Labaya, Paolo Bernabe E.
Ambre v. People ISSUE/s:
August 15, 2012 | Mendoza, J. | Admissibility of evidence
PETITIONERS: Margarita Ambre Y Cayuni
RESPONDENTS: People of the Philippines
DOCTRINE/s: In cases of violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act, what matters in handling of evidence is the preservation of
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized object.
FACTS:
1. Two separate informations were filed against Ambre and her co-
accused Castro and Mendoza for illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia, and illegal use of shabu, in violation of RA 9165 or
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
2. The 2 co-accused plead guilty; Ambre, on the other hand, plead not
guilty. Hence, trial on the merits ensued.
3. From the version of the prosecution, the Caloocan Police conducted
a buy-bust operation based upon a tip, that a certain “Sultan” and
“Aderp” were selling dangerous drugs in a residential compound in
Caloocan City.
4. The operation yielded the arrest of Aderp and another person,
Tagoranao. Sultan, however, was able to run away to which the
police gave chase.
5. The chase led to Sultan’s house wherein the police found Ambre and
Castro having a pot session. Hence, they were arrested as well.
Parenthetically, they also caught Sultan.
6. The items were brought to the crime laboratory for examination
which resulted to the police finding traces of shabu on said seized
items.
7. The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established beyond
reasonable doubt that Ambre was guilty of the charge of illegal use
of shabu. Ambre, however, was acquitted for the illegal possession
of drug paraphernalia charge due to prosecution’s failure to prove
with particularity such paraphernalia found in her person. Thus, she
was convicted of illegal use of shabu.
8. Upon appeal to the CA, the decision of the RTC was affirmed.
1. Whether the items seized are admissible in evidence
RULING: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED
RATIO:
Ambre avers that the items seized from her were inadmissible in
evidence, them being fruits of the poisonous tree. She claimed that the
omission of the apprehending team to observe the procedure laid down under
RA 9165 for the seizure of evidence in drug cases, significantly impaire the
prosecution’s case.
1. According to the SC, ideally, the procedure on the chain of custody
should be perfect and unbroken. However, it is almost always
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.
2. Nevertheless, the SC has consistently held that the most important
factor in handling evidence in drug cases is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
3. In this case, the prosecution successfully showed that they were able
to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized objects.
4. To wit, upon confiscation of the objects, PO3 Moran turned over the
seized items to PO2 Hipolito who immediately marked the items in
the presence of PO3 Moran. The said items were placed inside an
improvised envelope, likewise, marked and labeled as evidence. PO2
Hipolito then brought the items to PNP Crime Laboratory and
delivered them to P/Insp dela Rosa, a forensic chemist, who found
the items positive for traces of shabu.
5. Rightfully, the prosecution was able to establish ample evidence to
account for the crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized
items