Crim 2 ra 9165 and 10640 and other related cases

7/24/2019 Crim 2 ra 9165 and 10640 and other related cases

1/64

Republic of the PhilippinesCongress of the Philippines

Metro Manila

Sixteenth Congress

First Regular Session

Begun and held in Metro Manila, on Monday, the twenty-second day of July, two thousand thirteen.

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10640

AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FORTHE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE

COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act o2002, is hereby amended to read as follows:

SEC. 21.Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources ofDangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or LaboratoryEquipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerousdrugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratoryequipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors andessential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure andconfiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accusedor the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with anelected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required tosign 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 nearesoffice of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Providedfinally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and theevidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render voidand invalid such seizures and custody over said items.

x x x

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratoryexaminer, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume odangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allowthe 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: Providedhowever, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination andcertification;

x x x.

SEC. 2. Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). To implement effectively the provisions of Section 21, thePhilippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) shall issue the necessary guidelines on the IRR for the purpose inconsultation with the Department of Justice (DO J) and relevant sectors to curb increasing drug cases.

SEC. 3. Separability Clause. If any provision or part hereof is held invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of thelaw or the provision not otherwise affected shall remain valid and subsisting.


2/64

SEC. 4. Repealing Clause.All laws, presidential decrees or issuances, executive orders, letters of instructionadministrative orders, rules and regulations contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are herebyrepealed, modified or amended accordingly.

SEC. 5. Effectivity. This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2)newspapers of general circulation.

Approved,


3/64

SECOND DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 183101Appellee,Present:CARPIO, J., Chairperson,- versus - PERALTA,

ABAD,

VILLARAMA, JR.,*

andMENDOZA, JJ.

NOEL CATENTAY,Appellant. Promulgated:

July 6, 2010x ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

This case is about the duty of the prosecution in a prohibited drugs case to prove the integrity of the corpusdelictiby establishing the chain of custody of the allegedly illegal substance that the police officers seized from theaccused.

The Facts and the Case

On April 19, 2004 the Assistant City Prosecutor of Quezon City filed two separate informations against theaccused Noel Doroja Catentay aliasBoy (Catentay) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of that city in CriminaCases Q-04-126517 and Q-04-126518 for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165,otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The cases were tried together.[1]

At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated: (1) that PO1 Reyno Riparip (Riparip), the Investigator-On-Case

investigated the case before referring it to the inquest prosecutor; (2) that Riparip prepared the referral letter forinquest, the joint affidavit of the arresting officers, and the request for laboratory examination though he had nopersonal knowledge as to the circumstances of the arrest of Catentay or the source of the specimens; and (3) thatLeonard M. Jabonillo, a forensic chemical officer, received the request for laboratory examination of the specimeninvolved, examined the same, and found it positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).[2]

PO3 Gerardo Quimson, a police officer, testified that on April 14, 2004 his anti-illegal drugs unit received areport of drug trafficking by Catentay at a billiard hall.[3]This prompted the police to conduct a buy-bust operation athe place.

PO3 Quimson was to serve as the poseur-buyer while PO2 Valdez was to serve as pick-up officer. During thebriefing, PO3 Quimson marked a 100-peso bill with his initials GQ to serve as buy-bust money. After the briefing, theteam proceeded to the subject billiard hall with their informant. The latter introduced PO3 Quimson to Catentay as

someone who wanted to buy P100.00 worth of shabu. After PO3 Quimson gave the money, Catentay took out twoheat-sealed, transparent plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance from his pocket and handed onesachet to the police officer.[4]

Upon receiving the sachet, PO3 Quimson scratched his head to signal the consummation of thetransaction. PO2 Valdez then approached and with Quimson introduced themselves to Catentay as policeofficers. They apprised him of his constitutional rights, arrested him, and seized from him the other heat-sealed sachetand the buy-bust money. PO3 Quimson then wrote the letters GQ on the sachet he bought from Catentay and GQ-1on the other sachet they seized from him.[5]

The officers turned over Catentay and the items they got from him to the desk officer at the police station. Theinvestigator, whom PO3 Quimson did not identify, then submitted the sachets of white crystalline substances to the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn1


4/64

Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination. These were found positive for methylamphetaminehydrochloride or shabu.[6]

In court, PO3 Quimson identified the sachets of shabu he got from Catentay. Instead of presenting PO2Valdez, the parties stipulated (1) that he was a police officer; (2) that he was involved as arresting officer in the buy-bust operation; (3) that he recovered the buy-bust money from Catentay; and (4) that he can identify him and the buy-bust money used.[7]

As expected, Catentay presented the court with a different version. He claims that on April 14, 2004 he was

plying his route as a tricycle driver when PO3 Quimson, PO1 Riparip, and PO2 Valdez flagged him down. They invitedhim to come to the police station to answer questions from their commanding officer. When he asked them what theywere arresting him for, they simply replied that they wanted to ask from him the whereabouts of his neighbor, RogerGeronimo.

When Catentay arrived at the station, they brought him to a room and there blindfolded, beat, and questionedhim. After removing his blindfold, PO1 Riparip showed him two plastic sachets and instructed hiscompanions, Tuluyan nyo na yan, bahala na kayo dyan. Catentay pleaded with the officers but they told him to jusexplain the matter to the prosecutor. Catentay maintains that the only reason the police charged him was his refusato cooperate with them in their investigation of his neighbor. Aside from denying the charges, he questioned the legalityof his arrest.[8]

On October 26, 2005 the trial court rendered a decision, dismissing Criminal Case Q-04-126517 since the

crime of possession charged in it was absorbed by the crime of selling dangerous drugs charged in the other case asthe Court enunciated in People v. Lacerna.[9]But, finding PO3 Quimsons testimony credible and not doubtful x x xclear and forthright,[10]the trial court found Catentay guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case Q-04-126518of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 or the illegal selling of 0.03 grams of methylamphetamine hydrohloridea dangerous drug, and sentenced him to the penalties of life imprisonment and fine of P500,000.00 .[11]

Upon review, the Court of Appeals (CA) rendered a decision dated January 15, 2008, affirming in full thedecision of the trial court.[12]Catentay appealed to this Court, repeating the same arguments he presented before theCA.[13]

The Issue Presented

The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in finding sufficient evidence that Catentay sold prohibiteddrugs to a police officer in a buy-bust operation in a billiard hall.

