THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, -
versus - ROSEMARIE R. SALONGA, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 186390 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA,
and BERSAMIN,* JJ. Promulgated: October
2, 2009 |
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
VELASCO, JR., J.:
This
is an appeal from the August 29, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02887 entitled People
of the Philippines v. Rosemarie R. Salonga which affirmed the June 27, 2007
Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 80 in Criminal Case No.
Q-02-110989 for Violation of Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act No. (RA)
9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002.
The Facts
Accused-appellant
was charged for two different offenses, as quoted in the following
Informations:
Criminal Case No. Q-02-110988
That on or about the 31st of July 2002 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 possess, sniff and/or use and under [her] control zero point zero seven (0.07) gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]
Criminal Case No. Q-02-110989
That on or about the 31st day of July 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 ZERO SIX (0.06) grams of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Upon
the consolidation of the two cases, a joint trial was conducted by the trial
court. Accused-appellant pleaded not
guilty to both charges.
The Prosecution’s Version of Facts
The sole witness for the prosecution
was PO1 Teresita Reyes (PO1 Reyes). A stipulation was agreed on by the parties
with regard to the testimony of Forensic Chemical Officer Leonard T. Arban.
At
the hearing on July 28, 2003, PO1 Reyes recalled that an informant arrived at
their office on July 30, 2002. Their Police Chief, Col. Pareño, subsequently
instructed them to form a buy-bust team in Barangay
Sto. Domingo in
Evidence for the Defense
Accused-appellant resolutely denied
having sold shabu to the
poseur-buyer. She likewise declared that the police did not recover any shabu from her. According to her, PO1 Reyes,
PO2 Nebres, and SPO1 Arcoy barged into her house on July 31, 2002. They dragged
her outside while she struggled. When asked why they were accosting her, the
police officers just told her to do her explaining at
The Ruling of the Trial Court
After
a trial on the merits, the RTC acquitted accused-appellant on the drug possession
charge but convicted her on drug pushing. The trial court exonerated
accused-appellant on the possession charge as the police officer who recovered
the two sachets of shabu was already
dead and could not testify on the seizure. The sole witness, PO1 Reyes, did not
see the actual confiscation of the shabu.
The RTC, however, found PO1 Reyes’ testimony, though uncorroborated, to have
sufficiently established the elements of the offense with regard to drug
pushing.
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
a) In Criminal Case No. Q-02-110989, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Accordingly, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00; and
b) In Criminal Case No. Q-02-110988. Accused is ACQUITTED of the crime for insufficiency of evidence.
x x x x
SO ORDERED.[8]
The Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC
Decision in its entirety.[9] It held that the elements of the offense under
RA 9165 had been adequately shown by the prosecution. It found that the chain
of custody over the subject specimen was amply established and the defense of
frame-up was unavailing.
Accused-appellant filed a timely Notice of Appeal before this
Court.
On March 30, 2009, this Court directed the parties to submit
supplemental briefs if they so desired. The parties manifested that they were
no longer submitting additional briefs.
The Issues
I
WHETHER THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED
II
WHETHER THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROCEDURE FOR THE CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF PROHIBITED DRUGS WAS COMPLIED WITH
The
defense claims that since no one else could corroborate PO1 Reyes’ testimony,
the lower court should have given emphasis on the version of the defense that
no buy-bust operation took place and that the plastic sachet of shabu was only shown to
accused-appellant inside
The
defense also argues that the first link in the chain of custody of the seized
drugs was not shown, thus giving serious doubts about its identity. They insist
that no proof was shown that the police officers marked the confiscated drug
where it was seized. There is, thus, uncertainty as to whether the seized shabu was the same specimen forwarded by
the police officers to the crime laboratory and subsequently presented during
trial.
The issues raised are interrelated
and need to be jointly discussed.
