Republic of the
SUPREME COURT
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ELSIE BARBA y BIAZON, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 182420 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: July
23, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This
is an appeal from the August 29, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01587 entitled People
of the Philippines v. Elsie Barba y Biazon, which affirmed the September 14, 2005 Decision in Criminal Case
No. Q-03-114526 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103 in
The Facts
An Information was filed charging Barba
with drug pushing under RA 9165, quoted below:
That on or about the 16th day of January, 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized to sell, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport and distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, 0.04 (zero point zero four) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.[1]
According
to the prosecution, PO2 Rodel Rabina, PO2 Arnulfo Aguillon, and PO1 Michael
Almacen conducted a surveillance operation against Barba in Pag-asa,
After a few moments, Barba came back
with two (2) sachets which she gave to PO2 Rabina. She then asked if he would like to test the
purity of the sachets’ contents, to which PO2 Rabina replied in the
negative. He gave a PhP 200 marked bill
to Barba and then scratched his head, the pre-arranged signal for the other
members of the buy-bust team to join them. Barba, Silvestre, Banzuelo, and
Barba was subsequently charged for
drug pushing. The others arrested were charged with possession of drug
paraphernalia. All four accused pleaded not guilty at their arraignment.
Barba denied the charge against her
by claiming she had been framed. On
The RTC ruled against Barba. The
dispositive portion of its Joint Decision reads:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. Q-03-114526, accused ELSIE BARBA y Biazon is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of drug pushing and she is hereby sentenced to Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.
2. In Criminal Case No. Q-03-1145267, accused EDUARDO SILVESTRE y Agua, RENE BANZUELO y Sigaan and REYNALDO LABRADOR y Padua are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime possession of drug paraphernalia and each is hereby sentenced to a jail term of Six (6) Months and One (1) Day to One (1) Year and each to pay a fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos.
The drugs involved in these cases, including the drug paraphernalia, are hereby ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru DDB for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.[10]
On
In her
Appellant’s Brief,[11]
Barba assigned the following errors: (1) the trial court gravely erred in
convicting Barba, when her guilt has not been proved beyond
doubt; and (2) the trial court gravely erred when it gave credence to the
conflicting and unsupported testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses.
The CA in its decision[12]
affirmed the RTC decision. The CA held that the prosecution presented
sufficient evidence to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.
The two police officers who took the stand both testified that Barba was caught
in flagrante delicto, and their testimonies agreed on the essential
facts. According to the CA, the elements required for proving the
illegal sale of dangerous drugs were met in consonance with People v. Mala: first, the identity of the seller
and the buyer, as well as the object and the consideration of the sale, was
proved; and second, the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it was
likewise shown.[13]
Moreover, the appellate court held
that no evidence was offered to overturn the legal presumption that the police
officers have performed their duties regularly. No improper motive was given as
to why they, being involved in the buy-bust operation, would fabricate the
charges against Barba and her co-accused.
The CA also held that the so-called
inconsistency in the police officers’ testimony was inconsequential. Whether or
not there was a prior surveillance was immaterial.
On
On
The Issues
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT, WHEN HER GUILT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT GAVE CREDENCE TO THE CONFLICTING AND UNSUPPORTED TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION’S WITNESSES
Our Ruling
To reiterate, the essential elements
in a prosecution for sale of illegal drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer
and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment for it.[14] The
prohibited drug is an integral part of the corpus
delicti of the crime of possession or selling of regulated/prohibited drug;
proof of its identity, existence, and presentation in court are crucial.[15] A
conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity
of the drug. The identity of the
prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing
that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the
substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance
offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree
of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict.[16]
The identity of the subject substance
is established by showing the chain of custody. In Espinoza
v. State, an adequate
foundation establishing a continuous chain of custody is said to have been established
if the State accounts for the evidence at each stage from its acquisition to
its testing, and to its introduction at trial.[17]
In a prosecution for sale of illegal drugs, this foundation takes more
significance because of the nature of the evidence involved.[18] The
more fungible the evidence, the more significant its condition, or the higher
its susceptibility to change, the more elaborate the foundation must be. In
those circumstances, it must be shown that there has been no tampering,
alteration, or substitution.[19]
The chain of custody presented by the
prosecution in this case suffers from incompleteness. After the illegal drugs
were seized from Barba, PO2 Rabina marked the plastic sachets with his
initials. PO1 Almacen marked the tooter in the same manner. The seized aluminum
foil was marked “AA,” presumably after PO2 Arnulfo Aguillon but there is no
testimony on this. Once at the police station, the drugs and paraphernalia were
then made the subject of a Request for Examination issued by Inspector Bauto.
