PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 173472
Appellee,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
ABAD, and
PEREZ, JJ.
ELMER
PERALTA y DE GUZMAN
alias
“MEMENG”,
Appellant. Promulgated:
February 26, 2010
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This case is about how the courts may
be assured that the integrity of seized prohibited drugs is preserved from the
time of their seizure to the time of their laboratory examination and
presentation in court as evidence in the case.
The Facts and the Case
The evidence for the prosecution shows that the District Drug Enforcement
Group (DDEG), Southern Police,
At about 11:30 p.m. of July 21, 2002
the DDEG staged a buy-bust operation with SPO1 Alberto Sangalang as
poseur-buyer. An informant introduced Sangalang
to accused Peralta as they entered his house.
The informant told Peralta that Sangalang was a Dance Instructor (DI) in
need of shabu for himself and for fellow
DIs so they could endure long nights. Sangalang
gave Peralta a marked P500.00 bill for a sachet of shabu.
At a signal, Sangalang told his informant to go out and buy
cigarettes. On seeing the informant come
out of the house, the police back-up team rushed in. They arrested accused Peralta, took the marked
money from him, and brought him to the police station. Meanwhile, the sachet of shabu was marked “AS-1-210702” and taken to the Philippine National
Police Crime Laboratory for testing. The
contents of the sachet tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The prosecution presented Sangalang.
He alone testified for the government since it was thought that the
testimonies of the other police officers would only be corroborative.[1] The prosecution also dispensed with the testimony
of the forensic chemist after the parties stipulated on the existence and due
execution of Chemistry Report D-332-02, which showed that the specimen tested
positive for shabu.[2]
For his part, appellant Peralta denied having committed the offense charged. He claimed that he went to bed at 7:00 p.m. on
July 21, 2002. At about 11:30 p.m. someone’s
knocking at the door awakened him. Shortly
after, four police officers forced the door open and barged into the
house. They handcuffed Peralta, searched
his house, and then brought him to the Southern Police District.[3]
At the time of the arrest, Noel “Toto” Odono[4] (Toto)
and the spouses Apollo[5] and
Charito dela Pena were conversing near accused Peralta’s house. Suddenly, they heard a commotion and saw
several men forcibly enter it. Those men
searched the house and arrested him.
Meanwhile, Toto related what he saw to Sgt. Eligio Peralta, Jr. (Sgt.
Peralta), accused Peralta’s brother. Sgt.
Peralta hurried to his brother’s house but found him already handcuffed. The sergeant repeatedly asked the police
officers why they were arresting his brother without a warrant but he got no
response. He followed the arresting team
to the Southern Police District where he learned that his brother had been caught
selling shabu.[6]
The Assistant City Prosecutor of Makati City charged accused Peralta before
the Regional Trial Court[7]
(RTC) of
After trial, the RTC rendered a decision[8]
dated June 20, 2003, rejecting accused Peralta’s defense of denial. The trial court found him guilty of the crime
charged and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00. Peralta appealed to this Court but, pursuant
to the Court’s ruling in People v. Mateo,[9]
his case was referred to the Court of Appeals (CA) for adjudication in CA-G.R.
CR-H.C. 00165.[10] On April 27, 2006 the latter court affirmed
the decision of the RTC.[11]
The CA gave credence to the testimony of Sangalang who, it found, did not
deviate from the regular performance of his duties and was not impelled by ill
motive in testifying against Peralta. Also,
the appellate court pointed out that the prosecution presented and identified the
sachet of shabu in court. Finally, the CA said that accused Peralta’s denial
is a weak defense which cannot prevail over positive identification.
Accused Peralta seeks by notice of appeal[12]
this Court’s review of the decision of the CA.
The Issue Presented
The key issue here is whether or not the
prosecution presented ample proof that the police officers involved caught
accused Peralta at his home, peddling prohibited drugs.
The Court’s Ruling
The elements of the sale of illegal drugs are a) the identities of the
buyer and seller, b) the transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and c) the
existence of the corpus delicti. With respect to the third element, the
prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. This is crucial in drugs cases because the
evidence involved—the seized chemical—is not readily identifiable by sight or
touch and can easily be tampered with or substituted.[13]
In Malillin v. People[14] the
Court held that the prosecution must establish the chain of custody of the
seized prohibited drugs. It must present
testimony about every link in the chain of custody of such drugs, from the
moment they were seized from the accused to the moment they are offered in
evidence.
But here the prosecution failed to show the chain of custody or that they
followed the procedure that has been prescribed in connection with the seizure
and custody of drugs. To begin with, the prosecution did
not adduce evidence of when the sachet of shabu
was marked. Consequently, it could have
been marked long after its seizure or even after it had been tested in the
laboratory. While the records show that
the sachet bore the markings “AS-1-210702,” indicating that Sangalang probably
made the marking, the prosecutor did not bother to ask him if such marking was
his. Sangalang identified the seized
drugs in a manner that glossed over the need to establish their integrity. Thus:[15]
Fiscal Lalin:
Q: You stated that you would likewise
recognize the sachet of shabu subject matter of the sale transaction
between you and alias “Memeng”?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I have here with me a brown envelope
containing the specimen subjected to laboratory examination, will you kindly
examine the contents of this brown envelope and tell us whether you find inside
Exhibit “E” the sachet of shabu which is the subject matter of the sale
transaction that transpired between you and one alias “Memeng”?
A: This is the sachet of shabu that
I was able to purchase from Memeng.
Q: Meaning, this is the sachet of shabu
which alias “Memeng” sold to you?
