PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 189841
Appellee,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - NACHURA,
ABAD,
VILLARAMA, JR.,* and
MENDOZA, JJ.
EFREN DITONA y
MONTEFALCON,
BERNARD FERNANDEZ and
ERNESTO EMNAS,
Accused. Promulgated:
EFREN DITONA y
MONTEFALCON,
Appellant. December 15, 2010
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This
case is about the need for the prosecution to show proof that the integrity of
seized prohibited drugs has been preserved from the moment of seizure to the
moment they are presented in court.
The Facts and the
Case
The prosecution evidence shows that the Drug Enforcement Group of the Olongapo
City Police had received reports of rampant selling of illegal drugs at
Compound 7-9th Street, Barangay Ilalim,
On July 19, 2002, within the election period, the police conducted a
buy-bust operation at the place. SPO1
Alfredo Flores, acting as a poseur-buyer, and an informer met the accused Efren
M. Ditona in front of the latter’s house. SPO1 Flores gave Ditona the marked money
consisting of two P100 bills in exchange for one plastic sachet of shabu.
At a signal, PO3 Norberto Ventura and PO2 Allan Delos Reyes rushed
towards the gate of the compound to make the apprehension but, before they
could reach SPO1 Flores and Ditona, the latter noticed their movement and ran into
his house. The officers arrested him
there and four others who were then sniffing shabu and preparing
aluminum tin foils.
The police frisked them and found the marked money on Ditona’s person
together with transparent plastic sachets containing what appeared to be shabu
substance and one cal. 22 magnum revolver with six live ammunitions. They confiscated the marked money, the
suspected shabu substance in
sachets, the gun, and the ammunitions.[1] Upon laboratory examination, the substance
proved positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.[2]
The City Prosecutor of Olangapo City filed four separate informations
against Ditona before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City for selling
and possessing illegal drugs[3] in
Criminal Cases 436-2002[4]
and 437-2002;[5] violation of the Omnibus
Election Code[6] in Criminal Case 438-2002;[7]
and illegal possession of firearms[8] in
Criminal Case 466-2002.[9] The RTC tried all four cases jointly.
On July 11, 2007 the RTC[10]
found Ditona guilty of all the charges and sentenced him to suffer the penalty
of life imprisonment (reclusion perpetua) in Criminal Case 436-2002; imprisonment
from 12 years and one day to 20 years in
Criminal Case 437-2002; imprisonment from one year to six years in
Criminal Case 438-2002; and imprisonment from four years, two months, and one
day to six years of prision correccional and a fine of P15,000.00
in Criminal Case 466-2002. Ditona’s
denial, said the RTC, cannot prevail over the police officers’ positive
declarations considering that the latter did not have any motive to concoct a
false charge against him and presumably performed their official duties
regularly.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA)[11] affirmed
the conviction for the crimes relating to the prohibited drugs but modified the
RTC ruling with respect to the other charges after observing that it erred in
convicting Ditona separately for illegal possession of firearms and violation
of the Omnibus Election Code.
The Issue Presented
The
sole issue for resolution is whether or not the prosecution was able to
establish beyond reasonable doubt Ditona’s guilt for illegal possession and
sale of shabu.
The Court’s Ruling
To successfully prosecute an
accused for selling illegal drugs, the prosecution has to prove: (1) the identities
of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.[12] On the other hand, for an accused to be
convicted of possession of illegal drugs, the prosecution is required to prove
that: (1) the accused was in possession of prohibited drug; (2) such possession
is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed
the prohibited drug.[13]
In both instances, the State has to
prove as well the corpus delicti, the body of the crime.[14] It must be shown that the suspected substance
the police officers seized from the accused is the same thing presented in
court during the trial. Thus, the chain
of custody rule is essential to ensure that doubts regarding the identity of
the evidence are removed through the monitoring and tracking of the movements
of the seized drugs from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist,
and finally to the court.[15] The witnesses should be able to describe these
movements to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item
and that no one who did not belong in the chain had access to the same.[16]
Here, the prosecution dismally failed
to prove the corpus delicti since there were substantial gaps in
the chain of custody of the seized drugs which raised doubts on the
authenticity of the evidence presented in court.
To begin with, SPO1 Flores, PO3
Ventura, and PO2 Delos Reyes executed a Joint Affidavit,[17] which
formed part of their direct testimonies, in which they narrated the details of
the buy-bust operation. Yet, they did
not say how they handled the seized drugs from the time they frisked Ditona
until they brought him to the police station. They also omitted these important points in their
testimonies on direct and cross-examination.
