Q: Now Mister Witness, where did you cause the marking of this sachet?
A: At the place of the incident in front of a barangay kagawad, Sir.
Q: Now after you handcuffed and arrested accused [Fulgado], what did you do next, if any Mister
Witness?
A: After the marking, we then brought her to the police station. Sir.
Q: What happened in the police station?
A: We asked her of her personal circumstances for her to be brought to the Crime Lab including the
pieces of evidence recovered from her, Sir.
Q: How about the drugs that you recovered from her, when you reach[ed] the police station, what did
you do with it?
A: We forwarded it to the investigator for him to prepare the request for chemistry examination, Sir.47
xxxx
Q: So alter you marked those sachets, what else did you do?
A: After marking the pieces of evidence, we proceeded to the police station and there we conducted
the inventory because the barangay kagawad proceeded there.
Q: Now, who is that barangay kagawad you summoned, if you remember?
A: I could not recall the name, Sir.
Q: Now, you mentioned that you prepared an inventory of evidence that you seized from the accused.
I have here a document attached to the records of these cases which is the Inventory of Evidence
Seized. Now, please take a look at this document and tell us if that is the inventory that you prepared?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, below that is a signature above the printed name PO2 CRUZ, now whose signature is that?
A: My signature, sir.
In People v. Retada, the Court was clear:
Time and again, the Court has held that the practice of police operatives of not bringing to the
intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to
the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buybust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these
witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of
drugs.
(https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/feb2020/gr_246193_2020.html)
Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected
public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, "planting" or
contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [R.A.] No.
6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and
credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus
delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. x x x.
People v. Umipang41 is instructive on the matter:
Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. [No.] 9165 would not automatically exonerate an
accused from the crimes of which he or she was convicted. This is especially true when the lapses in
procedure were "recognized and explained in terms of justifiable grounds." There must also be a
showing "that the police officers intended to comply with the procedure but were thwarted by some
justifiable consideration/reason." However, when there is gross disregard of the procedural
safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. [No.] 9165), serious uncertainty is generated
about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. This uncertainty
cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively
produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties. As a result, the prosecution is deemed
to have failed to fully establish the elements of the crimes charged, creating reasonable doubt on the
criminal liability of the accused.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/feb2020/gr_227217_2020.html
G.R. No. 199271, October 19, 2016 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. JEHAR REYES, Accused-Appellant.
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 199271, October 19, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JEHAR REYES, AccusedAppellant.
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
Compliance with the guidelines on the preservation of the chain of custody of the
dangerous drugs subject of a prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs must
be clearly and convincingly established by the State. Any lapse in the chain of custody
must be affirmatively explained by the Prosecution; otherwise, the chain of custody will
be held to be broken and insufficient to support a conviction of the accused. The
presumption of regularity of the performance of official duty in favor of the arr sting
officers cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.
The Case
This appeal focuses on the decision promulgated on June 13, 2011 in CA-G.R. CEB CRH.C. No. 00792 entitled People v. Jehar Reyes,1 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA)
affirmed the judgment rendered on March 9, 2007 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 10, in Cebu City finding accused Jehar Reyes guilty as charged of a violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002).2
chanrobles law
Antecedents
The accusatory portion of the information charging the violation of Section 5 of R.A. No.
9165 reads:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
That on or about the 27th day of November, 2002 at 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, more
or less, at the Municipality of Minglanilla, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent
and without proper authority or permit, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and
feloniously SELL, DELIVER and GIVE away to a poseur buyer for the sum of ONE
THOUSAND PESOS (PI ,000.00), Philippine Currency, bill marked money with Serial
Nos. HNOI9541, EX212112, ZW886460, FQ954616, DA723857, Q0[0]6140, DE709987,
SY315980, FQ950975, BB341926 three (3) silver paper packets of white crystalline
substance weighing 1.44 grams, which when subjected to laboratory examination gave
positive results for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
chanroblesv irt uallawl ibra ry
After the accused pleaded not guilty to the information, the State presented as
witnesses PO2 Jesus Rudson Villahermosa, PO1 Januario Miro, PSINSP Arnel Banzon,
PO2 Marlon Lumayag and Jude Daniel Mendoza,4 while the Defense had the accused
and Cesar Canada as its own witnesses.5
chanrobleslaw
The CA summarized the respective versions of the parties m the assailed decision as
follows:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
x x x [O]n 27 November 2002, at around 2:00 p.m., a buy-bust operation was
conducted at accused-appellant's residence in Sitio Cayam, Barangay Ward I, Tiber,
Minglanilla, Cebu. The team was composed of Senior Police Inspector Arnel Banzon
(hereafter, "Banzon"), PO2 Jesus Rodson Villahermosa (hereafter, "P02 Villahermosa")
and PO1 Januario Miro (hereatter, "PO1 Miro") (both poseur-buyers). The backup team
was composed of Senior Police Inspector Glenn Mayan, SPO2 Jesus Rojas, SP[O]1
Eduardito Brigoli, P[O]3 Danilo Lopez, P[O]2 Percival Charles, P[0]3 Marlon Lumayag
(hereafter P[O]3 Lumayag), and P[O]2 Aristocles.
The following items were recovered from accused-appellant: three plastic packs
(including the plastic pack bought by the poseur-buyers from accused-appellant),
containing a (sic) white crystalline substance; and the buy-bust money of ten P100.00
bills with serial numbers HN[0]19541, EX212112, ZW886460, FQ954616, DA723857,
QO[0]6140, DE709987, SY315980, [F]Q950975, BB341926. The total weight of the
contents of the three plastic packs was 1.44 grams. When subjected to laboratory
examination, the contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride,
otherwise known as "shabu". Accused-appellant was thereafter charged with the crime
of Illegal Sale of Shabu under Article 2, Section 5, R.A. 9165.
P[O]2 Villahermosa, P[O]1 Miro, Banzon, P[O]3 Lumayag, and Jude Daniel Mendoza,
testified for the Prosecution. The evidence of the Prosecution is summarized thus:
Several weeks before 27 November 2002, P[O]2 Villahermosa and P[O]1 Miro
conducted a 2-week surveillance on accused-appellant, a reported drug pusher, residing
at Sitio Cayam, Barangay Ward I, Tiber, Minglanilla, Cebu. The surveillance confirmed
accused-appellant was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. A team to conduct a buybust operation was formed. P[O]2 Villahermosa and P[O]1 Miro were designated as the
poseur-buyers, while Banzon, Senior Police Inspector Glenn Mayan, SP[O]2 Jesus
Rojas, SP[O]1 Eduardito Brigoli, P03 Danilo Lopez, P[O]2 Percival Charles,
P[O]3Lumayag, and P[O]2 Aristocles, were designated as back-up. The buy bust money
consisting of ten ill 00.00 bills, was marked with the initials "J.C.R." of SP[O]2 Rojas.
PO2 Villahermosa and PO1 Miro proceeded on foot to the target site, the house of the
accused-appellant, while the back-up team members positioned themselves about 5
meters away to observe the transaction.
P[O]2 Villahermosa approached the front of accused-appellant's house and called out
the latter's name. Accused-appellant went out of his house. P[O]2 Villahermosa told
accused-appellant he wanted to buy Fl ,000.00 worth of shabu. Accused-appellant took
one plasric pack from his pocket, and gave it to P[O]2 Villahermosa. P[O]2 Villahermosa
in turn, handed the ten pieces of P100.00 bills to accused-appellant. Upon receipt of the
P1000.00 buy-bust money, P[O]2 Villahermosa immediately accosted accusedappellant. P[O]1 Miro removed his cap, the pre-arranged signal to the backup team,
that the transaction had been completed. P[O]2 Villahermosa informed the accusedappellant he was under arrest, and informed him of his constitutional rights. He frisked
accused-appellant, and recovered the following: two more plastic packs that contained
a white crystalline substance; and the buy-bust money of ten P100.00 bills.
Accused-appellant was brought to the police office, and PO1 Miro marked the items
seized, as follows: "JR-B" (for the plastic pack of shabu subject of the buy-bust); "JR-1"
and "JR-2" (for the 2 plastic packs of shabu recovered from the frisking). PO1 Miro
prepared the letter-request tor laboratory examination.
On 27 November 2002, at 5:20 p.m., PO1 Miro delivered the letter-request for
laboratory examination, and the plastic packs marked "JR-B", "JR-1" and "JR-2", to PO1
Fiel, the clerk on duty at the PNP Crime Laboratory. P[O]1 Fiel turned over the letterrequest, and the three plastic packs, to the Chemistry Branch for examination.
On 28 November 2002, Jude Daniel Mendoza, the forensic analyst, conducted the
laboratory examination on the contents of the three plastic packs. Per Chemistry Report
No. D-2390-2002, the contents of the three packets tested positive for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
Accused-appellant was thereafter charged with violating Article 2, Section 5 of R.A.
9165, or the crime of illegal sale of drugs.
Cesar Cañada (hereafter, "Cañada"), and accused-appellant himself: testified for the
Defense. The evidence of the Defense is summarized thus: at around 2:00 p.m. of 27
November 2002, accused appellant was sleeping at his elder sister's house, when
several men suddenly barged in, and searched the premises. The men did not have any
search warrant. They did not find contraband, nor did they receive money from
accused-appellant.
Cañada is a neighbor of the accused-appellant. At around 2:00 p.m., of 27 November
2002, he was at a chapel about 10 meters from accused-appellant's house. He heard a
loud bang on the door of accused appellant's house, and saw five men enter it. The five
men later left the house with the accused-appellant, on board a police vehicle. 6
chanroblesv irtuallaw lib rary
Ruling of the RTC
On March 9, 2007, the RTC convicted the accused of the crime charged, disposing:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, this Court finds the accused JEHAR REYES Y
PREMACIO, GUILTY of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. He is
sentenced to suffer in prison the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P500,000.00
The three plastic packs containing methamphetamine hydrochloride are ordered
confiscated and shall be destroyed in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.7
chanroble svi rtual lawlib rary
Judgment of the CA
The accused appealed,8 contending that the illegal sale of shabu had not been
established beyond reasonable doubt; that the buy-bust operation had not been carried
out in accordance with law; that the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty did not apply because the law enforcers had deviated from the standard
conduct of official duty as provided for in the law; that the arresting police officers had
failed to make an inventory report of the confiscated items; that the markings on the
confiscated items were not clearly established; that the procedural lapses of the police
officers created doubt as to the identity of the confiscated items; and that,
consequently, the Prosecution did not establish the elements of the crime charged.
On June 13, 2011, the CA affirmed the conviction of the accused, holding and ruling
thusly:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
In a Prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be
duly established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the
presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.
The first element is present. There was evidence that the sale of drugs between
accused-appellant, and the poseur-buyers PO2 Villahermosa and PO1 Miro, took place.
PO2 Villahermosa testified that several weeks before the actual buy-bust operation on
27 November 2002, he and PO1 Miro conducted a 2-week surveillance on accusedappellant, a reported drug pusher, residing at Sitio Cayam, Barangay Ward I, Tiber,
MingLanilla, Cebu. The surveillance confirmed accused-appellant was engaged in the
sale of illegal drugs. A buy-bust team was formed. P[O]2 Villahermosa and P[O]1 Miro
were designated as the poseur-buyers, while Banzon, Senior Police Inspector Glenn
Mayan, SP02 Jesus Rojas, SP[O]1 Eduardito Brigoli, P[O]3 Danilo Lopez, P[O]2 Percival
Charles, P[O]3 Lumayag, and P[O]2 Aristocles were designated as back-up. P[O]2
Villahermosa and P[O]1 Miro proceeded on foot to the target site, the house of the
accused-appellant, while the backup team members positioned themselves about five
meters away to observe the transaction. P[O]2 Villahermosa approached the front of
accused-appellant's house and called out his name. Accused-appellant went out of his
house. P[O]2 Villahermosa told accused-appellant he wanted to buy 1,000.00 worth of
shabu. Accused-appellant took one plastic pack from his pocket, and gave it to P[O]2
Villahermosa. P[O]2 Villahennosa in turn, handed to accused appellant the ten pieces
of-P100.00 bills. Upon receipt of the P1,000.00 buy-bust money, P[O]2 Villahermosa
immediately accosted accused appellant P[O]1 Miro removed his cap, the pre-arranged
signal to the backup team, that the transaction had been completed. PO2 Villahermosa
informed the accused-appellant he was under arrest, and informed him of his
constitutional rights. He frisked accused-appellant. PO2 Villahermosa and (sic)
recovered from accused appellant the following: two more plastic packs that contained
a white crystalline substance; and the buy-bust money of ten P100.00 bills.
