Was the accused’s conviction for selling illegal drugs valid despite multiple violations of the chain of custody rule during the buy-bust operation?
People of the Philippines vs. Altantor Dela Torre y
Cabalar
G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019
Facts of the Case:
The accused, Altantor Dela Torre y Cabalar, was charged with
the violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
On October 29, 2009, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, a buy-bust
operation was set up. PO3 Apollo Calimlim acted as the poseur-buyer, and the
accused allegedly handed him a plastic sachet of shabu in exchange for marked
bills worth Php300. After the pre-arranged signal was given, Dela Torre was
arrested, and the drugs were seized.
The trial court convicted Dela Torre and sentenced him to
life imprisonment, with a fine of Php500,000. On appeal, Dela Torre argued that
there were procedural lapses in the handling of the seized drugs, specifically
in the marking, inventory, and photographing of the evidence. The Court of
Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the lapses did not compromise the
integrity of the seized drugs and that substantial compliance was sufficient.
Primary Issue:
Did the lower courts err in convicting the accused despite
violations of the chain of custody rule under RA 9165 during the buy-bust
operation?
Decision of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction and acquitted the
accused. The Court found significant lapses in the chain of custody rule, which
compromised the integrity of the evidence. The marking of the seized drug was
not conducted immediately at the place of arrest, and the inventory was done in
the barangay hall without a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ)
or the media, which are mandatory requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165.
Additionally, the required photograph of the seized item was not presented in
court.
The Court emphasized the importance of strict compliance
with the chain of custody rule to safeguard against the possibility of
tampering, planting, or contamination of evidence, especially in drug cases
where penalties are severe. The prosecution failed to justify the deviations
from the procedural safeguards set by law.
Dispositive Portion:
The Court granted the petition, reversed the decision of the
Court of Appeals, and acquitted Altantor Dela Torre y Cabalar. The Director of
the Bureau of Corrections was ordered to immediately release the accused unless
he was being held for another lawful cause.
How can we ensure that law enforcement officers strictly
follow procedural rules during buy-bust operations to prevent wrongful
convictions in drug cases?
Important Doctrines:
- Chain
of Custody Rule: The prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of
custody over seized drugs to ensure that the drugs presented in court are
the same as those seized from the accused. Any break in the chain can
raise doubts about the integrity of the evidence.
- Presence
of Witnesses during Inventory: Section 21 of RA 9165 requires that the
inventory and photographing of seized drugs be conducted in the presence
of the accused or their representative, as well as representatives from
the DOJ and media, to prevent potential abuse.
- Substantial
Compliance: While the law allows for substantial compliance in
exceptional circumstances, the prosecution must justify any deviations
from the procedure, and these deviations must not affect the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
Classification:
Criminal Law (Violation of RA 9165 – Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act).
Looking for a reliable and affordable study companion for the 2025 Bar Exams? The Law Requisites PH offers expertly curated digital case digests designed specifically for bar examinees, law students, and legal professionals. With concise, organized content tailored to support your review and legal practice, you can now access these powerful tools for only ₱499. Start strengthening your preparation today by visiting https://beacons.ai/thelawrequisitesph. Your bar success begins with the right resources—get yours now!
🎓 INTRODUCTION FOR LAW
STUDENTS AND BAR REVIEWEES
As an expert Philippine law professor, this brief will guide you through a
pivotal case that tackles one of the most misunderstood yet crucial aspects of
drug prosecutions—the chain of custody rule. This video aims to help law
students and bar examinees master essential doctrines of the case by offering a
simplified yet comprehensive analysis.
📚 CASE OVERVIEW
Case Title: People of the Philippines vs. Altantor Dela Torre y
Cabalar
G.R. No.: 225789
Date of Promulgation: July 29, 2019
Nature of Case: Criminal Law – Violation of RA 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
Parties:
- Plaintiff-Appellee:
The People of the Philippines
- Accused-Appellant:
Altantor Dela Torre y Cabalar
Summary:
This case concerns the alleged illegal sale of shabu during a police buy-bust
operation in Dagupan City. Dela Torre was convicted by the RTC and his
conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. However, the Supreme Court acquitted
him due to multiple breaches in the chain of custody, which cast doubt
on the identity and integrity of the seized drug evidence.
💡 If procedural
safeguards are disregarded even in the name of justice, can we truly claim the
system is just?
