the target was in Comagaycay at the house of Marites Bagadiong and officers immediately secured a search warrant with the RTC Executive Judge.
In the evening of Nov. 19, 2014, a police search conducted in the presence of barangay officials and other designated witnesses found a sachet of shabu in Sarmiento’s right pocket.
Inside the residence, the searcher also discovered two pouches that contained 13 more similar sachets containing the illegal drugs, with the seized drugs weighing a total of 73 grams upon laboratory examination,
Sarmiento, Bagadiong and one Ruben Cells were charged with the crime but the case against Bagadiong was dismissed while that against Cells was downgraded to use of dangerous drugs.
In denying the charges against him by claiming he was not the owner of the pouches where the shabu was found, Sarmiento filed a motion for the Court to produce documents in connection with the search warrant application.
However, RTC denied the motion for lack of merit, stating that preserving the identity of the witness is important to protect them from potential retaliation from drug personalities involved.
Instead, the presiding judge offered to show him the records but at a distance so that he would not read the contents of the affidavits and the searching questions and answers of the applicant and his witness.
After his conviction, the accused immediately filed an appeal through counsel Atty. Ma. Theresa T. Balagtas-Gupo, arguing that the RTC seriously erred in not granting the motion for production, in admitting the evidence obtained and in declaring that the prosecution was able to prove his guilt.
In its ruling that the appeal had merit, the CA’s Fifth Division said the search warrant was invalid, as there were neither records attached to the warrant, nor any records presented during trial, nor given to the accused-appellant.
It noted that RTC refused to divulge the records of the supposed interview of the witnesses and that there was no evidence to prove that the issuing judge personally and thoroughly examined the applicant and witnesses of the search warrant.
“It follows, therefore, that the evidence obtained under it are inadmissible,” Associate Justice Emily San Gaspar-Gito, who wrote the decision, said.
On the second issue, the Court affirmed that the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized items was not properly preserved.
It cited the failure of the police to indicate the weight of the seized drugs in the certification on the execution of the search warrant, with the information appearing only in the Chemistry Report.
Pointing out that part of the handling of drug evidence is the weighing of dangerous drugs in the presence of persons required and if possible under existing conditions, the CA ruled that there is now doubt as to whether the alleged sachets containing illicit drugs which were recovered from Sarmiento were the same narcotics that were delivered to the crime laboratory for examination.
It remarked that both the police officer who brought the evidence to the mainland lab and the chemist who traveled with it back to the island, failed to elaborate during their testimony on how the evidence was handled to prove an unbroken chain of custody.