Republic of the
Supreme Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - ROSE NANDI y SALI,
Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 188905 Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, ABAD, VILLARAMA, JR.,* MENDOZA, JJ.
Promulgated: July 13, 2010 |
x -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an appeal from the October
23, 2008 Decision[1] of the
Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed in toto the August 2, 2007 Decision[2] of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 103, Quezon City, finding accused Rose Nandi guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the crime of Violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of
life imprisonment.
Accused Rose Nandi was arrested in a
buy-bust operation and was eventually indicted in an Information dated July 10, 2003, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 9th
day of July 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being
authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport, or distribute any
dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully, and unlawfully sell, dispense,
deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, zero
point zero three (0.03) gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous
drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
During
the trial, the prosecution presented its evidence which basically hinged on the
testimony of the poseur-buyer and documentary exhibits pertaining to the
buy-bust operation.
It appears from the prosecution
evidence that on July 9, 2003, at around 7:00 o’clock in the evening, Chief of
Police Colonel Ratuita of Police Station 3, Talipapa, P500.00)
marked money with his initials “CCC” on the face of the bill. SPO4 Brigido Ann, in the meantime, prepared a
pre-operations report and recorded the formation of the buy-bust team in the
dispatch book, including the important details of the buy-bust operation.
At around 11:00 o’clock in the
evening, the team, together with the informant, proceeded to P200.00) worth of shabu. PO1 Collado
handed over the marked money to the accused, and, in return, the latter gave a
small transparent plastic sachet. After examining the contents thereof, PO1
Collado scratched his head. As this was
the pre-arranged signal, the other team members rushed towards them and
apprehended the accused. PO1 Collado
told her that she was being arrested for
selling drugs, frisked her, recovered from her the marked money, and then
informed her of her rights.
The accused was immediately taken to
Police Station 3 in Talipapa,
The
accused, on the other hand, vehemently denied that she sold shabu and that she
was arrested in a buy-bust operation. She
recounted that on July 9, 2003, at about 7:00 o’clock in the evening, she was in
the Muslim Compound of Barangay Culiat, Tandang Sora,
According
to her, after leaving the house of her cousin and while waiting for a ride
home, a man dragged her to a parked vehicle. Inside the vehicle, there were several police
officers who told her not to shout and not to make any noise. Fearing for her life, she did what she was
told. She further asserted that they first drove to different places before she
was finally taken to the police station. Upon arriving at the station, she was frisked
by a police officer and her personal things like cellular phone, pieces of
jewelry and money were confiscated.
Furthermore,
her requests for a female police officer had been refused and police officers
asked her to give the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00)
for her release. Since she was not able to call her relatives,
she told them that she did not have any money. She also insisted that it was not PO1 Collado
who arrested her as he merely accompanied her during the inquest. She also claimed that it was only during the
inquest that she first saw the plastic sachet allegedly seized from her.
On
August 2, 2007, the trial court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty as
charged and imposed upon the accused the penalty of life imprisonment. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision[3] reads:
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is rendered
finding the accused ROSE NANDI Y SALI, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 (for selling shabu) as charged and she is
hereby sentenced to suffer a jail term of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine
of P500,000.00.
The shabu in this case weighing
0.03 gram is ordered transmitted to PDEA thru DDB for disposal as per RA 9165.
SO ORDERED.
On October 23, 2008, the RTC decision was affirmed in
toto by the Court of Appeals. In sustaining
it, the appellate court stated that the prosecution was able to establish all
the elements of the crime of illegal possession of a dangerous drug which are:
1] the offender was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a
prohibited or regulated drug; 2]
such possession is not authorized by law; and 3] the accused was freely and
consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.
The RTC was of the view that the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses evinced a more logical and acceptable series or flow of events
culminating in the commission of the offense.
The accused committed the offense charged as she was caught red-handed
selling shabu, an illicit drug, in a buy-bust operation. The appellate court believed that the arrest
of the accused was lawful and beyond reproach, and the confiscation of the
illicit drugs and the marked money from her possession was not tainted with any
irregularity.
