CRIMPRO RULE 126

Title GR No. 196390

PDEA v BRODETT Date: September 28, 2011
Ponente: BERSAMIN , J.
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Petitioner Richard Brodett and Jorge Joseph Respondents
Doctrine: Objects of lawful commerce confiscated in the course of an enforcement of RA 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) that are the property of a third person are subject to be returned to the lawful owner
who is not liable for the unlawful act. But the trial court may not release such objects pending trial and before
judgment.
FACTS

On April 13, 2009, the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Muntinlupa charged Richard Broderr and Jorge Joseph for violating
Section 5, in relation to Section 26(b) of RA 9165 after being caught selling 9.8388 grams of methamphetamine HCL sixty pieces
of blue colored tablets with Motorola (M) logos. Likewise, on April 16, 2009, Brodett was charged for violating sec. 11 of RA 9165
for possession of Ecstasy (4.9007 grams), Coccaine (3.959 grams), and Tetrahydrocannabinol (54.5331 grams).

On July 30, 2009, Brodett filed a Motion to Return Non-Drug Evidence, among which is a 2004 Honda Accord registered in the
name of Myra S. Brodett that PDEA refused to return as it was used in the commission of the crime and which was supported by the
OCP, stating that such vehicle be kept during the duration of the trial to allow the prosecution and defense to exhaust its evidentiary
value.

The RTC ordered the return of the car to Myra S. Brodett after it was duly photographed. PDEA filed a motion for reconsideration
which was denied. PDEA then filed a petition for certiorari with the CA, which was also denied, citing Sec. 20 of RA 9165.
ISSUE
w/n the Court erred in ordering the return of Myra S. Brodetts car which was used in the commision of a crime YES
RATIO
In a criminal proceeding, the court having jurisdiction over the offense has the power to order upon conviction of an
accused the seizure of (a) the instruments to commit the crime, including documents, papers, and other effects that
are the necessary means to commit the crime; and (b) contraband, the ownership or possession of which is not
permitted for being illegal. As justification for the first, the accused must not profit from his crime, or must not acquire
property or the right to possession of property through his unlawful act. As justification for the second, to return to the
convict from whom the contraband was taken, in one way or another, is not prudent or proper, because doing so will
give rise to a violation of the law for possessing the contraband again. Indeed, the court having jurisdiction over the
offense has the right to dispose of property used in the commission of the crime, such disposition being an accessory
penalty to be imposed on the accused, unless the property belongs to a third person not liable for the offense that it
was used as the instrument to commit.
Personal property may be seized in connection with a criminal offense either by authority of a search warrant or as the
product of a search incidental to a lawful arrest. If the search is by virtue of a search warrant, the personal property
that may be seized may be that which is the subject of the offense; or that which has been stolen or embezzled and
other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or that which has been used or intended to be used as the means of
committing an offense. If the search is an incident of a lawful arrest, seizure may be made of dangerous weapons or
anything that may have been used or may constitute proof in the commission of an offense. Should there be no
ensuing criminal prosecution in which the personal property seized is used as evidence, its return to the person from
whom it was taken, or to the person who is entitled to its possession is but a matter of course, except if it is
contraband or illegal per se. A proper court may order the return of property held solely as evidence should the
Government be unreasonably delayed in bringing a criminal prosecution. The order for the disposition of such
property can be made only when the case is finally terminated.
The RTC granted accused Brodetts Motion To Return Non-Drug Evidence on November 4, 2009 when the criminal
proceedings were still going on, and the trial was yet to be completed. Ordering the release of the car at that point of
the proceedings was premature, considering that the third paragraph of Section 20, supra, expressly forbids the
disposition, alienation, or transfer of any property, or income derived therefrom, that has been confiscated from the
accused charged under R.A. No. 9165 during the pendency of the proceedings in the Regional Trial Court.
Section 20 further expressly requires that such property or income derived therefrom should remain in custodia legis
in all that time and that no bond shall be admitted for the release of it.
Indeed, forfeiture, if warranted pursuant to either Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code and Section 20 of R.A. No.
9165, would be a part of the penalty to be prescribed. The determination of whether or not the car (or any other article
confiscated in relation to the unlawful act) would be subject of forfeiture could be made only when the judgment was
to be rendered in the proceedings. Section 20 is also clear as to this.
RULING
The directive to return the non-drug evidence has overtaken the petition for review as to render further action upon it
superfluous. Yet, the Court seizes the opportunity to perform its duty to formulate guidelines on the matter of
confiscation and forfeiture of non-drug articles, including those belonging to third persons not liable for the offense, in
order to clarify the extent of the power of the trial court under Section 20 of R.A. No. 9165. This the Court must now
do in view of the question about the confiscation and forfeiture of non-drug objects being susceptible of repetition in
the future. We rule that henceforth the Regional Trial Courts shall comply strictly with the provisions of Section 20 of
R.A. No. 9165, and should not release articles, whether drugs or non-drugs, for the duration of the trial and before the
rendition of the judgment, even if owned by a third person who is not liable for the unlawful act.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for review is DENIED.

Notes
Section 20.Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds or Instruments of the Unlawful Act, Including the Properties or
Proceeds Derived from the Illegal Trafficking of Dangerous Drugs and/or Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
Every penalty imposed for the unlawful importation, sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution,
transportation or manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, the
cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs, and the possession of any equipment,
instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs including other laboratory equipment, shall carry
with it the confiscation and forfeiture, in favor of the government, of all the proceeds derived from unlawful act,
including, but not limited to, money and other assets obtained thereby, and the instruments or tools with which the
particular unlawful act was committed, unless they are the property of a third person not liable for the unlawful
act, but those which are not of lawful commerce shall be ordered destroyed without delay pursuant to the provisions
of Section 21 of this Act.
2-S 2016-17 (BUSTAMANTE)