THIRD DIVISION
|
ANTONIO
LOPEZ y DELA CRUZ, Petitioner, - versus - PEOPLE OF
THE Respondent. |
G.R. No. 184037 Present: YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: September 29, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
NACHURA, J.:
Before this
Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari[1] under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil
Procedure seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision[2]
dated January 31, 2008, which affirmed the Decision[3]
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 214, dated July
21, 2006, convicting petitioner Antonio Lopez y dela Cruz (petitioner) of the crime of Illegal Possession of
Drugs.
Petitioner
was charged in an Information,[4]
dated April 24, 2003, that reads:
That on or about the 23rd day of April 2003, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.10 gram of white crystalline substance, found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as “shabu,” a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The
prosecution, through the testimony of arresting officer, Police Officer 2
Apolinario Atienza (PO2 Atienza), a member of Task Force Mapalakas of the Mandaluyong City Police Station, established that
on April 23, 2003 at about 3:00 a.m.,
while conducting a routinary foot patrol along Pantaleon Street, Barangay Hulo, Mandaluyong City, PO2
Atienza saw petitioner at a distance of seven (7) meters walking in his
direction; that, as the place was well-lit, he saw petitioner, walking with
head bowed, looking at his hand, which held a plastic sachet
containing a crystalline substance; and that he approached petitioner, held the
latter’s hand and asked, “Ano yan?”
but petitioner did not answer.
Thereafter, PO2 Atienza introduced himself to petitioner as a member of
the Mandaluyong police, arrested him, and informed him of his constitutional
rights to remain silent and to counsel. He then brought petitioner to the
Chemistry Report
No. D-737-03E[6]
prepared by Police Senior Inspector and Forensic Chemical Officer Annalee R.
Forro, whose testimony was made subject of stipulation by both parties,[7]
revealed the following results:
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A – One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings “APA” containing 0.10 gram of white crystalline substance.
x x x x
FINDINGS:
Qualitative examination conducted on the above-stated specimen gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONCLUSION:
Specimen A contains Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
The
testimony of PO1 Julius B. Bacero (PO1 Bacero), companion of PO2 Atienza, was also dispensed with, as both the
prosecution and the defense stipulated on the following: a) that he was a member of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) assigned to the Mandaluyong City Police Force; b) that
he was one of the members of the buy-bust team as backup, which operated
against petitioner on April 23, 2003 along Pantaleon St., Barangay Hulo, Mandaluyong City;
c) that as a back-up, his duty was only to
secure the premises; and d) that he had no personal knowledge as to the
circumstances surrounding the arrest of petitioner, as the former only saw the
latter when he was already being brought by PO2 Atienza to their vehicle.[8]
The
testimony of Senior Police Officer 1 Jaime Masilang -- who took the statement
of the arresting officers, prepared and forwarded the referral letter, the
arrest report, the affidavit of arrest, and the request for a drug test to the
Prosecution Office, and put the markings on the evidence recovered -- also
became the subject of stipulation.[9]
As
sole witness for the defense, petitioner testified that, on April 23, 2003 at
around 2:00 to 3:00 a.m., he went to a bakery about 30 meters away from his
house in Barangay Hulo to buy pandesal. Suddenly, two vehicles stopped in front of
him. PO2 Atienza and his companion, PO1
Bacero, alighted from the vehicle and frisked him. When PO2 Atienza found nothing in his
possession, the two police officers pushed him inside their vehicle and
handcuffed him. He was then brought to
the office of one Major Kalag.
Petitioner insisted that he was framed and that the shabu was taken by PO2 Atienza from the drawer of the table of
Major Kalag. Afterwards, he was detained
at the Criminal Investigation Division and charged with illegal possession of shabu.
On cross-examination, petitioner testified that, prior to his arrest, he
did not know Major Kalag or PO2 Atienza, or the two had any ill motive against
him.[10]
On
July 21, 2006, the RTC rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty of the
crime of illegal possession of drugs. The RTC gave credit to the positive
testimony of PO2 Atienza, who was able to recall the incident vividly and to identify
the evidence in open court. The RTC held that the acts of PO2 Atienza enjoyed
the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duty. Thus,
the RTC disposed of the case in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having
successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt[,] he
is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
Accused is credited in full of the preventive imprisonment [he has] already served in confinement.
Let the physical evidence subject matter of this case be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the State and referred to the PDEA.
SO ORDERED.[11]
Aggrieved,
petitioner appealed to the CA.[12]
On January 31, 2008, the CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. The CA held that
the shabu was not a product of an
illegal search and, therefore, admissible in evidence. The CA opined that the
plain-view doctrine was applicable to the seizure of the shabu, ratiocinating that the prohibited substance was within the
plain view of PO2 Atienza who was on a routinary foot patrol, and that the police
officer inadvertently came across petitioner, who was caught in flagrante delicto. Moreover, the CA held
that petitioner was estopped from questioning the failure of the arresting
officers to comply with Section 21[13]
of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165,[14]
in view of the admission by the defense of the Chemistry Report prepared by the
Forensic Chemical Officer which positively identified the sachet’s contents as shabu. Affirming the findings of the
RTC, the CA likewise accorded the police officers the benefit of the
presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties.
Subsequently,
petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration[15]
which the CA, however, denied in its Resolution[16]
dated August 1, 2008.
Hence, this Petition raising the
following issues:
I.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS ARREST WAS MADE WITHOUT A WARRANT.
II.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE PETITIONER GUILTY OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE INADMISSIBILITY OF THE EVIDENCE FOR HAVING BEEN OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165.
III.
