Tan Vs People

SUBJECT: CRIMINAL LAW
DOCTRINE: Only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member
of his family can the search be observed by two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
residing in the same locality.
CASE TITLE: JASPER TAN Y SIA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
[G.R. No. 232611, April 26, 2021]
FACTS:
Two (2) Informations were filed against Jasper Tan y Sia (Jasper) before the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Dipolog City, Branch 6, charging him with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession
of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 15 and 16 of Article III of Republic Act (RA) No. 6425. On
arraignment, Jasper pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged.
The RTC rendered a Joint Decision convicted Jasper of the charges against him. The trial
court ruled that denial is a weak defense, and the prosecution was able to prove Jasper's guilt
beyond reasonable doubt in both cases. The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC.
On his Petition for Review on Certiorari, Jasper posits that the seized drugs are not
admissible as evidence and that the buy-bust operation as well as his arrest were illegal.
Assailing the validity of the search warrant because it does not have a specific description of the
house and its premises. He further asserts that the search was invalid because he was already
arrested and his movement was restricted when the search was conducted, so his right to
witness the search was violated. Jasper likewise argues that the prosecution did not comply
with the rule on chain of custody.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure? (NO)
RULING:
The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a constitutionally
protected right. To overturn this presumption, the prosecution must proffer proof beyond
reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce a moral certainty as to
convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment. The constitutional
presumption of innocence requires the courts to take a more than casual consideration of every
circumstance or doubt favoring the innocence of the accused. If there is doubt, that doubt
should be resolved in favor of the accused in order to give flesh and bones to this
constitutionally-protected right. Applying this precept in the case at bar, this Court is convinced
that the prosecution failed to prove Jasper's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, hence, he must be
acquitted.
The prosecution failed to establish the buy-bust operation through the "objective test."
In People v. Doria to determine the validity of a buy-bust operation, requiring clear and
adequate details of the purported transaction, including initial contact, offer, payment, and
consummation of the sale. Here, the prosecution failed to clearly establish the details of the
purported sale. The "objective test" requires that the prosecution paint a clear picture of how
the initial contact between the buyer and the pusher was made. It is not enough to show that
there was an exchange of money and illegal drugs. The details that led to such exchange must
be clearly and adequately accounted for. Failing in which will certainly cast a doubt on the
veracity of the whole buy-bust operation. On this note alone, the guilt of Jasper as to illegal sale
of dangerous drugs is already doubtful.
The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody.

In cases involving dangerous drugs, the existence of the confiscated drugs is crucial for
a conviction. The identity and integrity of the seized drugs must be established with moral
certainty, ensuring that the substance illegally sold and possessed is the same as the substance
offered in court as an exhibit. The identity of the seized drugs is established by showing
authorized movements and custody from seizure to court presentation. The chain of custody
preservation applies regardless of whether the prosecution is brought for a violation of RA No.
6425 or RA No. 9165.
In Criminal Case No. 11265, PO2 Jose's testimony does not explain how the buy-bust
operation item was handed over to police officers. In Criminal Case No. 11266, PO2 Jose
testified that the confiscated shabu was returned to the court that issued the warrant.
The Search Conducted and the Admissibility of the Seized Items
The evidence points to only the barangay captain witnessing the search. Such a
procedure violates Section 8 (formerly Section 7), Rule 126 of the Rules of Court which
specifically provides that "no search of a house, room or any other premises shall be made
except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the
absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same
locality." Only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of
his family can the search be observed by two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
residing in the same locality. The police officers do not have the discretion to substitute their
choice of witness, the barangay captain in this case, for those witnesses prescribed by the rules.

Tan Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tan Vs People

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tan Vs People

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUBJECT: CRIMINAL LAW

CASE TITLE: JASPER TAN Y SIA VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

[G.R. No. 232611, April 26, 2021]

Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure? (NO)

The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody.

The Search Conducted and the Admissibility of the Seized Items

You might also like