The second element is present. The corpus delicti, or the illicit drug subject of the sale,
was presented in Court.
xxxx
In the case at bar, the identity of the plastic pack of shabu subject of the buy-bust
operation was sufficiently established by the Prosecution. PO1 Miro marked the plastic
packs of shabu seized from the accused appellant at the office. The plastic pack of
shabu subject of the buy-bust operation was marked "JR-B", while the two plastic packs
of shabu recovered from accused-appellant after he was frisked by P[O]2 Villahermosa
were marked "JR-1'' and "JR-2". Clearly, the identity of the corpus delicti was duly
preserved and established by the Prosecution. hence there is no doubt as to whether
what was presented in Court, was the same plastic pack of shabu purchased from the
accused-appellant at the buy-bust operation.
In addition, the evidence the Prosecution presented, is complete to establish the
necessary links in the handling of the shabu subject of the buy-bust operation, from the
time of its seizure, until its presentation in Court. In other words, the Prosecution was
able to comply with the chain of custody rule.
xxxx
It is clear that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drugs were
preserved. No convincing proof was shown that the evidence submitted by the
Prosecution had been tampered, from the time they were recovered from accusedappellant, until they were turned over for examination. This Court, therefore, finds no
reason to overturn the findings of the court a quo that the drugs seized from accusedappellant, were the same ones presented during trial. The chain of custody of the drugs
seized from accused-appellant was unbroken, contrary to the assertion of accusedappellant.
Accused-appellant argues: since the police officers who arrested him did not make an
inventory report of the items they confiscated from him, and that the markings on said
items were not clearly established, the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duty no longer applies; the conduct of the police officers in the case at bar
grossly violated Section 21(1), Article 2 of R.A. 9165; these omissions on the part of
the police officers indicate that the operation they conducted was a sham, therefore
illegal
We do not agree.
xxxx
x x x [I]t has been ruled time and again that non-compliance vith Sec. 21 of the IRR
does not make the items seized inadmissible. What is imperative is ''the preservation of
the integrity and the evidential value of the seized items as the same would be utilized
in the determination of the guilt of innocence ofthe accused." Given the Prosecution's
evidence, We rule that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties has not been overturned. The presumption remains because the Defense failed
to present clear and convincing evidence that the police of11cers did not properly
perform their duty or that they were inspired by an improper motive. In cases involving
violations of Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the
incident by the prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence
to the contrary.
xxxx
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The court a quo's DECISION dated 9 March
2007 isAFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.9
chanroble svi rtual lawlib rary
Issue
Did the CA err in affirming the conviction of the accused for the violation of Section 5,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165?
Ruling of the Court
This appeal opens the entire record to enable the Court to determine whether or not the
findings against the accused should be upheld or struck down in his favor.10
chanroble slaw
After careful examination and review of the record, we find merit in the appeal, and,
accordingly, acquit the accused on the ground that the Prosecution did not establish his
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
1.
The State erred in charging the accused
with illegal sale of 1.44 grams of shabu
In order to charge a person with and convict him for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs
under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the State must allege and establish the concurrence
of the following essential elements, namely: ( 1) the identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and its payment. The delivery of the illicit drugs to the poseur-buyer and the
receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal sale of dangerous
drugs during the buy-bust transaction.11
chanrobleslaw
Were the elements of the offense charged competently and clearly established by the
Prosecution?
On direct examination, P02 Villahermosa, who was the poseur buyer during the buybust operation, testified as follows:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
Q
When you arrived at Sitio Cayam, where was your target Jehar Reyes?
A
They were in the house sir.
Q
Was he inside or outside his house?
A
He was sitting inside and came out when he saw us.
xx
xx
Q
You said that Jehar Reyes, when he saw you came out, after that what happened?
A
Immediately I asked Jehar Reyes if we can buy shabu in the amount of P1,000.00.
Q
What was the answer of Jehar Reyes?
A
He nodded, meaning yes.
Q
After Jehar Reyes nodded, indicating that he was amenable, what did he do next?
A
He took one pack of shabu from his packet (sic) worth P1,000.00
Q
How about you, what did you do with the money in your possession?
A
I received the pack of shabu and in return I give (sic) to him the P1,000.00.
Q
You mean to say that the one pack of shabu was first given to you before you give
(sic) the P1 ,000.00?
A
Yes.
Q
What else happened?
A
Police Officer Miro who was standing beside me executed the pre-arranged signal.
Q
What was that signal about?
A
He removed his bull cap after the transaction.
Q
After that what happened next?
A
Immediately my companions rushed up to the buy bust area.
Q
What did your companions do?
A
They came to assist me in the arrest of the accused.
xx
xx
Q
When the other members of the team rushed up Lo your position, what did you do
to Jehar Reyes?
A
When I held him, I informed him of his violation.
Q
What did you inform him?
A
I informed him that he has committed, he has violated Section 5, Article II of RA
9165.
Q
What was the answer of Jehar Reyes?
A
There was no reaction sir.
Q
After that since you held Jehar Reyes, what did you do?
A
Immediately I frisked him.
Q
When you frisked him, what happened?
A
I was able to recover One thousand Pesos which was the buy bust money I give (sic)
to him and another 2 packets of shabu in his other pocket. 12
PO1 Villahermosa further testified:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
Q
Upon handing to the accused this money worth one thousand pesos, what did the
accused do after receiving the said amount?
A
She (sic) got one pack of shabu from her (sic) pocket.
Q
If shown to you this one pack of shabu, will you be able to identify it before this
Honorable Court?
A
Yes, Sir.
Q
I'm showing to you three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic packets of white
crystalline substance, is this the specimen that you were able to recover and buy from
the accused?
A
(Witness is pointing to a pack marked .28 gram with letters JR-B which was the one
given to me by the accused.)
Q
What (sic) you mean by being the one given to me by the accused?
A
In exchange of one thousand pesos.
Q
I have here another two (2) packets marked JR-1 and another JR-2.
Will you be able to identify these two packets of shabu?
A
Yes.
Q
What are these two specimens?
A
These were the items confiscated from the accused after his arrest. 13
In this regard, the CA, affirming the findings of the RTC, observed:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
x x x Accused-appellant took one plastic pack from his pocket, and gave it to P[O]2
Villahermosa. P[O]2 Villahermosa in turn, handed the ten pieces of P100.00 bills to
accused-appellant. Upon receipt of the P1,000.00 buy-bust money, P[O]2 Villahermosa
immediately accosted accused-appellant. P[O]1 Mira removed his cap, the pre-arranged
signal to the backup team, that the transaction had been completed. PO2 Villahermosa
informed the accused-appellant he was under arrest, and informed him of his
constitutional rights. He frisked accused-appellant, and recovered the following:
two more plastic packs that contained a white crystalline substance; and the
buy-bust money of ten P100.00 bills.14 (Bold Emphasis supplied.)
The lower courts came up with common findings to the effect that three plastic packs
of shabu weighing a total of 1.44 grams had been confiscated from the accused by the
buy-bust team, the first pack being marked JR-B, and the second and third packs being
marked JR-1 and JR-2. Based on the aforequoted testimony of the poseur buyer,
however, the essential elements of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
charged against him were only with regard to the transaction directly involving
the shabu contained in the pack marked JR-B. This is because there was no delivery of
the shabu contained in the packs marked JR-1 and JR-2 and, necessarily, there was no
corresponding payment to speak of. In short, no transaction occurred as to the latter
dangerous drugs. He should consequently be separately charged with illegal possession
of dangerous drugs as defined and penalized under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 in
respect of the shabu contained in the packs marked JR-1 and JR-2 that were seized
from him after he had received the buy-bust money for the shabucontained in the pack
marked JR-B. Indeed, the seizure was the actual result of the body frisking by PO2
Villahermosa right after his being informed of his constitutional rights, not of the buybust transaction. We stress that the elements of this offense of illegal possession
of shabu, a dangerous drug, are that: (1) the accused was in possession of the
dangerous drug; (2) his possession was not authorized by law; and (3) he freely and
consciously possessed the drug.15
chanrob leslaw
Even if illegal sale of dangerous drugs punished under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 the
offense charged - might necessarily include the illegal possession of dangerous drugs
under Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, the accused could only be found guilty of the first
offense vis-a-vis the shabu contained in the pack marked JR-B. He could not be held
guilty of the illegal possession of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11 of R.A. No.
9165 because no information had been filed to charge such offense. It is fundamental
that a person is to be tried and found guilty only of the offense charged in the
information, or of the offense proved that is necessarily included in the offense charged,
conformably with Section 4, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court, which states:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
Section 4. Judgment in case of variance between allegation and proof— When there is
variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information and that proved,
and the offense as charged is included in or necessarily includes the offense proved, the
accused shall be convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense
charged, or of the offense charged which is included in the offense proved.
2.
The guilt of the accused was not established beyond reasonable doubt because
the State did not satisfactorily explain the substantial lapses committed by the
buy-bust team in preserving the chain of custody
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court resolves to acquit the accused of the crime
ofviolation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 charged.
To convict the accused for the illegal sale or the illegal possession of dangerous drugs,
the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs must be clearly and competently shown
because such degree of proof is what was necessary to establish the corpus
delicti.16 In People v. Alcuizar,17 the Court has underscored the importance of ensuring
the chain of custody in drug related prosecutions, to wit:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the very corpus delicti of
the offense and in sustaining a conviction under Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and
integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This
requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drugs unique characteristic that renders
it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or
substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty
on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the
illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the
accused-appellant; otherwise, the prosecution for possession under Republic Act No.
9165 fails.
The requirement for establishing the chain of custody fulfills the function of ensuring
that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.18 The
Prosecution does not comply with the requirement of proving the corpus delicti not only
when the dangerous drugs involved are missing but also when there are substantial
gaps in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts on the
authenticity of the evidence presented in court.19
chanroble slaw
To ensure the chain of custody, Section 21 (1), Article II, of RA No. 9165 demands
that:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165 complement the
statutory definition of the chain of custody thusly:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place
where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further, that non compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void
and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items;
The importance of the chain of custody cannot be understated. As we have indicated
in People v. Mendoza:20
chan robles law
Based on the foregoing statutory rules, the manner and timing of the marking of the
seized drugs or related items are crucial in proving the chain of custody. Certainly, the
marking after seizure by the arresting officer, being the starting point in the custodial
link, should be made immediately upon the seizure, or, if that is not possible, as close
to the time and place of the seizure as practicable under the obtaining circumstances.
This stricture is essential because the succeeding handlers of the contraband would use
the markings as their reference to the seizure. The marking further serves to separate
the marked seized drugs from all other evidence from the time of seizure from the
accused until the drugs are disposed of upon the termination of the criminal
proceedings. The deliberate taking of these identifying steps is statutorily aimed at
obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence. Indeed, the
preservation of the chain of custody vis a-vis the contraband ensures the integrity of
the evidence incriminating the accused, and relates to the element of relevancy as one
of the requisites for the admissibility of the evidence.
Was the chain of custody preserved in this case?
It appears clear to us as a reviewing court that the chain of custody was not preserved
in the manner required by the aforementioned guidelines fixed by law. The arresting
officers committed serious lapses that put into grave doubt the integrity of the evidence
presented against the accused.
First of all, the confiscated items were not marked immediately after the seizure. In
that regard, PO1 Miro recalled that he was the one who had placed the markings JR-B,
JR-1 and JR-2 on the packs of shabu that were brought to the PNP Crime
Laboratory,21 and clarified on cross-examination that he had himself placed the
markings at the police station.22 Yet, his credibility suffered because of the
inconsistency of his recollection of this crucial part of the chain of custody with those of
poseur buyer PO2 Villahermosa and P/Chief Inspector Banzon, who declared that it was
SPO4 Jake Rojas who had placed the markings on the packs.23 The inconsistency
among the witnesses of the State could not be dismissed as trivial or inconsequential in
view of the defining role of the initial marking of the confiscated items.
Secondly, the law specifically required that the marking must be witnessed by the
accused, but there was no credible showing by the State that the accused had actually
witnessed the process of marking. This meant that the confiscation of the shabu was
not properly insulated from doubt.
