Republic of
the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE |
|
G.R. No. 184546 |
|
Appellee, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, |
|
- versus - |
|
BRION, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ABAD, and |
|
|
|
PEREZ, JJ. |
|
|
|
|
|
WILSON SUAN y JOLONGON, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Appellant. |
|
February 22, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I O N
Once again we find occasion to
reiterate the most echoed constitutional guarantee that an accused in criminal
prosecutions is presumed innocent until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable
doubt.[1] To overcome the presumption of innocence and
arrive at a finding of guilt, the prosecution is duty bound to establish with
moral certainty the elemental acts constituting the offense. 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.[2] The identity of the narcotic substance must
therefore be established beyond reasonable doubt.[3]
We are compelled to acquit appellant
in this case because the prosecution miserably failed to establish the identity
of the substance allegedly seized from him.
In addition, we find that there was a break in the chain of custody
thereby casting doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the substance
allegedly seized from the appellant.
This is an appeal from the Decision[4]
dated
Factual
Antecedents
On
The
undersigned Prosecutor III of Iligan City accuses WILSON SUAN y Jolongon for
VIOLATION OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, committed as follows:
That
on or about August 12, 2003, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without being
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have
in his possession, custody and control one (1) sachet of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug commonly known as shabu, weighing more or less
0.01 gram.
Contrary
to and in violation of Republic Act No. 9165, Article II, Section 11,
thereof.
City
of
The Amended Information was raffled
to Branch 01 wherein appellant was arraigned and to which offense he pleaded
not guilty.
The evidence for the prosecution, as
culled from the testimonies of PO2 Allan Labasano (PO2 Labasano), PO1 Samsodim
Gondol (PO1 Gondol),[9]
and Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector April Carvajal[10]
(Forensic Chemist Carvajal), is as follows:
On P50.00[11]
bills, acted as the buyer while PO2 Labasano served as back-up. Upon reaching the target area, the two saw
appellant sitting outside the house. PO1
Gondol approached appellant and the latter asked the former if he wanted to buy
a narcotic substance. PO1 Gondol replied
“I will buy “Piso”, meaning P100.00. After a brief exchange of the money and the
stuff, appellant was informed of his constitutional rights and thereafter was
arrested. Appellant was brought to the
police headquarters and presented before the investigator. At the police headquarters, PO2 Labasano
prepared a Certificate of Inventory. The
buy-bust money and the plastic sachet containing the stuff they recovered were
turned over to the evidence custodian as related by PO1 Gondol, and to the Team
Leader, as testified to by PO2 Labasano.
Upon request, the plastic sachet was sent to the PNP Regional Crime
Laboratory for examination.[12]
Forensic Chemist Carvajal received
the written request for laboratory examination of one sachet containing white
crystalline substance submitted to their office.[13] She conducted the test and the result showed
that it contained methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous
drug. She then prepared Chemistry Report
No. D-500-2003[14]
on her finding on the tests.
Appellant denied the charge against
him. He claimed that while he was sleeping
on a bench beside the road, PO2 Labasano suddenly held his arm and handcuffed
him. PO2 Labasano inserted his hand into
appellant’s pocket, frisked him and shabu was later shown to him. He was brought to Tipanoy for a drug test and
detained in jail for violation of the anti-drugs law.
Ruling of the
Regional Trial Court
Giving full faith and credence to
the prosecution’s version, the trial court found the test-buy and buy-bust operation
established. In its Decision dated
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, the Court find[s] the guilt of the accused WILSON SUAN y
JOLONGON beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged against him in the
information and hereby sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from
12 years and 1 day to 20 years and to pay a fine of P100,000.00.
The
shabu taken from him is hereby confiscated in favor of the government.
SO
ORDERED.[15]
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Appellant appealed the trial court’s Decision to the CA. Finding
no error
committed by the
trial court in convicting appellant of the offense of illegal possession of
dangerous drug, the CA affirmed the trial court’s decision.
Undaunted, appellant seeks a final
recourse before this Court via the instant appeal.
In the Resolution dated
In support of his
prayer for a reversal of the verdict of his conviction, appellant contends: a)
that the testimonies of the police operatives contained material
inconsistencies and contradictions as to (i) whether a surveillance was made prior
to the buy-bust operation, (ii) whether there was marked money used in the
operation, and, (iii) the amount of the shabu sold; b) there was no
proper identification of the illegal drug; c) the prosecution witnesses failed
to testify on matters regarding the possession of the illegal drug; and, d) the
defense of alibi was not properly appreciated.
Our Ruling
The appeal is
meritorious.
The
inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police operatives as regards prior
surveillance and use of marked money are immaterial.
