People vs. Bation

The failure of the apprehending officers to secure the presence of all three required witnesses under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 — particularly a media representative — without proving earnest efforts to do so, breaks the chain of custody and renders the seized dangerous drugs or plant sources inadmissible, warranting acquittal even if the arrest itself was lawful.

In the evening of February 28, 2010, the Lazi, Siquijor police station received intelligence information that Ben G. Bation and a cohort had been planting and cultivating marijuana in a bushy area near his house in Barangay Kinamandagan since 2009. A police team was formed, led by Police Inspector Edgar Almaden, and conducted an anti‑illegal drug operation. An informant guided the officers to the site where 15 mature marijuana plants were growing in plastic pots and poly bags, concealed by tall grass. The officers waited in hiding until early morning, when Bation appeared carrying a pail and fertilizer, watered and fertilized the plants, and was arrested.

• The Tip and Police Operation: On the evening of February 28, 2010, the Lazi police received information from a confidential informant that since 2009, Bation and a cohort had been cultivating marijuana in a bushy area in Barangay Kinamandagan. Police Inspector Edgar Almaden briefed a team of eight officers. They prepared documentation and coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. The informant led the team to the site, arriving around 1:00 a.m. of March 1, 2010.

• Discovery of Plants and Surveillance: The informant pointed out 15 fully grown marijuana plants planted in seven plastic pots and two poly bags, surrounded by tall grass. The officers examined and confirmed the plants were marijuana. They positioned themselves strategically to wait for whoever tended the plants. The informant left.

• The Arrest and Seizure: At approximately 5:50 a.m., the police observed Bation approaching the plants carrying a pail and a plastic bag. He sprinkled fertilizer from the bag onto the plants and watered them. PO1 Dindo Zerna, positioned at a vantage point, photographed Bation. When Bation was about to finish, the officers emerged and arrested him. PI Almaden summoned Barangay Captain Arsenio Bayubay and Kagawad Jennifer Tambajuyot to the scene. Upon their arrival, PO1 Zerna took photographs of the officials with Bation and the plants.

• Inventory and Marking: PO3 Elvin Eleccion began an inventory at the site but found it difficult; the team decided to continue at the police station. Only photography was done on site. At the station, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, Gibb Almaden, was present. The police attempted to contact a media representative but nobody answered. PO3 Eleccion conducted the inventory in the presence of the DOJ representative and the barangay officials, placing markings (“BGB”) on the pots and poly bags, taking samples from each of the 15 plants, and sealing them in separate marked sachets. He prepared a Certificate of Inventory and an Inventory of Property Seized, both signed by the witnesses. PI Almaden prepared a request for laboratory examination. Later that evening, SPO1 Avelino Gonzales delivered the samples to the crime laboratory in Dumaguete City, where Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena conducted a qualitative examination yielding positive results for marijuana.

• Defense of Denial: Bation testified that around 5:30 a.m. he went outside to gather foliage for his cow, fed his goats, and then defecated outside carrying a pail of water to wash. SPO1 Gonzales suddenly appeared, pointed a gun at him, and brought him to the area where the plants were located—owned by a certain “Bayuyong,” about 150 meters from the road and 300 meters from Bation’s house. The officers poured water into the pail, forced him to water the plants at gunpoint, and later fetched barangay officials while making him wait away from the plants. No inventory was conducted at the site; he was locked in a cell at the station. Photographs were taken in both places. He admitted knowing SPO1 Gonzales and PO1 Parol from town and stated he had no prior misunderstanding with any of the officers.

• Illegality of Warrantless Search and Arrest: Bation maintained that the warrantless search preceded his arrest and was therefore invalid. The police found the marijuana plants, waited for someone to appear, and only then arrested him; the plain view doctrine did not apply because the discovery was deliberate, not inadvertent. A search warrant should have been procured, and its absence rendered the seized items inadmissible.

• Breach of Chain of Custody: Even assuming a valid seizure, Bation argued that acquittal was proper because the police failed to comply with the chain of custody requirements. Specifically: (a) the inventory was not completed at the crime scene; (b) the marking “BGB” did not follow prescribed procedure; (c) no media representative was present during inventory; (d) the prosecution’s evidence contained inconsistencies on who transmitted the items to the laboratory; and (e) a police officer who had custody of the items after seizure was not presented in court. These lapses amounted to a substantial gap that rendered the corpus delicti unreliable.

• Validity of Search and Arrest: The prosecution countered that the police made no intrusion into a private property when they found the marijuana plants in an open area not owned by Bation. No search warrant was necessary because the plants were in plain view and there was no violation of any reasonable expectation of privacy. Bation was validly arrested in flagrante delicto when he watered and fertilized the plants in the presence of the officers.

• Substantial Compliance with Chain of Custody: The prosecution asserted that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The rules permit marking and inventory to be conducted at the nearest police station in warrantless arrests. The absence of a media representative was justified because the police called Siquijor Mirror but nobody answered, and the outlet was two towns away. Substantial compliance with the chain of custody, not strict adherence, is sufficient, and the items presented in court were the very same ones seized.

• Standing and Validity of Search: Whether Bation had standing to challenge the warrantless search of the area where the marijuana plants were found, and whether the warrantless search and his subsequent arrest were lawful.