📌 10 ESSENTIAL
DOCTRINES IN THE CASE
(G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019)
- Strict
Compliance with Chain of Custody Rule
→ Any breach in the chain of custody in drug cases compromises the identity and integrity of the evidence. [See: Decision, p. 35] - Inventory
Must Be Done at Place of Seizure
→ Inventory should be conducted at the place of arrest unless justified. Failure without valid reason is fatal. [Decision, citing People v. dela Victoria] - Mandatory
Presence of Witnesses
→ Media and DOJ representatives must be present during inventory and photography of seized items. [Sec. 21, RA 9165; Decision, pp. 36-37] - Photographs
of Seized Items Are Required
→ Submitting unrelated or incomplete photographs violates the rule and is grounds for acquittal. [Decision, p. 38] - Presumption
of Regularity is Not Absolute
→ Presumption cannot override clear breaches in mandated procedures. [Decision, p. 44] - Justifiable
Grounds for Non-Compliance Must Be Proven
→ The law allows deviation only when reasons are acceptable and evidence remains preserved. [IRR, Sec. 21; Decision, p. 40] - Integrity
and Evidentiary Value Must Be Preserved
→ The chain must be unbroken and documented from seizure to court presentation. [Decision, p. 34] - Burden
on Prosecution to Justify Lapses
→ Prosecution must prove earnest effort to comply or explain why they failed. [Decision, citing People v. Mendoza] - Drug
as Corpus Delicti
→ The actual illegal drug is the corpus delicti and must be proven to be the same item from seizure to court. [Decision, p. 33] - Acquittal
as Remedy for Breach
→ Failure to follow Section 21 and its IRR nullifies the evidence, warranting acquittal. [Decision, p. 42]
📢 DISCLAIMER:
This educational content was made using premium AI technology and is
intended solely to aid in academic review. It is not a substitute for
professional legal advice or jurisprudential study. We do not guarantee its
infallibility or completeness.
🧠 Subscribe for more
legal breakdowns and drop your thoughts below!
🎓 Welcome, future
lawyers! This quizzer is designed to help you review and reinforce your
understanding of a key Supreme Court decision on Criminal Law,
particularly involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs under the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
The featured case is:
People of the Philippines vs. Altantor Dela Torre y
Cabalar
G.R. No. 225789, promulgated on July 29, 2019
Nature of the Case: Criminal Law – Violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Law
Parties:
- Plaintiff-Appellee:
The People of the Philippines
- Accused-Appellant:
Altantor Dela Torre y Cabalar
Brief Summary:
The accused was arrested in a police buy-bust operation and was later convicted
for selling illegal drugs. However, the Supreme Court ultimately acquitted
him due to multiple procedural lapses, particularly the violation of
the chain of custody rule, which cast doubt on the identity and integrity
of the seized substance presented in court.
This quiz will help reinforce your mastery of doctrines,
standards, and evidentiary requirements in drug-related criminal prosecutions.
✅ The answer key will be
revealed at the end of the video, so stay with us!
🔍 HOTS Multiple Choice
Questions – Easy Difficulty
1. What was the primary reason for the acquittal of
the accused in the case?
A. The police did not testify
B. The substance was not illegal
C. The chain of custody was breached
D. The informant did not appear in court
2. Why is strict compliance with procedural rules
crucial in drug cases?
A. To ensure the quantity of drugs is enough for conviction
B. To protect the public from false allegations
C. To preserve the identity and integrity of the evidence
D. To avoid delays in the trial
3. What is required to be done immediately after the
seizure of drugs?
A. Transfer the suspect to the nearest jail
B. Conduct the physical inventory and take photographs
C. Inform the family of the suspect
D. File the case in court
4. What group must be present during the inventory
and photographing of the seized item?
A. Only the arresting officers
B. The suspect's lawyer only
C. The suspect, a barangay official, DOJ, and media representatives
D. Only a representative from the court
5. What happens if the required witnesses are not
present and no justification is given?
A. The case proceeds with lesser penalties
B. The suspect is fined instead of imprisoned
C. The integrity of the evidence is questioned
D. The court automatically convicts the suspect
6. What did the photos offered as evidence in this
case show?
A. The exact sachet of shabu
B. The signed inventory receipt
C. A mugshot and a man writing
D. The arresting officer’s testimony
7. What did the police claim as the reason for not
conducting the inventory at the arrest site?
A. They were not trained on proper procedure
B. The station was too far
C. It was already dark and they feared commotion
D. The barangay hall had better lighting
8. According to the decision, can the presumption of
regularity in official duties justify procedural lapses?
A. Yes, if the officers have good records
B. No, if lapses affect the integrity of evidence
C. Yes, in all drug cases
D. Only if approved by a judge
9. What is the role of the “corpus delicti” in drug
cases?
A. It refers to the confession of the suspect
B. It is the criminal record of the accused
C. It is the actual drug that must be proven to be the same item seized
D. It is the name of the police operation
10. What was the ultimate ruling of the Supreme Court
in this case?
A. Conviction upheld
B. Case remanded for retrial
C. Accused acquitted
D. Life sentence reduced to reclusion temporal
📢 CLICK HERE FOR THE
ANSWER KEY
No comments:
Post a Comment