PO2 Delos Reyes testified on the
details of the seized drugs, the gun, and the ammunitions taken from the
persons in the house but he did not specify what things he confiscated from
Ditona. PO3 Ventura, on the other hand,
merely testified that he issued a receipt for the things the police seized,
thus:[18]
PROSECUTOR:
As regards the
shabu, we will maintain it to be collectively marked as Exhibit “B.” Now…will you tell us briefly your
participation in this police operation?
A: I was tasked as back-up together with
PO3 [sic] Allan Delos Reyes. It was SPO1 Alfredo Flores who acted as
poseur-buyer.
Q: After the consummation, Alfredo Flores
gave his pre-arranged signal and when Ditona saw it, and sensed the presence
the other members of the team he tried to ran inside his house and that’s the
time we gave chase upon which we saw another person inside the sala?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: By the way, what was the lighting
condition when this incident transpired?
A: From the light post, it is
well-lighted…near the house at No. 7-9th St.
Q: In connection with this drug operation,
do you recall having prepared a receipt of evidence or property seized?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: If you see this again, will you be able
to recognize it?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: I am showing to you a document which we
request to be marked as Exhibit “L,” please go over this and tell if this is
the receipt of property seized you are referring to?
A: Yes Sir, this is it.
Q: Can you identify the signatures
indicated below?
A: This is Alfredo Flores, this is my
signature and this is Allan Delos Reyes’ signature.
Finally, SPO1 Flores testified only
that he was the one who bought the shabu from Ditona, thus:[19]
Q: You said you were able to buy shabu on
July 19, 2002, from whom were you able to buy shabu?
A: From Efren Ditona, Sir.
Q: Will you tell the Court the quantity of
shabu you were able to purchase?
A: One sachet of shabu containing 0.2
grams.
Q: If you see the stuff you were able to
buy, will you be able to recognize this?
ATTY. COLOMA:
We stipulate that the witness can
identify the stuff.
Quite clearly, the prosecution
failed to establish the required chain of custody of the prohibited drugs
through the testimonies of the police officers. While the RTC noted that SPO1 Flores and PO3
Ventura placed their initials, “AF” and “NV,” on the seized drugs, they did not
identify the markings as theirs during their direct testimonies nor did they testify
when and where they made such markings. Moreover,
they failed to show how the seized drugs reached the laboratory technician who
examined it and how the same were stored pending turnover to the court.[20]
Indeed, there is no room to apply the
presumption of regularity in the police officers’ performance of official duty.
While the testimonies of the police
officers who apprehended the accused are generally accorded full faith and
credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties
regularly, such presumption is effectively destroyed where the performance of
their duties is tainted with failure to comply with the prescribed procedure and
guidelines.[21]
The drug enforcement agencies of the government and the prosecution
should put their acts together to ensure that the guilty are punished and the
innocent absolved. Poor handling and
preservation of the integrity of evidence show lack of professionalism and waste
the time that the courts could use for hearing and adjudicating other
cases. Prosecutors ought not to file
drugs cases in court unless the law enforcement agencies are able to show
documented compliance with every requirement of Section 21 of Republic Act
9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. Likewise prosecutors ought to have a
checklist of the questions they should ask their witnesses in drugs cases that
would elicit the required proof.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the petition and MODIFIES the assailed Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03095 dated July 31, 2009 in that accused-appellant
Efren Ditona y Montefalcon is ACQUITTED
with respect to the crimes charged in Criminal Cases 436-2002, 437-2002, and
466-2002. The Court, however, AFFIRMS the finding of the Court of
Appeals of his guilt beyond reasonable doubt with respect to the charge of violation
of Section 261(q) in relation to Section 264 of the Omnibus Election Code in
Criminal Case 438-02 and the corresponding penalty of imprisonment from one (1)
year to six (6) years meted out to him.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
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.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION
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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
* Designated as additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, per raffle dated December 13, 2010.
[1] Records, Vol. I, p. 188.
[2]
[3] In violation of Sections 5 and 11, Republic Act (R.A.) 6425 as amended by R.A. 9165.
[4] Records, Vol. I, p. 59.
[5]
[6] Section 261(q) in relation to Section 264.
[7] CA rollo, p. 13.
[8] In violation of Section 1, P.D. 1866 as amended by R.A. 8294.
[9] Records, Vol. II, p. 1.
[10] Records, Vol. I, pp. 262-264.
[11] Rollo, pp. 2-23. Penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. and Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr.
[12] People v. Partoza, G.R. No. 182418, May 8, 2009, 587 SCRA 809, 816.
[13] People of the
[14] People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 356.
[15] People of the
[16] Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633.
[17] Records, Vol. I, p. 3.
[18]
[19]
[20] People v. Partoza, supra note 12, at 819.
[21] People of the