The Ruling of the Court

The burden of the prosecution in a case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs is to prove (1) the identities of thebuyer and the seller; (2) the sale of dangerous drugs; and (3) the existence of the corpus delictior the illicit drug asevidence.[14]

Early this year, this Court expounded on the requirement of proof of the existence of the prohibited drugs. Theprosecution has to establish the integrity of the seized article in that it had been preserved from the time the samewas seized from the accused to the time it was presented in evidence at the trial .[15]Here, the prosecution establishedthrough PO1 Quimsons testimony that he got the two sachets of white crystalline substances from Catentay and

marked them with his initials.Since he testified that the sachets were heat-sealed and that he placed his initials onthem, that would have been sufficient to ensure the integrity of the substances until they shall have reached the handsof the forensic chemist.

The integrity of the seized articles would remain even if PO1 Quimson coursed their transmittal to the crimelaboratory through the investigator-on-case since they had been sealed and marked. It does not matter that anotheperson, probably a police courier would eventually deliver the sealed substances by hand to the crime laboratory. But,unfortunately, because the prosecution did not present the forensic chemist who opened the sachets and examinedthe substances in them, the latter was unable to attest to the fact that the substances presented in court were thesame substances he found positive for shabu.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn7


5/64

In his dissenting opinion, Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., points out that the stipulations among the parties athe pre-trial dispensed with the need to present the forensic chemist. The pertinent stipulations read:

x x x x

(2) That the said forensic chemical officer [Engr. Leonard M. Jabonillo] was the one whopersonally received the letter of request for laboratory examination together with thespecimens subject matter of the case involving two (2) heat sealed transparent plastic sachets,each containing white crystalline substance with the following markings and recorded net

weights: A(GQ)= 0.03 gram and B(GQ1)= 0.03 gram;

(3) That the purpose of the examination was to determine the presence of the dangerousdrugs. Thereafter, the said forensic chemical officer, Engr. Leonard M. Jabonillo conducted aqualitative examination on the specimens that gave positive results to the test for dangerousdrugs;

(4) That the result was reduced into writing and signed by the said forensic chemicalofficer, duly noted by the Chief of the Crime Laboratory;

(5) That the witness will identify the document as well as the specimens he examined;and

(6) That the forensic chemical officer has no personal knowledge as to the source ofthe specimens, subject of the case.[16]

The chemistry report, said the dissenting opinion, carried with it the presumption of truth that the seizedspecimen contained prohibited drugs. And since the parties stipulated that the forensic chemist personally receivedthe specimen, undoubtedly, the two plastic sachets containing shabu that were seized from Catentay were the samesachets submitted for examination and found positive for shabu. PO3 Quimson, the police officer, identified the plasticsachets in court.

But, while Catentay stipulated that the forensic chemist examined the contents of the same plastic sachetsthat he personally received from the police, Catentay made no stipulation that the substance contained in the plasticsachets that were actually presented in court is the same substance that the forensic chemist examined and found

positive for shabu. The Court is guided by its ruling in People v. Habana

[17]

which describes how the integrity of thesubstance seized from the accused might be preserved. Thus:

Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to asupervising officer, who would then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory fortesting. Since it is unavoidable that possession of the substance changes hand a number oftimes, it is imperative for the officer who seized the substance from the suspect to place hismarking on its plastic container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that cannotbe removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. At the trial, the officer can thenidentify the seized substance and the procedure he observed to preserve its integrity until itreaches the crime laboratory.

If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should put it in one and seal the

same. In this way the substance would assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition itwas seized from the accused. Further, after the laboratory technician tests and verifies thenature of the substance in the container, he should put his own mark on the plastic containerand seal it again with a new seal since the police officers seal has been broken. At the trial, thetechnician can then describe the sealed condition of the plastic container when it was handedto him and testify on the procedure he took afterwards to preserve its integrity.

If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution would haveto present every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, theentire chain of custody, no matter how briefly ones possession has been. Each of them has totestify that the substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted whilein his care.[18]
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/july2010/183101.htm#_ftn17


6/64

In this case, although the plastic sachets that the forensic chemist received were heat-sealed and

authenticated by the police officer with his personal markings, the forensic chemist broke the seal, opened the plasticsachet, and took out some of the substances for chemical analysis. No evidence had been adduced to show that theforensic chemist properly closed and resealed the plastic sachets with adhesive and placed his own markings on theresealed plastic to preserve the integrity of their contents until they were brought to court. Nor was any stipulationmade to this effect. The plastic sachets apparently showed up at the pre-trial, not bearing the forensic chemists seal,and was brought from the crime laboratory by someone who did not care to testify how he came to be in possessionof the same. The evidence did not establish the unbroken chain of custody.

Given the prosecutions failure to establish the integrity of the allegedly illegal substances that the police tookfrom Catentay and presented in court, the latters acquittal is inevitable.

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the January 15, 2008 decision of the Court oAppeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 01712 and ACQUITSthe accused-appellant Noel Catentay yDoroja alias Boy for failureof the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediatelyRELEASEDfrom detentionunless he is confined for another lawful cause.

SO ORDERED.


7/64

SECOND DIVISION

THE PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus -

ZAIDA KAMAD y AMBING,Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 174198

Present:

CARPIO, J., Chairperson,CORONA,*BRION,

ABAD, andPEREZ, JJ.

