RONALD
CARINO and ROSANA G.R.
No. 178757
Petitioners,
Present:
QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO
MORALES,
- versus
-
TINGA,
VELASCO,
JR., and
BRION, JJ.
PEOPLE
OF THE
Respondent.
March 13, 2009
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
In this petition for review on
certiorari,[1]
petitioners Ronald Carino and Rosana Andes assail the Decision[2]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29867 dated 13 March 2007, which
affirmed the joint decision[3]
of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103,[4]
finding petitioners Ronald Carino and Rosana Andes guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of illegal possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug
locally known as shabu.
Petitioners Carino and
After the arrest and investigation,
petitioners were charged in two separate informations[6]
with violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No.
9165).[7] Both of them entered a negative plea on
arraignment.[8] The cases were thereafter jointly tried.
The prosecution offered the testimony
of PO1 Joseph Tayaban (Tayaban) and PO1 Arnold Eugenio (Eugenio) to prove the
charges against petitioners. Tayaban and
Eugenio professed that they were the ones who arrested both petitioners.
Tayaban
testified that the members of “Oplan Sita,” on
Eugenio corroborated the testimony of
Tayaban in its material respects. He
admitted that he was the one who grabbed Carino when he noticed that the latter
was holding a plastic sachet in his hand. He suspected the sachet to be
containing shabu and he immediately
told Carino of his offense. At that
point Carino allegedly dropped the plastic sachet, so he (Eugenio) picked it up
and after examining the same concluded that it indeed contained shabu.[12] He and his companions brought Carino to their
team leader just across the street. The
latter asked Carino who the source of the shabu
was, and he was told that it was a certain woman.[13] Some
members of the team, including Tayaban, left
The
prosecution also submitted the results of the qualitative examination
administered on the contents of the two plastic sachets seized from
petitioners. The chemistry report signed
by Engineer Leonard M. Jabonillo (Jabonillo), chemist and forensic analyst at
the CPD Crime Laboratory Office, revealed that the specimens submitted for
analysis yielded positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride content.[15]
Both petitioners denied the
charges. It was revealed during their
testimony, however, that they had previously known each other as Carino was
employed as a “latero” at the
automobile repair shop owned by
Carino
testified that he was on his way to work when he was arrested along
Petitioner Andes, for her part,
narrated that she and her 5-year old son were on their way home from the
bakeshop when suddenly, Tayaban and a certain police officer Prado approached
them and asked her whether she could identify the man inside the police car;[20] that she obliged, so she proceeded to the where the car was
parked and seeing petitioner Carino inside with his hands cuffed told the
officers that the man was familiar to her because he was an employee at his “kumpare’s” shop but she could not place
his name;[21]
that she was then invited to come to the
police station and once there, she saw
Carino being frisked and the officers found nothing on him; and that she was also frisked by Tayaban but
found nothing on her either.[22] She also claimed that Tayaban and his
companions demanded from her and Carino P10,000.00 for their release but
they were detained because they could not and did not pay.[23]
On P300,000.00.[25]
Petitioners interposed an appeal with
the Court of Appeals,[26]
but in its
In this Petition for Review on
Certiorari,[30]
petitioners once again bid to establish that their guilt has not been proven
beyond reasonable doubt. They capitalize
on the alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of police officers Tayaban and
Eugenio,[31]
as well as on the inadmissibility, for failure to establish the chain of
custody, of the drug specimens supposedly seized from them on account of the
failure of the forensic chemist who signed the chemistry report to testify in
court.[32]
The OSG,
for its part, advances that the evidence was sufficient to prove the
petitioners’ guilt in this case especially considering that the alleged
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in this case
can no longer be challenged because they had already been accorded credibility
by the trial court.[33] Besides, the OSG points out, petitioners
advance no better defense than their self-serving claim of frame-up which must
be dismissed in light of the presumption that the police officers involved in
their apprehension have regularly performed their duty.[34] As to the claim that the evidence should not
be admitted for failure of the forensic chemist to testify, the OSG points out
that the parties had already agreed at the pre-trial to dispense with such
testimony inasmuch as they had already stipulated that the drug specimens were
actually submitted to the laboratory for analysis and that the results thereof
were then reduced in written report.[35]
The Court grants the petition.
