327 Cases Penned by Associate Justice Amy Lazaro-Javier: 2025 Bar Examination
Can a conviction for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs be overturned due to breaks in the chain of custody of the seized items?
People of the Philippines vs. Jose Benny Villojan Jr. y Besmonte alias "Jay-Ar"
G.R. No. 239635, July 22, 2019
Facts of the Case:
Jose Benny Villojan Jr. y Besmonte, also known as "Jay-Ar," was charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. In Criminal Case No. 2013-02-8319, Villojan was accused of possessing a tea bag of marijuana weighing 0.147 grams. In Criminal Case No. 2013-02-8320, Villojan was accused of selling eight tea bags of marijuana to a poseur buyer, PO2 Aubrey Baldevia, during a buy-bust operation on April 25, 2012, in San Jose, Antique.
Upon arraignment, Villojan pleaded not guilty to both charges. During the trial, the prosecution relied on the testimonies of several police officers involved in the buy-bust operation, as well as a forensic chemist who confirmed that the seized items were indeed marijuana.
Villojan's defense was one of denial, claiming that the police planted the marijuana on him during his arrest. He also challenged the procedural lapses in the handling and turnover of the seized drugs, raising doubts about the integrity and chain of custody of the confiscated items.
The trial court found Villojan guilty of both illegal possession and sale of marijuana. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and fined PhP 500,000 for illegal sale, and an additional sentence of 12 years and one day with a fine of PhP 300,000 for illegal possession. Villojan appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's ruling.
Issue Before the Supreme Court:
Was the prosecution able to establish the guilt of Villojan beyond reasonable doubt, specifically with regard to the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized drugs?
Decision of the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court acquitted Villojan due to the prosecution’s failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized marijuana. While the essential elements of both illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs were proven, the Court found serious gaps in the chain of custody, particularly regarding the turnover of the seized drugs to the investigating officer and the process by which the drugs were handled before submission to the crime laboratory.
The Supreme Court emphasized that strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is crucial to ensure that the seized drugs presented in court are the same ones confiscated from the accused. The prosecution failed to account for certain critical links in the chain, such as the absence of clear testimony regarding the turnover of the drugs at the police station and the lack of documentation regarding the safekeeping of the items before their submission for forensic examination.
The Court concluded that these lapses raised reasonable doubt about the identity of the seized drugs, which warranted Villojan's acquittal.
Dispositive Portion:
"WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 23, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 02074 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant JOSE BENNY VILLOJAN JR. y BESMONTE is ACQUITTED of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 2013-02-8319 and violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Case No. 2013-02-8320.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to (a) immediately RELEASE JOSE BENNY VILLOJAN JR. y BESMONTE from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause; and (b) SUBMIT his compliance report within five (5) days from notice."
Thought-Provoking Question:
In light of the importance of preserving the chain of custody in drug cases, should courts impose stricter accountability measures for law enforcement to ensure compliance with procedural safeguards?
Important Doctrines:
-
Chain of Custody Rule:
"The chain of custody requires that law enforcers or any person who came in possession of the seized drugs must observe the procedure for proper handling of the seized substance to remove any doubt that it was changed, altered, modified, or planted before its presentation in court as evidence." -
Unbroken Chain of Custody:
"In drug-related offenses, the corpus delicti is the illegal drug itself. For conviction, it must be proven with certainty that the substance seized from the accused is the very same substance presented in court." -
Presumption of Innocence and Procedural Gaps:
"Any gap in the chain of custody raises serious doubts about the integrity of the seized items, which may result in the acquittal of the accused."
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)
🎓 Welcome, future lawyers
and Baristas! In this educational segment, we’ll break down People of the
Philippines vs. Jose Benny Villojan Jr. y Besmonte, G.R. No. 239635,
promulgated July 22, 2019, a pivotal case in Criminal Law,
specifically Dangerous Drugs Law under RA 9165.
This case tackles a recurring — and often fatal — pitfall in
drug prosecutions: failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody of the
seized drugs. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the conviction of the
accused due to this evidentiary gap.
📚 This discussion is
designed to help law students, bar examinees, and baristas recall and
understand key doctrines that can spell the difference between conviction and
acquittal.
🔍 CASE OVERVIEW
- Case
Title: People of the Philippines v. Jose Benny Villojan Jr. y
Besmonte alias “Jay-Ar”
- Nature:
Criminal – Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Art. II, RA 9165
- GR
No.: 239635
- Date
of Promulgation: July 22, 2019
- Parties:
People of the Philippines (Plaintiff-Appellee) vs. Jose Benny Villojan
Jr. y Besmonte (Accused-Appellant)
Villojan was accused of selling marijuana worth ₱800
to a poseur buyer and of possessing another tea bag of marijuana. He was
convicted by the RTC and Court of Appeals, but the Supreme Court
ACQUITTED him due to the prosecution's failure to establish the second
link in the chain of custody.
💭 Should courts automatically
acquit when the chain of custody is broken — even if the accused was caught in
flagrante delicto?
Let us know your thoughts in the comments!
📌 10 CRITICAL DOCTRINES
ON DANGEROUS DRUGS LAW (BASED ON THE CASE)
- Chain
of Custody Is Mandatory
A conviction under RA 9165 requires proof that the drugs presented in court are the same ones seized from the accused, tracked through each lawful handler.
— [Supreme Court Decision, Villojan Case] - Four
Links in the Chain of Custody
From seizure, to investigating officer, to forensic chemist, and finally, to court presentation — each step must be clearly documented and testified to.