Accused-appellant relies solely on
her word against that of the police officers, who are presumed to have done
their official duties in a regular manner. As a general rule, the testimony of
the police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith
and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties
regularly. But when the performance of their duties is
tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed.[10]
We
find in the instant case that there are circumstances which serve to successfully
dispute the presumption normally accorded to law enforcement officers.
RA
9165 and its implementing rules require the buy-bust team to mark all seized
evidence at the buy-bust scene. This,
the buy-bust team led by SPO1 Arcoy failed to do.
Sec.
21(a), Art. II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides:
(a) 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: 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.)
The
records reveal the non-compliance with RA 9165, as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SPO1 REYES
Q When you said that you were interested to buy two hundred pesos worth of shabu, what did alyas Marie do?
A She took my money.
Q And what did she do after getting your money?
A After that she handed to me two pieces of [a] small plastic sachet.
Q What were contained in those two small pieces of plastic sachet?
A The one I bought from her.
Q And after you received those two (2) plastic [sachets], what else did you do?
A After that I gave my [pre-arranged] signal by raising my hand.
Q And what happened after you raised your right hand as your [pre-arranged] signal?
A My companions arrived.
Q What happened after they arrived?
A We were able to arrest Marie.
Q Who took hold of Marie?
A SPO2 Nebres.
Q And what happened to the buy bust money you gave?
A Nebres [was] able to recover the [buy bust] money from Marie.[11]
x x x x
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SPO1 REYES
Q But prior to that, Madam witness, did you coordinate with the Barangay Captain or Brgy. Operation of Sto. Domingo before you went there?
A No, sir.
Q And is it not a fact that it is an SOP in the conduct of buy-bust operation[s] to have a coordination before you conduct a buy bust operation[?] [P]lease answer it by yes or no. It is SOP in the conduct of buy-bust operation[s] that there has to be [c]oordination first?
A It was the TOC who dispatch[ed] [us] and who made the call to hold on to the police station.
x x x x
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SPO1 REYES
Q Madam Witness, when you allegedly recovered these sachets from the accused, did you submit your inventory report to the PDEA?
A No,
sir.
x x x x
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SPO1 REYES
Q Why did you not make an inventory and [take] pictures of the shabu that you recovered?
A Because our photographer at [the] time was absent.
Q And how about the inventory, why did you not make an inventory?
A Because
our team leader did not bother to make [an] inventory.
Q So it is the team leader who will make the inventory?
A Yes, sir.[12]
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SPO1 REYES
x x x x
Q So, there were only two pieces of sachet that you [recovered]?
A Yes, sir.
Q You don’t have any participation in the recovery of the other two?
A None,
sir.
Q [Who] was in charge of the recovery of the other two?
A PO2 Nebres.
Q And where is she now?
A Dead already.[13]
x x x x
CROSS EXAMINATION OF SPO1 REYES
Q And you are very much experience[d] in conducting buy bust operation, am I correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q And in fact you can no longer recall the number of times that you appeared in court where you were call[ed] to testify as a government witness in cases of violation of drug law?
A Yes, sir.
Q So am I correct in saying that you were well aware on the requirement of law in view of your length of service in the PNP in conducting buy bust operation?
A Yes, sir.
Q Madam Witness, on July 30, 2002 before you and SPO4 Arcoy and SPO2 Nebres proceeded with the buy bust operation, what procedural requirement did you do?
A SPO2
Arcoy coordinated with the PDEA.
Q How did you know that SPO2 Arcoy coordinated with the PDEA?
A He has a copy of the coordination paper.
Q When did you see that coordination paper with the PDEA, Madam Witness?
A I was at the office at that time.
Q When was the last time that you saw that coordination paper with the PDEA?
A Last 2002.
Q Where is Arcoy now, Madam Witness?
A Dead already.
Q In other words, that coordination report can no longer [be] produce[d] anymore considering the death of Arcoy?
A Yes, sir.
x x x x
Q Madam Witness, I asked you a while ago whether you are familiar with the requirement of law in conducting buy bust operation and you answered in the affirmative. Madam witness, under RA 9165 there are certain legal safeguard[s] which should be followed by the police officer and some of the requirements are photographs to be taken of the alleged confiscated items, did you take photograph[s] of the alleged shabu that you [allegedly] recovered?
