PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee.

vs.

ORLY VISPERAS Y ACOBO, accused-Appellant.

g.r. no. 231010

June 26, 2019

Subject matter: Section 21, Art 2, RA 9165

Ponente: Del Castillo, J.
Facts:
Based on information received on September 29, 2010, that appellant Orly Visperas y
Acobo was engaged in illegal drug trade in Mapandan, Pangasinan, and PSI Dominick
Soriano Poblete (Poblete) ordered the conduct of a buy-bust operation against the
appellant. SPO1 Roberto Molina a member of the buy-bust team approached the
appellant through an introduction from the police asset and proceeded with the
transaction for the sale of shabu. Upon the consummation of the sale. The buy-bust team
through the signal given by SPO1 Molina apprehended the appellant taking into custody
the sachet of shabu weighing 0.028 grams and the marked money. During his
arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty thus proceeding with trial.
In its decision dated April 1, 2013, the RTC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt for violation of Sec 5, Art 2 of RA 9165 sentenced him to suffer the punishment of
life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. The RTC favoured the prosecution’s version
of the incident and evidence that appellant was arrested for selling shabu to an
undercover police officer inflagrante delicto, with little consideration of the appellant’s
uncorroborated denial and version of the incident.
The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision on October 16, 2015 ruling that the prosecution was
able to preserve the integrity of the evidence. It held that the appellant failed to prove bad
faith or ill-intent on the part of the police officers who apprehended him.
Issue:
Whether or not the arresting officers preserved the integrity of the dangerous drugs
which is the corpus delicti, by following the mandated procedure for physical inventory
and photographing of the confiscated shabu and made earnest efforts to secure the
attendance of the required witnesses provided for under the law.
Held:
The court has thoroughly reviewed the records and cannot find any proof that the
mandated procedures were observed in the presence of the witnesses required by law.
None of the signatures of the elected public official, nor of a representative from the
media, nor of a representative from the DOJ appear in the inventory receipt. And there is
nothing on record which shows that the arresting team ever exerted an honest to
goodness attempt to secure their presence. Given the fact that none of these mentioned
witnesses were present during the physical inventory and the photographing of the seized
shabu, the SC states that that possibility of switching of “planting or contamination of the
evidence challenged the integrity of the alleged corpus delicti. Thus, granting the appeal
on Oct 16, 2015 reversing the decision of the CA and acquitting appellant Orly Visperas y
Acobo ordering his immediate release from confinement.