While it may be
conceded that there are a number of inconsistencies in the testimonies of the
prosecution’s principal witnesses as alluded to above, they are not, in our
view, substantial enough to impair the veracity of the prosecution’s evidence
that a buy-bust operation resulting in the arrest of appellant, was indeed
conducted. The maxim falsus in unus,
falsus in omnibus does not lay down a categorical test of credibility. While witnesses may differ in their
recollection of an incident, it does not necessarily follow from their
disagreements that both or all of them are not credible and their testimonies
completely discarded as worthless.
A prior surveillance
much less a lengthy one, is not necessary during an entrapment as in the case
at bench. To be sure, there is no
textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of
police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug
dealers. In this case, the buy-bust
operation was set up precisely to test the veracity of the informant’s tip and
to arrest the malefactor if the report proved to be true. Thus in one case[16] we
emphasized our refusal to establish on a priori basis what detailed acts
the police authorities might credibly undertake in their entrapment operations.
The doubt cast by the appellant
on whether marked money was used in the operation did not in any way shatter
the factuality of the transaction.
Neither law nor jurisprudence requires the presentation of any of the
money used in a buy-bust operation.[17] Much less is it required that the money be
marked. In fact, not even the absence or
non-presentation of the marked money would weaken the evidence for the
prosecution.[18] The elements necessary to show that the crime
had indeed been committed are proof that the illicit transaction took place
coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the
illicit drug.[19]
It is a fundamental
rule that the trial court’s findings that are factual in nature and that
involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross
misapprehension of facts; or speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions
can be gathered from such findings.[20] The rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are sustained by the CA.[21] However, this rule will not apply in this
case. As will be discussed shortly, the
courts below overlooked two significant and substantial facts which if
considered, as we do now consider, will affect the outcome of the case.
The
prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the
substance recovered from the appellant
The main issue in the
case at bench is whether the prosecution witnesses were able to properly
identify the dangerous drug taken from appellant. For while the drug may be admitted in
evidence it does not necessarily follow that the same should be given
evidentiary weight. It must be stressed
that admissibility should not be equated with its probative value in proving
the corpus delicti.
Appellant submits that
the shabu alleged to have been sold was not properly identified by the
police officers thus rendering doubtful and open to suspicion if the shabu
submitted for examination is indeed the same substance sold by him.
We agree. As we have stated at the outset, the
prosecution miserably failed to establish the identity of the substance
allegedly recovered from the appellant.
Records show that while the police officers were able to prove the
factuality of the buy-bust operation, the prosecution dismally failed to prove the
identity of the substance taken from appellant.
The Certificate of Inventory[22] prepared
by PO2 Labasano merely stated that a sachet of a substance weighing 0.01 gram
was seized from the appellant. PO2
Labasano made no mention that he placed some markings on the sachet for
purposes of future identification.
Thus:
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
THIS
IS TO CERTIFY that an inventory was conducted in connection with the following
operation:
Persons
Arrested : Wilson
Suan Y Jolongon
Date/Time
of Arrest :
Place
of Arrest : Purok 4, Barangay Saray,
This
is to certify further that the following items were seized during the said
operation:
One
[1] sachet of suspected shabu weighing more or less .01 gram
Two
[2] pieces Php 50.00 peso bill – marked money
x
x x x (Emphasis supplied)
However, we find it
rather odd that in the Request for Laboratory Examination/Urine Test[23]
prepared by Police Chief Inspector Jesus Atchico Rebua and addressed to the
Provincial Chief of Police, Lanao del Norte, the item allegedly seized from the
appellant was already marked as Exhibit “A”. Thus:
x x x x
2.
Request the
conduct of laboratory examination of evidence to determine the presence of
Dangerous Drugs or controlled precursors and essential chemicals:
EXHIBITS
Exh. “A” one
small heat-sealed, plastic transparent sachet containing white crystalline
granules suspected to be shabu weighing more or less 0.01 grams marked as Exh.
“A” placed in a stapled transparent plastic bag.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Still, in the
Memorandum[24]
for the Regional Chief of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory
Office prepared by the Provincial Chief, the item subject of the request for
laboratory examination was already referred to as with markings. Thus:
x x x x
2. In
connection with the above reference, request conduct laboratory examination on
the specimen described below to determine the presence of dangerous drugs.
EXH.
A – One (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as “Exhibit A”
containing white crystalline substance suspected to be SHABU placed inside a
big staple-sealed transparent plastic pack with markings.
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, when the
Certificate of Inventory was prepared by P02 Labasano, the item allegedly
seized from the appellant bore no markings.