Promulgated:January 19, 2010

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- xD E C I S I O N

BRION, J.:

We review the decision[1]of the Court of Appeals[2](CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00505 which affirmed intoto the decision[3]of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 259, Paraaque City[4]in Criminal Case Nos. 02-1236-7finding Zaida[5]Kamad y Ambing (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu undeSection 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Along with her boyfriend Leo Ramirez y Acosta (Leo) who was charged for illegal possession of shabu, theaccused-appellant was charged under an Information[6]that reads:

The above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerousdrug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully andfeloniously give away, distribute and sell to a customer for P300.00 pesos one (1) small heat sealedtransparent plastic sachet containing crystalline substance (shabu) weighing 0.20 gram, which whenexamined were found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, inviolation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

The accused-appellant pleaded not guilty on arraignment. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.

The prosecutions version of events is summarized below.

On October 16, 2002, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Drug Enforcement Unit of the Southern PoliceDistrict, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig (Taguig police)received information from an asset that a certain Zaida was engaged inthe illegal sale of shabu at Purok IV, Silverio Compound in Paraaque City. The Taguig police formed a buy-bust teamcomposed of P/Insp. Antonio Parillas,[7]PO3 Christopher Maulit[8](PO3 Maulit), PO1 Manfoste,[9]SPO2 ArthuVelasco, and SPO2 Ernesto Sanchez[10](SPO2 Sanchez), as members. SPO2 Sanchez acted asposeur-buyer andreceived three (3) one hundred peso bills for use as marked money.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn1http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn2http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn1


8/64

After surveillance of the area, the buy-bust team and their asset proceeded at around 10:00 p.m. of Octobe16, 2002 to the target area where they immediately saw the accused-appellant and Leo. The asset and SPO2 Sanchezapproached the two while the rest of the buy-bust team watched from a distance. The asset introduced SPO2 Sanchezas a buyer of shabu and the accused-appellant asked him how much he would buy. SPO2 Sanchez asked for P300.00worth of shabuand gave the marked money; the accused-appellant thereafter handed him a plastic sachet containinga substance suspected to be shabu. SPO2 Sanchez lighted a cigarette to give the pre-arranged signal for the buy-bust team to approach. SPO2 Sanchez arrested the accused-appellant and recovered from her the P300.00 markedmoney.The buy-bust team arrested Leo who was found in possession of one (1) plastic sachet also suspected tocontain shabu.

The buy-bust team took the accused-appellant and Leo and the recovered plastic sachets to their office forinvestigation. The recovered plastic sachets, marked as ES-1-161009 and ES-2-161002, were then brought to thePNP Crime Laboratory for qualitative examination; the tests yielded positive results for methamphetaminehydrochloride.[11]

The defense expectedly presented a different version of events.

The accused-appellant[12]denied the charge and claimed that she and Leo were framed-up. At around 2:30p.m. of October 16, 2002, the accused-appellant and Leo went to Leos cousins house. Since Leos cousin was not yetat home, she and Leo waited. After waiting for an hour, four (4) men wearing civilian clothes and carrying firearmsentered the house and introduced themselves as police officers. The accused-appellant and Leo were frisked, butnothing was found in their possession. The police officers asked the accused-appellant where she kept the shabu; she

replied that she was not selling shabu. Afterwards, she and Leo were taken to the police headquarters where theywere again frisked and asked the same question to which they gave the same response. The police detained Leo andthe accused-appellant for about a day and later brought them to the Prosecutors Office for inquest without showingthem any shabu.

THE RTC RULING

After consideration of the evidence, the RTC decreed:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, finding both accused GUILTY beyond reasonabledoubt, this Court hereby sentences Zaida Kamad to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00for Violation of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165

x x x x

SO ORDERED.[13]

The accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision to the CA, attacking the RTCs reliance on the presumptionof regularity that the RTC found to have attended the conduct of the buy-bust operation by the police. She argued thatno presumption of regularity could arise considering that the police violated NAPOLCOM rules by using an asset; therules prohibit the deputation of private persons as PNP civilian agents.[14]The accused-appellant also pointed out thematerial inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that cast doubt on their credibility, namely: (a)the uncertainty of SPO2 Sanchez regarding the time the buy-bust team was dispatched to the target area; (b) theconfusion of PO3 Maulit on the identity of the team leader of the buy-bust team; (c) the admitted mistake of PO3 Maulitthat only the recovered plastic sachet was marked ES (standing for the initials of SPO2 Sanchez), while the marked

money was marked MF (standing for the initials of P/Insp. Mariano F. Fegarido as commanding officer); and (d) thecontradictory statements of PO3 Maulit who testified that it was Leo who sold the shabu and that of SPO2 Sanchezwho testified that it was the accused-appellant who sold him the shabu.

THE CA RULING

The CA rejected the defense arguments and affirmed in toto the RTC findings. The CA ruled that theprosecution satisfactorily established the accused-appellants guilt based on the positive testimony of SPO2 Sanchezon the conduct of the buy-bust operation; his testimony bore badges of truth. Accordingly, the CA found the accused-appellants uncorroborated denial undeserving of any weight. The CA brushed aside as a minor inconsistency theuncertainty in the testimony of SPO2 Sanchez on the time the buy-bust operation took place. The CA also brushedaside the violation of the NAPOLCOM rules on the ground that the accused-appellant was arrested in flagrante
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn12


9/64

delicto for illegal sale of shabu committed in the presence of the prosecution witnesses who were police officersMoreover, the CA held that the use of assets to aid police officers in buy-bust operations has been judiciallyrecognized. The CA found that while the asset brokered the shabutransaction, he had no role in the apprehension othe accused-appellant and in the search and seizure of the shabufrom the accused-appellant.

THE ISSUE

The only issue in this case is whether the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section5, Article II of RA 9165 for the illegal sale of 0.20 gram of shabu.

THE COURTS RULING

We draw attention at the outset to the unique nature of an appeal in a criminal case; the appeal throws the whole caseopen for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the appealed judgmentwhether they are assigned or unassigned.[15]We find the present appeal meritorious on the basis of such review.

As a general rule, the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to greaweight and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule, however, admits of exceptions and does not apply where factsof weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome of the case have been overlooked,misapprehended or misapplied.[16]After due consideration of the records of this case, the evidence adduced, and theapplicable law and jurisprudence, we hold that a deviation from the general rule is warranted.

