|
G.R. No. 179344
Present:
CARPIO,
J., Chairperson, LEONARDO
DE CASTRO,* BRION, PEREZ,
and SERENO,
JJ. Promulgated:
August
3, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
PEREZ, J.:
For our review is the
Decision[1] of
the Special Fifteenth Division of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No.
01852 dated 31 May 2007, convicting the herein accused-appellants Edgardo
Fermin y Gregorio and Job Madayag,
Jr. y Balderas guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
9165. The dispositive portion of the
assailed decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 103 in Criminal Case No.
Q-03-119028, finding accused-appellants Edgardo Fermin y Gregorio and Job
Madayag, Jr. y Balderas guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article
5 [Section 5], Article II of R.A. 9165, and sentencing them to suffer the
penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to
pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND
PESOS (PhP 500, 000) each is AFFIRMED
in toto.
The facts as presented by the
prosecution follow:
At around
At around
PO2 Ibasco testified in his Direct
Examination[4] that PO2 Pascua got hold
of Fermin while PO1 Valencia got hold of Madayag, Jr. He added that PO2 Pascua was able to recover
the buy-bust money and plastic sachet from Fermin while PO1 Valencia recovered
a bente nueve knife from Madayag,
Jr. PO2 Ibasco added that the plastic
sachet which was the subject of illegal sale remained in his possession which
he marked EI-JM, while the rest were in the custody of PO2 Pascua. The buy-bust team returned to the police
station with the two (2) accused and all the [pieces of] of evidence were
turned over to the desk officer, and the desk officer turned them over to the
police investigator.[5]
PO2 Pascua affirmed in open court
that he arrested and bodily frisked Fermin and was able to recover one plastic
sachet and one (1) .38 Paltik Revolver.[6] However, he contradicted the previous
statement of PO2 Ibasco that PO1 Valencia was the one who got hold of Madayag,
Jr. He testified that it was PO2 Ibasco
who arrested Madayag, Jr. and recovered from the latter the buy-bust money.[7] He contradicted himself when, on the earlier
part of his testimony he said that all the pieces of evidence including the
plastic sachet which was the subject of sale were in his possession until they
were turned over to the investigator,[8] he
later testified that PO2 Ibasco recovered one plastic sachet from Madayag, Jr.[9]
Nonetheless, the two police officers
were one in testifying that a Joint Affidavit about the conducted operation was
executed by them at the police station.[10]
PO2 Ibasco identified the one (1)
hundred peso bill with serial number ZT-427430 bearing his initial EI as the
marked money used in the buy-bust operation.[11] PO2 Pascua, on the other hand, admitted that
he put his initial RP-EF in all the plastic sachets he recovered[12]
and in the .38 paltik revolver.[13]
The confiscated sachets of shabu were turned over to the Police
Crime Laboratory at Central Police District in
The factual version presented by
the defense is:
Madayag, Jr. testified that before
Fermin, the other accused, said his
mother was later released because she paid the police officers the amount of P11,000.00.[21] He added that they remained in detention
because they could not produce the additional demanded amount of P14,000.00.[22]
Fermin corroborated the testimony
of Madayag, Jr. in court. He said that
at around
Eventually, an Information was
filed against Fermin alias Jon-Jon
and Madayag, Jr. alias Rolan dated
That on or about 9th day of July 2003, in Quezon
city, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with
and mutually helping one another, not being authorized by law to sell, deliver,
transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully and
unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as a broker in
the said transaction, zero point eleven (0.11) gram of white crystalline
substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride,
a dangerous drug.[27]
Upon arraignment, both the accused
entered a plea of not guilty.
On
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing, the court hereby finds accused Job Madayag, Jr. y
Balderas and accused Edgardo Fermin y Gregorio GUILTY as conspirator of the
crime of drug pushing and each is hereby sentenced to suffer Life Imprisonment
and to pay a fine of P500,000 each.
Upon appeal before the Court of
Appeals, the accused in its Appellees Brief assigned the following errors:[28]
1.
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
FINDING THAT A BUY-BUST OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AGAINST APPELLANT AT ABOUT
2.
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
FINDING APPELLANTS GUILTY AS CONSPIRATORS OF THE CRIME OF DRUG PUSHING AND
SENTENCING EACH TO SUFFER LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND TO PAY A FINE OF
₱500,000.00 EACH.
3.
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED SERIOUS AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN
FAILING TO ACQUIT APPELLANTS OF THE CHARGE ALLEGED IN THE INFORMATION.
In its Decision, the Court of
Appeals agreed with the judgment of the trial court that the two accused were
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged against him.[29]
The appellate court found that the
testimonies of PO2 Ibasco and PO2 Pascua were straightforward and candid as
against the claim of alibi or
frame-up and extortion of the two accused.
