SECOND DIVISION
|
SUSAN SALES Y
JIMENA, Petitioner,
- versus - PEOPLE OF THE Respondent. |
G.R.
No. 182296 Present:
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, CARPIO
MORALES, TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and PERALTA,*
JJ. Promulgated: April
7, 2009 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Upon her arrest during an alleged drug
buy-bust operation conducted on
The accusatory portion of the
Information[2] dated
That on or about the 5th day of November, 2002 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, zero point one four (0.14) gram of white crystalline substance containing methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. (Underscoring supplied)
Danilo D. Sanchez, who was also
allegedly buying a prohibited drug from petitioner on the same occasion, was charged
separately but tried jointly with petitioner.
He was acquitted on reasonable doubt. Hence, the present appeal pertains only to
petitioner.
Culled from the evidence for the
prosecution consisting of, in the main, the testimony of PO1 Teresita B. Reyes (PO1
Teresita), a police officer assigned at the District Drug Enforcement Unit
(DDEU),
On P500.00 bill
to be used as buy-bust money which she marked with her initials “TBR” (Exhibits
“A” & “A-1”).[5]
At past
Upon seeing petitioner standing at
the side of the street, the informant approached her and introduced PO1 Teresita
as a “kaibigan ko i-iscore daw sya.”[6] Petitioner thereupon asked PO1 Teresita how
much she would buy, to which she replied “P500.00,” at the same time
handing to petitioner the P500 bill.
Petitioner in turn, gave PO1 Teresita a small plastic sachet.[7] At that instant, another person, who turned
out to be Danilo D. Sanchez (Sanchez), appeared from nowhere and told petitioner
that he also wanted to “score”[8]
(buy). Almost simultaneously PO1 Teresita
carried out the pre-arranged hand signal to her colleagues and embraced petitioner
as she introduced herself as a police officer.[9] The team members rushed towards them, and PO1 Roberto
Manalo immediately searched petitioner from whom he recovered the buy-bust
money. Sanchez was searched too and a
sachet was recovered from him.[10] The
team arrested the two.
On their way back to
In Chemistry Report No. D-1324-02
dated
The defense proffered an entirely
different version.
Petitioner, a real estate consultant
residing at
On P3,000.
Petitioner, Isaguirre and Teresa were
invited for questioning bearing on drugs. Despite their protestation of innocence, they were
forcibly brought to
While on detention, petitioner was prevented
from contacting her lawyer or any person and was constantly asked if she knew of
any drug pusher, but she denied any knowledge. Petitioner remained on detention, while Isaguirre
and Teresa were released.
By Joint Decision[14] dated
P500,000. Thus it disposed:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. Q-02-113122, accused SUSAN SALES y JIMENA is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 (for drug pushing) as charged and she is hereby sentenced to suffer a jail term of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00; and
2. In Criminal Case No. Q-02-113123, accused DANILO SANCHEZ y DISTAJO is hereby ACQUITTED of violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 (possession of shabu) as charged due to reasonable doubt.
The shabu involved in each of these cases in two sachets (A & B) weighing 0.14 gram and 0.09 gram, respectively, are ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru the DDB for proper disposition per R.A. 9165.
SO ORDERED. (Emphasis in the original)
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, by
Decision[16] dated
Petitioner faults the Court of
Appeals in relying on the improbable and incredible testimony of PO1 Teresita that
she (petitioner) was arrested during a buy-bust operation.[17] Assuming there was such a buy-bust operation, petitioner
posits, the police team did not comply with the guidelines required by law concerning
her arrest and the confiscation and custody of the illegal drugs.[18]
The Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG) in its Comment prays that the petition be denied for lack of merit.
This Court, aware that in some
instances law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract
information or even to harass civilians,[19]
has been issuing cautionary warnings to courts to exercise extra vigilance
in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually
severe penalties for drug offenses.
After a considered examination of the
records of the case, the Court finds that a reversal of the challenged Court of
Appeals decision is in order.
PO1 Teresita’s testimony is not only
improbable but also incredible. Consider
her following testimony, quoted verbatim:
CROSS EXAMINATION:
ATTY. GARLITOS:
Q: Mrs. Witness, do you know personally the informant in this case x x x?
WITNESS:
A: He just came to our office.
x x x x
Q: So that was the first time that you saw the informant?
A: Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q: And did the informant actually tell where in Scout Tobias made this target area of operation x x x?
A: The informant said that is where this alias Susan doing.
Q: In a house?
A: Outside, sir.
Q: And did your informant mention that she will be riding in a car?
A: Not he was mentioning about that, sir.
