SECOND
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE
Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - PATERNO LORENZO y CASAS, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 184760 Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, ABAD, and PEREZ,
JJ. Promulgated: April 23, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.
Assailed
in this appeal via Notice of Appeal is the 14 June 2007 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals in CA-GR HC No. 02184 which affirmed the 05 October 2005
Decision[2]
promulgated by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal, in Criminal
Case Nos. 6991-93, finding accused-appellant Paterno Lorenzo y Casas guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II, of Republic Act
No. 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.[3]
Accused-appellant
was arrested and charged following a buy-bust operation.
On 12
September 2003, two (2) Informations were filed against accused-appellant
Paterno Lorenzo y Casas (Lorenzo) charging him with violating Sections 5 and
11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the accusatory portions thereof
reading.
Criminal Case No. 6992
That on or about the 10th day of September 2003 in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, direct custody and control a total of 2.04 grams of white crystalline substance contained in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets which gave positive result to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[4]
Criminal Case No. 6993
That on or about the 10th day of September 2003, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to another 0.20 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet which gave positive result to the test for Metamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[5]
The cases were raffled to
Branch 76 of the RTC of San Mateo, Rizal and docketed as Criminal Case Nos.
6992-93.
One Conrado Estanislao y Javier (Estanislao) was similarly
charged in a different Information, which case was docketed as Criminal Case
No. 6991. Estanislao was accused of
possessing illegal drugs in violation of the provisions of Section 11, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Information containing the following
averments:
Criminal Case No. 6994
That on or about the 10th day of September 2003, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, direct custody and control of 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet which gave positive result to the test for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
On arraignment,
both accused, with the assistance of counsel, entered ‘NOT GUILTY’ pleas.
The
three (3) cases having been consolidated, joint trial on the merits ensued.
The
prosecution presented as its lone witness, Police Officer 1 (PO1) Noel P.
Pineda, who was a member of the buy-bust team.
The
evidence for the prosecution sought to establish that on 9 September 2003, upon
a series of reports relayed by a confidential informant that a certain Paterno
Lorenzo was peddling shabu in the
Barangay Dulongbayan area, the team of PO3 Pineda embarked on a buy-bust
operation against said drug peddler. Anticipating the operation, PO3 Pineda
prepared two (2) pieces of marked P100.00 bills to be used as buy-bust
money. At around 10:00 o’clock in the evening of the same day, PO3 Pineda,
along with SPO1 Arellano and PO3 Tougan, proceeded to Barangay Dulongbayan and
secretly met with their confidential informant. According to the confidential
informant, he had not seen Lorenzo and raised the possibility that he was not
in the area at the time. Assessing the situation, the police officers
instructed the confidential informant to continue with his surveillance of the
area and to inform them immediately if he comes across Lorenzo.
At
around 1:00 o’clock in the morning of 10 September 2003, while PO1 Pineda and
his companions were waiting at
Upon
being arrested, Lorenzo was bodily searched and PO1 Pineda was able to retrieve
the marked money and 2 other sachets of shabu
from him. Seeing what had happened to Lorenzo, the man he was talking to
and later on identified as a certain Estanislao, attempted to escape the police
officers and ran, but he was soon accosted by PO3 Tougan. A search of his pockets yielded one (1)
sachet of shabu.
After
the buy-bust operation, Lorenzo and Estanislao were taken to the police station
where the incident was recorded in the police blotter. The plastic sachets
containing 2.04 and 0.20 grams of white crystalline substance bought from Lorenzo was sent to the PNP
Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination. The results as contained in
Chemistry Report no. D-1741-03E showed that the substance sold by Lorenzo was
positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.[6]
Interposing
the twin defenses of denial and frame-up, accused-appellant Lorenzo and
Estanislao stood before the witness stand and presented their version of the
facts.
Lorenzo was in his mountain bike on the way
home to Dulongbayan sometime between 12:00 o’clock in the evening and 1:00
o’clock in the morning of 10 September 2003. Estanislao, who was also with him
at the time, was riding in his motor cross style bike and was supposed to buy
food at said place after playing ‘tong-its.’
While
the two (2) were traversing Daangbakal and
On 5 October 2005, the RTC rendered a Decision convicting
Lorenzo for illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs, but acquitting
Estanislao, disposing as follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered:
(a)
Finding accused Paterno Lorenzo y Casas guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, first paragraph, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 (Criminal Case No. 6993) or illegal selling of 0.20 gram
of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu),
a dangerous drug, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
(b)
Finding accused Paterno Lorenzo y Casas guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 11, second paragraph, No.3, Article
II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Criminal Case No. 6992) or illegal possession of
2.04 gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment
of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to Twelve years and six
(months) as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
(c) Finding accused Conrado Estanislao y Javier, for violation of Section 11, second paragraph, sub paragraph 3, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, NOT GUILTY for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Detained accused Conrado Estanislao y Javier is ordered released from detention at the San Mateo Jail unless detained for some other lawful cause.