Further, the appellate court found no motive on the part of the police officers
to frame up both of the accused.
Finally, it ruled against the alleged lack of verisimilitude of the
prosecutions version because the improbabilities, inconsistencies
contradictions and self-contradictions did not pertain to the actual buy-bust
itself but only to peripheral matters.
The Courts Ruling
The defenses main argument is whether or not there
was really a buy-bust operation on
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the following elements must be proven: (1) that the transaction or sale
took place; (2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was
presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[30] The
presence of these elements is sufficient to support the trial courts finding
of appellants guilt.[31] What is material is the proof that the transaction
or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the
prohibited or regulated drug. The
delivery of the contraband to the poseur-buyer
and the receipt of the marked money consummate the buy-bust transaction between
the entrapping officers and the accused.[32] The presentation in court of the corpus
delicti the body or substance of the crime establishes the fact that a
crime has actually been committed.[33]
We have repeatedly held that the
trial courts evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies
is entitled to great respect and will not be disturbed on appeal. However, this is not a hard and fast rule. We have reviewed such factual findings when
there is a showing that the trial judge overlooked, misunderstood, or
misapplied some fact or circumstance of weight and substance that would have
affected the case.[34]
Cognate to this, while the entrenched
rule is that the assessment of witnesses and their testimonies is a matter best
undertaken by the trial court which had the opportunity to observe the
demeanor, conduct or attitude of the witnesses, the findings of the lower court
on this point will be reversed on appeal, if it overlooked substantial facts
and circumstances which, if considered, would materially affect the result of
the case.[35]
This Court believes that on application of the rule
to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the exception to the high
value of the trial courts findings surfaces.
We find irreconcilable conflicts in the recollections about the
principal factum probandum which is
the buy-bust itself. The varying versions about the pre-operation, the illegal
sale itself and the immediately preceding actions put doubts about what really
transpired on
PO2 Ibasco, in his testimony of
Fiscal Araula: After giving the pre-arranged signal, what happened?
Ibasco: My companions rushed
towards us and approached us sir.
Q: Now you said your companions approached the both accused at that
time?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Who approached Fermin?
A: It was Ronald Pascua sir.
Q: How about Job Madayag?
A: It was
Q: After your companion Pascua and
A: After the arrest, Pascua was able to get the buy-bust money and the
plastic sachet sir.
Q: From whom?
A: Fermin sir.
Q: How about from Madayag, was
there anything recovered from him?
A: Knife bente nueve sir.
Q: How about the plastic
sachet that you able to buy from him, where was it?
A: At that time I was holding
it sir.
Q: You said Pascua arrested Fermin, he was able to recover the buy-bust
money and plastic sachets and from
A: Yes sir.
Q: What bente nueve?
A: Balisong sir.[36]
However, PO2 Pascua in his 19 April 2004 testimony
stated that it was PO2 Ibasco who arrested Madayag, Jr. and recovered the
buy-bust money while he, on the other hand, arrested Fermin and recovered the
.38 paltik revolver and two plastic
sachets.
Fiscal Araula: When Ibasco made
the pre-arranged signal what happened Mr. Witness?
Pascua: When we saw Ibasco made
the pre-arranged signal we rushed towards him.
Q: Were you able to approach them
at that time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What happened when you rushed
to the transaction?
A: We introduced ourselves as police
officer and I got hold of Fermin, sir.
Q: How about Madayag, where was
he when you got hold of Fermin?
A: Ibasco got hold of him, sir.
Q: When you got hold of accused
Fermin, what happened?
A: After it bodily frisked.
Q: You frisked Fermin at that
time?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: What was the result?
A: We recovered one plastic
sachet.
Q: From whom?
A: Fermin and one (1) .38 paltik Revolver, sir.
Q: How about Madayag, where was
he when you frisked Fermin and got hold the two plastic sachets and got one (1)
.38 paltik?
A: I saw that the buy-bust money
was recovered.
Q: Who recovered that buy-bust
money?
A: Ibasco, sir.
Q: After you frisked Fermin and got two plastic sachets and paltik
revolver and Police Officer Ibasco recovered the buy-bust money which was held
in possession of Madayag, what happened after that?
