Case 203: Was the failure of the police officers to follow the proper procedure under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 enough to warrant the acquittal of the accused?

    327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: 2025 Bar Examination

Was the failure of the police officers to follow the proper procedure under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 enough to warrant the acquittal of the accused?

People of the Philippines vs. Corazon Nazareno y Fernandez @ "Cora" and Jefferson Nazareno y Fernandez @ "Toto"

G.R. No. 231875 | July 29, 2019

Facts of the Case:

Corazon Nazareno and Jefferson Nazareno were charged with violating Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for allegedly selling methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu). A buy-bust operation conducted on September 8, 2008, led to their arrest. According to the police, a confidential informant introduced a poseur-buyer to Jefferson, who accepted P300 in marked money and handed it to his mother, Corazon. Corazon then gave Jefferson a sachet of shabu, which he handed to the buyer. Upon the buyer's signal, the police arrested both Corazon and Jefferson.

At trial, both denied the charges, claiming they were arrested without a warrant and without participating in any drug transaction. They also questioned the legality of their arrest and the seizure of the evidence.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both accused guilty, sentencing them to life imprisonment and imposing a fine of Php 500,000 each. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s decision, citing the positive testimonies of the police officers.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the accused argued that their warrantless arrest was illegal and that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti, especially due to non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165, which mandates the presence of certain witnesses during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs.

Issue:

Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the conviction despite the police officers' failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165?

Supreme Court Ruling:

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the accused, finding that the police officers failed to follow the three-witness rule under Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The law requires that the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs must be done in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. The prosecution failed to present any justification for the absence of the media and DOJ representatives during the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs.

The Court emphasized that the integrity and identity of the drug evidence must be preserved, and any deviation from the mandated procedures must be justified by justifiable grounds. The absence of the necessary witnesses and the lack of justification invalidated the integrity of the evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Dispositive Portion:

The Supreme Court acquitted Corazon Nazareno and Jefferson Nazareno due to the failure of the police to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The Court ordered their immediate release unless they were being held for other lawful causes and directed the trial court to issue an entry of judgment.

 

Does this case set a precedent where minor deviations in the chain of custody could lead to acquittals in future drug-related cases?

 

Important Doctrines:

1. Section 21, R.A. 9165 (Three-Witness Rule):
• The physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs must be done in the presence of the accused, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected official. Any deviation from this rule requires justification, or the integrity of the evidence may be questioned.
2. Presumption of Regularity vs. Chain of Custody:
• The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot substitute for the strict compliance with the chain of custody rules in drug cases. Failure to justify deviations from the rules can invalidate the evidence.
3. Corpus Delicti in Drug Cases:
• The dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti in drug cases. The prosecution must ensure that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused. Non-compliance with Section 21 can break the chain of custody and lead to acquittal.

Classification: Criminal Law

 

 

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!

📢DISCLAIMER:

This content is for educational purposes only and does not guarantee the infallibility of the legal content presented. All content was created using premium AI tools and reviewed for accuracy to the best of our abilities. Always consult a qualified legal professional for legal advice.

CHAT WITH ME! (CLICK HERE)

Read the full text here

🎓 This content features an essential jurisprudence that every law student, bar reviewee, and barista must internalize. We will dissect the People of the Philippines vs. Corazon Nazareno y Fernandez @ “Cora” and Jefferson Nazareno y Fernandez @ “Toto”, G.R. No. 231875, promulgated July 29, 2019, focusing on the Supreme Court’s reiteration of critical procedural safeguards in illegal drug prosecutions under R.A. 9165.

This case involves a Criminal Law issue concerning the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The Supreme Court ultimately acquitted the accused due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements.

 

🔍 NATURE OF THE CASE:

Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 (Illegal sale of dangerous drugs)

Parties: People of the Philippines vs. Corazon & Jefferson Nazareno

G.R. No.: 231875

Promulgation Date: July 29, 2019

 

🧠 BRIEF SUMMARY & KEY ISSUE:

Corazon and Jefferson Nazareno were caught in a buy-bust operation allegedly selling P300 worth of shabu. The RTC and CA convicted them. However, the Supreme Court acquitted them, citing the absence of required witnesses (media and DOJ) during the inventory of evidence, violating Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

 

💭 If the police recover actual illegal drugs but fail to comply with the proper legal process, should the accused walk free? Let us know your take in the comments!

 

📘 10 IMPORTANT DOCTRINES FROM THE CASE:

1. Section 21 of R.A. 9165 Must Be Strictly Followed
• The presence of media, DOJ, and elected public official during inventory is mandatory. [TSN Sept. 18, 2009]
2. Non-compliance Requires Justification
• Failure to explain absence of witnesses invalidates the evidence chain. [People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, Sept. 4, 2018]
3. Chain of Custody is Crucial
• The corpus delicti in drug cases is the drug itself, whose identity and integrity must be preserved. [People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533]
4. Saving Clause Under Sec. 21 IRR Not Automatic
• The clause only applies if there's proof of justifiable reason for non-compliance. [People v. Jugo, G.R. No. 231792]
5. Presumption of Regularity is Rebuttable
• It cannot override clear violations of legal procedure. [People v. Cabiles, 810 Phil. 969]
6. Arrest in Flagrante Delicto is Valid Without Warrant
• Buy-bust operations fall under lawful warrantless arrests. [People v. Rivera, 790 Phil. 770]
7. Waiver of Objection to Illegal Arrest
• Failure to object before arraignment bars questioning the arrest. [Villanueva v. People, 747 Phil. 40]
8. Testimony of Police Officers Not Always Sufficient
• Without adherence to Section 21, police testimony alone cannot support conviction.
9. Inventory Must Be at the Place of Arrest or Nearby Station
• Per the IRR of RA 9165, inventory must be timely and at designated locations.
10. Failure to Secure Insulating Witnesses Jeopardizes Case

