327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: 2025 Bar Examination
Can an individual be convicted of illegal drug sale under
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act despite the absence of payment and
significant breaches in the chain of custody rule?
Case Title:
People of the Philippines v. Efren Posos y Morfe and
Thelma Grezola y Cabacang
G.R. No. 226492 | October 02, 2019
Facts of the Case:
Efren Posos and Thelma Grezola were charged with violating
Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165
(Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), after being arrested in a buy-bust
operation. On September 6, 2011, Posos allegedly sold methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu) to an undercover agent, Special Investigator Laura P.
Nebato, who posed as a buyer. The prosecution claimed that Posos handed a small
sachet of shabu to the agent, and this marked the consummation of the drug
sale, leading to the arrests of both Posos and Grezola.
In their defense, Posos and Grezola argued that they were
victims of a setup. They testified that they were forcibly taken by men posing
as authorities, and no actual drug transaction occurred. Furthermore, they
claimed that the arresting officers violated procedural rules, particularly
with regard to the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
Trial Court's Decision:
The Regional Trial Court of Caloocan found both defendants
guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a
fine of Php500,000 each. The court relied on the presumption of regularity in
the performance of official duties and dismissed the defense's allegations of
procedural violations.
Court of Appeals Decision:
The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, emphasizing
that all elements of the illegal sale of drugs had been sufficiently
established by the prosecution.
Primary Issue Before the Supreme Court:
Were all the elements of illegal drug sale established,
and was the chain of custody rule adequately followed by law enforcement
officers?
Supreme Court Decision:
The Supreme Court reversed the conviction of Efren
Posos and Thelma Grezola. The Court ruled that there was a failure to establish
the essential element of payment in the alleged illegal sale of dangerous
drugs. According to the testimony of the undercover agent, the buy-bust money
was not delivered to the accused, a crucial step in proving the sale of drugs.
Additionally, the Court noted significant breaches in the chain of custody
rule, as required under Section 21 of RA 9165. The marking of the seized drugs
and their inventory were conducted in the absence of key witnesses such as
representatives from the media and the Department of Justice, violating
procedural safeguards meant to ensure the integrity of the seized evidence.
Dispositive Portion:
The appeal was granted. The conviction of Efren Posos and
Thelma Grezola for violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article
II of RA 9165, was reversed and set aside. Both individuals were
acquitted, and the Court ordered their immediate release unless detained for
other lawful causes.
In cases where procedural rules like the chain of custody
are breached, should courts always err on the side of acquitting the accused,
even if other evidence seems to point to guilt?
Important Doctrines:
- Elements
of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs: The prosecution must establish
both the delivery of the drugs and the payment for them. Without proof of
payment, the sale cannot be considered consummated.
- "In
the sale of dangerous drugs, proof of the transaction must include the
delivery of the drug and the payment."
- People
v. Hilario (2018)
- Chain
of Custody Rule: To ensure the integrity of the seized drugs, all
links in the chain of custody—from seizure to presentation in court—must
be shown to have been followed, including the presence of required
witnesses during the marking, inventory, and photographing of the drugs.
- "Any
breach in the chain of custody casts doubt on the integrity of the corpus
delicti and warrants acquittal."
- People
v. Gayoso (2017)
- Presumption
of Regularity: While the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duties exists, it cannot overcome clear breaches in statutory
requirements, particularly those meant to safeguard the rights of the
accused.
- "The
presumption of regularity is not a blanket justification for procedural
lapses."
- People
v. Barte (2017)
Case Classification:
Criminal Law
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eec0ed-d948-800a-b772-3446a9f445ef>
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!
CHAT WITH ME! (CLICK HERE)
Read the full text here
🎓 In this content, we
will explore the landmark Supreme Court case People of the Philippines v.
Efren Posos y Morfe and Thelma Grezola y Cabacang, G.R. No. 226492,
promulgated on October 2, 2019. This case is crucial for law students,
bar reviewees, and even legal practitioners, especially those
studying Criminal Law. It discusses core doctrines on the illegal
sale of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165 and the chain of custody rule.
We'll walk through the legal principles and critical
takeaways that shaped the Court’s decision, aimed at improving your memory
recall of jurisprudence for exams and practical application.
📚 NATURE OF THE CASE:
Criminal Law – Prosecution for violation of Section 5
in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)
📌 CASE DETAILS:
- Title:
People of the Philippines v. Efren Posos y Morfe and Thelma Grezola y
Cabacang
- G.R.
No.: 226492
- Promulgated:
October 2, 2019
- Parties:
Plaintiff-Appellee: People of the Philippines; Accused-Appellants: Efren
Posos and Thelma Grezola
📌 CASE SUMMARY:
Posos and Grezola were convicted of selling shabu in a
buy-bust operation involving ₱1,000. However, the payment was never
delivered, and there were glaring lapses in the chain of custody.
Despite convictions by the RTC and CA, the Supreme Court reversed and
acquitted both, ruling that there was no completed sale and that the
chain of custody was violated, rendering the evidence unreliable.
💬 Can technical lapses in
evidence handling justify acquitting someone even when illegal drugs were
clearly found?
🎯 10 DOCTRINES &
PRINCIPLES FROM THE CASE:
- Essential
Element of Payment in Drug Sale
- There
must be actual delivery of money to prove a drug sale under R.A. 9165.
Payment not made = no sale.
(TSN, Feb. 23, 2012, pp. 13–15) - Strict
Compliance with Chain of Custody
- The
prosecution must prove each link from seizure to court presentation.
(People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 193, 311 [2017]) - Presence
of Three Witnesses
- DOJ
rep, media, and elected official must be present at inventory and
seizure.