Aggrieved, the accused questioned the affirmation of her
conviction before this Court raising the following arguments:
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED
IN AFFIRMING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S CONVICTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE
CRIME OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II, R.A. NO. 9165.
The accused maintains
that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the essential
elements of the offense with which she was charged. Primarily, the Information
filed against her stated that the shabu had a weight of 0.03 gram.[4]
In contrast, Forensic Chemist Bernardino
M. Banac, Jr., reported that it weighed 0.23 gram.
Secondly, although
the P500.00 peso bill
used as buy-bust money was photocopied and marked, it was done long after the
supposed operation. There is, therefore, no certainty that it was the same bill
used during the operation.
Thirdly, the
apprehending team failed to comply with Section 21 of the Implementing Rules of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 when it did not immediately conduct a physical
inventory of the seized items and did not photograph the same in her presence
or in the presence of her representative or counsel, a representative from
media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), or an elected public official. Such failure casts doubt on the identity of
the article seized as there was no assurance that it was the very same one
submitted to the forensic chemist and found to be positive for shabu. Moreover,
PO1 Collado himself admitted that he was not present when the subject item was
transferred to the crime laboratory. Hence,
a break in the chain of custody of the seized object seems apparent.
In addition,
there were numerous inconsistencies in the testimony of PO1 Collado, the
poseur-buyer.
THE
COURT’S RULING
The general rule is
that passing judgment upon the credibility of witnesses is best left to the trial courts since the latter are in a better
position to decide the question, having heard and observed the witnesses themselves
during the trial. This rule, however, admits of exceptions such
as when facts of weight and substance with direct and material bearing on the
final outcome of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied.[5]
In the case
at bench, the Court finds that certain facts of substance have been overlooked, which if only addressed
and appreciated, would have altered the outcome of the case against the
accused. Accordingly, a
departure from the general rule is warranted.
It is
well-settled that in prosecution of cases of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, the following elements must be duly established: (1) proof
that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti or the illicit
drug as evidence. Proof of the corpus delicti in a buy-bust situation requires not only the actual
existence of the transacted drugs but also the certainty that the drugs examined
and presented in court were the very ones seized. This is a condition sine qua non for conviction since drugs are the main subject of the
illegal sale constituting the crime and their existence and identification must
be proven for the crime to exist.”[6]
The
Court has scrutinized the evidence on record but found it wanting with respect
to the identification of the seized drug itself. Nebulous can only be the description of the
evidence on how the contraband was handled before and after the alleged
seizure.
Section
21 of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes the procedure on the
custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered dangerous
drugs, given the severity of the penalties imposed for violations of said law,
viz.:
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 so confiscated, seized and/or
surrendered, for disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/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
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 copy
thereof. Provided, that the physical
inventory and the photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at least the nearest police station or at the nearest
office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending team/officer, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items. x x x x
Strict compliance with the prescribed
procedure is necessary because of the illegal drug’s unique characteristic
rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to
tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise.[7]
A closer look at the records of the
case reveals that the prosecution failed to show that there was compliance
with the inventory requirements of R.A. No. 9165. When the
poseur-buyer, PO1 Cecil Collado, took the witness stand, he failed to describe with
particulars how the seized shabu was
handled and marked after its confiscation. He merely stated the following on
direct examination, to wit:
Q: After you
arrested the accused Rose Nandi, what happened next?
A: We brought
her to our station.
Q: How about
the item, where was it when you proceeded to the station?
A: I gave it
to the investigator.
Q: Before you
gave that, what did you do to that item?
A: I put my
marking CCC.[8]
On cross-examination, PO1 Collado
simply replied:
Q: You
testified that the item you confiscated from the accused was turned over to the
investigator, did you happen to know what is that item?
A: I gave it
to the investigator and the document the specimen were given to the crime lab.[9]
Moreover, the prosecution failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that the subject substance was the very same
object taken from the accused. To erase
all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs, the prosecution should establish
its movement from the accused, to the police, to the forensic chemist, and
finally to the court.[10] In Mallillin v. People,[11]
the Court had the occasion to explain the chain of custody rule and what
constitutes sufficient compliance with this rule:
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 witnesses' 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. [Emphasis supplied]
Thus, the following
links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first,
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the
accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal
drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third,
the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic
chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission
of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.[12]
After a closer look, the Court finds that
the linkages in the chain of custody of the subject item were not clearly
established. As can be gleaned from his forequoted
testimony, PO1 Collado failed to provide informative details on how the subject
shabu was handled immediately after
the seizure. He just claimed that the
item was handed to him by the accused in the course of the transaction and,
thereafter, he handed it to the investigator.