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING SCANT CONSIDERATION TO THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PETITIONER, WHICH IS MORE CREDIBLE THAN THAT OF THE PROSECUTION.[17]
Petitioner,
through the Public Attorney's Office, avers that PO2 Atienza is not a member of
the Drug Enforcement Unit of the PNP and has no training with respect to drug
cases; thus, the latter was not in a position to immediately identify the
plastic sachet as containing shabu. Furthermore, at the time of arrest, petitioner
was merely holding a plastic sachet, an act that did not constitute a crime
that would justify his warrantless arrest; that considering the time and place
where the arrest took place, it was improbable and incredible for PO2 Atienza,
at a distance of seven (7) meters, to have easily determined that the plastic
sachet, so small in size, contained shabu.
Petitioner submits that in the absence of evidence and corroborating testimony
of any other witness, his alleged culpability, based on the sole testimony of
PO2 Atienza, shows that there was lack of probable cause, at the outset, to
arrest him. Accordingly, the search made
on petitioner, as an incident to the illegal arrest, was likewise illegal.
Moreover,
petitioner claims that PO2 Atienza's failure to comply with the provisions of
R.A. No. 9165 casts doubt on the validity of the arrest and the admissibility
of the evidence allegedly seized from him. He says that Section 21 of R.A. No.
9165 and Section 2[18]
of Regulation No. 1 of the Dangerous Drugs Board, Series of 2002, were
violated. In addition, the plastic sachet containing the shabu was marked inside the police headquarters and not at the
scene of the crime.
Petitioner asseverates that
these violations cast a serious doubt on the identity and integrity of the shabu allegedly confiscated from him. In
the same manner, there was utter failure on the part of the prosecution to
prove the crucial link in the chain of custody of the shabu, which constitutes the corpus
delicti of the offense. Lastly, petitioner argues that the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty of police officers should not by
itself prevail over the presumption of innocence and the constitutionally
protected rights of an individual.[19]
On
the other hand, respondent People of the Philippines, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), asserts that
petitioner's warrantless arrest is valid pursuant to Section 5(a), Rule
113 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, commonly referred to as the rule on in flagrante delicto arrests; that
petitioner was validly searched because he was caught in flagrante delicto or in “plain view” committing an offense; and
that any objection involving petitioner's arrest, which should have been made before he entered his plea, is deemed
waived because petitioner had been arraigned, participated in the trial and
presented his evidence. The OSG also
claims that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165
is not fatal to the cause of the prosecution that would render inadmissible the
plastic sachet confiscated from petitioner, pointing out that there was
continuity in the handling of the prohibited drug from the time it was
confiscated until it was delivered for examination. Thus, its integrity and evidentiary value had
been preserved, justifying its admission and consideration by the RTC and the CA.
Lastly, the OSG insists that petitioner's guilt was sufficiently proven beyond
reasonable doubt as found by both the RTC and the CA, giving the police
officers the benefit of the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official functions and discarding petitioner's defense of frame-up.[20]
The Petition
is impressed with merit.
In
illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the accused is in
possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug.[21]
Given
the factual milieu of this case, we find our ruling in Guido Catuiran y Necudemus v. People of the Philippines[22]
instructive:
We begin with the precept that in criminal prosecutions, fundamental is the requirement that the elemental acts constituting the offense be established with moral certainty as this is the critical and only requisite to a finding of guilt. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Of prime importance therefore in these cases is that the identity of the dangerous drug be likewise established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, it must be established with unwavering exactitude that the dangerous drug presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as that seized from him in the first place. The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.
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. Indeed, 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 this case, PO2 Atienza
himself testified that he confiscated the prohibited drug and brought it to his
office. He then prepared the request and only then―in the office―did
he place his initials “APA” on the plastic sachet. The prosecution also failed
to establish that petitioner was present when PO2 Atienza marked the said
plastic sachet. These shortcomings militate against the prosecution's case. In the similar case of Ronald Carino and Rosana
presence
of the accused. Such flaw not only casts doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti but also tends to negate,
if not totally discredit, the claim of regularity in the conduct of official
police operation.
All
told, the identity of the corpus delicti
in this case was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The courts below heavily
relied on the testimony of PO2 Atienza and, in the same way, banked on the
presumption of regularity. It bears stressing that this presumption only arises
in the absence of contradicting details that would raise doubts on the
regularity in the performance of official duties. Where, as in this case, the
police officers failed to comply with the standard procedure prescribed by law,
there is no occasion to apply the presumption.[24]
With the foregoing disquisition, we
find no necessity to discuss petitioner’s submission that the arrest and
subsequent seizure were attended by a constitutional infirmity.
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the Decision dated January 31, 2008 of the Court of
Appeals affirming the judgment of conviction by the
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.
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate
Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision were
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,
Third Division
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
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-28.
[2] Particularly
docketed as CA-G.R. CR. No. 30492, penned by Associate Justice Portia
Aliño-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member of
this Court) and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, concurring; id. at 68-78.
[3]
CA rollo, pp. 12-14.
[4] Records, pp. 1-2.
[5] TSN, February 24, 2004, pp. 2-9.
[6] Records, p. 15.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] TSN, March 28, 2006, pp. 3-6.
[11] CA rollo, p. 14.
[12]
[13]
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.
[14] The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
[15] CA rollo, pp. 89-94.
[16]
[17] Supra note 1, at 13.
[18]
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.
[19]
[20] Rollo, pp. 98-113.
[21] People v. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, July
28, 2008, 560 SCRA 430, 451.
[22] G.R.
No. 175647, May 8, 2009.
[23] G.R.
No. 178757, March 13, 2009.
[24] People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009.