Thirdly, another substantial gap in the chain of custody concerned the absence of any
representative of the media or of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and of the elected
public official during the buy-bust operation and at the time of the confiscation of the
dangerous drugs from the accused in the area of operation. The Prosecution did not
attempt to explain why such presence of the media or DOJ representatives, and of the
elected public official had not been procured despite the buy-bust operation being
mounted in the afternoon of November 27, 2002 following two weeks of surveillance to
confirm the veracity of the report on the illegal trading in drugs by the accused.24 The
objective of requiring their presence during the buy-bust operation and at the time of
the recovery or confiscation of the dangerous drugs from the accused in the area of
operation was to ensure against planting of evidence and frame up. It was clear that
ignoring such objective was not an option for the buy-bust team if its members
genuinely desired to protect the integrity of their operation. Their omission attached
suspicion to the incrimination of the accused. The trial and appellate courts should not
have tolerated the buy-bust team's lack of prudence in not complying with the
procedures outlined in Section 21(1), supra, in light of the sufficient time for them to
comply.
And, lastly, the arresting officers did not prepare any inventory of the confiscated
items, and did not take photographs of the items. Had there been an inventory
prepared or photographs taken, the Prosecution would have surely formally offered
them as evidence.25 But no such offer was made. As such, the omissions were another
serious gap in the chain of custody.
cralawred
Under the last paragraph of Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, a
saving mechanism has been provided to ensure that not every case of non-compliance
with the procedures for the preservation of the chain of custody will irretrievably
prejudice the Prosecution's case against the accused. To warrant the application of this
saving mechanism, however, the Prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses, and
justify or explain them.26 Such justification or explanation would be the basis for
applying the saving mechanism. Yet, the Prosecution did not concede such lapses, and
did not even tender any token justification or explanation for them. The failure to justify
or explain underscored the doubt and suspicion about the integrity of the evidence of
the corpus delicti.27 With the chain of custody having been compromised, the accused
deserves acquittal. In other words, his defenses of denial and frame up defenses of the
accused, the unexplained procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team, on its
own, created a reasonable doubt about the guilt of accused given the uncertainty over
the identity and integrity of the seized shabu that the State presented as evidence of
his guilt.28
chanrobles law
3.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty
in favor of the arresting officers did not prevail over the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused
The CA observed that the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty in favor
of the arresting officers was not overturned by the proof adduced by the Defense
clearly and convincingly showing improper motive on their part to falsely incriminate
the accused.
The accused charged with a violation of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002 is always
presumed innocent of the crime charged against him. This presumption of his
innocence, which has been enshrined in Section 14, Article III (The Bill of Rights) of the
Constitution, ensures that: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved." It underlies our system of criminal justice, and
far outweighs any other presumption, particularly one that is essentially a rule of
evidence. In People v. Mendoza,29 we have fittingly explained the superiority of the
presumption of innocence over the lesser presumption of regularity of performance of
official duty, as follows:
chanRoble svirtual Lawlib ra ry
We have usually presumed the regularity of performance of their official duties in favor
of the members of buy-bust teams enforcing our laws against the illegal sale of
dangerous drugs. Such presumption is based on three fundamental reasons,
namely: first, innocence, and not wrong-doing, is to be presumed; second, an official
oath will not be violated; and, third, a republican form of government cannot survive
long unless a limit is placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence
reposed in each governmental department or agent by every other such department or
agent, at least to the extent of such presumption. But the presumption is rebuttable by
affirmative evidence of irregularity or of any failure to perform a duty. Judicial reliance
on the presumption despite any hint of irregularity in the procedures undertaken by the
agents of the law will thus be fundamentally unsound because such hint is itself
affirmative proof of irregularity.
The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty stands only when no
reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of
official duty. And even in that instance the presumption of regularity will not be
stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere
rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed
innocent. Trial courts are instructed to apply this differentiation, and to always bear in
mind the following reminder issued in People v. Catalan:
x x x We remind the lower courts that the presumption of regularity in the performance
of duty could not prevail over the stronger presumption of innocence favoring the
accused. Otherwise, the constitutional guarantee of the accused being presumed
innocent would be held subordinate to a mere rule of evidence allocating the burden of
evidence. Where, like here, the proof adduced against the accused has not even
overcome the presumption of innocence, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duty could not be a factor to adjudge the accused guilty of the crime
charged.
ChanRoblesVirtualawli bra ry
Moreover, the regularity of the performance of their duty could not be properly
presumed in favor of the policemen because the records were replete with indicia of
their serious lapses. As a rule, a presumed fact like the regularity of performance by a
police officer must be inferred only from an established basic fact, not plucked out from
thin air. To say it differently, it is the established basic fact that triggers the presumed
fact of regular performance. Where there is any hint of irregularity committed by the
police officers in arresting the accused and thereafter, several of which we have earlier
noted, there can be no presumption of regularity of performance in their favor.30
In view of the many notable serious procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust
team, the benefit of the presumption of the regularity of the performance of duty by the
arresting officers is indubitably unwarranted.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on
June 13, 2011 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-H.C. No. 00792
entitled People v. Jehar Reyes; ACQUITS accused-appellant JEHAR REYES of the
offense charged on the ground of reasonable doubt; and ORDERS his immediate
release from detention at the National Penitentiary, unless there are other lawful causes
warranting his continued detention.
The Court DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to fortwith implement
this decision, and to report his action hereon to this Court within ten (10) days from
receipt.
No pronouncement on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J, Leonardo-De Castro, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 240596
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner
vs.
NOVO TANES y BELMONTE, Respondent
DECISION
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before the Court is a petition for review on certiorari1 (Petition) under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court
assailing the Decision2 dated February 21, 2018 and Resolution3 dated July 11, 2018 of the Court of
Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City (CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 08305-MIN, which upheld the Orders4 dated
March 31, 2017 and June 27, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, General Santos City (RTC) in
Crim. Case No. 22306. The RTC granted the application for bail of respondent Novo Tanes y Belmonte
(Tanes), who was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165 otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
On April 6, 2011, an Information5 was filed against Tanes for violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the
accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about December 14, 2010, at about 8:20 P.M. in DARBCI Subdivision, National Highway,
General Santos City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed
accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell for Five
Hundred Pesos (Php500.00) to poseur buyer, one sachet containing 0.0296 grams (sic)
of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
Tanes pleaded not guilty to the charge. On April 10, 2015, he filed a Petition for Bail.7 The RTC conducted
hearings on October 7, 2015, November 4, 2015, and February 3, 2017 for the bail application.8
Ruling of the RTC
On March 31, 2017, the RTC issued an Order9 granting Tanes' application for bail, the fallo of which reads:
WHEREFORE, after a careful evaluation of the records, this Court finds justifiable grounds to grant bail to
the accused.
Accused is allowed to post bail bond for his temporary liberty in the fixed amount of TWO HUNDRED
THOUSAND PESOS (P200,000.00).
Set the continuation of trial x x x.
SO ORDERED.10
The RTC found that the evidence of Tanes' guilt was not strong because there was doubt as to whether
the chain of custody in the buy-bust operation was preserved, explaining as follows:
The [c]ourt noted that in the affidavits of [the] prosecution's witnesses[,] there was allegedly a previous
buying transaction of shabu with the accused prior to the buy-bust operation subject of this case. Thus, the
PDEA agents had enough time to contact the media or DOJ representatives, or any elected public
official to witness the buy-bust operation being conducted following the report on the illegal
trading in drugs by the accused, but they fail[ed] to do so. Instead, they were just merely called to
sign the inventory sheet.11 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The RTC ruled that the failure of the prosecution to show that the three witnesses (i.e., media
representative, DOJ representative, elected official) were also present in the actual buy-bust operation and
not only during the inventory negated the requirement of strong evidence of the accused's guilt to justify a
denial of bail. Moreover, the RTC ruled that the defense correctly cited the case of People v. Jehar
Reyes12 (Jehar Reyes) in support of its argument.
The People (herein petitioner) filed a motion for reconsideration (MR), which was denied in an
Order13 dated June 27, 2017.
Aggrieved, petitioner went to the CA via petition for certiorari. It alleged that the RTC committed grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in granting bail to Tanes because: (1) it did
not state a summary of the prosecution's evidence in its Order, therefore, petitioner was not accorded due
process; and (2) it required the presence of the three witnesses during the conduct of the buy-bust
operation and during the actual seizure of the drug, thereby extending the requirement laid down in R.A.
9165.14
Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision15 dated February 21, 2018, the CA dismissed the petition. According to the CA,
petitioner failed to show that the RTC's exercise of discretion in granting the application for bail was
unsound and unguided by jurisprudence.16 It found that the RTC's Order was based on jurisprudence,
specifically on the rule on chain of custody and the Jehar Reyes case, which held that the three witnesses
must be present during the buy-bust operation and the confiscation of the dangerous drugs from the
accused.17
Moreover, the CA also made its own appreciation of the evidence presented and found that "[t]he evidence
presented by the prosecution in establishing that [Tanes'] guilt was strong was tarnished by a seemingly
broken chain in the custody."18 Specifically, the CA made the following findings:
Here, the poseur buyer testified that the representative from the media and the elected official who signed
the Inventory Sheet were absent during the actual buy bust operation. The said officials appear to have
gone to the crime scene only to sign the Inventory Sheet and leave after signing the same.
The absence of a representative from the DoJ also appears to be inadequately explained as the
police officers could have contacted another representative from the DoJ when the other DoJ
representative was unavailable.
It also appears that no photograph was presented showing the inventory of the seized shabu in the
presence of [Tanes], the representative of the media, and the elective public official. There were
only pictures captioned "Media representative signed/witness (sic) the inventory" and "Brgy Kagawad
signed/witness (sic) the inventory" but the person who took the pictures was not presented during the bail
hearing to explain the photographs. Moreover, the testimony of the buy bust team leader regarding
whether there was a photograph showing the inventory of the seized sachets appears to be
unclear.19 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Further, the CA ruled that petitioner was not denied due process. The records showed that three hearings
were conducted by the trial court for the bail application. During these hearings, petitioner was duly
represented by its prosecutors. Moreover, the CA stated that petitioner failed to identify which piece/s of
evidence that the prosecution presented before the bail hearings was/were excluded by the RTC in
weighing whether the evidence against Tanes' guilt was strong.20
Furthermore, the CA also disagreed with petitioner's assertion that the RTC Order did not contain a
summary of the prosecution's evidence.21
Petitioner's MR was denied by the CA in a Resolution22 dated July 11, 2018; hence, this Petition.
Petition before the Court
In its Rule 45 Petition, petitioner argues that the CA erred in not finding grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the trial court when the latter granted the petition for bail based solely on Jehar Reyes. In particular,
petitioner claims that R.A. 9165 only requires the presence of the three witnesses during the conduct of the
inventory, and not during the actual buy-bust operation. Also, petitioner avers that the CA erred in affirming
the trial court's ruling despite the latter's failure to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution.
Issue
Whether the CA erred in affirming the Order of the RTC which granted Tanes' application for bail.
The Court's Ruling
The Petition is totally without merit.
The right to bail
The right to bail is recognized in the Bill of Rights, as stated in Section 13, Article III of the Constitution:
SEC. 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
In this regard, Rule 114 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
SEC. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not bailable. No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of the
criminal prosecution.
Thus, before conviction, bail is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty
lower than reclusion perpetua. Bail becomes a matter of discretion if the offense charged is punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment that is, bail will be denied if the evidence of guilt is strong.23
Procedure when bail is discretionary
In this case, Tanes was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 which carries the penalty
of life imprisonment. Hence, Tanes' bail becomes a matter of judicial discretion if the evidence of his guilt
is not strong.
To determine whether evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, the conduct of bail hearings is required
where the prosecution has the burden of proof, subject to the right of the defense to cross-examine
witnesses and introduce evidence in rebuttal. The court is to conduct only a summary hearing, consistent
with the purpose of merely determining the weight of evidence for purposes of bail.24
The court's grant or denial of the bail application must contain a summary of the prosecution's evidence.
On this basis, the judge formulates his or her own conclusion on whether such evidence is strong enough
to indicate the guilt of the accused.25
Petitioner was not deprived of
procedural due process
Applying the abovementioned standards to the present case, the Court finds that, contrary to petitioner's
assertions, the trial court did observe the rules to be followed in granting or denying the bail application.
Records show that the RTC conducted hearings for the application of bail on October 7, 2015, November
4, 2015, and February 3, 2017. In all these hearings, petitioner was duly represented by its prosecutors.26
Petitioner insists that the trial court miserably failed to state a summary or a reasonable recital of the
evidence for the prosecution.27 As a result, petitioner avers that it was denied its right to due process.28 The
Court disagrees.
