Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People V Vistro 2019
People V Vistro 2019
DECISION
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Jonathan Vistro y Baysic (appellant) appeals the September 4, 2015 Decision 1 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R CR-HC No. 06497, that affirmed his conviction for
violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002, by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Carlos City,
Pangasinan, Branch 57.
That on or about June 4, 2009 in the afternoon in Acosta St., Poblacion, Urbiztondo,
Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, in conspiracy with each other, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and
felon[i]ously sell, trade, and deliver, one (1) heat sealed plastic sachet containing 0.01
gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride/Shabu, a dangerous drug to an agent of [the]
Phil. Drug[s] Enforcement Agency (PDEA) acting as a [poseur]-buyer, without any
license or authority to sell the same.
Upon arrival of the buy-bust team at the target area, the police asset introduced IO
Clave to appellant as a buyer of shabu. Appellant asked IO Clave how much he would
like to purchase and the latter replied that he wanted to buy P500.00 worth of shabu.
Appellant handed to IO Clave a sachet of shabu and the latter gave the P500.00
marked money as payment. When IO Clave made the prearranged signal that the
transaction was consummated, IO Bautista rushed to the scene of the crime and
arrested appellant. Recovered from his possession was the P500.00 marked money.
The buy-bust team withdrew from the area after discovering that the barangay captain
of the place where the scene of the crime was located was the cousin of appellant's
mother while the other barangay officials were also relatives of appellant.
While on their way to the PDEA office, IO Clave was in possession of the seized shabu.
Upon arrival, he marked the same in the presence of appellant. IO Bautista prepared
the Certificate of Inventory of the seized shabu and photographed the same in the
presence of appellant. A barangay official from a different barangay signed as witness.
IO Clave and IO Bautista proceeded to the police crime laboratory to deliver the sachet
of shabu for examination. Police Senior Inspector Myrna C. Malojo (PSI Malojo) received
the same and conducted tests that confirmed the contents of the sachet to be shabu.
Appellant denied the charges against him. He claimed that at the time of the incident,
PDEA officers in civilian clothes went to their house looking for his parents, Reynaldo
and Elma Vistro, for their alleged involvement in illegal drug activities. However, he
informed them that his parents no longer lived in the house. The police officers then
brought him downstairs where he saw the barangay captain, who was the cousin of his
mother, being handcuffed for alleged possession of drug paraphernalia and a gun. The
other PDEA officers interrogated his siblings and searched the house. Meanwhile,
Teresita A. Baysic (Teresita), their laundry woman, was washing clothes at the back of
the house. When the PDEA officers did not find any dangerous drug, they took him, his
brother, the barangay captain and Teresita, to the PDEA office. His sibling was
eventually sent home, but he and Teresita were charged with illegal sale of shabu. He
did not know what happened to the barangay captain.
In its Judgment3 dated November 14, 2013, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. It ruled that the
prosecution evidence established the elements of the offense. The RTC gave credence
to the testimony of the PDEA officers, who are presumed to have performed their duties
in a regular manner in the absence of evidence that they were impelled by ill-feelings to
testify falsely. The RTC ruled that the chain of custody of the seized shabu was
unbroken since its integrity and evidentiary value had been properly preserved from the
moment the buy-bust operation was consummated until its presentation during the
trial. The RTC thus sentenced appellant to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to
pay a fine of P500,000.00.
However, the RTC acquitted Teresita for insufficiency of evidence. It held that she was
only doing the laundry when the PDEA officers arrived at appellant's residence. Thus,
the dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, finding accused JONATHAN VlSTRO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for
violating Sec. 5[,] Article II of R.A. 9165, he is hereby sentenced to suffer [the] penalty
of life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (Php500,000.00) pesos and
to pay the cost of this suit. The Court however declares the acquittal of the other
accused TERESITA BAYSIC Y ALMAZAN from the crime charged for reasons discussed
above. Her immediate release from custody of the Bureau of Jail Management and
Penology (BJMP), San Carlos City, Pangasinan is hereby ordered unless she is being
held for some other lawful cause.
The items seized comprising of one (1) heat sealed plastic sachet is hereby ordered
confiscated in favor of the government for destruction.
SO ORDERED.4
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision5 dated September 4, 2015, the CA affirmed the Judgment of the RTC.
The CA was not persuaded by appellant's contention that he should be acquitted. It
declared that non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 and Section 21(a)
of its Implementing Rules and Regulations is not fatal to the prosecution's case since
what is vital is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized shabu. It found that the testimonies of the PDEA officers established the crucial
links in the chain of custody of the seized shabu.
Unfazed, appellant filed the instant appeal, seeking a reversal of his conviction based
on the same arguments he raised in the CA.
Our Ruling
Appellant argues that he should be exonerated since the prosecution failed to establish
the chain of custody of the seized shabu. He contends that there was noncompliance by
the arresting team of PDEA and police officers with the requirement in Section 21,
Article II of R.A. 9165, which was the law applicable during the commission of the crime
charged. Appellant specifically points out the failure by the PDEA arresting team and
police officers to conduct a physical inventory and take photographs of the
seized shabu in the presence of the witnesses mentioned in the law.
Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, which was the law applicable during the commission
of the crime, delineates the mandatory procedural safeguards in a buy bust operation.
The pertinent portion reads:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
In People v. Lim,7 this Court stressed the importance of the three witnesses, namely,
any elected public official, the representative from the media, and the representative
from the Department of Justice (DOJ), at the time of the physical inventory and taking
of photograph of the seized items. In the event of their absence, this Court ruled that:
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the
physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to
reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2)
their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened
by an immediate retaliatory action [from] the accused or any person/s acting for and
in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official[s] themselves were involved in the
punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence
of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period
required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove[d] futile through no
fault of the arresting officers, who face(d] the threat of being charged with arbitrary
detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which
often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining
the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.
Moreover, there must be evidence of earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the
necessary witnesses. In Ramos v. People,8 this Court instructs:
x x x [I]t is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per
se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such
failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required
witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the
Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in
contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for 'a sheer statement that
representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious
attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is
to be regarded as a flimsy excuse.' Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent
actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified
grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police
officers are ordinarily given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have
received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest-
to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary
arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with
the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of R.A. 9165. As such, police officers are
compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact,
also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the
mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions
were reasonable.
In other words, jurisprudence requires that in the event that the presence of the
essential witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must establish not only the
reasons for their absence, but also the fact that serious and sincere efforts were
exerted in securing their presence. Failure to disclose the justification for non-
compliance with the requirements and the lack of evidence of serious attempts to
secure the presence of the necessary witnesses result in a substantial gap in the chain
of custody of evidence that shall adversely affect the authenticity of the prohibited
substance presented in court.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 4, 2015 Decision of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06497 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant
Jonathan Vistro y Baysic is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless
he is confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director General, Bureau of Corrections,
Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of
Corrections is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken, within five (5)
days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.