327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: 2025 Bar Examination
Can the inconsistencies in the handling of evidence
during an anti-drug operation justify the acquittal of an accused charged with
illegal possession and sale of drugs?
Case Title: People of the Philippines vs. Benson Tulod y
Cuarte
G.R. No.: 227993
Date: September 25, 2019
Facts of the Case:
Benson Tulod was charged with violating Sections 5 and 11 of
Republic Act 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. On March
12, 2010, in Olongapo City, a buy-bust operation led to his arrest. PO2 David
Domingo acted as the poseur-buyer, and after a successful transaction, officers
allegedly found 0.057 grams of shabu in his possession, followed by an
additional eight sachets containing 0.884 grams of the same substance after a
frisk.
The prosecution presented police officers who testified that
the transaction occurred and that Tulod was caught in possession of the
dangerous drugs. They also explained the procedures they followed after his
arrest, including the inventory and marking of the seized drugs. The forensic
chemist confirmed that the substances seized tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Tulod, however, denied the charges. He claimed he was framed
in a "palit-ulo" scheme (where a family member is forced to surrender
if another is arrested), maintaining that the drugs presented were not his. His
mother and brother-in-law supported his version, testifying that Tulod was
inside their home when the police suddenly arrived and arrested him. The trial
court convicted Tulod for both illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs,
sentencing him to life imprisonment for the sale charge and a prison term of 12
to 14 years for possession.
On appeal, Tulod questioned the credibility of the
prosecution’s evidence, focusing on the inconsistencies in the chain of custody
and procedural lapses. The Court of Appeals upheld his conviction, holding that
the arresting officers' testimonies were credible, and any procedural lapses
did not affect the integrity of the evidence.
Primary Issue:
Did the inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the
handling of the seized drugs' chain of custody warrant Tulod's acquittal?
Supreme Court's Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tulod, reversing the
decisions of the lower courts. It found that the prosecution failed to
establish an unbroken chain of custody, which is crucial in cases involving
dangerous drugs. The Court noted conflicting testimonies from the arresting
officers regarding when and where the seized items were turned over to the
investigator. Such inconsistencies cast doubt on whether the seized drugs were
the same ones presented in court.
Furthermore, the absence of a media representative during
the inventory and photograph of the seized items, as required by Section 21 of
RA 9165, was fatal to the prosecution's case. The police failed to explain why
they did not follow the mandated procedure, and the Court held that
non-compliance with such a requirement could lead to contamination, tampering,
or substitution of the evidence.
Dispositive Portion:
The appeal was granted. The Supreme Court reversed the
decision of the Court of Appeals and acquitted Benson Tulod. The Director of
the Bureau of Corrections was ordered to release him unless he was being held
for another lawful cause.
Do you think the strict application of the chain of custody
rule in drug cases ensures fairness, or does it hinder law enforcement’s
efforts to combat illegal drugs?
Doctrines:
- Chain
of Custody Rule: In drug-related cases, the prosecution must establish
the chain of custody to ensure the integrity of the seized drug. Each
stage, from the apprehension to the presentation of the evidence in court,
must be accounted for to avoid tampering or substitution.
- Section
21 of RA 9165: The law requires that seized drugs be inventoried and
photographed in the presence of the accused or their representative, a DOJ
representative, and a member of the media. Non-compliance with this
procedural requirement can lead to acquittal if no justifiable reason is
given.
- People
v. Alcuizar: Inconsistencies in the testimonies of arresting officers
regarding the chain of custody of seized drugs can lead to acquittal.
This case falls under 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!
CHAT WITH ME! (CLICK HERE)
🎓 As an expert in
Philippine Criminal Law and legal education, this content is designed to guide law
students, bar examinees (baristas), and practitioners in understanding
the vital legal doctrines found in the case of People of the Philippines vs.
Benson Tulod y Cuarte, G.R. No. 227993, promulgated on September
25, 2019.
This is a criminal case involving violations of
Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002. Tulod was convicted by the RTC and the Court of Appeals, but
the Supreme Court reversed the conviction, citing procedural defects
in the chain of custody and non-compliance with Section 21 of the law.
🔍 Central Issue:
Did procedural lapses in the chain of custody over the seized drugs warrant the
accused’s acquittal?
🏛 Supreme Court
Ruling: Yes. The inconsistencies in handling evidence and failure to follow
strict requirements of Section 21 RA 9165 led to Tulod's acquittal.
🧠 Should courts
continue to strictly require every step of the chain of custody—even if it
means acquitting possibly guilty persons?
💬 Comment your thoughts
below!
📚 10 IMPORTANT
DOCTRINES & PRINCIPLES FROM THE CASE (People vs. Tulod, G.R. No. 227993):
- Chain
of Custody Rule
Each link—from seizure, marking, turnover to lab, and court
presentation—must be accounted for. Any break weakens the case.
📌 [See: People v.
Tulod, citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015)]
- Corpus
Delicti in Drug Cases
The identity of the drug seized must be clearly shown as the
same one presented in court.
📌 [See: People v.