• The absence of these witnesses creates doubt and invites evidence planting allegations. [People v. Ga-ay, G.R. No. 222559]

 

❓ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs):

1. Q: Why were the accused acquitted despite drugs being recovered?
   A: Because of failure to comply with procedural safeguards under Section 21 of RA 9165.
2. Q: Is the presence of media and DOJ during drug inventory mandatory?
   A: Yes. Their presence ensures transparency and prevents evidence tampering.
3. Q: Can police officers conduct the inventory solely at the station?
   A: Only if they justify why the procedure was not done on-site, and still comply with witness requirements.
4. Q: What happens if the accused didn’t object to their arrest?
   A: They are deemed to have waived the objection and submitted to the court's jurisdiction.
5. Q: Does this case apply to drug arrests after the 2014 amendment to RA 9165?
   A: This ruling is based on the pre-2014 version, but the principles remain instructive.

 

📢 DISCLAIMER:

This content is for educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and we do not guarantee its infallibility. Made with premium artificial intelligence.

 

📌 FOLLOW US & SUPPORT:

🛒 Law Reviewers & Materials: https://www.raket.ph/lawrequisitesph

📱 TikTok: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphtiktok

📘 Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphfb

▶️ YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesph

👨‍⚖️ "Justice hinges not just on truth—but on doing things right." What do you think? Drop your comments below.

 

🎓 Welcome to this Criminal Law quizzer designed to test and reinforce your understanding of a landmark drug-related jurisprudence from the Philippine Supreme Court. This quizzer is based on the case:

People of the Philippines vs. Corazon Nazareno y Fernandez @ “Cora” and Jefferson Nazareno y Fernandez @ “Toto”,

G.R. No. 231875, promulgated on July 29, 2019.

🧾 Nature of the Case:

This is a criminal case involving a charge for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under the Philippine Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

👩‍⚖️ Brief Case Summary:

A mother and son were convicted by the trial court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals for selling shabu in a buy-bust operation. However, the Supreme Court acquitted them after ruling that police officers failed to comply with the mandatory procedural safeguards in the custody and inventory of seized drugs—particularly the absence of DOJ and media representatives, without any justification.

📌 REMINDER:

The answer key will be provided at the end of the video, so take time to analyze each question. Let’s begin!

 

🔍 10 HOTS (Higher Order Thinking Skills) Multiple Choice Questions

1. What was the primary reason why the Supreme Court acquitted the accused in the drug case?
   A. The accused were not read their Miranda rights
   B. The buy-bust operation was not authorized
   C. There was non-compliance with required procedural safeguards during inventory
   D. There was no forensic testing conducted
2. In criminal prosecutions involving illegal drugs, what must be preserved to ensure the identity of the item seized?
   A. The suspect's confession
   B. The presence of an elected official
   C. The chain of custody
   D. The buy-bust money
3. What procedural requirement was lacking during the inventory of seized drugs in this case?
   A. The presence of barangay tanods
   B. The presence of media and DOJ representatives
   C. The presence of medical personnel
   D. The presence of barangay captain only
4. Why did the Supreme Court rule that the saving clause under the rules could not be applied in this case?
   A. The drugs were not found at the scene
   B. The accused denied selling drugs
   C. There was no justification for non-compliance with witness requirements
   D. The laboratory result was inconclusive
5. Which of the following best describes the status of the trial court and appellate court’s rulings before the case reached the Supreme Court?
   A. Both acquitted the accused
   B. The trial court acquitted, but the Court of Appeals reversed
   C. Both convicted the accused
   D. The trial court dismissed the case
6. What amount was involved in the alleged buy-bust transaction?
   A. P1,000
   B. P500
   C. P300
   D. P100
7. Which of the following principles was emphasized by the Court to invalidate the seizure of evidence?
   A. Presumption of guilt
   B. Presumption of innocence
   C. Integrity of the evidence
   D. Objection during arraignment
8. What was the court’s view on the absence of two of the required witnesses during the drug inventory?
   A. It was harmless error
   B. It required a retrial
   C. It invalidated the prosecution’s evidence
   D. It justified warrantless arrest
9. According to the ruling, what cannot substitute for non-compliance with proper procedure in drug cases?
   A. The sincerity of the officers
   B. The arrest record
   C. The presumption of regularity
   D. The chain of custody
10. What remedy did the Supreme Court provide for the accused in its final ruling?
    A. Remand to trial court for re-trial
    B. Reduction of penalty
    C. Affirmation of the conviction
    D. Acquittal and release from detention

ANSWER KEY - CLICK HERE