In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be duly established: (1) proofthat the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delictior the illicit drug asevidence.[17]Proof of the corpus delictiin a buy-bust situation requires evidence, not only that the transacted drugsactually exist, but evidence as well that the drugs seized and examined are the same drugs presented in court. Thisis a condition sine qua nonfor conviction as the drugs are the main subject of the illegal sale constituting the crimeand their existence and identification must be proven for the crime to exist. As we discuss below, the speciacharacteristics of prohibited drugs necessitate their strict identification by the prosecution.[18]

Our examination of the records shows that while the prosecution established through the testimony of SPO2Sanchez that the sale of the prohibited drug by the accused-appellant took place, we find that both the RTC and theCA failed to consider the following infirmities in the prosecutions case: (1) the serious lapses in the RA 9165 procedure

committed by the buy-bust team in handling the seized shabu; and (2) the failure of the police to comply with the chainof custody rule in handling the seized shabu, resulting in the prosecutions failure to properly identify the shabuofferedin court as the same shabuseized from the accused-appellant on October 16, 2002.

Non-compliance with the prescribed procedureunder Section 21, Article II of RA 9165

In People v. Garcia,[19]we emphasized the prosecutions duty to adduce evidence proving compliance by thebuy-bust team with the prescribed procedure laid down under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Thisprovision reads:

1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately afterseizure 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, orhis/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department ofJustice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of theinventory and be given a copy thereof. [emphasis supplied]

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 under its Section 21(a) provides further details on how RA 9165is to be applied, and provides too for a saving mechanism in case no strict compliance with the requirements tookplace. Section 21(a) states:

(a) The apprehending office/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately afterseizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn16


10/64

or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative orcounsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected publicofficial who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided,further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as theintegrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by theapprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody oversaid items.[Emphasis supplied.]

Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drugs unique characteristicrendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accidenor otherwise.[20]Hence, the rules on the measures to be observed during and after the seizure, during the custodyand transfer of the drugs for examination, and at all times up to their presentation in court.

In this case, SPO2 Sanchez testified on the seizure and the handling of the seized shabu. The records showthat his testimony and the identification he made in court constitute the totality of the prosecutions evidence on howthe police handled and preserved the integrity of the seized shabu. Significantly, SPO2 Sanchez merely stated in histestimony that:

Q: What else transpired when Zaida gave something to you and you, being the poseur buyer, gavethe money to Zaida?

A: We brought them to our office.

x x x x

Q: What did you do with those plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance?

A: We brought them to the SPD Crime Lab for examination.[21]

Thus, he failed to provide specific details on how the seized shabu was marked although the evidence showsthat the shabu was marked as ES-1-161009 before it was sent to a forensic laboratory. His testimony also failed tostate whether the marking of the shabuwas done immediately after its seizure (as Section 21 of RA 9165 requiresor during the investigation. His testimony likewise failed to disclose if a physical inventory and photography of theseized items had taken place, or if they had, whether these were undertaken in the presence of the accused or hiscounsel, or a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and of an elective official.

In sum, his testimony failed to show how the integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized hadbeen preserved; no explanation was ever given by SPO2 Sanchez to justify the non-compliance by the buy-bust team with the prescribed procedures. In fact, the records clearly reveal that the prosecution did not evenacknowledge the procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team in the handling of the seized shabu.

The consequences of the above omissions must necessarily be grave for the prosecution under the rulethat penal laws, such as RA 9165, are strictly construed against the government and liberally in favor of theaccused.[22]One consequence is to produce doubts on the origins of the illegal drug presented in court,[23]thus leadingto the prosecutions failure to establish the corpus delicti.[24]Unless excused by the saving mechanism, the acquittal othe accused must follow.

The non-compliance with thechain of custody rule

Separately from Section 21 violations, we also find the prosecution fatally remiss in establishing an unbrokenlink in the chain of custody of the seized shabu;its evidence is simply incomplete in establishing the necessary linksin the handling of the seized prohibited drug from the time of its seizure until its presentation in court.

In Mallillin v. People,[25]we explained the chain of custody rule and what constitutes sufficient compliance withthis rule:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn21


11/64

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admissionof an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is whatthe proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from themoment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that everyperson who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where itwas and what happened to it while in the witnesses' possession, the condition in which it wasreceived and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. Thesewitnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no changein the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession

of the same. [emphasis supplied][26]

We applied this ruling in People v. Garcia,[27]People v. Gum-Oyen,[28]People v. Denoman[29]and People vCoreche[30]where we recognized the following links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bustsituation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by theapprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigatingofficer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratoryexamination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist tothe court.

(a) The first link in the chain of custodyWe observe that SPO2 Sanchez testimony lacks specifics on how the seized shabu was handled immediately

after the accused-appellants arrest. Although the records show that SPO2 Sanchez testified that he actually seizedthe shabu when he arrested the accused-appellant, he never disclosed the identity of the person/s who had custodyand possession of the shabu after its seizure, nor that he retained possession of the shabufrom the place of the arresuntil they reached the police station.

SPO2 Sanchez also failed to state the time and place as well as the identity of the person/s who made themarkings on the two (2) plastic sachets containing the recovered shabuseized from the accused-appellant and Leoon October 16, 2002.

(b) The second link in the chain of custody

We also observe that SPO2 Sanchez testimony regarding the post-arrest police investigation failed to provideparticulars on whether theshabu was turned over to the investigator. The records only identify the name of the

investigator as one SPO1 Nuestrobefore whom SPO2 Sanchez and PO3 Maulit executed a Joint Affidavit of Arresdated October 17, 2002.[31]Thus, a big gap exists on who had custody and possession of the shabuprior to, duringand immediately after the police investigation, and how the shabuwas stored, preserved, labeled and recorded fromthe time of its seizure up to its receipt by the forensic laboratory.

