G.R. No. 225744. March 6, 2019

**G.R. No. 225744. March 6, 2019** is a Decision 2019 by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

## Case Details

* People of the Philippines Vs. Jonathan Vistro y Baysic
* G.R. No. 225744. March 6, 2019
* http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2019/march2019/225744.pdf
* Mariano Del Castillo

## Info

* In People v. Lim, 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.
	+ (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.
* 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.
* In this case, while a barangay official signed as a witness in the Certificate of Inventory, there was no mention that the inventory and photograph of the seized shabu was done in the presence of representatives from the media and the DOJ. The arresting officer merely testified that the buy-bust team marked the seized shabu in the police station since the barangay captain and other officials of the place where the crime was committed were relatives of the appellant. He failed to provide a justifiable ground for the absence of the representatives from the media and the DOJ during the inventory and photograph of the seized shabu at the police station. The failure of the prosecution to secure the attendance of these witnesses, without providing any reasonable justification therefor, creates doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu. Thus, there is no recourse for this Court other than to reverse the conviction of appellant.

## Decision

**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.

## Trivia

* \*acquittal
* \*drugs