Jocson, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019]
- Inventory
Witness Requirement
The inventory must be witnessed by the accused, DOJ rep,
elected official, and media. Absence without explanation is fatal.
📌 [See: RA 9165, Sec.
21 and IRR]
- Effect
of Inconsistent Testimonies
Discrepancies on where and when evidence was turned over
create doubt and may justify acquittal.
📌 [See: PO2 Domingo,
PO2 Reyes, and SPO2 delos Reyes’ conflicting accounts]
- Presumption
of Regularity Cannot Override Doubt
When doubt exists over chain of custody, the presumption of
regularity in police duties cannot prevail.
📌 [See: Final Ruling
in Tulod case]
- Strict
Compliance with Section 21
Strict compliance is required unless justified. No
justification, no application of saving clause.
📌 [See: People v.
Macud, G.R. No. 219175, Dec. 14, 2017]
- Saving
Clause in IRR of RA 9165
Non-compliance is excused only if justified and the drug's
integrity is preserved.
📌 [See: IRR of RA
9165, Sec. 21]
- Buy-Bust
Credibility Issue
Court noted it's illogical for accused to sell drugs to
known police officers, casting doubt on entrapment.
📌 [Tulod's
Supplemental Brief Argument]
- Presumption
of Innocence is Paramount
In drug cases, due to severe penalties, courts demand full
compliance with procedural safeguards.
📌 [See: Supreme Court
Decision, People v. Tulod]
- Verdict
of Acquittal Final and Unappealable
Once acquitted, accused cannot be tried again due to double
jeopardy.
📌 [Basic
Constitutional Protection under Art. III, Sec. 21, 1987 Constitution]
📌 DISCLAIMER: This
content is for educational purposes only. While based on Supreme Court
jurisprudence and made using premium AI, we do not claim that the
content is infallible.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)
Q1: What is the Chain of Custody rule?
A: It is the chronological documentation of the
handling of seized drugs from the time of arrest to court presentation.
Q2: Can minor lapses in inventory or marking lead to
acquittal?
A: Yes, if the lapses affect the integrity of the
evidence and are unjustified.
Q3: Is media presence mandatory during inventory?
A: Yes. Absence without explanation can invalidate
the procedure.
Q4: What’s the penalty for selling shabu under Section 5?
A: Life imprisonment and a fine of up to P10 million.
Q5: Can a case be reversed on appeal due to
technicalities?
A: Yes, especially in criminal law where the burden
of proof is beyond reasonable doubt.
🎥 Follow for more case
digests and doctrines every week! Save this video, comment your thoughts, and
share with your fellow baristas.
📚 People vs. Tulod,
G.R. No. 227993, September 25, 2019
From <https://chatgpt.com/c/66f00fba-33d8-800a-80e2-73a610ba96f6>
This is a Criminal Law case involving illegal sale
and possession of dangerous drugs, where the Supreme Court reversed the
conviction of the accused due to fatal lapses in the chain of custody
rule. The issue centered on whether procedural inconsistencies and the absence
of required witnesses during the inventory justified acquittal.
🧠 Test your legal
understanding with 10 HOTS-based multiple choice questions. The answer
key will be provided at the end of the video. Let’s begin!
✅ QUIZZER – EASY DIFFICULTY
(HOTS-Based)
1. Why is the chain of custody crucial in dangerous
drugs cases?
A. To identify the accused
B. To ensure the continuity and integrity of evidence
C. To determine the amount of the bribe
D. To locate the crime scene
2. What was the primary reason for the acquittal of
the accused in the case?
A. Entrapment was not proven
B. The drugs were fake
C. Chain of custody was broken
D. The accused was a minor
3. What procedural lapse did the police commit during
the inventory of the seized items?
A. Absence of lawyer
B. Absence of media representative
C. Use of fake money
D. Failure to arrest immediately
4. Who were present during the inventory of the
seized items?
A. Only the accused and the arresting officer
B. Accused, media, DOJ, and barangay official
C. Accused, barangay official, and prosecutor’s
representative
D. Only the prosecutor and police
5. Why did the inconsistency in police testimonies
affect the case?
A. It confused the defense
B. It violated the right to privacy
C. It cast doubt on the handling of evidence
D. It delayed the trial
6. Which principle can override the presumption of
regularity in police duties?
A. Personal knowledge of guilt
B. Hearsay rule
C. Doubt arising from broken chain of custody
D. Direct confession of the accused
7. What does the chain of custody refer to?
A. Chain used to restrain suspects
B. A legal document chain
C. Sequential documentation of handling seized drugs
D. Storage protocol in court
8. What does the absence of a media representative
during inventory potentially lead to?
A. Violation of civil rights
B. Mistrial
C. Evidence tampering and invalidation
D. Delay in arraignment
9. What did the Supreme Court stress about strict
compliance in drug cases?
A. It's optional depending on the judge
B. It's mandatory unless justified
C. It's only required for high-profile suspects
D. It's irrelevant in minor drug cases
10. What is the ultimate safeguard for the accused in
criminal prosecutions?
A. Speedy trial
B. Plea bargaining
C. Presumption of innocence
D. Character evidence
>
No comments:
Post a Comment