(c) The third link in the chain of custody

The third link in the chain is represented by two (2) pieces of documentary evidence adduced by theprosecution consisting of the letter-request dated October 17, 2002[32]of Police Superintendent Mariano F. Fegaridoas Chief of the Southern Police District Drug Enforcement Group and the Physical Science Report No. D-1502-02prepared by Engr. Richard Allan B. Mangalip as the forensic chemist.[33]

These documents reveal that the recovered plastic sachets of shabu bearing the markings ES-1-161002 and

ES-2-161002 were sent to the forensic laboratory sealed in one (1) small brown envelope bearing unidentifiedsignatures. On the same day, the PNP Crime Laboratory received this letter-request along with the submittedspecimens. The specimens were then subjected to qualitative examination which yielded positivefor methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

These pieces of evidence notably fail to identify the person who personally brought the seized shabu to thePNP Crime Laboratory. They also fail to clearly identify the person who received the shabu at the forensic laboratorypursuant to the letter-request dated October 17, 2002, and who exercised custody and possession of the shabu afteit was examined and before it was presented in court. Neither was there any evidence adduced showing how theseized shabu was handled, stored and safeguarded pending its presentation in court.

(d) The fourth link in the chain of custody
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn27


12/64

The fourth link presents a very strange and unusual twist in the prosecutions evidence in this case. Althoughthe forensic chemist was presented in court, we find that his offered testimony related to a shabu specimen other thanthat seized in the buy-bust operation of October 16, 2002. Specifically, his testimony pertained to shabu seized by thepolice on October 12, 2002. This is borne by the following exchanges:

FISCAL UY: The testimony of the witness is being offered to prove . . . that he is the one whocause [s ic] the examination of the physical evidence subject of this case containing with whitecrystalline substance placed inside the plastic sachet weighing 0.20 grams and 0.30 gramswith markings of EBC and EBC-1 that I reduced findings after the examination conducted.

x x x x

Q And with the cause of the performance of your duties, were you able to receive a letter requestrelevant to this case specifically a drug test request, dated October 12, 2002from PS/Insp.Wilfredo Calderon. Do you have the letter request with you?

A Yes, sir.

Q The witness presented to this representation the letter request dated October 12, 2002 for purposesof identification, respectfully request that it be marked in evidence as Exhibit A. In this Exhibit

A Mr. Officer, were you able to receive the evidence submitted specifically a small brownstapled wire envelope with signature containing with white crystalline substance insideand with markings EBC- 12/10/02 and EBC-1 12/10/02. After you received this specimen

what action did you take or do?

A Upon receiving, I read and understand the content of the letter request after which, I stamped andmarked the letter request and then record it on the logbook and after recording it on the logbook,I performed the test for determination of the presence of dangerous drug on the specimen.

x x x x

Q Now, after those tests conducted what was the result of the examination?

A It gives positive result for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or otherwise known as shabu, adangerous drug.

x x x x

Q At this juncture your Honor, the witness handed with this representation a brown envelope withmarkings D-1487-02, and the signature and the date 12 October 02, now Mr. Witness tell uswho placed these markings on this brown envelope?

A I am the one who personally made the markings, sir.

Q And in the face of this brown envelope there is a printed name PO1 Edwin Plopinio and the signatureand the date 12 October 2002. Do you know who placed who placed those markings?

A I have no idea.

Q At this juncture your Honor, this representation proceeded to open the brown envelope. May Irespectfully request that this brown envelope be marked in evidence as Exhibit B. And insidethis brown envelope are three pieces of plastic sachets inside which are white crystallinesubstance with markings EPC 12 October 02 and EPC-1 12 October 02. May I respectfullyrequest that these plastic sachets with white substance inside be marked in evidence as ExhibitB-1 and B-2. And in these plastic sachets with white crystalline inside is a masking tape withthe signature and letters are RAM, do you know who placed those letters?

A I am the one who placed that markings sir.

Q And what RAM stands for?


13/64

A That stands for my name Richard Allan Mangalip sir.

Q You mentioned that you reduced your findings in writing, do you have the official finding with you?

A Yes, sir.

Q At this juncture the witness handed to this representation the physical science report no. D-1487-2 for purposes of identification respectfully request that this specimen be marked in evidence

as Exhibit C. And in this Exhibit C, there is a signature above the typewritten name EngineerRichard Allan B. Mangalip, do you whose signature is this Mr. Witness?[34][Emphasis supplied]

A That is my signature sir.

Q Respectfully request that the signature appearing in Exhibit C be marked in evidence as Exhibit C-1. You stated earlier that you cause the weight of the white crystalline substance in this plasticsachet, what the weights of this white crystalline substance?

A For the specimen A, it is .20 grams and the specimen B, it is .30 gram.

Q May I respectfully request that this weight indicated in this physical science report now mark inevidence as Exhibit C-2. I have no further questions to the witness your Honor.

x x x x

Aside from the different dates of seizure, we note that the shabu identified and presented in court as evidencethrough the testimony of the forensic chemist, showed characteristics distinct from the shabu from the buy-bust saleof October 16, 2002:

First, there were different markings made on the plastic sachets of the shaburecovered on October 12, 2002As testified to, one plastic sachet of shabu was marked, EBC 12 October 02, while the other plastic sachetof shabu was marked, EBC-1 12 October 02;[35]

Second, there was a different sealed brown envelope used where a printed name and signature of one PO1Edwin Plopino and the date 12 October 2002 were written; [36]

Third, the examination of the shabu by the PNP Crime Laboratory was made pursuant to a different letter-request for examination dated October 12, 2002written by one P/Insp. Wilfredo Calderon;[37]and

Fourth, the results of the shabu testified to by the forensic chemist in court was contained in a different forensiclaboratory report known as Physical Science Report No. D-1487-2.[38]

We highlight these characteristics because they are different from the documentary evidence the prosecutionformally offered[39]consisting of the letter-request dated October 17, 2002 [40]and the Physical Science Report No. D-1502-02.[41]The testimonies of SPO2 Sanchez and PO3 Maulit as well as the submitted documentary evidencereferred to the plastic sachets of shabu through their markings of ES-1-161002 and ES-2-161002.[42]