— [SC, citing Dela Riva v. People] - Failure
to Prove Any Link Is Fatal
In Villojan, the second link (turnover to investigating officer) was unproven. This caused fatal doubt on the drugs' identity.
— [SC Decision, Villojan] - Marking
Must Be Immediate and Clear
Marking the seized drugs right after confiscation prevents future tampering and strengthens evidentiary integrity.
— [Villojan, citing DDB Reg. No. 1, s. 2002] - Investigating
Officer Must Be Identified
Absence of testimony from the investigating officer, or failure to document the turnover, breaks the chain.
— [SC, Villojan citing People v. Dahil] - Delivery
to Crime Lab Must Be Properly Recorded
The court requires complete documentation of how, when, and by whom the seized items were brought for testing.
— [SC, Villojan] - Storage
Procedures Must Be Described
Failure to explain how drugs were safeguarded before court presentation creates reasonable doubt on their integrity.
— [SC, Villojan citing People v. Enad] - The
Corpus Delicti Is the Drug Itself
Without ensuring that the exact same item seized is presented in court, the prosecution fails to prove its case.
— [SC, Villojan citing People v. Hementiza] - Built-In
Danger of Abuse in Buy-Busts
Courts must be extra cautious, as buy-bust operations are susceptible to abuse and planting of evidence.
— [SC, citing People v. Caranto] - Acquittal
Is Mandated by Reasonable Doubt
Where the chain of custody is broken, the identity of the drugs becomes doubtful, warranting an acquittal.
— [SC, Villojan Final Ruling]
⚖️ FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
(FAQs)
1. What is the “chain of custody”?
It refers to the documented and unbroken transfer of
evidence from the moment of seizure until it is presented in court.
2. Why is the chain of custody so important in drug
cases?
Because the drug is the corpus delicti — if its identity is
uncertain, the entire case collapses.
3. Can a single broken link lead to acquittal?
Yes. As in Villojan, a broken second link resulted in
acquittal due to reasonable doubt.
4. What’s the role of the investigating officer?
They prepare legal documents and must have custody of the
evidence. Their testimony is vital.
5. Can the Supreme Court reverse findings of facts by
lower courts?
Yes, especially when it involves constitutional due process
or evidentiary lapses like in this case.
📌 DISCLAIMER:
This content is for educational purposes only. It is based
on publicly available court decisions and does not guarantee infallibility.
Created using premium AI for academic review and recall. Always verify
with the original Supreme Court decision or a qualified legal expert.
👍 Don’t forget to LIKE,
COMMENT, SAVE, and SUBSCRIBE for more Bar-boosting case
digests!
Welcome to today’s legal quizzer, Law Students and Bar
Examinees! This set is based on the Supreme Court decision in the case of:
People of the Philippines vs. Jose Benny Villojan Jr. y
Besmonte alias “Jay-Ar”
G.R. No. 239635, Promulgated: July 22, 2019
🧑⚖️ Nature of the
Case: Criminal Law – Violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
Parties:
- Plaintiff-Appellee:
People of the Philippines
- Accused-Appellant:
Jose Benny Villojan Jr. y Besmonte
In this case, the accused was convicted by the Regional
Trial Court and the Court of Appeals for allegedly selling marijuana worth ₱800
to a poseur buyer and possessing another tea bag of marijuana. However, the Supreme
Court acquitted him, citing a fatal break in the chain of custody of
the seized drugs — particularly the unproven turnover to the investigating
officer.
🧠 This quiz focuses on
legal reasoning and key doctrines from the case to help you develop
higher-order thinking skills (HOTS).
📘 QUIZ: 10 HOTS Multiple
Choice Questions (Easy Difficulty)
- Which
of the following best describes the central issue in the acquittal of the
accused?
A. Lack of intent to sell
B. Absence of buy-bust witnesses
C. Break in the chain of custody
D. Failure to read Miranda rights - What
evidentiary principle was emphasized by the Supreme Court in this case?
A. Presumption of regularity
B. Chain of custody
C. Independent corroboration
D. Entrapment defense - Why
did the Court consider the second link in the handling of evidence
problematic?
A. The forensic chemist did not testify
B. The drugs were not submitted
C. No proof of turnover to the investigating officer
D. The crime laboratory was closed - In the
context of buy-bust operations, why is the integrity of seized items so
crucial?
A. To justify the arrest
B. To validate the search warrant
C. To establish corpus delicti
D. To protect the accused’s reputation - Which
of the following did the Supreme Court highlight as a common risk in
buy-bust operations?
A. Failure to read rights
B. Abuse and evidence planting
C. Police refusal to testify
D. Media interference - What
was one of the inconsistencies that weakened the prosecution's case?
A. Non-submission of marked money
B. Improper affidavit notarization
C. Accused’s alibi matched police reports
D. Overpricing of seized items - Which
of the following best explains the result of the Supreme Court’s ruling?
A. Sentence commuted
B. Re-trial ordered
C. Conviction reversed; accused acquitted
D. Fine increased - What
must be clearly established for seized drugs to be admissible in court?
A. Motive of the accused
B. Identity of buyer
C. Preservation and proper turnover
D. Financial status of suspect - Why
was the investigating officer’s absence in court considered a crucial gap?
A. They were the arresting officer
B. They planted the evidence
C. They created the inventory list
D. Their role in custody was unverified - What
kind of doubt must exist for acquittal to be proper in criminal cases?
A. Hypothetical doubt
B. Reasonable doubt
C. Unsubstantiated doubt
D. Academic doubt
No comments:
Post a Comment