People vs. Barte CASE DIGEST JUDICIAL NOTICE - EVIDENCE G.R. No. 179749, March 1, 2017

 

People vs. Barte, G.R. No. 179749, March 1, 2017

P: BERSAMIN, J.

FACTS: Barte was charged for selling shabu worth ₱l00 during a buy-bust operation. P02 Cabatingan, a witness for the Prosecution, declared that he and other police officers conducted the buy-bust on the basis of information received to the effect that Barte was engaged in the sale of shabu.   In his defense, Barte declared that he was sitting near their house when police officers suddenly came and arrested him by pointing their guns at him and forcing him to go with them. He was not informed of the reason for his arrest. He was subsequently detained. He was only informed him of the charges on the next day.

RTC convicted Barte. It gave full credence to the testimony of P02 Cabatingan and ruled that the Prosecution established that the Barte had sold shabu to P02 Cabatingan. That although no evidence has been produced to prove compliance of the procedure on physical inverntory and photograph of seized drug, the Court believes that it is not fatal to the State's cause on the validity of the entrapment.  CA affirmed.

ISSUE: Whether or not the court should take judicial notice that buy-bust operations are "susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion." 

HELD: Yes. It is a matter of judicial notice that buy-bust operations are "susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion." The high possibility of abuse was precisely the reason why the procedural safeguards embodied in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 have been put up as a means to minimize, if not eradicate such abuse. The procedural safeguards not only protect the innocent from abuse and violation of their rights but also guide the law enforcers on ensuring the integrity of the evidence to be presented in court.

The fact that the substance possessed or illegally sold was the very substance presented in court must be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required sustaining a conviction. The prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure from the accused until it was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti. 

Non-compliance with the procedural safeguards under Sec. 21 was fatal because it cast doubt on the integrity of the evidence presented in court and directly affected the validity of the buy-bust operation. Testimonies of the police officers and the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties did not override the non-compliance with the procedural safeguards instituted by our laws. Furthermore, although non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements would not automatically render the seizure and custody of the contraband invalid, that is true only when there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. Here, the police who entrapped the Barte and confiscated the dangerous drug from him did not tender any justifiable ground for the non-compliance with the requirement. Barte is acquitted.