Criminal Law

People of the Philippines vs Gilbert Sebilleno

image_printPrint this!

G.R. No. 221457 – 868 Phil. 374 – Criminal Law – Special Penal Law – RA 9165 – Chain of Custody

Legal Ethics – Duty to use culturally-sensitive language

Gilbert Sebilleno was convicted of selling and possessing illegal drugs. He appealed his conviction before the CA as he questioned the police’s compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165. It appears that the inventory of the drugs allegedly seized from him was done at the police station and not at the place where he was caught (Alabang, Muntinlupa City).

According to the police, the tanods in Alabang were afraid to serve as witness in the inventory. In the appeal brief for the State, the Solicitor General justified the police officers’ conduct of the inventory in the police station rather than at the place of arrest, since “the apprehending team would be putting their lives in peril considering that the area where the buy-bust operation was conducted is a notorious Muslim community.”

ISSUE: Whether or not Sebilleno’s conviction is proper.

HELD: No. There was no compelling reason not to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165. Section 21 directs the conduct of inventory and taking of photographs “immediately after seizure and confiscation.” Section 21’s requirements are designed to make the links in the chain of custody foolproof. Conducting the inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence. Any deviation must be based on justifiable ground which in this case was not present. The explanation of the police that the tanods in Alabang are afraid to serve as witness is an insufficient excuse.

The Supreme Court also castigated the Solicitor General for its choice of words in their pleading. The Office of the Solicitor General, which represents no less than the Government of the Philippines in a number of legal matters, ought to be circumspect in its language. This averment from the Solicitor General exhibits biased, discriminatory, and bigoted views; unbecoming of a public official mandated to act with justice and sincerity, and who swore to respect the rights of persons. This is the kind of language that diminishes the public’s trust in our state agents. These are the words that when left unguarded, permeate in the public’s consciousness, encourage further divide and prejudices against the religious minority, and send this country backward. The Supreme Court does not see how a Muslim community can be threatening or dangerous, that would put law enforcers’ lives to peril. The Solicitor General’s colorful choice of word, “notorious,” does not inspire confidence.

Read full text.

image_printPrint this!

Leave a Reply