The plastic sachets of shabu subject matter of the instant cases are ordered forfeited in favor of the government and the Officer-In-Charge of the Court is hereby ordered to safely deliver or cause the safe delivery of the same to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.[7]
Weighing
the testimonies of the prosecution and defense witnesses, as well as the other
evidence presented during trial, the trial court gave more veracity to the
prosecution’s version that Lorenzo was caught in flagrante delicto selling illegal drugs to a poseur-buyer during
a buy-bust operation. The trial court gave credence to the prosecution’s
evidence in accordance with the presumption of regularity in the performance of
official functions accorded to police officers. According to the trial court,
the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the buyer in the
buy-bust operation and the seller, object and consideration, including the
delivery of the shabu sold by Lorenzo
and the payment of the buy-bust money.
Invoking
his innocence, Lorenzo appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals,
questioning the procedure followed by the police operatives in the seizure and
custody of the evidence against him.
On 14
June 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of conviction rendered by
the RTC, disposing to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, appeal is hereby dismissed and the assailed October 5, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Mateo Rizal, Branch 76, in Criminal Case Nos. 6991-93, is hereby AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to Section 13 (C), Rule 124 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended by AM No. 00-5-03-SC dated September 28, 2004, which became effective on October 15, 2004. This judgment of the Court of Appeals may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.
Unyielding,
Lorenzo appealed before this Court on Notice of Appeal,[8]
adopting the same arguments raised before the Court of Appeals:
I.
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165; AND
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S DEFENSE OF DENIAL.
The
presumption of innocence of an accused in a criminal case is a basic
constitutional principle, fleshed out by procedural rules which place on the
prosecution the burden of proving that an accused is guilty of the offense
charged by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Corollary thereto, conviction
must rest on the strength of the prosecution’s evidence and not on the weakness
of the defense.
In fact,
if the prosecution fails to meet the required quantum of evidence, the defense
may logically not even present evidence on its behalf. In which case, the presumption of innocence
shall prevail and, hence, the accused shall be acquitted. However, once the presumption of innocence is
overcome, the defense bears the burden of evidence to show reasonable doubt as
to the guilt of the accused.
Whether
the degree of proof has been met is largely left for the trial courts to be
determined. Consistent with the rulings of this Court, it is but a fundamental
and settled rule that factual findings of the trial court and its calibration
of the testimonies of the witnesses and its conclusions anchored on its
findings are accorded by the appellate court high respect, if not conclusive
effect, more so when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The exception is when it
is established that the trial court ignored, overlooked, misconstrued or
misinterpreted cogent facts and circumstances which, if considered, will change
the outcome of the case. Considering
that what is at stake here is the liberty of accused-appellant, we have carefully
reviewed and evaluated the records of the case and find it necessary to reverse
the appellate court’s decision convicting accused-appellant.
Essentially,
Lorenzo questions his conviction on the basis of reasonable doubt. The defense
anchors its claim on the failure of the prosecution to adopt the required
procedure under Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, on the custody
and disposition of confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs. According
to the defense, this alleged failure to follow proper procedure, i.e. inventory
and photographing of the retrieved evidence, raises doubts as to whether the
specimen examined by the forensic chemist and presented in court were indeed
retrieved from accused-appellant. The defense also faults the police operatives
for not having coordinated with the PDEA regarding the buy-bust.
Thus, for
resolution by this Court is the sole issue of whether the prosecution discharged
its burden of proving Lorenzo’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
charged.
We rule
in the negative. The prosecution’s case fails for failure to establish the
identity of the prohibited drug with moral certainty.
In order
to successfully prosecute an accused for illegal sale of drugs, the prosecution
must be able to prove the following elements: (1) identities of the buyer and
seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment therefor.[9]
Material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof
that the transaction or sale had actually taken place, coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus
delicti.[10] The
term corpus delicti means the actual commission by someone of the
particular crime charged.
On the
other hand, 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. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established
beyond doubt.
In both
illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, 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.
While buy-bust operations have been
proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are
otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust operation is
susceptible to police abuse. Thus,
courts have been mandated to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an
innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug
offenses.
Taking
the aforementioned into consideration, specific procedures relating to the
seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down under the Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR) for Republic Act No. 9165 and it is the prosecution’s
burden to adduce evidence that these procedures have been complied with in
proving the elements of the offense.
The
procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered dangerous drugs, among others, is provided under Section 21 (a),
paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, to wit:
(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;
Section 21
(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No.
9165, which implements said provision, reads:
(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 officers/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
Section 21(a),
Article II of the IRR offers some flexibility in complying with the express
requirements. Indeed, the
evident purpose of the procedure is the preservation of the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt of or innocence of the accused. Thus, the proviso
stating that non-compliance with the
stipulated procedure, under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and
invalid such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officers.
In People v. Sanchez,[11] we
clarified that this saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized
the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds.
Accused-appellant
claims that no physical inventory and no photographing of the drugs took place.