From all these, we find it obvious that some mistake must have been made in the presentation of the

prosecutions evidence. The prosecution, however, left the discrepancies fully unexplained. To reiterate, the forensicchemist testified to a specimen dated October 12, 2002, or one secured way before the buy-bust of October 16, 2002but marked as evidence documents relating to the specimen of October 16, 2002. Strangely, even the defensedisregarded the discrepancies. In his comment on the offer of evidence, the defense simply stated, among others, byway of stipulation, that the forensic chemical officer only conducted a qualitative examination of the specimen heexamined and not the quantitative examination.[43]Coming immediately after the offer of evidence that mentioned theplastic sachets containing white crystalline substances with markings ES-1 16/10/02 and ES-2 16/10/02, and thePhysical Science Report No. D-1502-02,[44]the defense was clearly sleeping on its feet when it reacted to theprosecutions offer of evidence.

But the defense was not alone in glossing over the discrepancies between the testimony for the prosecutionand the offered evidence, as both the RTC and CA also failed to notice the glaring flaws in the prosecutions evidence.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn35


14/64

Apparently, because the parties did not point out these discrepancies while the appellate court did not closely reviewthe records of the proceedings, the discrepancies were not taken into account in the decision now under review.

These observations bring us full circle to our opening statement under the Courts ruling on the kind and extentof review that an appellate court undertakes in a criminal case; the appeal opens the whole case for review, with theappellate court charged with the duty to cite and appreciate the errors it may find in the appealed judgment, whetherthese errors are assigned or unassigned. This is one such instance where we are duty bound to rectify errors that,although unnoticed below and unassigned by the parties, are clearly reflected in the records of the case.

The Conclusion

Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police committed in handling the seized shabuand the obviousevidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody,a presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be madein this case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule olaw or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance thereof. Thepresumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conducof official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise.[45]In light othe flagrant lapses we noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of regularityin the performance of official duty.

We rule, too, that the discrepancy in the prosecution evidence on the identity of the seized andexamined shabu and that formally offered in court cannot but lead to serious doubts regarding the origins of

the shabu presented in court. This discrepancy and the gap in the chain of custody immediately affect proof ofthecorpus delictiwithout which the accused must be acquitted.

From the constitutional law point of view, the prosecutions failure to establish with moral certainty all theelements of the crime and to identify the accused as the perpetrator signify that it failed to overturn the constitutionapresumption of innocence that every accused enjoys in a criminal prosecution. When this happens, as in this case, thecourts need not even consider the case for the defense in deciding the case; a ruling for acquittal must forthwith issue

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we hereby REVERSEand SET ASIDEthe March 28, 2006 decision ofthe Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00505 affirming the decision of conviction dated October 27, 2004 ofthe Regional Trial Court, Branch 259, Paraaque City in Criminal Case Nos. 02-1236-7 for illegal sale of shabu undeSection 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Accused-appellant ZAIDA KAMAD y AMBING is hereby

declared ACQUITTEDand ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for any otherlawful cause.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTEDto IMPLEMENT this Decision and to report to this Court theaction taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.

SO ORDERED.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/january2010/174198.htm#_ftn46


15/64

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Plaintiff-appellee,

- versus -

NARCISO AGULAY y LOPEZ,Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 181747

Present:

TINGA,*CHICO-NAZARIO,

Acting Chairperson,

VELASCO,*REYES andBRION,** JJ.

Promulgated:September 26, 2008

x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x

D E C I S I O N

CHICO-NAZARIO, J .:

For Review under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court is the Decision1dated 31 August 2007 of the Court of Appealsin CA-G.R. CR No. 01994 entitled, People of the Philippines v. Narciso Agulay y Lopez, affirming theDecision2rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 103, in Criminal Case No. Q-02-111597finding accused-appellant Narciso Agulay y Lopez guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of methamphetaminehydrochloride more popularly known as "shabu."

On 26 August 2002, accused-appellant was charged in an Information before the RTC of Quezon City with violationof Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of2002. The Information reads:

That on or about the 24th day of August, 2002 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized bylaw to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully, and unlawfullysell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, zero point twenty five (0.25) gramof methylamphetamine hydrochloride a dangerous drug.3

When arraigned on 23 September 2002, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty.4Thereafter, trial ensued.

During the trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Police Officer (PO) 2 Raul Herrera, the poseur-buyer,PO2 Reyno Riparip (member of the buy-bust team), and Forensic Analyst Leonard M. Jabonillo.

The prosecutions version of the events are narrated as follows:

On 24 August 2002, at around 6:30 in the evening, an informant arrived at Police Station 5 and reported to the Chiefof the Station Drug Enforcement Unit (SDEU) that a certain "Sing" had been selling shabu at Brgy. Sta. Lucia, inNovaliches, Quezon City.

A police entrapment team was formed. PO2 Herrera was assigned as poseur-buyer and was given aP100.00 billwhich he marked "RH," his initials. A pre-operation report bearing control No. 24-SDEU-02 was made and signed byPolice Inspector (P/Insp.) Palaleo Adag dated 24 August 2002.

The buy-bust team rode in two vehicles, a Space Wagon and a Besta van, with a group of police officers inside. Theystopped along J.P. Rizal St., Sta. Lucia, Novaliches, Quezon City.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#dissenthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#dissenthttp://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt1


16/64

PO2 Herrera and his informant stepped down from their vehicle and walked. The informant pointed the target pusherto PO2 Herrera. They approached and after being introduced to Sing, PO2 Herrera bought shabu using themarked P100.00 bill. Sing gave a small plastic sachet to PO2 Herrera who, thereafter, scratched his head as a signalThe other police companions of PO2 Herrera, who were deployed nearby, then rushed to the crime scene. PO2Herrera grabbed Sing and then frisked him. PO2 Herrera recovered two (2) plastic sachets from Sings pocket. Healso got the marked money from Sing.