In this regard, the Court finds it necessary to quote the relevant portions of the assailed RTC Order, to wit:
Hearing on the petition ensued. The prosecution presented four witnesses to prove that the guilt of
the accused is strong, to wit:
1. PSI Lily Grace M. Tadeo, the forensic chemist, who identified her findings as contained in the Chemistry
Reports Nos. D-332-2010 and D-333-2010 and the drug items;
2. PDEA Agent IO1 Mark Louis R. Degayo, team leader and photographer;
3. PDEA Agent IO1 Vincent Quelinderino, arresting officer; and
4. PDEA Agent IO1 Rodrick I. Gualisa, poseur-buyer.
They identified accused as the person who sold the drug item during the buy bust operation in the
amount of P500.00. The inventory of evidence/property and chain of custody were also identified.
Upon judicious and meticulous perusal of the evidence presented, the [c]ourt is of the view that the
evidence of guilt of the accused is not strong.
The [c]ourt note[s] that in the affidavits of prosecution's witnesses[,] there was allegedly a previous
buying transaction of shabu with the accused prior to the buy-bust operation subject of this case. Thus, the
PDEA agents had enough time to contact the media or DOJ representatives, or any elected public official
to witness the buy-bust operation being conducted following the report on the illegal trading in drugs by the
accused, but they fail[ed] to do so. Instead, they were just merely called to sign the inventory sheet.
xxxx
With the evidence presented for the consideration of the Court, the prosecution failed to substantiate
its allegation to prove that the guilt of the accused is strong. Clearly, therefore, the prosecution
evidence as such does not meet the required standard of "strong evidence" to justify the denial of the
accused's right to bail.29 (Emphasis supplied)
Petitioner assails the RTC Order because it did not contain (1) a recital of the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of an actual buy-bust operation against Tanes;30 or (2) a
summary of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses establishing the links in the chain of custody of
the confiscated drug.31However, a perusal of the RTC Order shows that it complied with the jurisprudential
standards on providing a summary of the prosecution's evidence.
In Revilla, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan (First Division),32 the Court discussed the meaning of "a summary of the
evidence for the prosecution" as follows:
x x x The summary of the evidence shows that the evidence presented during the prior hearing
is formally recognized as having been presented and most importantly, considered. The summary of
the evidence is the basis for the judge's exercising his judicial discretion. Only after weighing the pieces of
evidence as contained in the summary will the judge formulate his own conclusion as to whether the
evidence of guilt against the accused is strong based on his discretion. Thus, judicial discretion is not
unbridled but must be supported by a finding of the facts relied upon to form an opinion on the issue before
the court. x x x33 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Moreover, in People v. Cabral,34 which petitioner cites as basis, the Court ruled that the summary "should
necessarily be a complete compilation or restatement of all the pieces of evidence presented during the
hearing proper. x x x An incomplete enumeration or selective inclusion of pieces of evidence for the
prosecution in the order cannot be considered a summary, for a summary is necessarily a reasonable
recital of any evidence presented by the prosecution."35
Thus, what jurisprudence requires is a reasonable recital of every piece of evidence of the prosecution which was done in this case. Contrary to petitioner assertions, the testimonies per se of the witnesses
need not be reproduced in the Order, as long as the same is recognized and considered by the trial court
in its exercise of judicial discretion over the bail application.
Clearly, the trial court followed the proper procedure in granting Tanes' bail application. Having settled that
petitioner was not deprived of its right to procedural due process, the Court shall now deal with the
propriety of granting the bail application.
Non-compliance with the rules on
chain of custody of illegal drugs
negates a strong evidence of Tanes'
guilt
The main thrust of the RTC's Order granting bail is that based on the evidence presented during the bail
hearings, the prosecution failed to prove that the chain of custody over the seized drug had been
preserved; hence, the evidence of Tanes' guilt was not strong. The Court wholeheartedly agrees.
To recall, Tanes was charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of
R.A. 9165. The elements for conviction under said provision are: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller,
the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.36 The
burden is on the State to prove not only these elements but also the corpus delicti or the body of the crime.
In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law.37 Consequently,
compliance with the rule on chain of custody over the seized illegal drugs is crucial in any prosecution that
follows a buy-bust operation. The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug recovered
from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is
established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a finding of guilt.38
In this regard, Section 21,39 Article II of R.A. 9165 lays down the following procedure to be followed in order
to maintain the integrity of the confiscated drugs used as evidence: (1) the seized items must be
inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and
photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an
elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the DOJ, all of
whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and
photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of
apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of R.A. 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team
reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team.40 In this
connection, this also means that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the
time of the conduct of the physical inventory of the seized items which, as mentioned, must be immediately
done at the place of seizure and confiscation - a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buybust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity.
In the present case, it appears that the buy-bust team committed several procedural lapses concerning the
chain of custody of the seized drug. In particular, the RTC and the CA found that: (1) there was no
representative from the DOJ present during the buy-bust operation and the inventory; (2) the two other
witnesses (i.e., the media representative and the elected public official) were not present during the
apprehension and seizure of the illegal drug but were merely called to sign the inventory sheet; and (3) no
photograph was presented showing the inventory of the seized shabu in the presence of Tanes and the
witnesses. These lapses in the chain of custody created doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized
drug. Consequently, the evidence as to Tanes' guilt cannot be characterized as strong.
No error in RTC's reliance on the case
of Jehar Reyes
Petitioner avers that the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting the bail application based solely
on the Jehar Reyes case. It maintains that R.A. 9165 only requires the presence of the three witnesses
during the conduct of the inventory, and not during the actual buy-bust operation.
The argument is without merit.
For reference, the relevant portion of Jehar Reyes is quoted below:
Thirdly, another substantial gap in the chain of custody concerned the absence of any
representative of the media or of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and of the elected public official
during the buy-bust operation and at the time of the confiscation of the dangerous drugsfrom the
accused in the area of operation. The Prosecution did not attempt to explain why such presence of the
media or DOJ representatives, and of the elected public official had not been procured despite the buybust operation being mounted in the afternoon of November 27, 2002 following two weeks of surveillance
to confirm the veracity of the report on the illegal trading in drugs by the accused. The objective of
requiring their presence during the buy-bust operation and at the time of the recovery or
confiscation of the dangerous drugs from the accused in the area of operation was to ensure
against planting of evidence and frame up. It was clear that ignoring such objective was not an option
for the buy-bust team if its members genuinely desired to protect the integrity of their operation. Their
omission attached suspicion to the incrimination of the accused. The trial and appellate courts should not
have tolerated the buy-bust team's lack of prudence in not complying with the procedures outlined in
Section 21(1), supra, in light of the sufficient time for them to comply.41(Emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
The RTC cannot thus be faulted for relying on the clear and unequivocal ruling made in Jehar
Reyes because unless overturned, the same remains good case law. To the contrary, Jehar Reyes has
even been cited by the Court in at least six cases42 subsequent to it, one of which is People v.
Sagana,43 wherein the Court made similar findings regarding the three witness rule. Citing Jehar Reyes,
the Court therein held:
Similarly, none of the required third-party representatives was present during the seizure and inventory of
the dangerous articles. Their presence in buy-bust operations and seizure of illicit articles in the
place of operation would supposedly guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame-up." In
other words, they are "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any
taint of illegitimacy or irregularity."
1âшphi1
x x x In this case, the records were bereft of any explanation why the third-party representatives were
present only during the belated photographing of the confiscated articles. Hence, the very purpose
of their mandated presence is defeated.44 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It bears stressing that the pronouncement in Jehar Reyes as regards the presence of the three witnesses
in the buy-bust operation has also been ruled upon by the Court in other cases. In the recent case
of People v. Supat,45 the Court made the following pronouncements:
Section 21(1) of RA 9165 plainly requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation. Further,
the inventory must be done in the presence of the accused, his counsel, or representative, a
representative of the DOJ, the media, and an elected public official, who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and
photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of
apprehension. And only if this is not practicable that the IRR allows the inventory and photographing at the
nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. This also means
that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust
operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. In other words, the buy-bust team has enough time and
opportunity to bring with them said witnesses.
Moreover, while the IRR allows alternative places for the conduct of the inventory and photographing of the
seized drugs, the requirement of having the three required witnesses to be physically present at the
time or near the place of apprehension is not dispensed with. The reason is simple: it is at the time
of arrest - or at the time of the drugs "seizure and confiscation" - that the presence of the three
witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would
insulate against the police practice of planting evidence.46 (Additional emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
Also, the Court made similar pronouncements in People v. Tomawis,47 to wit:
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more
importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three
witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie
any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is
legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of
frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized
drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses,
when they could easily do so and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory
and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished - does
not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the
planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs
must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required
to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory
and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."48
(Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In this case, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses showed noncompliance with the three-witness
rule: first, only two witnesses were present; and second, the two witnesses were merely "'called in" to
witness the inventory of the seized drug. Additionally, no photograph was presented showing the inventory
of the seized shabu in the presence of Tanes and the witnesses. Hence, the RTC did not commit grave
abuse of discretion when it granted the petition for bail on the ground that the evidence of Tanes' guilt was
not strong due to doubts as regards the preservation of the chain of custody. Such ruling by the RTC has
unquestionable jurisprudential basis. Consequently, the CA was correct in upholding the RTC.
A final note
There being non-compliance with the rule on chain of custody of the drug seized during the buy-bust
operation, the evidence of guilt for the crime of illegal sale of drugs against Tanes is deemed not strong.
Accordingly, he is entitled to bail.
The present ruling, however, should not prejudge the RTC's ruling on the merits of the case. Indeed, there
are instances when the Court had ruled that failure to strictly comply with the procedure in Section 21,
Article II of R.A. 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items void. In such
cases, the prosecution must still satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance;
and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.49 The prosecution
must be able to adequately explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses.50
The Court emphasizes that no part of this Decision should prejudice the submission of additional evidence
for the prosecution to prove Tanes' guilt in the main case. After all, a grant of bail does not prevent the
RTC, as the trier of facts, from making a final assessment of the evidence after full trial on the merits.51
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
CELSO PLAZA Y CAENGLISH ALIAS JOBOY PLAZA, JOSEPH GUIBAO BALINTON ALIAS
JOABS, Accused-Appellants.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CELSO PLAZA Y CAENGLISH
ALIAS JOBOY PLAZA, JOSEPH GUIBAO BALINTON ALIAS JOABS, AccusedAppellants.
DECISION
GESMUNDO, J.:
This resolves the appeal from the Decision1 of the Court of AppealsCagayan De Oro City
(CA) dated August 25, 2017 docketed as CA-G.R. CR HC No. 01534-MIN affirming the
Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Butuan City, Branch 4 (RTC) dated February 2,
2016 in Criminal Case No. 14839. Herein accused-appellants Celso Plaza y Caenglish
alias Joboy Plaza and Joseph Guibao Balinton alias Joabs (accused-appellants) were
found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
The information against accused-appellants reads:
That at more or less 7:05 o'clock in the evening of March 28, 2011 at Butuan City,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, without authority
of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver one (1)
sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu weighing zero
point zero five two four (0.0524) gram, a dangerous drug to a poseur buyer for a
consideration of five hundred ([P]500.00) pesos.
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165)[.]3
Upon arraignment, with the assistance of counsel, accused-appellants pleaded not
guilty to the charge.4
The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses: Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) Agent Alex B. Subang (PDEA Agent Subang), Police Senior Inspector Joel P.
Signar (PSInsp. Signar), Barangay Captain Ramonita M. Boholano (Boholano), and
PDEA Agent Simplicio Cubero Bautista (PDEA Agent Bautista). For the defense,
accused-appellants testified for themselves.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are condensed as follows:
1. PDEA Agent Subang
A walk-in police asset relayed information about the illegal drug trafficking of accusedappellants. Upon further investigation, it also appeared that accused-appellant Plaza
was listed in PDEA's target drug personalities. A buy-bust operation was planned, with
PDEA Agent Subang assigned as the poseur-buyer and PDEA Agent Bautista as the
arresting officer. When PDEA Agent Subang and the police asset arrived along the
highway in front of the Iglesia Ni Cristo church, accused-appellant Plaza asked PDEA
Agent Subang how much the latter intended to buy, to which he replied "P500.00".