To begin
with, prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that
the elemental act of possession of a prohibited substance be established with
moral certainty, together with the fact that the same is not authorized by law.
The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is
vital to a judgment of conviction.[36]
In these cases, it is therefore
essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.[37]
The mere fact
of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the
moral certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession, the
fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same
substance offered in court as exhibit must also 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.[38]
Chain of custody is defined as the duly recorded authorized
movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources
of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of
seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction.[39]
As a method of authenticating evidence, it 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.[40] 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.[41] It is from the testimony of every witness who handled the
evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence
presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused.
In the case at bar, however, the prosecution evidence is
insufficient to provide that assurance, for all the people who made contact
with the sachets of shabu allegedly
seized from petitioners, only Tayaban and Eugenio were able to testify in court
as to the identity of the evidence. The desk officer at the police station to
whom the specimens were purportedly surrendered by Tayaban and Eugenio was not
even presented in court to observe the identity and uniqueness of the evidence. Even more to the point is the fact that the
testimony of the investigator, who had taken custody of the plastic sachets
after the same were reported to the desk officer, was likewise not offered in
court to directly observe the evidence and admit the specific markings thereon as
his own. The same is true with respect to Jabonillo, the forensic chemist at
the crime laboratory who administered the chemical examination on the specimens
and who could have testified on the circumstances under which he received the
specimen at the laboratory for analysis and testing, as well as on the conduct
of the examination which was administered on the specimen and what he did with
it at the time it was in his possession and custody.
Aside from that, the prosecution has not in fact reasonably explained
why these same witnesses were not able to testify in court. While indeed
the OSG claims that the testimony of Jabonillo has already been dispensed with
by the parties at the pre-trial stage, there however seems to be not a single
hint in the pre-trial order which implies that the parties indeed dispensed
with said testimony.[42]
In view of these loopholes in the evidence adduced against
appellant, it can be reasonably concluded that the prosecution was unable to
establish the identity of the dangerous drug and in effect failed to obliterate
the hypothesis of petitioners’ guiltlessness.
Be that as
it may, while a testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard
because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody
becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not
distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time
of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its
uniqueness.[43] The same standard likewise obtains in case
the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination[44]
and even substitution and exchange.[45] In other words, the
exhibit’s level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or
tampering—without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise
not—dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody
rule.
A unique
characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable
as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their
composition and nature. Hence, the risk of tampering, loss or mistake with
respect to an exhibit of this nature is greatest when the exhibit is small and
is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form
to substances familiar to people in their daily lives.[46] The danger, according to Graham v. State,[47]
is real. In that case, a substance later
analyzed as heroin was excluded from the prosecution evidence because it was
previously handled by two police officers prior to examination who, however,
did not testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit at the
time it was in their possession. The
court pointed out that the white powder seized could have been indeed heroin or
it could have been sugar or baking powder.
It ruled that unless the state can show by records or testimony the
continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into
the possession of police officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine
its composition, testimony of the state as to the laboratory’s findings is
inadmissible.[48]
Indeed, the
Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the
possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over a narcotic
specimen there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of
substances from other cases—by accident or otherwise—in which similar evidence
was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory testing. Hence,
in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to
cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more
exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient
completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either
been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.
Our drugs laws in fact establish
reasonable safeguards for the protection of the identity and integrity of
narcotic substances and dangerous drugs seized and/or recovered from drug
offenders. Section 21[49]
of R.A. No. 9165 materially requires the apprehending team having initial
custody and control of the drugs to, immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The same requirements are also found in
Section 21[50] of its
implementing rules[51]
as well as in Section 2[52]
of the Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1 series of 2002.[53]
The members of the arresting team in this case, however, do
not seem to have complied with these guidelines. The prosecution has not even shown that they
had extended reasonable efforts to comply with the statutory requirements in
handling the evidence. From the
testimonies of Tayaban and Eugenio, it is clear that after the arrest of
petitioners they immediately seized the plastic sachets, took custody thereof
and brought the same to the police station together with petitioners. It was at the police station—and not at the place
where the item was seized from appellant—where, according to Tayaban and
Eugenio, the unnamed police investigator had placed the markings on the
specimens. What is more telling is the admission made by Tayaban to the
effect that the markings were placed on the plastic sachet in his presence and not
in the presence of petitioners as required by law.
These flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of
the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from petitioners, taken together with
the failure of the key persons who handled the same to testify on the
whereabouts of the exhibits before they were offered in evidence in court,
militate against the prosecution’s cause because they not only cast doubt on
the identity of the corpus delicti but also tend to negate, if not totally discredit, the claim
of regularity in the conduct of official police operation advanced by the
OSG. Indeed, we cannot give much weight
to the contention that the arresting officers in this case were not trained to
apprehend and arrest drug offenders, because as agents of the government in law
enforcement they are reasonably presumed to know the laws and the rules they
are tasked to enforce.
We take this occasion to reiterate, albeit not needlessly,
that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be
seen in the context of an existing rule of law or statute authorizing the
performance of an act or duty or prescribing a procedure in the performance
thereof. The presumption, in other words, obtains only where nothing in
the records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated
from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law.[54]
But where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse
presumption arises as a matter of course.[55]
All told, in view of the deviation of the apprehending
officers from the mandated conduct of taking post-seizure custody of the
dangerous drug in this case, there is no way to presume that the members
thereof had performed their duties regularly. And even assuming that we
can confidently rely on the credibility of the prosecution witnesses in this
case, the evidence would still fall short of satisfying the quantum of evidence
required to arrive at a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the
evidence chain failed to conclusively connect petitioners with the seized drugs
in a way that would establish that the specimens are one and the same as that
seized in the first place and offered in court as evidence.
In Mallillin v. People,[56] People
v. Obmiranis[57] and People
v. Garcia,[58] we
declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of key
witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen
of shabu,
and the irregularity which characterized
the handling of the evidence before the same was finally offered in court,
fatally conflict with every proposition relative to the culpability of the
accused. It is this same reason that now moves us to reverse the judgment
of conviction in the present case.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 29867 dated
The
Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to implement this Decision
and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from
receipt.
SO ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES PRESBITERO J.
VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, it is hereby
certified 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
Acting Chief Justice
[2]CA rollo, pp. 78-89; The assailed decision was penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao, then chairperson of the Court of Appeals Seventh Division, and was concurred in by Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Arturo G. Tayag.
[3]Records, pp. 126-130. In Criminal Case Nos. Q-03-118301 and Q-03-118302.
[4]The court was presided by Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
[5]Records,
pp. 12 and 127.The other members of the team were SPO4 Rene Cruz, PO2 Nelson
Pangan, PO2 Arvin Nicolas, PO1 Felicito Salvador, PO1 Glen Calima and PO1 Joel
Espirito. See the Joint Affidavit of PO1
[6]
The inculpatory portion of the information against Ronald Carino, in Criminal Case No. Q-03-118301, reads:
That on or about the 20th day of June 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her possession and control zero point zero four (0.04) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The inculpatory portion of the information against Rosana Andes, in Criminal Case No. Q-03-118302, reads:
That on or about the 20th day of [June 2003], in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did then and there [willfully], unlawfully and knowingly have in his/her possession and control zero point zero three (0.03) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
[7]The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
[8]Records, p. 22.
[9]TSN,
[10]TSN,
[12]TSN,
[13]
[14]
[16]TSN,
[17]
[18]
[20]TSN,
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]Records, pp. 126-130.
[25]Records, p. 130. The trial court disposed of the cases as follows:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered finding both accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the violation of Section 11, R.A. 9165 as charged and each is sentenced as follows:
1.
In Q-03-118301, accused RONALD CARINO
y ASUNZION is sentenced to a jail term of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE
(1) DAY, as minimum to THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, as maximum and to pay a
fine of P300,000.00; and
2.
In Q-03-118302, accused ROSANA ANDES y
NOBELO is sentenced to a jail term of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE
(1) DAY, as minimum to THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, as maximum and to pay a
fine of P300,000.00; and
The methylamphetamine hydrochloride involved in these cases are ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru the DDB for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.