A We did not take a picture because the camera [was broken].
Q Madam Witness, considering that you were very much familiar with the requirement of law, did you not submit a post operation report with the PDEA informing them regarding the result of your buy bust operation where a certain alias Marie later on identified as Rosemarie Salonga was caught for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165?
A No
sir, but Arcoy [did].
We do not wish to speculate as to why
PO1 Reyes contradicted her own testimony during the three separate hearings
where she was on the witness stand. Generally, little inconsistencies serve to
even strengthen the credibility of a witness. To our mind, however, these
inconsistencies must be seen together with the unjustified lapses in the
handling of the illegal drugs subject of the buy-bust operation. These lapses could
have been explained by the prosecution but its lone witness could not
accurately recall the reasons for the lapses. Worse, SPO2 Nebres, who had found
two of the four sachets of shabu on
accused-appellant’s person during the buy-bust, was already dead and could not
testify to clarify SPO1 Reyes’ contradictory statements. When asked why no
photographs of the illegal drugs were taken, SPO1 Reyes answered that the
photographer was absent.[14] But
during her cross-examination she was asked the same question and she replied
that they did not take a photograph because the camera was broken.[15] When asked why the buy-bust team did not make
an inventory, PO1 Reyes simply stated, “Because our team leader did not bother to make the inventory.”[16] (Emphasis
supplied.) SPO1 Arcoy could have clarified PO1 Reyes’ testimony but he too was
already deceased at the time of the trial. Evidence could have been presented showing a
justifiable reason why the evidence was not marked immediately after the
buy-bust and in front of accused-appellant, but again, SPO1 Reyes’ testimony
was lacking in this regard.
We
see here a situation similar to People v.
Partoza,[17] which dealt with a police officer who failed
to observe Sec. 21 of RA 9165:
PO3 Tougan did not mark the seized drugs immediately after he arrested appellant in the latter’s presence. Neither did he make an inventory and take a photograph of the confiscated items in the presence of appellant. There was no representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected public official who participated in the operation and who were supposed to sign an inventory of seized items and be given copies thereof. None of these statutory safeguards were observed.
While this Court recognizes that non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team, yet these conditions were not met in the case at bar.
While
a lone witness’ testimony is sufficient to convict an accused, it must be
credible and believable, qualities we cannot ascribe to this case. Major lapses
were not explained, raising doubts as to the preservation of the integrity of
the evidence. The varying reasons the prosecution proffered as to why there was
a departure from the procedure found in RA 9165 do not, to our mind, justify
the buy-bust team’s non-compliance. We are not ready to affirm a conviction in
the face of such flimsy and contradictory excuses for why the evidence was
improperly handled. As this Court
recently observed in People v. Robles,[18] the failure of the police to comply
with the procedure in the custody of seized drugs raises doubt as to their
origins, and negates the operation of the presumption
of regularity accorded to police officers.
To
emphasize the importance of the corpus
delicti in drug charges, we have held that it is 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.[19] This
requirement is found wanting in this case. With the buy-bust team’s unwarranted
non-compliance with the chain of custody procedure, we are unable to say with
certainty that the identity of the seized drugs is intact and its evidentiary
value undiminished. For this reason, we find that the prosecution has not
been able to prove the guilt of accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The
weakness of accused-appellant’s defense is no longer material as the
prosecution was not able to overcome the presumption of innocence accused-appellant
enjoys.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02887 is REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant
Rosemarie R. Salonga is ACQUITTED on
ground of reasonable doubt.
The
Bureau of Corrections is ordered to cause the immediate release of accused-appellant,
unless she is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this Court
of action taken within ten (10) days from notice.
SO
ORDERED.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA V.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
A T T E S T
A T I O N
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.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
C E R T I F I
C A T I O N
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