Accused-appellant Plaza opened his belt bag and took out one (1) sachet of shabu,
gave the same to accused-appellant Balinton with instruction for the latter to give an
aluminum foil, which PDEA Agent Subang received. In exchange, PDEA Agent Subang
gave the marked money to accused-appellant Plaza. After the signal, PDEA Agent
Bautista rushed in to arrest both accused-appellants, who resisted. Accused-appellant
Balinton shouted for help and caught the attention of several persons in the
neighborhood. Several persons then arrived, forcing the team to withdraw from the
area to conduct further investigation and did their documentation elsewhere. PDEA
Agent Subang marked the purchased sachet of shabu in transit to the office. The
documentation and actual body search was likewise conducted at the PDEA office.
2. PSInsp. Signar
His testimony was the subject of stipulation. Among the stipulations was that the PNP
Crime Laboratory received a request for laboratory examination involving a sachet
of shabu with corresponding markings from PDEA Agent Subang; that he conducted
laboratory examination on the items, which yielded a positive result for the presence of
methamphetamine hydrochloride; that the two accused-appellants likewise submitted
their urine samples, and the examination thereon also yielded a positive result for the
presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride for accused-appellant Plaza and TLC
metabolites for marijuana for accused-appellant Balinton.
3. Barangay Captain Boholano
Her testimony was likewise subject to stipulation by the prosecutor and defense
counsel. Said stipulations were: that she was the barangay captain of Brgy. Bading,
where accused-appellants were arrested; that she was present during the conduct of
inventory of the drug and non-drug items in the presence of both accused and other
witnesses; and that she signed the Certificate of Inventory.
4. PDEA Agent Bautista
The witness testified that he was a member of the buy-bust team which conducted an
operation against accused-appellants acting as arresting officer. After completion of the
sale, PDEA Agent Bautista received a missed call from PDEA Agent Subang, which was
the pre-arranged signal, he and the rest of the team rushed to arrest both accused who
attempted to run. A scuffle followed. Despite the ensuing commotion, accusedappellants were neutralized. Considering the precarious and dangerous situation, after
the arrest of both accused-appellants, the team withdrew to conduct further
investigation and documentation at the PDEA office.
Accused-appellants, on the other hand, essentially testified as follows:
Accused-appellant Plaza sent a text message to accused-appellant Balinton to drink
liquor and the latter agreed. They consumed two (2) bottles of Red Horse Grande and
decided to go home. It took some time for them to get a tricycle ride home, so they
decided to walk. A tricycle full of passengers blocked their path. A person, who
identified himself as a PDEA agent, then disembarked and threatened them with a
drawn gun. The other passengers (around seven) surrounded them. The first person
tried to handcuff accused-appellant Plaza, and he resisted, which resulted to a brawl.
He was still eventually handcuffed, forced to board a vehicle, and brought to the PDEA
office. At the PDEA office, they were shown an alleged sachet of shabu. They both
vehemently denied the allegations of selling shabu.
Accused-appellants filed a Demurrer to Evidence with Leave of Court. The same was
denied through a Resolution5 dated July 10, 2015.
The RTC Ruling
The RTC found that the elements for proving violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 - (1) identity of the buyer and seller and actual exchange of the prohibited drug
and consideration; and (2) compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and
presentation of the corpus delicti in court – were sufficiently shown.
As to the first element, the same was duly established by the testimony of poseurbuyer PDEA Agent Subang. As the second element, the trial court found substantial
compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Since both prosecution and defense were in
agreement that: (1) the place of incident in front of Iglesia Ni Cristo church was
unlighted; (2) both accused tried to evade arrest and force had to be applied to subdue
accusedappellants; and (3) the ensuing scuffle and noise invited the attention of people
in the neighborhood, the Court was persuaded that justifying circumstances were
present to apply the exception to the rule of strict compliance with Sec. 21.
The conspiracy between accused-appellants was also sufficiently proven. On the other
hand, the defense of general denial and planting of evidence, common defenses in
these cases, were not given credence.
Thus, the RTC ruled against accused-appellants, the dispositive portion of the decision
stated:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused Celso Caenglish Plaza, Jr. alias "Joboy
Plaza" and Joseph Guibao Balinton alias "Joabs" having acted in conspiracy, the Court
finds both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 of Article II
of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 and sentence both accused Plaza and Balinton to suffer the extreme penalty of
Life [I]mprisonment and each to pay a fine of [P]500,000.00, without subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Both accused shall serve this penalty at the Davao Prison and Penal Farm at Braulio
Dujali, Davao del Norte and shall be entitled to the benefits of their preventive
detention in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
The sachet of shabu is ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be dealt with
as the law provides.
SO ORDERED.6
Accused-appellants interposed an appeal from the adverse decision.
The CA Ruling
In its decision, the CA found no merit in the appeal of accused appellants. PDEA Agent
Subang duly established the existence of the elements of an illegal sale of dangerous
drugs. His testimony was replete with details surrounding the consummation of the
sale. As to the failure of the buy-bust team to mark and inventory the shabu at the
crime scene, the CA found the omission adequately explained by PDEA Agent Subang
that they had to hastily leave the crime scene as they feared for their safety and
decided to do the marking, photographing and inventory at the PDEA office. Thus, the
failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was due to security and
logistical considerations, and fully justified owing to these exigent circumstances. On
the other hand, the defense of frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing
evidence, this was not done in this case.
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The 2 February 2016
Decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Butuan City in Criminal Case
No. 14839 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.7
Hence, this appeal.
In compliance with this Court's resolution dated December 13, 2017, accusedappellants filed a Manifestation in Lieu of a Supplemental Brief dated February 20,
2018,8stating that they had sufficiently articulated their claims and arguments in their
appellants' brief submitted to the CA. The Office of the Solicitor General representing
the People of the Philippines filed a Manifestation and Motion9 on February 26, 2018,
stating that all matters and issues raised in the appellants' brief had been extensively
discussed, thus praying that it be excused from filing a supplemental brief.
Issues
Appellants submit to this Court the following issues for resolution:
1. Whether there was a legitimate buy-bust operation; and
2. Whether there was compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165.
Arguments for accused-appellants
Accused-appellants contend that: there was no legitimate buy-bust operation as PDEA
Agent Subang's testimony was inconsistent and unbelievable; since it was a dark place,
it would have been impossible for the accused-appellants to know the amount of money
allegedly handed to them, and it was impossible for PDEA Agent Subang to physically
examine the alleged sachet of shabu; other parts of PDEA Agent Subang's testimony
were improbable, i.e. initially not testifying that he received aluminum foil, that
accused-appellant Plaza had to hand the shabu to accused-appellant Balinton before
reaching PDEA Agent Subang, and that the belt bag was not presented; PDEA Agent
Subang's testimony was uncorroborated; there was non-compliance with Sec. 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 as PDEA Agent Subang admitted that he failed to mark, inventory, and
photograph the sachet of shabu immediately after its seizure; there was no showing
that necessary steps were taken to ensure that the sachet was the same that was
allegedly marked; there was no testimony that the alleged sachet was handled and
stored to preserve its integrity from the time it came into PDEA's custody up to the time
it was presented in court; and PSInsp. Signar failed to show that he took the necessary
steps to ensure the preservation of the integrity of the sachet of shabu.
Arguments for the People
In the appellee's brief, the prosecution maintains that: the objective test in establishing
the credibility of an eyewitness in a buy-bust operation was satisfied; the accusedappellants were positively identified; the inconsistencies in the testimony of PDEA Agent
Subang were minor and do not affect his credibility as an eyewitness; accusedappellants can still identify the P500.00 bill despite the poor lighting in the area; what
was essential in this case was the exchange of money for illegal drugs between PDEA
Agent Subang and accused-appellants; the belt-bag confiscated from accusedappellants not being part of the certificate of inventory was inconsequential as it was
not the corpus delicti; Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 allows for substantial adherence to the
rule provided that the prosecution gives justifiable grounds for the procedural lapses
and it can be proven that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items were
preserved; it was shown that PDEA Agent Subang had exclusive possession of the
sachet of illegal substance; that the PDEA agents were justified in their actions because
of the commotion as well as the aggression from bystanders; the continuous
whereabouts of the subject sachet of shabu were accounted for with moral certainty;
and there were no gaps in the crucial links in the chain of custody.
The Court's Ruling
After a careful review of the records, the Court finds the appeal impressed with merit.
Accused-appellants were charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165,
which pertinently states:
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five
hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be
imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity
and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
For the successful conviction of an accused under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, the
prosecution must prove: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. It is likewise
essential for a conviction that the drugs subject of the sale be presented in court and its
identity established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody over the
same. The prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody
over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as
evidence of the corpus delicti.10
Accused-appellants' arguments can be classified into two: (1) questioning the existence
of a valid buy-bust operation, and (2) the law enforcement agents' compliance with the
chain of custody rule laid down in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. It is on the latter ground
that the Court finds basis for accused-appellants' acquittal.
There was a valid buy-bust operation
Accused-appellants zero in on the seeming inconsistencies of PDEA Agent Subang's
account, thus impugning the buy-bust operation on the basis of these inconsistencies.
The Court is not persuaded.
It should be remembered that in the absence of glaring errors or gross
misapprehension of facts on the part of the CA, the Court accords respect to the
findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses because of the trial court's
unique advantage of directly observing the demeanor of the witnesses as they testified.
There is even more reason for the Court to accord respect when the CA affirmed the
factual findings as the appellate court. In the absence of allegation and proof about the
law enforcement officers harboring any ill motive to falsely testify against the accused,
the factual findings and conclusions of the lower courts on the credibility of a witness
should prevail.11
An analysis of PDEA Agent Subang's testimony reflects truthfulness and the lack of
reason for the Court to doubt the factual findings of the courts a quo on this matter.
The court observes that PDEA Agent Subang's declarations were clear, categorical, and
unwavering, and were substantially corroborated by PDEA Agent Bautista. The positive
identification of accused-appellants by the poseur-buyer as those who peddled
the shabuunequivocally establish the illicit sale as he is the best witness to the
transaction. Moreover, his testimony was substantiated in every material detail by the
other operatives who participated in the buy-bust operation.12From this discussion, the
Court rules that the operation conducted by the PDEA was legitimate.
The chain of custody rule was not strictly followed
The foregoing finding notwithstanding, the Court is constrained to grant the instant
appeal for failure of the prosecution to establish that there is an unbroken chain of
custody.
The showing of the continuous chain of custody fulfills the function of ensuring that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.13 The same
requirement on the custody of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs
is embodied in Sec. 21, R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted
to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done
under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24)
hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and
essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a
partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory
examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72) hours,
conduct an ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous
drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, including the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and
through the PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the
destruction or burning of the same, in the presence of the accused or the person/s from
whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel,
a representative from the media and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected
public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the manner of proper
disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be borne by the
offender: Provided, That those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board,
shall be donated, used or recycled for legitimate purposes: Provide[d], further, That a
representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or
burning of the subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the
custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case.
In all instances, the representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as
determined by the Board;
(6) The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to
personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not
constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or accused refuses or fails to
appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel
within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence
in question, the Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney's
office to represent the former;
(7) After the promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the
representative sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall
inform the Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the
court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA for proper
disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same[.]
This provision was amended in 2014 by R.A. No. 10640 as to paragraphs (1) and (3).
The difference between the requirements in R.A. No. 9165 and R.A. No. 10640 is the
requirement of having representatives of the media or National Prosecution Service
instead of previously requiring the presence of both to witness the inventory process;
and the relaxation of the rule regarding the certification of the forensic laboratory
examiner.
As to the chain of custody, the Court has consistently ruled that the following links must
be established:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer;
Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic
chemist to the court.14
In this case, accused-appellants question the inability of PDEA Agent Subang to mark,
inventory, and photograph the sachet of shabu immediately after its seizure, and the
lack of proof on the necessary steps taken to ensure that the sachet presented to the
RTC was the same that was allegedly marked. Accused-appellants also raise the point
that there was no testimony as to how the alleged sachet was handled and stored to
preserve its integrity. These arguments are well-taken.
As to the failure of PDEA Agent Subang to mark the sachet of shabu immediately after
seizure, it should be emphasized that the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A.
No. 9165 (IRR) provides for an exception to the requirement of the evidence being
marked and photographed soon after the confiscation of the items. Sec. 21 of the IRR
states:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals, Instruments/ Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The
PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the
same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the
place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render
void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items; xxx (underscoring
supplied)
The law itself has provided a possibility of non-compliance due to the impracticability of
the requirement. However, there should be justifiable grounds and such should be
detailed by the prosecution for the Court to consider the exceptional circumstances to
the chain of custody rule.