The following specimens were submitted to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory of the CentraPolice District in Quezon City for chemical analysis:

Three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance having the followingmarkings and recorded net weights:

(A) (RH1-RG1) = 0.07 gm

(B) (RH2-RG2) = 0.09 gm

(C) (RH3-RG3) = 0.09 gm5

Chemistry Report No. D-1020-2002 dated 25 August 2002 and prepared and presented in court by Forensic AnalystLeonard M. Jabonillo (of the PNP Crime Laboratory of the Central Police District of Quezon City) yielded the following

results

FINDINGS:

Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimens gave POSITIVE result to the test forMethylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug. x x x.

CONCLUSION:

Specimen A, B and C contain Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a regulated drug.6

The defense, on the other hand, had an entirely different version of what transpired that night. It presented three

witnesses: accused-appellant Narciso Agulay, Benjamin Agulay (brother of Narciso), and Bayani de Leon.

Accused-appellant Narciso Agulay narrated that at around 8:30 to 9:00 oclock in the evening of 24 August 2002, hewas manning his store when a car stopped in front of it. The passengers of said vehicle opened its window and pokeda gun at him. The passengers alighted from the car, approached him and put handcuffs on him. Accused-appellantasked what violation he had committed or if they had a search warrant with them, but the arresting team just told himto go with them. Accused-appellant requested that he be brought to the barangay hall first, but this request was lefunheeded. Instead, he was immediately brought to the police station. Upon reaching the police station, PO2 Herrerahanded something to PO1 Riparip. Thereafter, PO2 Herrera and PO1 Riparip approached and punched him on thechest. They removed his shorts and showed him a plastic sachet. Later that night, the arresting officers placed himinside the detention cell. After about 30 minutes, PO1 Riparip and PO2 Herrera approached him. PO2 Herrera toldhim that if he would not be able to give them P50,000.00, they would file a case against him, to which he answered

"I could not do anything because I do not have money."7

Benjamin Agulay, brother of accused-appellant, testified that at around 8:30 to 9:00 oclock in the evening of 24 Augus2002, while he was smoking in their compound, a group of armed men in civilian clothes entered the place andarrested his brother, who was then manning a store. He tried asking the arresting officers what the violation ofaccused-appellant was but he was ignored. They then took accused-appellant to the police station.

On the other hand, the testimony of Bayani de Leon (a police asset of SPO1 Valdez of the buy-bust team) narratedthat he, together with P/Insp. Suha, PO1 Herrera, PO2 Riparip, PO2 Gulferic and an arrested individual were on boarda car while conducting a follow-up operation regarding a hold-up incident. When the car they were riding reached No51 J.P. Rizal Street, their team alighted and entered a compound. They saw accused-appellant and arrested him as
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt7


17/64

he was allegedly involved in a hold-up incident, not with drug pushing. Accused-appellant was taken to Police Station5.

On 17 February 2006, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of the offense charged, and meted out to him thepenalty of Life Imprisonment. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision is as follows:

Accordingly, judgment is rendered finding the accused NARCISO AGULAY Y LOPEZ GUILTY beyond reasonabledoubt of the crime of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 as charged (for drug pushing) and he is hereby sentenced tosuffer a jail term of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

The methylamphetamine hydrochloride (in 3 sachets) involved in this case is ordered transmitted to the PDEA thruDDB for proper disposition.8

Accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal with Motion to Litigate as Pauper Litigant on 7 March 2006.

Accused-appellant filed his appellants brief9with the Court of Appeals on 22 September 2006.

On 31 August 2007, the Court of Appeals issued its Decision denying accused-appellants appeal as follows:

WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the Decision appealed from, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of theRTC dated February 17, 2006 is AFFIRMED.10

Petitioner elevated the case to this Court via Notice of Appeal11dated 21 September 2007. In its Resolution dated 2April 2008, this Court resolved to:

(3) Notify the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire, within thirty (30) daysfrom notice.

To avoid a repetition of the arguments, accused-appellant opted to adopt his appellants brief dated 22 Septembe2006 while plaintiff-appellee adopted its appellees brief dated 22 January 2007, instead of filing their respectivesupplemental briefs.

The issues raised are the following:

I. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WASILLEGALLY ARRESTED AND AS SUCH, THE SACHETS OF SHABU ALLEGEDLY RECOVERED FROMHIM ARE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE.

II. THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYONDREASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED.

III. ACCUSED-APPELLANT CANNOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE CONSUMMATED CRIME OF ILLEGALSALE OF SHABU BECAUSE OF THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH ALL OF ITSESSENTIAL ELEMENTS.

Accused-appellant maintains that his arrest was illegal, and that the subsequent seizure of shabu allegedly taken fromhim is inadmissible as evidence against him. He also claims that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyondreasonable doubt, since the prosecution failed to show all the essential elements of an illegal sale of shabu.

From the foregoing issues raised by accused-appellant, the basic issue to be resolved hinges on whether accused-appellant was arrested in a legitimate "buy-bust" operation.

The law presumes that an accused in a criminal prosecution is innocent until the contrary is proved. The presumptionof innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural rules whichplace on the prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyondreasonable doubt. Whether the degree of proof has been met is largely left for the trial courts to determine. Consistent
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt10


18/64

with the rulings of this Court, it is a fundamental and settled rule that factual findings of the trial court and its calibrationof the testimonies of the witnesses and its conclusions anchored on its findings are accorded by the appellate courhigh respect, if not conclusive effect, more so when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, as in this case. The exceptionis when it is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued or misinterpreted cogent facts andcircumstances which, if considered, will change the outcome of the case. Considering that what is at stake here is theliberty of accused-appellant, we have carefully reviewed and evaluated the records of the RTC and the Court of

Appeals. On evaluation of the records, this Court finds no justification to deviate from the lower courts findings andconclusion that accused-appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto selling shabu.