However, in the Request for Laboratory Examination/Urine Test prepared
by the Provincial Chief of Police, the item being subjected for laboratory
examination was already referred to as Exhibit A. Next, in the Memorandum of the Regional Chief
of PNP, the item that was referred to the Forensic Chemist already had other
markings. From the foregoing, there is
already doubt as to the identity of the substance being subjected for
laboratory examination. At this time, we
are no longer sure whether the item allegedly seized by PO2 Labasano from the appellant was the same item
referred to by the Provincial Chief and then the Regional Chief of PNP to the
Forensic Chemist for laboratory examination.
Worse, in the
Certificate of Inventory prepared by PO2 Labasano, the Memorandum prepared by
the Provincial Chief, and the transmittal letter prepared by the Regional
Chief, the substance supposedly weighed 0.01 gram. However, in the Chemistry Report No.
D-500-2003[25]
prepared by Forensic Chemist Carvajal, the substance was indicated as weighing 0.1
gram. Thus:
x x x x
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
A
= One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings EXHIBIT A containing
0.1 gram of white crystalline substance, placed in a transparent
plastic bag with markings EXHIBIT A.
x x x x
Indeed there is
absolutely nothing in the evidence on record that tends to show identification
of the drug. For sure, the difference
particularly in the weight of the substance is fatal to the case of the
prosecution.
It is lamentable that
the trial court and even the appellate court overlooked the significance of the
absence of this glaring detail in the records of the case but instead focused
their deliberation on the warrantless arrest of appellant in arriving at their
conclusions.
The
prosecution failed to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the
confiscated substance.
Not only did the
prosecution fail to identify the substance that was allegedly seized from the
appellant; it also failed to establish that the chain of custody of the
substance was unbroken.
In his direct
testimony, PO2 Labasano testified that:
Q.
After
arresting the accused, what transpired thereafter?
A.
We brought
him in our office and we filed a case against him.
Q.
By the way,
who brought the sachet which you bought from the accused to the crime laboratory
for examination?
A.
We, I with
Gundol.
Q.
And who
received that sachet?
A. A
certain person who was on duty at that time but I do not know him.[28]
In contrast, PO2
Labasano stated during his cross-examination that he entrusted the substance
recovered from the appellant to their team leader. Thus:
Q.
Who was in
possession of that sachet of shabu?
A.
When they
approached the accused, I saw the accused taking the sachet of shabu from his
pocket and putting it on his hand and I did not see what had happened already.
Q.
You did not
see who received the sachet of shabu coming from the suspect?
A.
I was able to
take of that but it was really Gundol who bought that shabu from him.
Q.
And who
recovered the marked money from the accused?
A.
It was Gundol
also.
Q.
So, it was PO1
Gundol who was in possession of this marked money and one (1) sachet of shabu
from the time the suspect was arrested, is it not?
A.
Yes, sir.
Q.
And what did
you do with that marked money [or] that alleged shabu being confiscated from
the accused?
A.
We turned it
over to our team leader.
Q.
Are you
referring to SPO2 Cañonero?
A.
Yes, sir.[29]
The foregoing
testimonies of PO2 Labasano are contradictory.
At first, he testified that the substance recovered from the appellant
was delivered to the crime laboratory but he did not know who received the
same. On cross-examination, however, he
claimed that the substance was delivered to their team leader, SPO2 Cañonero.
Notably, the
prosecution failed to put on the witness stand SPO2 Cañonero or the person from
the crime laboratory who allegedly received the substance. Consequently, there was a break in the chain
of custody because no mention is made as regards what happened to the substance
from the time SPO2 Cañonero received it to the time the transmittal letter was
prepared by Police Chief Inspector Jesus Atchico Rebua addressed to the
Provincial Chief of Police, Lanao del Norte requesting for laboratory
examination/urine test. We do not know
how or from whom Police Chief Inspector Jesus Atchico Rebua received the substance.
There is no dispute
that in the Chemistry Report[30] it was
established that the object examined was found positive for methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. While the Forensic Chemist showed the
contents of the sachet as the substance she examined and confirmed to be shabu,
nonetheless, it is not positively and convincingly clear from her testimony
that what was submitted for laboratory examination and later presented in court
as evidence was the same shabu actually recovered from the
appellant. The Forensic Chemist did not
testify at all as to the identity of the person from whom she received the
specimen for examination.
Verily, there is a
break in the chain of custody of the seized substance. The standard operating procedure on the
seizure and custody of the drug as mandated in Section 21, Article II of RA
9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations was not complied with. As we observed, the chain of custody of the
drug from the time the same was turned over to the Team Leader, as testified by
PO2 Labasano or the Records Custodian as related by PO1 Gondol, to the time of
submission to the crime laboratory was not clearly shown. There is no indication whether the Team
Leader and the Records Custodian were one and the same person. Neither was there reference to the person who
submitted it to the crime laboratory.