Here, the prosecution managed to demonstrate the necessity of doing the marking,
inventory and photography-taking belatedly and not at the scene of the crime. As
remarked by the CA:
In this instance, Agent Subang testified that they had to hastily leave the crime scene
as Plaza was able to call his brother through his cellphone. At the moment when Plaza's
brother arrived along with several individuals, the buy-bust team feared for their safety
and thus decided to do the marking, photographing and inventory at the police station
to prevent any untoward incident. 15
xxxx
As revealed in the above-testimony, the failure of the buy-bust team to immediately
comply with the guidelines in Section 21, IRR of R.A. No. 9165 was due to security and
logistical considerations, considering that a mob had began to gather putting the police
operatives[,] lives at risk. 16
There is no reason for the Court to reverse these observations as these are supported
by the testimonies of PDEA Agent Subang and PDEA Agent Bautista. The evidence
offered also show that there were some PDEA agents who suffered hematoma and
contusion17 due to the scuffle between the law enforcement agents and accusedappellants. Thus, PDEA Agent Subang's actions were warranted since their safety was
compromised and they had to suppress the struggle put up by accused-appellants.
Accordingly, the first link in the chain was supported by convincing proof and
testimony.
The second and third links were also adequately demonstrated. PDEA Agent Subang's
statements showed that he was the arresting and investigating officer, and he had
exclusive custody of the drug subject of the buy-bust operation which he personally
brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
However, even if the first three (3) links may have been substantially complied with,
the fourth link is where the Court takes issue.
The forensic chemical officer of the Provincial Crime Laboratory Office PSInsp. Signar
was presented by the prosecution but his testimony was the subject of stipulation. The
complete stipulation of his testimony is as follows:
PROS.
GO:
Your Honor, may we stipulate with the defense the testimony of the witness?
COURT:
Atty. Plaza?
ATTY. PLAZA: Yes, Your Honor.
COURT:
Okay, continue.
PROS.
GO:
1)
That the witness is a licensed Chemical Engineer and an expert witness;
2)
That he has been testifying before this Honorable Court on illegal drug
examination in numerous cases;
3)
That on March 29, 2011, their office, the PNP Crime Laboratory received a
Request for Laboratory Examination involving a one (1) sachet of shabu with
corresponding markings from Agent Alex B. Subang, Jr. of the PDEA;
4)
That, thereafter, he conducted laboratory examination on the items submitted;
5)
That he reduced his findings in writing showing that the specimen yielded a
positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride;
6)
That on the same occasion, their office received a Request for Drug Test
involving the two (2) accused in this case from Agent Subang; and
7)
That the two (2) accused submitted their urine sample for laboratory
examination and that the urine sample yielded positive result for the presence
of methamphetamine hydrochloride for accused Celso Plaza and TLC
metabolites for marijuana for accused Joseph Balinton y Guibao.
For this purpose, we would like to adopt the Request for Laboratory Examination, found
in page 10 of the records of the case and already marked as Exh. "C", with some submarkings, to form part of the evidence of the prosecution.
We likewise adopt the result of examination under Chemistry Report No. D-040-2011
already marked as Exh. "D" and found in page 12 of the records.
Additionally, Your Honor, we pray that the specimen submitted, be marked as Exh. "D1"; the purpose of examination Exh. "D-2"; the Findings and Conclusion as Exh. "D-3";
the signature of the witness as Exh. "D-4''; and the Jurat portion as Exh. "D-5".
COURT:
Okay, mark it.
PROS.
GO:
We also adopt the Request for Drug Test Examination presented by the
prosecution during the testimony of Agent Subang which was already marked
as Exh. "J" for the prosecution, and the stamped portion Exh. "J-1".
We likewise adopt, Your Honor, the result of the drug test examination under
Chemistry Report No. DT-037-2011 thru DT-038-2011 already marked as
Exh. "K" for the prosecution, and found in page 14 of the records.
For this purpose, Your Honor, we pray that the specimen submitted, be
marked as Exh. "K-1"; the purpose of examination as Exh. "K-2"; the
Findings and Conclusion as Exh. "K-3"; the signature of the witness as Exh.
"K-4"; and the Jurat portion as Exh. "K-5".
COURT:
Mark it.
PROS.
GO:
May we ask the witness, Your Honor, to produce the shabu, subject of the
Request for Laboratory Examination submitted by Agent Subang to the PNP
Crime Laboratory?
COURT
(to the witness): You produce the shabu Mr. Witness?
WITNESS:
Here, Your Honor.
(Witness at this juncture, handed to the City Prosecutor a brown envelope)
PROS.
GO:
We request the interpreter to open the envelope and describe the same, Your
Honor.
COURT: (To Court Interpreter) Okay, you open the brown envelope?
COURT INTERPRETER: (Open[s] the envelope and describe the same)
(The said envelope contained markings D-040-2011 0730H 29 March 2011
initials JPS. Contained in said brown envelope is a one (1) small sachet with
markings JBP-1 sealed with a masking tape with markings D-040-2011 A,
initials JPS, 0730H 29 March 2011 0.0524 gram and a signature).
PROS.
GO:
We pray, Your Honor, that the brown envelope containing the item, be
marked as Exh. "G" for the prosecution; and the sachet, be marked as Exh.
"G-1".
COURT:
Mark it.
PROS. GO:
At this point, Your Honor, we are depositing the shabu submitted by Forensic
Chemical Officer Joel P. Signar to the Court for safekeeping.
We have no more proposal, Your Honor.
COURT:
Do you have additional proposal defense counsel?
Atty.
Plaza:
No additional proposal, Your Honor.
PROS. GO:
May we ask that the Chain of Custody document, be marked as our Exh. "L";
the items submitted as Exh. "L-1"; the signature of the receiving officer PO1
Dispo as Exh. "L-2"; the signature of the witness as Exh. "L-3"; and the
signature of the evidence custodian PO1 Migullas as Exh. "L-4".
COURT:
Mark it.
PROS.
GO:
We are through, Your Honor.18
The rule on chain of custody expressly demands the identification of the persons who
handle the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized
movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were
seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. It would include
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to
the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the
exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what
happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received
and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These
witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no
change in the condition of the item and there was no opportunity for someone not in
the chain to have possession of the same.19
It has been held that there is a gap or break in the fourth link of the chain of custody
where there is absence of evidence to show how the seized shabu was handled, stored,
and safeguarded pending its presentation in court.20 In some instances, when the
stipulation failed to identify who received the shabu at the crime laboratory and who
exercised custody and possession before and after it was examined, the Court similarly
considered that there was a gap in the chain of custody.21 The instant case has stark
similarities with the case of People v. Prudencio, where the Court noted:
As mentioned previously, PO1 Magora's testimony never touched upon the details on
how the seized drugs were turned over to the investigating officer, nor on how it was
turned over to the forensic chemist, P/Sr. Insp. Sta. Maria, for laboratory examination.
The only pieces of evidence representing the third link in the chain consisted of the
letter-requests for laboratory examination and for drug test, and the corresponding
chemistry reports issued by P/Sr. Insp. Sta. Maria.
As to the fourth link, when P/Sr. Insp. Sta. Maria was called to the witness stand, the
prosecution and the defense decided to enter into a stipulation regarding what P/Sr.
Insp. Sta. Maria would be testifying on if he were presented. Yet, all they stipulated was
that he would identify the request for laboratory examination, request for drug test, the
subject sachets of shabu, and the chemistry reports.
These pieces of evidence failed to identify the person who personally brought the
seized shabu to the Bulacan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. It also failed to identify
who received the shabu at the crime laboratory and who exercised custody and
possession before and after it was examined. Neither was there evidence to show how
the seized shabu were handled, stored, and safeguarded pending its presentation in
court.
Notably, Section 6, Paragraph 8 of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 2, Series of
2003 requires laboratory personnel to document the chain of custody each time a
specimen is handled or transferred until the specimen is disposed; it also requires the
identification of the individuals participating in the chain. The records are silent
regarding compliance with this regulation.
Simply put, serious lapses in the handling of the seized shabu as well as the evidentiary
gaps or breaks in the chain of custody are fatal to the prosecution's cause. In effect,
the prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of the crimes charged, creating a
reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.22 (citations omitted,
underscoring supplied)
More recently, in People of the Philippines v. Mola, the Court was also dissatisfied with
the mere stipulation of the forensic chemist which lacked in details as to the chain of
custody, viz:
Moreover, in dispensing with the testimony of the forensic chemist, it is evident that the
prosecution failed to show another link in the chain of custody. Since her testimony was
limited to the result of the examination she conducted and not on the source of the
substance, PS/Insp. Malojo Todeño failed to certify that the chemical substance
presented for laboratory examination and tested positive for shabu was the very same
substance recovered from Mola. The turnover and submission of the marked illegal
drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the court was also not established. Neither
was there any evidence to indicate how the sachet of shabu was handled during and
after the laboratory examination and on the identity of the person/s who had custody of
the item before it was presented to the court as evidence. Without the testimonies or
stipulations stating the details on when and how the seized sachet of shabu was
brought from the crime laboratory to the court, as well as the specifics on who actually
delivered and received the same from the crime laboratory to the court, it cannot be
ascertained whether the seized item presented in evidence was the same one
confiscated from Mola upon his arrest. This gap in the chain of custody creates doubt as
to whether the corpus delicti of the crime had been properly preserved.23 (citations
omitted, underscoring supplied)
Even a painstaking review of the records and transcripts yields no results as to
information on the chain of custody between the time PDEA Agent Subang confiscated
the subject sachet of drugs up to the time it was presented in court. Though the Chain
of Custody Document24 was presented during PSInsp. Signar's testimony, the same was
not identified by any witness. While the document contains the signatures of a certain
PO1 Randy Dispo and another recipient of the sachet for "safekeeping," the Court is left
to surmise on whether the proper procedure was followed during this intervening
period. Clearly, there was no identification of all persons who handled the sachet nor
was there testimony as to every relevant link in the chain, nor a showing that all
possible safeguards were done by the law enforcement agents to protect the integrity
of the evidence, as mandated by law and jurisprudence. This goes against the settled
doctrines of this Court requiring these pieces of evidence in the prosecution of drug
cases.
Though the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty is of course available,
it has to be remembered that the presumption of innocence of a person accused of
committing a crime prevails over the presumption of regularity of the performance of
official duty. The presumption of regularity cannot by itself support a judgment of
conviction.25 Further, the Court reiterates its previous rulings that buy-bust teams
should be more meticulous in complying with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to preserve the
integrity of the seized shabu most especially where the weight of the seized item is a
miniscule amount that can be easily planted and tampered with.26
It appears from the way the prosecution presented its case that it took liberties to show
that there was an unbroken chain of custody. However, much as the Court searched to
complete the link of custody of the confiscated dangerous drug, there is a serious gap
in showing how the sachet of shabu transferred hands. The Court must be convinced
that there was no room for the dangerous drug to be replaced by or contaminated with
other pieces of evidence for other cases. The prosecutors in drug cases have to be
reminded that in order to successfully convict these alleged sellers of illegal drugs, they
must show beyond reasonable doubt not only the fact of sale, but that the evidence
presented to the Court is untainted by uncertainty that it is indeed the confiscated item
from the accused. This was unsatisfactorily done by the prosecution. It is the State's
duty to prove, beyond any suspicion, that all elements of the crime are shown,
especially in instances such as this where the dangerous drug involved is extremely
small.27 Such duty the prosecutors cannot simply shirk by inattentive presentation of
evidence.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 25, 2017 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 01534-MIN is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellants Celso Plaza y Caenglish alias Joboy Plaza and
Joseph Guibao Balinton alias Joabs are ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director
of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause their immediate release, unless they
are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of
Corrections is directed to report to this court, within five (5) days from receipt of this
Decision, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General
of Philippine National Police and the Director General of Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency for their information.
SO ORDERED.
CONSPIRACY
In People v. Lababo,33 citing Bahilidad v. People,34 the Court summarized the basic principles in
determining whether conspiracy exists or not. Thus:
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the
crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy
need not be established by direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused
before, during and after the commission of the crime, all taken together, however, the evidence must
be strong enough to show the community of criminal design. For conspiracy to exist, it is essential
that there must be a conscious design to commit an offense. Conspiracy is the product of
intentionality on the part of the cohorts.
