PDEA v. Brodett and Jorge G.R. No.

196390, September 28, 2011

FACTS: On April 13, 2009, the Office of the City Prosecutor (OCP) of Muntinlupa charged Richard Brodett and Joseph Jorge for violating Section 5, in relation to Section 26 (b) of RA 9165 after being caught selling and trading 9.8388 grams of methamphetamine HCL on September 19, 2008. Likewise, on April 16, 2009, Brodett was charged for violating Sec. 11 of RA 9165 for possession of various drugs in an incident on the previously noted date. On July 30, 2009, Brodett filed a Motion to Return Non-Drug Evidence, among which is a 2004 Honda Accord car 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. On November 4, 2009, the RTC ordered the return of the car to Myra S. Brodett after it was duly photographed. PDEA filed a motion for reconsideration, such being denied. PDEA then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which was also denied, citing Sec. 20 of RA 9165.

ISSUE: Can the car owned by an innocent third party not liable for the unlawful act be returned to its owner although such car was used in the commission of a crime? RULING: The Court ruled that a property not found to be used in an unlawful act and taken as evidence can be returned to its rightful owner but only when the case is finally terminated. The Court further states that the order to release the car was premature and in contravention of Section 20, Par. 3 of RA 9165 which states that property or income in custodia legis cannot be disposed, alienated or transferred during the pendency of the case. Court resolves that all RTCs comply with Section 20, RA 9165 and not release articles, drugs or non-drugs, for the duration of the trial and before rendition of judgment, even if owned by innocent third party. Respondents having been acquitted of the crime charged the Court will not annul the orders of the RTC nor reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Petition is DENIED.