The prosecution needs to establish that the Team Leader or Records
Custodian indeed submitted such particular drug to the crime laboratory for
examination. The failure on the part of
the Team Leader or Records Custodian as the case may be, to testify on what he
did with the drug while he was in possession resulted in a break in the chain
of custody of the drug. There is
obviously a missing link from the point when the drug was in his hands to the
point when the same was submitted for examination. The failure to establish the evidence’s chain
of custody is fatal to the prosecution’s case. Under no circumstance can we consider or even
safely assume that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug was properly
preserved by the apprehending officers. There
can be no crime of illegal possession 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.[31]
Jurisprudence abounds with
cases where deviation from the standard procedure in an anti-narcotics
operation produces doubts as to the identity and origin of the drug which
inevitably results to the acquittal of the accused. In People v. Mapa,[32] we
acquitted the appellant after the prosecution failed to clarify whether the
specimen submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory
examination was the same one allegedly taken from the appellant. Also in People v. Dimuske,[33] we
ruled that the failure to prove that the specimen of marijuana examined by the
forensic chemist was that seized from the accused was fatal to the
prosecution’s case. The same holds true
in People v. Casimiro[34] and in Zarraga
v. People[35]
where the appellant was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to
establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus
delicti. Recently in Catuiran v.
People,[36]
we acquitted the petitioner for failure of the prosecution witnesses to observe
the standard procedure regarding the authentication of the evidence.
In the light of the
above disquisition, we find no further need to discuss the
other remaining argument regarding the propriety of appellant’s
conviction for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 when the evidence
adduced and proved during the trial consists mainly of acts pertaining to a
sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of the said law. From whatever angle we look at it, whether it
was a sale or merely possession of the dangerous drug, we arrive at the same
conclusion that the prosecution has not proven the indispensable element of corpus
delicti of the crime. To repeat, the
existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction
for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, it being the very corpus
delicti of the crime.
Based on these findings
and following our precedents in the afore-mentioned cases, we are compelled to
reverse the judgment of conviction in this case. Consequently, we need not pass upon the
merits of appellant’s defense of denial and frame-up. It is a well-entrenched rule in criminal law
that the conviction of an accused must be based on the strength of the
prosecution’s evidence and not on the weakness or absence of evidence of the
defense.[37]
WHEREFORE, on
ground of reasonable doubt, the instant appeal is GRANTED and the
challenged Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 00054 affirming
the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Norte, Branch 01, in
Criminal Case No. 10315 is hereby REVERSED. Appellant WILSON SUAN y
JOLONGON is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered released from detention
unless his further confinement is warranted for some other lawful cause or
ground.
SO ORDERED.
MARIANO C.
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
JOSE P. PEREZ
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
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, it is hereby certified 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] Constitution, Article III, Section 14(12).
[2] People v. Simbahon, 449 Phil. 74,
83 (2003); Corino v. People, G.R. No. 178757,
[3] Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953,
[4] CA rollo, pp. 129-145; penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and concurred in by Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Elihu Y. Ybañez.
[5] Records, pp. 62-67; penned by Judge Mamindiara P. Mangotara.
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Spelled as Gundol in the TSN.
[10] Sometimes spelled as Carbajal in the records.
[11] Exhibit “A” and “A-1”, records, p. 53.
[12] Exhibit “D”, id. at 56.
[13] Exhibit “E”, id. at 56 (posterior part).
[14] Exhibit “F”, id. at 57.
[15]
[16] People v. Gonzales, 430 Phil. 504, 514 (2002).
[17] People v. Fabro, 382 Phil. 166, 177 (2000).
[18] People v. Simbulan, G.R. No. 100754,
[19] People v. Chang, 382 Phil. 669, 684 (2000).
[20] People v. Julian-Fernandez, 423 Phil. 895, 911-912 (2001).
[21] People v. Cabugatan, G.R. No. 172019,
[22] Exhibit “2”, records, p. 6.
[23] Exhibit “B”, id. at 54.
[24] Supra note 12.
[25] Supra note 14.
[26] G.R. No. 179939,
[27] Catuiran v. People, G.R. No. 175647,
[28] TSN,
[29]
[30] Supra note 14.
[31]
[32] G.R. No. 91014,
[33] G.R. No. 108453,
[34] 432 Phil. 966, 979 (2002).
[35] G.R. No. 162064,
[36] G.R. No. 175647,
[37] People v. Teves, 408 Phil. 82, 102 (2001).