[26]CA rollo, pp. 59-73.
[27]
UPON
THE VIEW WE TAKE OF THIS CASE, THUS, the appealed Joint Decision dated P300,000.00 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. Costs shall also be taxed
against accused-appellants.
SO ORDERED.
[28]
[29]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]People v. Simbahon, 449 Phil. 74, 81
(2003); People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156, 170 (2001); People v. Dismuke; People v. Mapa;
[37]
[38]Allen, Ronald J., et al., An
Analytical Approach to Evidence, Little Brown & Co.,
[42]Records, p. 24. The Pre-trial Order states that the accused in these cases are the same accused charged in the information who pleaded not guilty on arraignment, and that they were arrested without a warrant of arrest.
[45]See Graham v. State, 255 N.E.2d 652, 655.
[46]Graham v. State, 255 N.E2d 652, 655.
[47]Graham v. State, 255 N.E2d 652.
[49]SEC.
21. Custody
and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs,
Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments. Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.—The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all
dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory
equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in
the following manner.
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody
and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or
the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department
of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within
twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be
submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative
examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory
examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory
examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of
the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals
does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial
laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the
quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic
laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on
the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next
twenty-four (24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court
shall, within seventy-two (72) hours, conduct an ocular inspection of the
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including
the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the PDEA
shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the destruction or
burning of the same, in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom
such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, a representative from the media
and the DOJ, civil society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the guidelines on the
manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s which shall be
borne by the offender; Provided, That
those item/s of lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated,
used or recycled for legitimate purposes:
Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is
retained;
(5) The Board
shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning
of the subject item/s which, together with the representative sample/s in the
custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over
the case. In all instances, the
representative sample/s shall be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by
the Board;
(6) The alleged
offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally
observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall not constitute
an admission of guilt. In case the said
offender or accused refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due
notice in writing to the accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours
before the actual burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the
Secretary of Justice shall appoint a member of the public attorney’s office to
represent the former;
(7) After the
promulgation and judgment in the criminal case wherein the representative
sample/s was presented as evidence in court, the trial prosecutor shall inform
the Board of the final termination of the case and, in turn, shall request the
court for leave to turn over the said representative sample/s to the PDEA for
proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt
of the same; and
(8) Transitory Provision: a) Within twenty-four (24) hours from the
effectivity of this Act, dangerous drugs defined herein which are presently in
possession of law enforcement agencies shall, with leave of court, be burned or
destroyed, in the presence of representatives of the Court, DOJ, Department of
Health (DOH) and the accused and/or his/her counsel, and, b) Pending the
organization of the PDEA, the custody, disposition, and burning or destruction
of seized/surrendered dangerous drugs provided under this Section shall be
implemented by the DOH.
[50]SEC. 21.
x x x (a) The apprehending
officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in
the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof; Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served, or at the nearest
police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance
with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items. [emphasis supplied]
[51]Approved
on
[52]Section
2. Seizure or confiscation of drugs or controlled chemicals or laboratory
equipment.
a. The apprehending team having
initial custody and control of dangerous drugs or controlled chemical or plant
sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment shall immediately, after the
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of:
(i) the person from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized or his/her representative or counsel;
(ii) a representative from the media;
(iii) a representative from the department of Justice;
and
(iv) any elected public official;
who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory report
covering the drug/equipment and who shall be given a copy thereof. Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted
at the place where the search is served; or at the nearest police station or at
the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable,
in case of a seizure without warrant; Provided further that non-compliance with these requirement under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizure of and custody over said items.
b. The drugs or controlled
chemicals or laboratory equipment shall be properly marked for identification, weighed when
possible or counted, sealed, packed and labeled by the apprehending
officer/team [emphasis supplied].
[53]Adopted
and approved on
[55]Jones on Evidence, p. 94, citing Arkansas R. COM. V. CHICAGO R.L. & P.R. CO., 274 U.S. 597, 71 L Ed 1221, 1224.
[56]G.R. No. 172953,
[57]Supra.
[58]G.R.
No, 173480,