There is no evidence either on how
the item was stored, preserved, labeled, and recorded. PO1 Collado could not even provide the court
with the name of the investigator. He admitted
that he was not present when it was delivered to the crime laboratory.[13] It was Forensic Chemist Bernardino M. Banac,
Jr. who identified the person who delivered the specimen to the crime
laboratory. He disclosed that he
received the specimen from one PO1 Cuadra, who was not even a member of the
buy-bust team. Per their record, PO1
Cuadra delivered the letter-request with the attached seized item to the CPD
Crime Laboratory Office where a certain PO2 Semacio recorded it and turned it
over to the Chemistry Section.[14]
In view of the foregoing, the Court is
of the considered view that chain of custody of the illicit drug seized was
compromised. Hence, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duties cannot be applied in this case.
Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police
committed in handling the seized shabu
and the obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a
presumption of regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this
case. A presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law
or statute authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a
procedure in the performance thereof. The
presumption applies when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers
deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where
the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise. In light of the flagrant lapses we noted, the
lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied on the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty.[15] [Emphasis
supplied]
With the chain of custody in serious
question, the Court cannot gloss over the argument of the accused regarding the
weight of the seized drug. The standard procedure is that after the
confiscation of the dangerous substance, it is brought to the crime laboratory
for a series of tests. The result
thereof becomes one of the bases of the charge to be filed.
The documentary evidence on record,
specifically Chemistry Report No. D-604-03[16]
as attested by Forensic Chemist Bernardino M. Banac, Jr., shows that the substance
brought to their office for examination was tested to be methylamphetamine hydrochloride and weighed 0.23 gram.[17] The
corresponding Information, however, alleges that the substance only weighed 0.03 gram. When PO1 Collado was
confronted with this discrepancy, he merely deduced this as an error committed at
the forensic laboratory.[18] Considering the grave doubt already cast upon
the linkages in the chain of custody, this explanation is simply unacceptable. Besides, he was not competent to testify on
the discrepancy. He neither formulated
the Information nor prepared the Chemistry Report.
Going over the records, the Court
notes that the accused has consistently raised this argument from the onset of
the case, but the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to address
it. It is rather unfortunate that the
issue was simply disregarded.
It could be that the accused had
indeed transacted with the police in a deal involving illegal drugs. But in
view of the frailty of the prosecution evidence and the severity of the imposed
penalty, the Court resolves the doubt in favor of the accused. The prosecution
simply failed to establish all
the elements of the crime with moral
certainty.
WHEREFORE,
the October 23, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
02938, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE and another judgment entered ACQUITTING the accused.
The
accused is hereby ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless
she is being confined for any other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ROBERTO A. ABAD MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR.
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
JOSE
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T
I O N
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, 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 Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, per Special Order No. 858 dated July 1, 2010.
* * Designated as additional member in lieu of Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, per Special Order No. 863 dated July 5, 2010.
[1] CA Decision, Rollo, pp. 2-14 (penned by Associate Justice Guevara-Salonga with Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, concurring).
[2] RTC Decision, Records, pp. 50-55.
[3] Records, pp. 50-55.
[4] CA Records, p. 8.
[5] People v. Zaida Kamad, G. R. No. 174198, January 19, 2010.
[6]
[7] People v. Robles, G.R. No. 177220, April 24, 2009, 586 SCRA 647.
[8] TSN, November 4, 2003, p. 18.
[9]
[10] People v. Almorfe, G.R. No. 181831, March 29, 2010.
[11] G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 633.
[12] People v. Zaida Kamad, supra note 4.
[13] TSN,
[14] TSN,
[15] People v. Zaida Kamad, supra note 4.
[16] TSN,
[17] Records, Exhibit “D,” p. 6.
[18] TSN,