(Sec. 21, R.A. 9165; People v. Escaran, G.R. No. 212170) - Presumption
of Regularity Not Absolute
- Cannot
prevail when procedural lapses are evident.
(People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542 [2017]) - Personal
Knowledge is Crucial in Custody Chain
- Each
officer handling the evidence must testify how it was managed.
(TSN, Feb. 2, 2012, p. 19) - Timing
of Marking is Critical
- Marking
should be done immediately after seizure and ideally at the arrest site.
(RA 9165 IRR, Sec. A.1.3) - Buy-Bust
Operation Must Show Full Transaction
- From
initial contact to delivery of drugs and money – everything must be
documented.
(People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595, 621 [1999]) - No
Investigator Assigned Weakens Case
- SI2
Nebato acted as buyer, arresting officer, and investigator—this is
procedural impropriety.
(TSN, Feb. 23, 2012, p. 26) - Crowd
Justification Not Enough
- Saying
the area was crowded doesn’t excuse non-compliance with mandatory
witness presence.
(People v. Arciaga, G.R. No. 239471, Jan. 14, 2019) - Benefit
of Acquittal May Extend to Co-Accused
- Even
if one accused does not appeal, an acquittal favorable and applicable to
both may be extended.
(Sec. 11(a), Rule 122, Rules of Court)
📌 DISCLAIMER:
This content is for educational purposes only and
does not claim to be legally infallible. Content is generated with the
help of premium artificial intelligence and reviewed for accuracy but
should not substitute official legal sources.
📋 FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS (FAQs):
- Q:
Is payment always necessary to prove a drug sale?
A: Yes. Without delivery of payment, the crime of sale under R.A. 9165 is not consummated. - Q:
What happens if there is only one witness during inventory?
A: It’s a serious procedural lapse unless properly justified, which may lead to acquittal. - Q:
Can an accused still be acquitted even if drugs were recovered?
A: Yes, if the chain of custody is broken or if legal safeguards were not followed. - Q:
What is the chain of custody rule?
A: It’s a requirement that every handoff of seized drugs must be properly documented and testified on. - Q:
Can a co-accused benefit from a Supreme Court acquittal if they didn’t
appeal?
A: Yes, under Sec. 11(a), Rule 122 if the ruling is favorable and applicable to them.
🔗 CONNECT WITH US
& SUPPORT YOUR LAW JOURNEY:
🛒 Reviewers & Law
Tools: https://www.raket.ph/lawrequisitesph
🎥 TikTok: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphtiktok
📘 Facebook: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesphfb
▶️ YouTube: https://tinyurl.com/Lawrequisitesph
From <https://chatgpt.com/g/g-ipZC0xKZ1-case-digest/c/66eec0ed-d948-800a-b772-3446a9f445ef>
🎓 Welcome to today’s
Criminal Law quizzer! This set of questions is based on the Supreme Court case
of People of the Philippines v. Efren Posos y Morfe and Thelma Grezola y
Cabacang, G.R. No. 226492, promulgated on October 2, 2019.
This case involved a buy-bust operation wherein the accused
were charged with the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The central issue
was whether a valid conviction could stand despite non-delivery of payment
and procedural violations in the handling of the seized drugs,
specifically the chain of custody rule.
Though convicted by the trial court and the Court of
Appeals, the Supreme Court reversed the decision and acquitted both accused,
citing the absence of payment and material breaches in the required chain of
custody as fatal to the prosecution's case.
Let’s see how well you understand the core doctrines and
principles from this decision. The answer key will be provided at the
end of the video. Good luck, future lawyers!
✅ QUIZZER: 10 EASY DIFFICULTY
HOTS MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS:
- Which
of the following best explains why the Supreme Court reversed the
conviction in the case?
A. The accused had no criminal record
B. Payment for the drugs was never delivered
C. The drugs tested negative for illegal substances
D. The trial court failed to sentence properly - What
was missing during the inventory and photographing of the seized drug
that became a major procedural lapse?
A. The police chief
B. A medical examiner
C. Representatives from DOJ and media
D. A licensed chemist - Why
is the presence of specific witnesses during seizure and inventory
considered essential in buy-bust operations?
A. It guarantees immediate trial
B. It helps the media report drug cases
C. It insulates against evidence tampering
D. It promotes barangay involvement - What
role did the supposed buyer, SI2 Nebato, fail to complete in the drug
transaction?
A. Conducting the inventory
B. Calling the team
C. Delivering the payment
D. Reporting the suspect - Which
element was notably absent that prevented the consummation of the alleged
drug sale?
A. Delivery of the drugs
B. Receipt of payment by the seller
C. Arrest of the accused
D. Coordination with barangay - Which
of the following actions violated the chain of custody rule in the case?
A. Using plainclothes officers
B. Conducting inventory inside a public office
C. Having only one witness present
D. Testing the drug in a government lab - Why
did the Court find the buy-bust team’s justification for lack of required
witnesses unconvincing?
A. The team did not submit affidavits
B. The operation was planned in advance
C. The drug was not potent
D. The vehicle used was unregistered - What
ultimately weakened the credibility of the seized drug as evidence?
A. Delay in marking the evidence
B. Absence of a criminal complaint
C. Lack of a forensic report
D. Presence of multiple suspects - Which
best describes the Supreme Court’s approach in deciding the case?
A. Strict adherence to quantity of drugs
B. Presumption of innocence in light of procedural breaches
C. Encouraging warrantless arrests
D. Prioritizing media over procedure - Which
legal principle did the Court reinforce regarding the chain of custody?
A. It applies only to serious drug offenses
B. Minor deviations are excusable without reason
C. Every link in the handling must be established
D. Laboratory results can override missing links
No comments:
Post a Comment