It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect
contribution to the execution of the crime committed. The overt act may consist of active participation
in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his [coconspirators] by being present at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over
the other [co-conspirators]. Hence, the mere presence of an accused at the discussion of a
conspiracy, even approval of it, without any active participation in the same, is not enough for
purposes of conviction.35
Conspiracy is said to exist where two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It can be proven by evidence of a chain of
circumstances and may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the
commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of
action and community of interest
[ G.R. No. 227739, January 15, 2020 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSEPH SOLAMILLO AMAGO
AND CERILO BOLONGAITA VENDIOLA, JR., ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
DECISION
PERALTA, C.J.:
On appeal is the May 31, 2016 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC. No.
01953 which affirmed the September 17, 2014 Judgment2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
7th Judicial Region, Branch 30, Dumaguete City, in Criminal Case No. 2013-21877, finding accusedappellants Joseph Solamilio Amago and Cerilo Bolongaita Vendiola, Jr. guilty of violating Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In an Amended Information3 dated September 25, 2013, accused-appellants were charged with
illegal transportation of dangerous drugs, specifically, violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165, committed as follows:
That on or about the 5th day of September, 2013 in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, JOSEPH SOLAMILLO AMAGO
and CERILO BOLONGAITA VENDIOLA, JR. conspiring, confederating and mutually aiding each
other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly deliver or transport six 6 pieces
elongated heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet/s containing white crystalline substance weighing
0.05 gram/s, 0.06 gram/s, 0.05 gram/s, 0.06 gram/s, 0.02 gram/s and 0.07 gram/s, respectively, or
with a total aggregate weight of 0.31 [gram], more or less, without any lawful authority or permission
to deliver or transport the same and which substances after examination conducted on specimen
was found positive to the test of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a
dangerous drug, in violation of Republic Act No. 9165.
That the accused JOSEPH SOLAMILLO AMAGO was found positive for Methamphetamine, a
dangerous drug, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. DT-105-13.
That the accused CERILO BOLONGAITA VENDIOLA, JR., was found positive for
Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. DT-106-13.
Contrary to Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.4
In their arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty5 and the trial of the case subsequently
ensued.
The prosecution presented Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Josephine Llena, Police Officer 3 (PO3)
Edilmar Manaban, Police Officer 2 (PO2) Rico Larena, Police Auxiliary Unit (PAU) member Emilio
Silva Pinero, Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Don Richmon Conag, PO2 Placido Xandro Paclauna,
Police Officer 1 (PO1) Ranie Cuevas Lee, Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Anthony
Chilius Benlot, Barangay Banilad Kagawads Ceasar A. Parong and Alfredo M. Omoyon, and media
representatives Juancho Gallarde and Anthony Maginsay as its witnesses. Meanwhile, the defense
presented accused-appellants as its witnesses.
Version of the Prosecution
On September 5, 2013, at around 8:00 a.m., PO2 Larena was on duty at the Dumaguete City Police
Station, together with Piñero, a civilian contractual employee of the City of Dumaguete detailed with
the PAU, a program for the city to augment the police force. They were ordered by PSI Conag to join
in the conduct of a police checkpoint along the South National Highway, at the crossing of Sta.
Monica Road, Barangay Banilad, Dumaguete City, as a security measure to strengthen precautions
against any possible terror plans by any threat group or indivMual law violator. PO2 Larena and
Piñero went to the said area at around 8:30 a.m. of the same day. They positioned themselves at
about one hundred (100) meters away from the checkpoint sign for northbound vehicles to pass
through them before reaching the actual checkpoint stand sign.6
At around 9:45 a.m. of the same day, PO2 Larena and Piñero noticed two (2) persons onboard a
blue and black Honda Wave 125 motorcycle, bearing LTO plate number 2352 IR, pass by their
location. Before reaching the checkpoint sign, the driver of the motorcycle appeared to be rattled and
he abruptly executed a U-turn and went back towards the direction of PO2 Larena and Piñero. The
action of the two (2) persons led PO2 Larena and Piñero to believe that they have committed traffic
violations or were transporting/delivering something illegal. PO2 Larena was prompted to walk in the
middle of the road and Piñero to drive his motorcycle to block the two (2) motorists. Before the two
(2) motorists could reach PO2 Larena and Piñero, the driver intentionally slumped down his
motorcycle and, in doing so, his t-shirt was lifted, enabling PO2 Larena to see in plain view the
handle of a handgun that was tucked in his waistband. PO2 Larena and Piñero cautiously went over
to the driver and his companion. PO2 Larena asked the driver for the necessary license and permit
to carry the said firearm. However, the driver could not produce the necessary papers, leading to his
arrest for illegal possession of firearm by PO2 Larena; he was simultaneously apprised of his
constitutional rights in the Visayan dialect. Subsequently, the driver was identified as Amago.
Meanwhile, at the same instance that the motorcycle was slumped down, Piñero saw a folding knife
protrude from the left pocket of the passenger. As he informed PO2 Larena of what he saw, they
confiscated the knife from the passenger.7
As PO2 Larena confiscated from Amago the loaded handgun which was a caliber .45 pistol colt with
serial number 566124, he bodily searched Amago and was able to recover and seize another load of
magazine, a black-colored holster, a cellular phone, and money amounting to five hundred sixty
pesos (P560.00). The utility box of the motorcycle was also searched by PO2 Larena to check if
there were other illegal firearms concealed inside. Eventually it was found out that the utility box
contained one (1) peppermint gum container with six (6) elongated heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachets containing white crystalline granules. From his training and experience, PO2 Larena was
able to conclude that the sachets contained "shabu." This led to the rearrest of Amago for illegal
possession of "shabu" and was again apprised of his constitutional rights in Visayan dialect.8
At the crime scene, PO2 Larena marked the six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with
"JSA-P1-9-5-13" to "JSA-P6-9-5-13" then signed the same. JSA stood for Joseph Solamillo Amago,
P stood for the crime of possession, and numbers 9-5-13 referred to the date of the incident. The
other items that were recovered from Amago were also marked at the crime scene. Subsequent to
the marking of the items recovered from Amago, PO2 Larena arrested the passenger for illegal
possession of bladed weapon and was apprised of his constitutional rights, also in the Visayan
dialect. Incident to his arrest, the passenger was bodily searched, which resulted in the recovery and
seizure of one (1) improvised tooter and one (1) folder strip of aluminum foil suspected to be used
for illegal drugs. The passenger was later identified as Vendiola. At the crime scene, PO2 Larena
marked the three (3) items confiscated from Vendiola, as follows: "CBVJ-P1-9-5-13" for the
improvised tooter; "CBVJ-P2-9-5-13" for the folding knife; and "CBVJ-P3-9-5-13" for the aluminum
foil.9 The same method was used in marking the items seized from Vendiola.
After marking the items confiscated from accused-appellants, PO2 Larena conducted an inventory of
the seized items in their presence, together with Barangay Banilad Kagawad Felomino Flores, Jr.,
Omoyon, Parong, Maginsay,and Gallarde, who signed the two (2) receipts/inventories prepared by
PO2 Paclauna, who was ordered to proceed to the crime scene. PO2 Larena as seizing officer and
PO1 Lee, the assigned photographer, signed both receipts/inventories during the conduct of the
inventory. PO2 Larena and Pinero then brought the seized and confiscated items, together with
accused-appellants, to the Dumaguete City Police Station for the continuation of the inventory, as
well as the standard booking procedure. The inventory was continued at the City Anti-Illegal Drugs
Operations Task Group office inside the police station as the DOJ representative, Benlot, arrived
and signed both receipts/inventories upon verification that the items listed tallied with the items he
saw on the table. When the inventory was finished, PO2 Larena placed the six (6) transparent plastic
sachets, containing suspected "shabu," inside a brown envelope and sealed it with a masking tape
and affixed his signature thereon. PO2 Larena then prepared a Memorandum Request for
Laboratory Examination and Drug Test for Amago and a Memorandum Request for Drug Test for
Vendiola, addressed to the Provincial Chief of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory Office
in Dumaguete City and signed by PSI Benedick Poblete.10
It was PO3 Manaban from the crime laboratory who received the tape-sealed envelope containing
six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings "JSA-P1-9-5-13" to "JSA-P6-9-5-13,"
indicated in the Memorandum Request, at 2:15 p.m. Upon checking if the contents tallied with the
Memorandum Request, PO3 Manaban resealed the envelope and kept the items inside his locker to
which he has the only access to. Afterwards, PO3 Manaban took separate urine samples from
accused-appellants and kept the same in the refrigerator in the laboratory. At 6:05 a.m. of
September 6, 2013, PO3 Manaban submitted Jo a forensic chemist of the crime laboratory, PCI
Llena, the tape-sealed envelope containing the seized items. Upon receipt, PCI Llena made her own
markings on the specimens, and weighed them that resulted with an aggregate weight of 0.31 gram.
The conduct of a qualitative examination on the seized items yielded a positive result for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Her findings and conclusions were indicated in her Chemistry
Report No. D-156-13. Urine samples were taken from accused-appellants, and the screening and
confirmatory tests conducted gave a positive result for the presence of Methamphetamine. The
results were indicated in Chemistry Report No. DT-105-13 and Chemistry Report No. DT-106-13.
The pieces of evidence were then kept in the evidence vault of the crime laboratory, accessed only
by PCI Llena, prior to the submission to the court for trial.11
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellants as its witnesses, and the following facts were
established in their combined testimonies.
Amago is married, worked as a bamboo furniture maker, and a resident of Barangay Lutao, Bacong,
Negros Oriental. On the other hand, Vendiola is married, worked as an ambulance driver, and is a
resident of West Poblacion, Bacong, Negros Oriental. Accused-appellants are longtime friends and
neighbors as they are residents of adjacent barangays.12
At about 7:00 a.m. of September 5, 2013, Amago was at his house tending to his cow and at past
8:00 a.m., he decided to go to Dumaguete City to collect his receivables from his customers on Sta.
Rosa Street, Dumaguete City who previously bought bamboo furniture on installment basis.
Meanwhile, also at around 8:00 a.m., Vendiola just finished his duty as an ambulance driver of
Bacong Municipal Health Office. As he was off duty, Vendiola immediately went to a privately-owned
auto repair shop because the ambulance he was using needed an oil change. The shop mechanic
then told him that he needed an oil filter to be procured by him at Diesel Auto Parts in Tabuc-tubig,
Dumaguete City.13
During that time, Amago was traversing the South National Highway onboard a borrowed motorcycle
allegedly owned by Roger Pamen. Vendiola saw Amago and asked where Amago was headed.
Amago replied that he was on his way to Dumaguete City and Vendiola asked for a ride since he
was also headed to Dumaguete City to buy the said oil filter. Upon reaching Dumaguete City, Amago
saw a checkpoint sign somewhere near Sta. Monica Road, Banilad, Dumaguete City. He slowed
down and eventually stopped before reaching the checkpoint knowing that the registration of the
borrowed motorcycle had already expired. While both accused-appellants were parked on the
shoulder of the road, they were approached by a male person in civilian clothes who introduced
himself as a police officer and later identified by Amago as PO2 Paclauna. Right after, Amago was
asked to show his driver's license and registration. He told PO2 Paclauna that the motorcycle he
was driving had an expired registration and that it was borrowed. Eventually, PO2 Paclauna
informed Amago that he would impound the motorcycle.14
Thereafter, Vendiola disembarked from the motorcycle while Amago remained seated there. PO1
Lee approached Vendiola and the two spoke with each other; Amago did not hear the conversation.
PO1 Lee then approached and informed PO2 Paclauna that Amago still had not returned the three
thousand pesos (P3,000.00) that PO1 Lee gave him for the bamboo intended for the fence of his
house. PO2 Paclauna responded and told PO1 Lee, "butangan nato ni" which means that they
would plant evidence against Amago. Right after, PO2 Paclauna kicked the motorcycle while Amago
was still seated thereon that resulted in Amago falling from the motorcycle. Vendiola tried to
approach Amago but he was told by PO1 Lee to go away. PO1 Lee then dragged Vendiola towards
a Tamaraw FX which was parked about fifty (50) meters away from where Amago fell. Afterwards,
PO1 Lee bodily searched Vendiola and recovered from him a request slip from the shop mechanic, a
folding knife, and twenty-five pesos (P25.00); afterwards, Vendiola was made to board the Tamaraw
FX.15
On the other hand, Amago was handcuffed by PO2 Paclauna, together with another police officer in
civilian clothes, and was dragged towards the grassy portion near an acacia tree in the same
direction where the Tamaraw FX was parked. Later on, a table taken from the Tamaraw FX was set
up on a grassy area. The items recovered and seized from Amago were placed on the table. It was
then when Amago was told that the six (6) sachets, containing suspected "shabu," came from the
utility box of the borrowed motorcycle he was driving.16
When Amago was detained, it was the only time when he found out that he was charged with
possession of illegal drugs. Surprisingly, when Amago was preparing his counter-affidavit, he was
informed that he was already being charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Amago denied the crimes charged against him and claimed that he had no knowledge of the drugs
that were allegedly taken from the motorcycle he was driving.17
Vendiola, on the other hand, did not know that he was already arrested when he was made to board
the Tamaraw FX. He also denied ownership of the drug paraphernalia allegedly recovered from him.