A: Yes, sir.
Although the Court has repeatedly reminded
the prosecutors concerned to present evidence which would show that the
integrity of the seized drugs has been preserved from the time of their seizure
to the time they are presented in court, such reminder seems not to have made
an impact on some of them. Public
prosecutors need to ask the right questions to the witnesses.
The Court of course trusts the competence of most public prosecutors. Still, it would probably help to remind the
others to ask the following questions or substantially similar ones that will
aid the court in determining the innocence or guilt of the accused:
Q. You said that you received from the
accused a sachet containing crystalline powder that appeared to you to be “shabu.
Would you be able to identify that sachet which appeared to you to
contain shabu?
Q. Showing to you this sachet containing what
appears to be crystalline powder, what relation does it have, if any, to the
sachet that you said you received from the accused?
Q. This sachet has a marking on it that
reads “AS-1-210702.” Do you know who
made this marking?
Q. Who made it?
Q. What do these letters and numbers
represent?
Q. When did you make this marking on the
sachet?
Since the seizing officer usually has
to turn over the seized drugs to the desk officer or some superior officer, who
would then send a courier to the police crime laboratory with a request that
the same be examined to identify the contents, it is imperative for the officer
who placed his marking on the plastic container to seal the same, preferably
with adhesive tape that usually cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the
plastic container. If the drugs were not
in a plastic container, the police officer should put it in one and seal the
same. In this way the drugs would
assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the
accused.
Further, after the laboratory
technician has tested and verified the nature of the powder in the container,
he should seal it again with a new seal since the police officer’s seal had
been broken. In this way, if the accused
wants to contest the test made, the Court would be assured that what is
retested is the same powder seized from the accused.
The prosecutor could then ask questions of the officer who placed his
marking on the plastic container to prove that the suspected drugs had not been
tampered with or substituted when they left that officer’s hands. The prosecutor could ask the following or
substantially similar questions:
Q. What did you do if any to ensure that
the powder in this sachet is not tampered with or substituted when it left your
hands?
Q. What did you use for sealing this
sachet?
Q. When did this sachet leave your hands?
Q. To whom did you give it?
Q. For what reason did you give it to him?
And once the crime laboratory technician is presented, the prosecutor
could ask him the following or substantially similar questions:
Q. Did this plastic container with powder
in it which you brought today have any marking on it when you received it for
examination?
Q. In what condition did you receive the
plastic container? (Or: Was the plastic
container opened or sealed when you received it?)
Q. Did you notice any sign that the plastic container or its contents may have been tampered with?
Q. What did you do if any to ensure that
the powder in this sachet is not tampered with or substituted after you
finished examining it?
Q. And where was this sachet stored pending
your retrieval of it for the purpose of bringing it to court today?
Q. Will you please examine it and tell us if it has been tampered with from the time it left your hands for storage.
If the sealing of the seized article had not been made, the prosecution
would have to present the desk officer or superior officer to whom the seizing
officer turned over such article. That
desk officer or superior officer needs to testify that he had taken care that
the drugs were not tampered with or substituted. And if someone else brought the unsealed
sachet of drugs to the police crime laboratory, he, too, should give similar
testimony, and so on up to the receiving custodian at the crime laboratory
until the drugs reach the laboratory technician who examined and resealed it.
Here, the police arrested Peralta and seized the sachet of shabu from him on July 21, 2002 and made
the request for testing on July 22, 2002.
Since the prosecution did not present evidence that the sachet had been
marked shortly after seizure and that its integrity had been preserved by
proper sealing, the prosecution failed to prove the third element of the crime:
the existence of the corpus delicti.
The fact that the parties stipulated on the existence and due execution
of Chemistry Report D-332-02 has no bearing on the question of chain of custody
of the seized drugs. The stipulation only
proves the authenticity of the request for laboratory examination of the drugs submitted
to the laboratory (not that it was the same drugs seized from accused Peralta) and
the results of the examination made of the same, nothing more.[16]
Under the circumstances, reliance on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duties is not enough for a conviction. Once challenged by evidence of flawed chain of
custody, as in this case, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the
presumption of innocence.[17] Likewise, while the defense of denial on its
own is inherently weak, the conviction of an accused must rely on the strength
of the prosecution’s evidence and not on the weakness of his defense.[18]
In sum, the Court finds the evidence in this case insufficient to sustain
the conviction of accused Peralta of the crime of which he was charged.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE
the Decision dated April 27, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C.
00165 and ACQUITS accused-appellant
Elmer Peralta y de Guzman alias
“Memeng” for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable
doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is
confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director, Bureau of
Corrections,
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ARTURO D. BRION MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
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.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Records, p. 38.
[2]
[3] TSN, February 21, 2003, pp. 3-5.
[4] TSN, February 14, 2003, pp. 3-10.
[5] TSN, March 14, 2003, pp. 1-7.
[6] TSN, March 21, 2003, pp. 2-7.
[7] Branch 135.
[8] Records, pp. 61-64. Penned by Judge Francisco B. Ibay.
[9] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[10] CA rollo, p. 74.
[11] Rollo, pp. 3-17. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now Supreme Court Justice) and Japar B. Dimaampao.
[12] CA rollo, p. 97.
[13] Malilin v. People, G.R. No. 179253, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633.
[14]
[15] TSN, December 4, 2002, p. 7.
[16] People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 173742, March 17, 2009.
[17] Dolera v. People, G.R. No. 180693, September 4, 2009.
[18] People v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 140, 158.