The specimens were then turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory Office where
Forensic Chemist Jabonillo made his conclusion that the sachets and the
aluminum foil contained shabu. During
trial, he testified that the specimen he examined was the same one he brought
to the court. Exhibit “G” or Chemistry Report No. D-086-2003 was also presented
as evidence to show that the seized items were positive for dangerous drugs. Pieced
together, the prosecution’s evidence, however, does not supply all the links
needed in the chain of custody rule. The records do not tell us what happened
after the seized items were brought to the police station and after these were
tested at the forensic laboratory. Doubt is now formed as to the integrity of
the evidence.
The latest jurisprudence on illegal
drugs cases shows a growing trend in acquittals based on reasonable doubt.
These “reasonable doubt acquittals” underscore the lack of strict adherence
that law enforcement agencies and prosecutors have shown with regard to the
chain of custody rule.
In Malillin v. People,
we laid down the chain of custody requirements that must be met in proving that
the seized drugs are the same ones presented in court: (1) testimony about
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it
is offered into evidence; and (2) witnesses should 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 item.[20]
In People v. Sanchez,[21] the accused was acquitted since the
prosecution did not make known the identities of the police officers to whom
custody of the seized drugs was entrusted after the buy-bust operation.
Likewise absent from the evidence is any testimony on the whereabouts of the
drugs after they were analyzed by the forensic chemist.
In People v. Garcia,[22]
the conviction was overturned due in part to the failure of the state to show
who delivered the drugs to the forensic laboratory and who had custody of them
after their examination by the forensic chemist and pending their presentation
in court.
In People v. Cervantes,[23] a
total of five (5) links in the chain of custody were not presented in court:
the desk officer who received the drugs at the police station; the unnamed
person who delivered the drugs to the forensic laboratory; the recipient of the
drugs at the forensic laboratory; the forensic chemist who did the examination
of the drugs; and the person who acted as custodian of the drugs after their
analysis.
Although the non-presentation of some
of the witnesses who can attest to an unbroken chain of evidence may in some
instances be excused, there should be a justifying factor for the prosecution
to dispense with their testimonies.[24]
Here, however, no explanation was proffered as to why key individuals who had
custody over the drugs at certain periods were not identified and/or not
presented as witnesses. Uncertainty, therefore, arises if the drugs and
paraphernalia seized during the buy-bust operation on January 2003 were the
same specimens presented in court in December of that same year.
The very identity of the illegal drug
is in question because of the absence of key prosecution witnesses. No one
knows if the drug seized at the time of the buy-bust operation is the same drug
tested and later kept as evidence against Barba. Though there was a stipulation
during trial that the specimens submitted as evidence yielded positive for shabu,
this only touches on one link in the chain of custody. Thus, given the failure
of the prosecution to identify the continuous whereabouts of such fungible
pieces of evidence, we are unable to conclude that all elements of the crime
have been established beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the
appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01587 finding accused-appellant Elsie
Barba y Biazon guilty of drug pushing (Crim. Case No. Q-03-114526) and
possession of drug paraphernalia (Crim. Case No. Q-03-1145267) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Elsie Barba y Biazon is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable
doubt and is accordingly immediately RELEASED
from custody unless she is being lawfully held for some lawful cause.
SO
ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate Justice
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
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.
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
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-3.
[2]
[3] CA rollo, p. 16.
[4]
[5]
TSN,
[6] Records, p. 9.
[7]
[8] The report covered two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets both marked “RR/01-17-03” and weighing 0.02 grams; one (1) strip of aluminum foil marked “AA/01-17-03”; and one (1) tooter marked “MA/01-17-03.”
[12] Rollo, pp. 2-15. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Ricardo R. Rosario.
[13] G.R.
No. 152351,
[14] People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July 28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 449; citing People v. Adam, 459 Phil. 676, 684 (2003).
[15]
See People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832,
[16] People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494,
[17]
859 N.E.2d 375,
[18] Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953,
[19] 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1142.
[20] Supra note 18, at 632-633.
[21] Supra note 15.
[22] G.R. No. 173480,
[23] Supra note 16.
[24] Cervantes, supra note 16.