• Chain of Custody: Whether the apprehending officers complied with the three-witness requirement under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, and, if not, whether the non-compliance was justified by earnest efforts such that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.

• Standing and Validity of Search: The warrantless arrest was valid; Bation was caught in flagrante delicto cultivating marijuana, an offense committed in the presence of the officers. As to the prior warrantless search of the plants, Bation lacked standing to challenge it because he neither owned nor occupied the land, which was located 300 meters from his house and belonged to another person. The right to contest a search or seizure is personal, available only to one whose own rights have been violated. Assuming the search was invalid, Bation could not invoke the exclusionary rule.

• Chain of Custody: The acquittal was grounded on the police officers’ failure to observe the three-witness requirement. Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165, before its amendment, required the physical inventory and photograph of seized dangerous drugs and plant sources to be conducted in the presence of the accused (or representative), a media representative, a DOJ representative, and an elected public official. Only the DOJ representative and two barangay officials witnessed the inventory and photograph; no media representative was present. The explanation that nobody answered the telephone at Siquijor Mirror and that the outlet was two towns away did not constitute earnest efforts to secure a media witness. The officers did not attempt to contact any other media outlet, nor did they demonstrate that attendance was impossible or impracticable under the exceptions laid down in People v. Lim and People v. Baluyot. The resulting gap in the chain of custody compromised the identity and integrity of the seized plants as the object of the offense. Because the corpus delicti was not established with moral certainty, Bation’s guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Three‑Witness Requirement under Section 21, R.A. No. 9165 — To prevent frame‑ups and planting of evidence, Section 21 mandates that the marking, inventory, and photograph of seized dangerous drugs or plant sources be done immediately after seizure in the presence of (1) the accused or representative, (2) a media representative, (3) a DOJ representative, and (4) an elected public official. The prosecution must allege and prove that these witnesses were present or, in their absence, that earnest efforts were exerted to secure their attendance. Mere statements of unavailability are insufficient; the efforts must be genuine and documented.

• Exceptions to the Witness Requirement (People v. Lim) — Non‑compliance may be excused only where the prosecution proves: (1) attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was remote; (2) the witnesses’ safety was threatened by retaliatory action; (3) the elected officials themselves were involved in the offense; (4) earnest efforts to secure the witnesses within the period fixed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code proved futile through no fault of the officers; or (5) time constraints and the urgency of the anti‑drug operation prevented obtaining the witnesses before the offender could escape.

• Standing to Challenge Search and Seizure — The right to object to an unlawful search or seizure is purely personal and cannot be vicariously asserted. A person who is neither the owner nor the legal occupant of the searched premises lacks standing to contest the legality of the search. (Citing Stonehill v. Diokno)

• Warrantless Arrest in Flagrante Delicto — Under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a peace officer may arrest without warrant when, in the officer’s presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Two elements must concur: an overt act indicating the commission of a crime, and that the act is done within the view of the arresting officer.

• “The presence of three witnesses prevents the possibility of planting evidence on the person or effects of the accused.” — The ratio underlying the strict compliance mandate of Section 21.

• “Mere statements of unavailability of the witnesses given by the apprehending officers are not justifiable reasons for non‑compliance with the requirement. This is because the apprehending officers usually have sufficient time, from the moment they received information about the alleged illegal activities until the time of the arrest, to prepare for the buy‑bust operation that necessarily includes the procurement of three (3) witnesses.” — Emphasizing that earnest efforts must be demonstrated, not merely alleged.

• “That nobody is answering the telephone and that the media outlet is two towns away fail to convince. The police officers could have reached out to another media outlet and not limited themselves to Siquijor Mirror.” — Rejecting the prosecution’s proffered justification as inadequate.

• People v. Baluyot, 887 Phil. 173 (2020) — Applied as controlling precedent on the strict three‑witness rule and the prosecution’s burden to prove earnest efforts; reiterated that lame excuses do not cure non‑compliance.
• People v. Lim, 839 Phil. 598 (2018) — Enumerated the exceptions to the witness requirement; relied upon for the standard of earnest efforts.
• Stonehill v. Diokno, 126 Phil. 738 (1967) — Established the principle that the right against unreasonable search and seizure is personal and may be invoked only by the party whose rights were impaired; used to deny Bation standing to challenge the pre‑arrest search.
• People v. Dalisay, G.R. No. 258060, August 16, 2023 — Cited for the elements of a valid in flagrante delicto arrest.

• Section 16, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 — Defines and penalizes the cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs or sources thereof. The accused was charged and convicted under this provision at the trial and appellate levels.
• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (prior to amendment by R.A. No. 10640) — Prescribes the custody and disposition procedure for seized dangerous drugs and plant sources, including the requirement of immediate physical inventory and photograph in the presence of three mandatory witnesses (media, DOJ, elected public official). Non‑compliance with this section was the basis for acquittal.
• Section 5, Rule 113, Rules of Court — Governs warrantless arrests; paragraph (a) was applied to uphold Bation’s arrest while committing the offense.

Chief Justice Alexander G. Gesmundo (Chairperson), Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda, Ricardo R. Rosario, and Jose Midas P. Marquez concurred.