Non-compliance by the police operatives with the foregoing requirements in the
instant case is fatal to the prosecution’s case. Although the prosecution
recognized its failure to coordinate with the PDEA because of the urgency of
the situation, it ignored the issue of specifically identifying the prohibited
drug at the point of confiscation. There is absolutely nothing in the records
to show that the inventory and photography requirements, or their credible
substitute to prove integrity and evidentiary value, were ever followed.
In People v. Lim,[12]
this Court held:
xxx any
apprehending team having initial custody and control of said drugs and/or
paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure and confiscation, have the same
physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if
there be any, and or his representative, who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents
to comply with such a requirement raises a doubt whether what was submitted for
laboratory examination and presented in court was actually recovered from the
appellants. It negates the presumption that official duties have been regularly
performed by the PAOC-TF agents.
In Bondad, Jr. v. People,[13]
where the prosecution did not inventory and photograph the confiscated
evidence, this Court acquitted therein accused reasoning that failure to comply
with the aforesaid requirements of the law compromised the identity of the
items seized.
In People v. Ruiz,[14]
this Court acquitted accused due to the failure of the prosecution to comply
with the procedures under Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR as no physical inventory was ever made, and no
photograph of the seized items was taken under the circumstances required.
In People v. Orteza,[15]
the Court explained the implications
of the failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic
Act No. 9165, to wit:
In
People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the confiscated
marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the accused, the Court held
that the deviation from the standard procedure in anti-narcotics operations
produced doubts as to the origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court
concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus
delicti.
The
Court made a similar ruling in People v. Kimura, where the Narcom
operatives failed to place markings on the seized marijuana at the time the
accused was arrested and to observe the procedure and take custody of the drug.
More
recently, in Zarraga v. People, the Court held that the material
inconsistencies with regard to when and where the markings on the shabu were made and the lack of
inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the identity of
the corpus delicti. The Court thus acquitted the accused due to the
prosecution's failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu.
To reiterate, the flexibility offered by the IRR of Republic Act No. 9165
is coupled with the proviso that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items must
be preserved.
Thus, in Malillin
v. People,[16] the
Court explained that the “chain of custody” requirement performs this function
in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the
evidence are removed. The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit
handling, storage, labeling and recording, and must exist from the time the
evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence.[17]
Failure to prove that the specimen submitted for laboratory examination was the
same one allegedly seized from accused is fatal to the prosecution’s case.
There can be no crime of illegal possession or illegal sale of a prohibited
drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same
specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug.[18]
PO1 Pineda
testified that it was their confidential agent who purchased the shabu from accused-appellant and that he
only retrieved it from said informant. He further testified that he marked the
retrieved sachet of shabu together
with the two other sachets of shabu
that were allegedly seized from the accused, but it was not certain when and
where the said marking was done nor who had specifically received and had
custody of the specimens thereafter.
The Court
also observes that the prosecution did not present the poseur-buyer who had
personal knowledge of the transaction. The lone prosecution witness was at
least four meters away from where accused-appellant and the poseur-buyer were.
From this distance, it was impossible for him to hear the conversation between
accused-appellant and the poseur-buyer.
The
foregoing facts and circumstances create doubt as to whether the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from
accused-appellant were the same ones that were released to
In sum, the
totality of the evidence presented in the instant case failed to support
accused-appellant’s conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II,
Republic Act No. 9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt all the elements of the offense.
Accordingly,
the presumption of innocence should prevail.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Court of Appeals
Decision dated 14 June 2007 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02184, is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant
PATERNO LORENZO y CASAS is hereby ACQUITTED
for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He
is ordered immediately RELEASED from
detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let
a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION MARIANO
Associate
Justice Associate
Justice
ROBERTO A.
ABAD
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII
of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby
certified 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.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
1 Rollo, pp. 2-18; Penned by
Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas, with the concurrence of Associate Justices
Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Ramon R. Garcia.
[2] CA
Rollo, pp. 52-64; Penned by Judge
Josephine Fernandez.
[3] Section 5. P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch
in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker
in any of such transactions.xxx
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The
penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00)
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess
any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of
purity thereof:
Xxx Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the
foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(3) Imprisonment of
twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from
Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand
pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than
five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,
marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or
"shabu", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA
or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or
newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic
value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or
less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana x xx
[4] Records,
p.1.
[5]
[6] Exhibit
E, Records, p. 95.
[7] CA
Rollo, pp. 52-64.
[8] Rollo, p. 19.
[9] People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 172116,
October 30, 2006, 506 SCRA 280.
[10]
[11] People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832,
October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194.
[12] People v. Lim, G.R. No. 141699, August
7, 2002, 386 SCRA 581.
[13] Bondad, Jr., v. People, G.R. No. 173804,
December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 497.
[14] People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480,
February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 750.
[15] People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, July
31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750.
[16] Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953,
April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619.
[17] Supra, note 11 at 10.
[18]
[19] People v. Dismuke, G.R. No. 108453, July 11, 1994, 234 SCRA 51.