The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that the procedural infractions which affect the legitimacy of buy-bust operations on illegal drugs conducted by law enforcers also compromise the evidentiary value of other items like firearm and ammunition allegedly seized during the same operations.

With its ruling, the SC acquitted a Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan resident who was convicted by the trial court of possession and sale of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearm and ammunition which were seized by the police during a buy-bust operation that did not follow the procedures laid down by the law in the custody of the seized prohibited drugs.

Acquitted and ordered released from the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City, “unless being held for some other lawful cause,” was Gilda Buscaino Corpuz, alias “Gigi,” of Barangay Maningding in Sta. Barbara town.

The SC ruling released last March 15 modified the July 28, 2020 decision handed down by the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed the trial court on Corpuz’s conviction on sale and possession of illegal drugs but affirmed the guilty verdict on possession of firearm and ammunition.

It upheld the CA on Corpuz’s acquittal on illegal drugs cases but reversed the appellate court on her conviction for illegal possession of firearm and ammunition.

Records showed that Corpuz was arrested by the police on June 19, 2014 for allegedly selling .28 gram of shabu to an undercover policeman. After the sale, Corpuz reportedly ran inside her house when the buyer introduced himself as a policeman.

The policemen pursued her and inside her room the law enforcers said they found two sachets of shabu and a caliber .22 firearm and live ammunition. The policemen said Corpuz did not have a license to own and possess a firearm.

On Nov. 28, 2017, the regional trial court (RTC) found Corpuz guilty of violations of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and RA 10591, the Comprehensive Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 2013.

She appealed to the CA which modified the RTC’s decision. The CA ruled that the policemen committed procedural lapses that compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs.

On violation of RA 10591, the CA said Corpuz failed to substantiate her allegation that the seized firearm and ammunition were placed on top of her bed by the arresting policemen.

Corpuz elevated the CA decision before the SC which affirmed the CA’s findings that the policemen committed violations of the procedures laid down in RA 9165 in the handling of the seized illegal drugs.

Among other lapses, the SC said that the policemen failed to mark immediately the seized illegal drugs and the belated inventory undertaken was not in the presence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice as required by law.

The unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs allegedly seized from Corpuz, the SC said.

“However, while We agree with the CA that the procedural infractions committed during the buy-bust operation warrant Corpuz's acquittal for charges against her for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165, this Court holds that the same circumstances likewise warrant her acquittal for the charge of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition under R.A. No. 10591,” it said.

The SC also said:

“To recall, the charge of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition filed against Corpuz arose from the search that followed the purported buy-bust operation conducted against her.

“However, the legitimacy of a buy-bust operation is so necessarily related to the strict compliance with the procedures laid down by law that any deviation in its conduct will result in a conclusion that the same was a mere pretense or sham.

“By their deliberate disregard of the requirements of the law, the policemen cannot be presumed to have regularly exercised their duties during the conduct of the buy-bust operation. This casts reasonable doubt that a legitimate buy-bust operation was indeed conducted.

“This seed of doubt leads this Court to further question the validity of the subsequent search and, more importantly, the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition allegedly found in Corpuz's possession.

“Consequently, as the prosecution's factual allegations were unreliable to warrant a finding of guilt for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, jurisprudence provides that the same should be applied to the charge of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition.

“It bears emphasis here that the alleged firearm and ammunition seized from Corpuz were the result of the alleged buy-bust operation conducted against her. Hence, the procedural infractions committed during the sham buy-bust operation also compromised the identity of the firearm and ammunition seized on the same occasion.

“Furthermore, as the prosecution failed to prove the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation, it necessarily follows that Corpuz' s warrantless arrest was illegal. Consequently, the subsequent warrantless search resulting in the recovery of the firearm and ammunition from Corpuz's possession is invalid, and the seized items must be considered inadmissible in evidence being under the rule of ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’

“Accordingly, the subject firearm and ammunition are similarly inadmissible in evidence for being seized during a sham buy-bust operation.

“Verily, the failure by the prosecution to establish the propriety of the buy-bust operation also affects the identity and integrity of the firearm and ammunition seized. The procedural lapses that compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from Corpuz, equally compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the firearm and ammunition seized during the same instance.

“For failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt and the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition beyond reasonable doubt, she must likewise be acquitted of the charge of violating R.A. No. 10591.

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The July 28, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10570, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Gilda Corpuz y Buscaino a.k.a. ‘Gigi’ is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. 2014-0403-D, 2014-0404-D, and 2014-0405-D for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

“The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE her from custody unless she is being held for some other lawful cause, and to SUBMIT a report on the action taken thereon within five (5) days from notice. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately. SO ORDERED.”