He was surprised by the fact that he was being chafed with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165 as there were no illegal drugs confiscated from him. Lastly, he denied knowing PO2
Larena and Pinero prior to the incident nor does he have any grudge with either of the two.18
RTC Ruling
After trial, the RTC handed a guilty verdict on accused-appellants for violation of Article II, Section 5
of R.A. No. 9165 for the sale, trade, delivery, administration, dispensation, distribution and
transportation of shabu. The dispositive portion of the September 17, 2014 Judgment19 states:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the two (2) accused JOSEPH SOLAMILLO AMAGO and
CERILO BOLONGAITA VENDIOLA, JR. are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
offense of illegal transport of 0.31 gram of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and
are hereby sentenced each to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and each to pay a fine of Five
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings "JSA-P1-9-5-13" to "JSA-P6-9-513" and containing 0.05 gram, 0.06 gram, 0.05 gram, 0.06 gram, 0.02 gram and 0.07 gram,
respectively, or with a total aggregate weight of 0.31 gram of shabu are hereby confiscated and
forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
In the service of sentence, the accused JOSEPH SOLAMILLO AMAGO and CERILO BOLONGAITA
VENDIOLA, JR. shall be credited with the full time during which they have undergone preventive
imprisonment, provided they agree voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules
imposed upon convicted prisoners.
SO ORDERED.20
CA Ruling
Accused-appellants, on appeal, assigned before the CA the following issues:
[I.]
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING AS EVIDENCE THE SEIZED ITEM
BEING THE FRUIT OF A POISONOUS TREE.
[II.]
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS
DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME
CHARGED.
[III.]
THE HONORABLE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE EXISTENCE OF CONSPIRACY IN
THE INSTANT CASE.21
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Judgment. It was convinced that the trial court was correct in
admitting the seized items as evidence as the warrantless search was incidental to a lawful arrest.
The CA was in the position that the fact that there is actual conveyance suffices to support a finding
that the act of transporting is committed and it is immaterial whether the place of destination is
reached. On the issue of conspiracy, taking into consideration all the circumstances, the CA
inevitably led to conclude that there was a concerted action between accused-appellants before and
during the time when the offense was carried out, which ably demonstrated their unity of design and
objective to transport the dangerous drugs. Lastly, according to the CA, there was no reason to
detract from the trial court's pronouncement, the same being supported by the records; thus,
accused-appellants' defense of denial deserves scant consideration as it is viewed with disfavor.
Before us, the People manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief in view of the
adequate discussion of the relevant issues and arguments in its Brief for the Appellee.22 On the
other hand, accused-appellants submitted a Supplemental Brief.23 Essentially, they maintain their
main arguments in the CA that the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from them were inadmissible in
evidence for being the fruit of a poisonous tree, the elements of the crime charged were not
sufficiently established, and the conspiracy in the commission of the crime was not proven.
Our Ruling
We find the appeal bereft of merit.
On the first assignment of error, the record shows that there have been valid in flagrante
delicto arrests. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the
occasions on which a person may be arrested without a warrant, to wit:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
As per the established facts during the trial, the instant case falls within paragraph (a). For a
warrantless arrest of an accused caught in flagrante delicto to be valid, two requisites must concur:
(1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence or within the view of the arresting officer.24
It is apparent that Amago's act of making an abrupt U-turn, instead of stopping at the checkpoint
sign, made a reasonable belief for the police officers to suspect that accused-appellants might have
committed some traffic violations or delivering something illegal. The police officers stopped them
and, in the course, Amago intentionally slumped down the motorcycle he was riding causing his tshirt to be lifted, thereby exposing the handle of a handgun that was tucked in his waistband. At the
same time, Piñero saw a folding knife protruding from the left pocket of Vendiola who had fallen from
the motorcycle. Due to the failure of Amago to produce any license to carry the firearm and for the
illegal possession of a bladed weapon by Vendiola, they were arrested.
Meanwhile, regarding the admissibility of the confiscated items, they fall within the exception of
warrantless search. The search conducted inside the utility box of the motorcycle was legal. A
search incident to a lawful arrest under Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court states:
SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for
dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of
an offense without a search warrant.
In the instant case, tire shabu was found in a peppermint gum container inside the utility box of
accused-appellants' motorcycle that was within their immediate control. Therefore, it is within the
permissible area that the apprehending officers could validly execute a warrantless search incidental
to a lawful arrest.
In People v. Uyboco,25 this Court declared that:
In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a
warrantless search not only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within the
latter's reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons
either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The phrase
"within the area of his immediate control" means the area from within which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.26
It is worth mentioning that in the present case, there was a strict compliance with the chain of
custody rule under Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 which specifies that:
The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof.
In the instant case, the prosecution presented PO1 Lee, Benlot, Parong, Omoyon, Gallarde and
Maginsay as witnesses who were all present during the inventory. All the persons mentioned above
were required witnesses mandated by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. In fact, the handling of evidence
in the crime laboratory was specifically proven by the prosecution to have been preserved with
integrity. Hence, there is no room for doubt and there are no other reasons for the seized items not
to be admitted as evidence in this case.
On the second issue, under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal delivery or transportation
of prohibited drugs, the provision reads:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law,
shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
Accused-appellants contend that the prosecution failed to prove the fact of delivery or transport of
the seized illegal drugs by them to another person or entity. They are in the position that the act of
passing on the dangerous drugs from one to the other must be established. The mere presence of
dangerous drugs inside the motorcycle should not be construed to mean that such items were
intended for delivery.
This Court does not agree.
"Transport" as used under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 means "to carry or
convey x x x from one place to another." The essential element of the charge is the movement of the
dangerous drug from one place to another.27
There is no definitive moment when an accused "transports" a prohibited drug. When the
circumstances establish the purpose of an accused to transport and the fact of transportation itself,
there should be no question as to the perpetration of the criminal act. The fact that there is actual
conveyance suffices to support a finding that the act of transporting was committed.28
In the instant case, records established that accused-appellants were found in possession of six (6)
sachets containing shabu. It cannot be denied that they used a motor vehicle to transport the said
illegal drugs from one place to another. As stated earlier, transportation means to carry or convey
from one place to another, the fact alone that the accused-appellants were found in possession of
the illegal drugs while traversing the South National Highway is sufficient to justify their conviction.
1avvphil
Accused-appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove the fact of delivery or transport of the
seized illegal drugs to another person or entity. They are in the position that the act of passing on the
dangerous drugs from one to the other must be established and the mere presence of a dangerous
drug inside the vehicle could not be construed to mean that such item is intended for delivery.
We do not agree.
The case of People v. Del Mundo29 provides that:
The very act of transporting a prohibited drug, like in the instant case, is a malum prohibitum since it
is punished as an offense under a special law. The mere commission of the act constitutes the
offense and is sufficient to validly charge and convict an individual committing the act, regardless of
criminal intent.
Since the crime is malum prohibitum, it is inconsequential to prove that the illegal drugs were
delivered or transported to another person. The only thing that had to be proven was the movement
of the illegal drugs from one place to another. The records show that the prosecution has
successfully proven such fact. The testimony of PO2 Larena sufficiently provided the following
details in his direct testimony:
Q: Mister Witness, basing the direction of the Dumaguete City, which side of the road were you
located?
A: Right side ma'am.
Q: When you were near the crossing of San Jose, what happened?
A: We noticed two (2) persons riding in tandem going to the North direction.
xxxx
Q: What were used by the two (2) persons?
A: Motorcycle color blue and black ma'am.
Q: When you noticed the two (2) persons, what happened next?
A: They passed to where we stood up going towards the North direction ma'am and before they
reached the next stand sign ma'am, they made a U-turn ma'am.
Q: Were you able to see them from the position where you were positioned?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: When you noticed them making a U-turn, what happened next?
A: So I and my buddy went immediately to the middle of the road to block the said motorist
ma'am.30
The evidence on record established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellants were in
possession of the illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. The items were found inside the vehicle they
were using at the time they were apprehended. In fact, accused-appellants tried to evade arrest by
making an abrupt U-turn before reaching the checkpoint. They were also in possession of an illegal
firearm and a bladed weapon. It is worthy to note that they both tested positive for the use of illegal
drugs. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the present case, there is no doubt that
accused-appellants were transporting illegal drugs. Their bare, unsubstantiated, unpersuasive and
uncorroborated denials will not suffice to absolve them from any liability.
The Court stressed in People v. Maongco, et al.31 that:
Moreover, accused-appellants' uncorroborated defenses of denial and claims of frame-up cannot
prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti. The testimonies of police officers who caught the accused-appellants in
flagrante delicto are usually credited with more weight and credence, in the absence of evidence that
they have been inspired by an improper or ill motive, than the defenses of denial and frame-up of an
accused which have been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted. In order to
prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence,
which accused-appellants failed to present in this case.32 (Citation omitted)
The last issue presented by the accused-appellants is their position that the conspiracy in the
commission of the crime was not proven. They argued that in the instant case, the prosecution failed
to establish that both of them assented to the same act of delivering or transporting the six (6)
sachets of shabu.
We are not persuaded.
In People v. Lababo,33 citing Bahilidad v. People,34 the Court summarized the basic principles in
determining whether conspiracy exists or not. Thus:
There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of
a felony and decide to commit it. Conspiracy is not presumed. Like the physical acts constituting the
crime itself, the elements of conspiracy must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. While conspiracy
need not be established by direct evidence, for it may be inferred from the conduct of the accused
before, during and after the commission of the crime, all taken together, however, the evidence must
be strong enough to show the community of criminal design. For conspiracy to exist, it is essential
that there must be a conscious design to commit an offense. Conspiracy is the product of
intentionality on the part of the cohorts.
It is necessary that a conspirator should have performed some overt act as a direct or indirect
contribution to the execution of the crime committed. The overt act may consist of active participation
in the actual commission of the crime itself, or it may consist of moral assistance to his [coconspirators] by being present at the commission of the crime or by exerting moral ascendancy over
the other [co-conspirators]. Hence, the mere presence of an accused at the discussion of a
conspiracy, even approval of it, without any active participation in the same, is not enough for
purposes of conviction.35
Conspiracy is said to exist where two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit it. It can be proven by evidence of a chain of
circumstances and may be inferred from the acts of the accused before, during, and after the
commission of the crime which indubitably point to and are indicative of a joint purpose, concert of
action and community of interest.36 The CA correctly ruled that conspiracy existed based from the
totality of the circumstances of the instant case. The CA held that:
Based on the evidence on record, We do not entertain any doubt that conspiracy had animated the
perpetrators in delivering or transporting the seized illegal drugs: Amago conspired with Vendiola in
a common desire to transport the dangerous drugs using the motorcycle. Both were positively
identified to have been respectively carrying a firearm, a folding knife, an improvised tooter and a
folded strip of aluminum foil. As they approached the checkpoint sign, accused-appellants appeared
rattled and hastily executed a u-turn, which clearly manifest that they were committing some offense.
They were then apprehended for illegal possession of firearm and illegal possession of a bladed
weapon. The arrest further resulted to the confiscation of the illegal drugs in the u-box of the
motorcycle. It is worth noting as well that both the accused-appellants tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.37
The evidence shows that the chain of circumstances necessarily leads to the conclusion that there
was concerted action between accused-appellants, with the objective of transporting illegal drugs.
Based on the foregoing, we sustain accused-appellants' conviction.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the September 17, 2014 Judgment38 of the Regional Trial
Court in Criminal Case No. 2013-21877, finding Joseph Solamillo Amago and Cerilo Bolongaita
Vendiola, Jr. guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and the May 31, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
CR-HC. No. 01953, which affirmed the September 17, 2014 Judgment of the RTC, are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.