In order to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove thefollowing elements:

(1) identities of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and

(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.12

The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses proved that all the elements of the crime have been established: thatthe buy-bust operation took place, and that the shabu subject of the sale was brought to and identified in courtMoreover, PO2 Herrera, the poseur-buyer, positively identified accused-appellant as the person who sold to him thesachet containing the crystalline substance which was confirmed to be shabu.13He narrated the events which tookplace the night accused-appellant was apprehended:

FIS. JURADO:

You said that you are stationed at Police Station 5, what were your duties there?

WITNESS:

As an operative sir.

FIS. JURADO:

What was your tour of duty on August 24, 2002?

WITNESS:

Broken hour sir.

FIS. JURADO:

But at around 6:30 in the evening, you are on duty?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

FIS. JURADO:

While you are on duty at that time and place, will you please inform this Honorable Court if there was an operation?

WITNESS:

Yes, sir.

FIS JURADO:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt14http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt15http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt14


19/64

What is that operation all about?

WITNESS:

Buy bust operation sir.

FIS. JURADO:

Regarding what?

WITNESS:

Narcotic sir.

FIS. JURADO:

What is this all about?

WITNESS:

Alias Sing at Sta. Lucia sir.

FIS. JURADO:

How did you prepare for that buy-bust operation?

WITNESS:

An informant arrived and we reported to our Chief of SDEU and the Chief gave us P100.00 and I acted as poseurbuyer sir.

FIS. MJURADO:

Aside from that what else?

WITNESS:

I put my markings sir.

FIS. JURADO:

What is that markings (sic)?

WITNESS:

R.H. sir.

FIS. JURADO:

What is the significance of this R.H.?

WITNESS:

That mean(sic) Raul Herrera sir.


20/64

FIS. JURADO:

Do you have said money with you?

WITNESS:

Yes sir.

FIS. JURADO:

Will you please show that to this Honorable Court?

WITNESS:

Here sir.

x x x x

FIS. JURADO:

After you prepared the buy bust money, what else did you do?

WITNESS:

We proceeded to the target location, sir.

FIS. JURADO:

You said "we" who were with you?

WITNESS:

P/Insp. Addag, Rosario, SPO1 El Valdez, SPO2 Rey Valdez, Nogoy, Riparip and the confidential informant sir.

FIS. JURADO:

How did you proceed to the place of Sta. Lucia?

WITNESS:

We rode in a tinted vehicles (sic) one space wagon and Besta van, sir.

FIS. JURADO:

When you arrived in that place, what happened there?

WITNESS:

We asked our confidential informant to look for Sing, sir.

FIS. JURADO:

Did the confidential informant locate the said Sing?

WITNESS:


21/64

Yes sir along the street sir.

FIS. JURADO:

Where?

WITNESS:

J.P. Rizal St., Sta. Lucia, Novaliches, Quezon City, sir.

FIS. JURADO:

After your confidential informant found this Sing, what happened next?

WITNESS:

Our confidential informant asked me to go with him to see Sing to buy drug(s) sir.

FIS. JURADO:

Where is (sic) the transaction took (sic) place?

WITNESS:

Along the street sir.

FIS. JURADO:

What happened there?

WITNESS:

I was introduced by the confidential informant to Sing as buyer sir.

FIS. JURADO:

What happened next?

WITNESS:

I bought from him worth one hundred peso (sic) of shabu, sir.

FIS. JURADO:

What (sic) Sing do, if any?

WITNESS:

Sing gave me one small plastic sachet sir.

FIS JURADO:

After that what did you do next?

WITNESS:


22/64

I executed our pre-arranged signal sir.

FIS. JURADO:

For whom you executed this pre-arranged signal?

WITNESS:

To my companions sir.

FIS. JURADO:

Where are (sic) your companions at that time?

WITNESS:

On board at (sic) Besta and Space Wagon sir.

FIS. JURADO:

What was the pre-arranged signal?

WITNESS:

I scratched my head sir.

FIS. JURADO:

After scratching your head, what happened next?

WITNESS:

My back-up rushed to our place, sir.

FIS. JURADO:

After that what did you do next?

WITNESS:

I grabbed Sing and arrested him sir.

FIS. JURADO:

How about the money?

WITNESS:

I recovered the buy bust money from Sing, sir.

FIS. JURADO:

You mentioned plastic sachet, I am showing to you three (3) plastic sachets, which of these three was taken or soldto you?


23/64

WITNESS:

This one sir.

FIS. JURADO:

How did you come to know that this is the one?

WITNESS:

I have my initial(sic) R.H. sir.

x x x x

FIS. JURADO:

Aside from that, what happened next?

WITNESS:

When I frisked Sing, I was able to recover from him two (2) more plastic sachets sir.

FIS. JURADO:

Where did you get that plastic sachet?

WITNESS:

Right side pocket sir.

FIS. JURADO:

Short or pant?

WITNESS:

Short sir.

FIS. JURADO:

Where are these two plastic sachets that you are mentioning?

WITNESS:

Here sir.

FIS. JURADO:

How did you come to know that these are the two plastic sachets?

WITNESS:

I put my markings sir RH.

x x x x


24/64

COURT:

After that what happened next?

WITNESS:

We brought him to our Police Station, sir.

FIS. JURADO:

You mentioned Sing if this Sing is inside this courtroom, will you be able to identify him?

WITNESS:

Yes sir that man.

INTERPRETER:

Witness pointing to a man who identified himself as Narciso Agulay and his nickname is "Sing."14

His testimony was corroborated on material points by PO1 Riparip, one of the back-up operatives in the buy-bustoperation that night, to wit:

FIS. JURADO:

You said that you are a police officer, where were you assigned on August 24, 2002?

WITNESS:

I was assigned at Police Station 5 for drug(sic) sir.

FIS. JURADO:

What was your tour of duty at that time?

WITNESS:

Broken hour sir.

FIS. JURADO:

You were on duty on August 24, 2002 at 6:30 in the evening?

WITNESS:

Yes sir.

FIS. JURADO:

What was your functions(sic) as such?

WITNESS:

To conduct follow up operation on drugs and other crimes sir.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt16http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/sep2008/gr_181747_2008.html#fnt1

Documents

Crim 2 ra 9165 and 10640 and other related cases