Q: So the informant told you that this Susan is walking along Scout Tobias?
A: He said “Makikita naming nakatayo si Susan.”
x x x x
Q: Did the informant tell you why she was standing there, Mrs. Witness?
A: According to the informant that is the place where she’s selling drugs, sir.[20] (Underscoring supplied)
By PO1 Teresita’s claim, her informant
had told her that “that is the place where [petitioner is] selling drugs.”
Why PO1 Teresita took the word of the
informant whom she admitted having met for the first time on that occasion
is strange. At any rate, if, indeed, petitioner was a
peddler, she would know the perils inherent in her illegal trade and would not
simply peddle prohibited drugs openly
along a busy street, Scout Tobias,
in broad daylight. For carrying out illicit business under these
circumstances is contrary to common experience, given the clandestine
nature of illegal-drug dealings. As this
Court stressed in People v. Pagaura,[21] peddling
prohibited or dangerous drugs is a “nefarious” business which is “carried on
with utmost secrecy or whispers to avoid detection.”
As for PO1 Teresita’s following account,
quoted verbatim, of what transpired
upon her introduction to petitioner, the same must be received with caution:
CROSS-EXAMINATION:
ATTY. GARLITOS:
Q How were you introduced Mrs. Witness?
WITNESS:
A She said “San, kaibigan ko i-iscor daw sya.”
Q And then what did Susan ask you?
A She asked me how much I am going to buy.
Q And then what did you answer?
A Five Hundred Pesos sir.
Q And then?
A And she came out immediately from his pocket the five hundred worth of shabu and she got the five hundred pesos sir.
Q What did she get?
A The five hundred pesos and gave me the sachet.[22] (Underscoring supplied)
For the ease and readiness with which
petitioner had acceded to PO1 Teresita’s request to buy shabu, without even the
slightest hesitation, even if they are complete strangers, and absent a
showing that the informant had had previous dealings with petitioner, is contrary
to common experience. That is why the
Court, in Pagaura, found it “rather
foolish that one who peddles illegal drugs would boldly and unashamedly present
his wares to total strangers lest he be caught in flagrante.”[23]
But even granting arguendo that petitioner was indeed arrested
during a buy-bust operation, the police team failed to follow the legal
procedure and guidelines on her arrest and the confiscation of the illegal
drug, which omission is fatal to warrant her acquittal.
In all prosecutions for violation of
the Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of all dangerous drugs is a sine qua non for conviction. The dangerous drug is the very corpus delicti of the crime of violation
of the said Act.[24] It is thus essential that the prohibited drug
confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance
offered in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug be
established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite to make a
finding of guilt. The “chain of
custody” requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary
doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[25]
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into 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 no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.[26] (Underscoring supplied)
The Court finds that neither was physical
inventory nor photograph of the sachet and buy-bust money taken in the
presence of petitioner, or her representative or counsel, a representative from
the media and the Department of Justice, as required by law, was taken. No justification whatsoever was
proffered by the apprehending team for its failure to observe the legal
safeguards.
In fine, the prosecution failed to establish
petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Her acquittal is thus in order.
WHEREFORE, the
assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 17, 2007 and Resolution of March 10, 2008 in CA-G.R. CR-HC
No. 02546 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Susan Sales y Jimena is ACQUITTED of the crime charged and her immediate
release from custody is ordered, unless she is being lawfully held for another cause.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate
Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest
that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to
Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson’s
Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
* Additional member per Special Order No.
587 dated
[1] Otherwise known as “The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,” which took effect on
[2] Rollo, pp. 20-21.
[3] His name was not disclosed by prosecution witness SPO1 Teresita B. Reyes.
[4] He was not also named by SPO1 Teresita Reyes.
[5] Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN),
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] RTC Order dated
[14] Penned by Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.; records, pp. 199-206.
[15]
[16] Penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso and Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 150-158.
[17] Petition, rollo, pp. 15-17.
[18] See petitioner’s Appellant’s Brief filed before the Court of Appeals (rollo, pp. 33-55; 58-80) and her Memorandum presented before the trial court (records, pp. 187-189).
[19] People v. Que Ming Kha, G.R. No. 133265, May 29, 2002; People v. Sevilla, G.R. No. 124077, September 5, 2000, 339 SCRA 625, 653; People v. Pagaura, G.R. No. 95352, January 28, 1997, 267 SCRA 17, 24, 382 SCRA 480, 490.
[20] TSN,
[21] Supra, note 19 at 23.
[22]
[23] Supra note 19.
[24] People
v. Kimura, G.R. No. 130805,
[25] Malillin
v. People, G.R. No. 172953,
[26] Ibid.