A: We proceeded to the vehicle.[37]
There is another material contradiction. The
testimony of PO2 Ibasco dated
Finally, PO2 Ibasco testified that the sachet which
is the subject of the illegal sale remained in his possession and was subsequently
marked as EI-JM.[41] However, PO2 Pascua, contradicted this
statement when he testified on
The clear inconsistencies on important points
cannot be disregarded where the issue is ones liberty. The contradictory statements of the main
prosecution witnesses need not even be appreciated together with the defense
position. The proof of the supposed
buy-bust operation rests exclusively on the prosecution.[42]
We now examine the chain of custody of the corpus delicti of this case. Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 provides for the custody and disposition of the
confiscated illegal drugs, to wit:
(1)
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;
Further, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
Republic Act No. 9165, provides:
SECTION 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 equipment so confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered, for proper 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 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, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at 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 officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items x x x.
Strict compliance with the prescribed procedures is
required because of the unique characteristic of illegal drugs, rendering them
indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration
or substitution either by accident or otherwise. Hence, we have the rules on the measures to
be observed during and after the seizure, during the custody and transfer of
the drugs for examination, and at all times up to their presentation in court.[43]
While Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 excuses non-compliance with the
afore-quoted procedure, the same holds
true only for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. Here, the failure of the buy-bust team to
comply with the procedural requirements cannot be excused since there was a
break in the chain of custody of the substance taken from appellant. It
should be pointed out that the identity of the seized substance is established
by showing its chain of custody.[44]
The following are the links that must be established
in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation: 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.[45]
As
provided by the implementing rules and jurisprudence, strict compliance of the
requisites under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 can be disregarded as long
as the evidentiary value and integrity of the illegal drug are properly
preserved; and its preservation can be well established if the chain of custody
of illegal drug was unbroken. The break is clear in this case.
It must be noted that the police officer who had
the initial custody and control of the illegal drug was not clearly identified. In the preceding discussion on the
inconsistency in the statements of PO2 Ibasco and PO2 Pascua, it was pointed
out that PO2 Ibasco admitted that he was in possession of the confiscated drug,
but this was contradicted by PO2 Pascua who testified that he was the one who
was in possession of the illegal drug which was the subject of sale when it was
brought to the police station.
Fiscal Araula: After both accused
were arrested and recovered buy-bust money and two plastic sachet[s], in which
you recovered from the accused, what happened next?
PO2 Ibasco: We turned over all
the evidence to the desk officer and the desk officer turned it to the police
investigator for proper investigation sir.
x x x x
Fiscal Araula: All the
recovered evidence that we recovered
from the accused, can you tell to this Honorable Court what are these?
PO2 Ibasco: The plastic sachet
that I bought, paltik, two sachets, one bente nueve and the buy-bust money sir.
Fiscal Araula:
Who was in possession of the evidence when your group went to the police
station?
PO2 Ibasco:
I was the one holding the plastic sachet what I was able to buy, my
companion was holding on the items that they recovered, sir.[46]
In his direct examination, PO2 Pascua testified differently:
Fiscal Araula: Now, who was in
possession of that two plastic sachets and the paltik revolver taken from Fermin at that time when you proceeded
to La Loma Police Station?
PO2 Pascua: I was in possession
of that, together with the paltik, sir.
Fiscal Araula: How about the
P100.00 bill and the plastic sachet
which was the subject of sell [sale], who was in possession?
PO2 Pascua: All of them were in my possession, sir.[47]
Additionally, no photograph was taken of the
substance immediately after its supposed seizure.
Atty. Madayag: When the alleged shabu was confiscated, was there any photographs
taken?
PO2 Pascua: No sir.
Atty. Madayag: That is in
violation of Section 21 of [R.A. No.] 9165.
So there was no inventory and photographs?
PO2 Pascua: There was an
inventory.
Atty. Madayag: On the night of
the incident?
PO2 Pascua: All the evidences
were turned over to Villanueva.
x x x x
Atty. Madayag: Where was the
inventory made?
PO2 Pascua: At the office.
Atty. Madayag: At the office there was no photographing?
PO2 Pascua: None, sir.[48]
The fundamentals of a criminal
prosecution were, indeed, disregarded.
In considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with the laws
own starting perspective on the status of the accused in all criminal
prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charged laid unless the contrary
is proven beyond reasonable doubt.[49] The burden lies on the prosecution to
overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence
required. To repeat, the prosecution
must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the
defense. And if the prosecution fails to
meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not even
present evidence on its own behalf. In
which case, the presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be
acquitted.[50]
The prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the two accused. The rule that high respect must be accorded the lower courts in their
findings of facts cannot be misused to diminish the required evidence to
overcome the presumption of innocence of the accused as guaranteed by the
Constitution.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 31 May 2007 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01852 in affirming the judgment of conviction
dated 19 December 2005 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 103 of Quezon City
in Criminal Case No. Q-03-119028 is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Edgardo Fermin y
Gregorio and Job Madayag, Jr. y Balderas are hereby ACQUITTED and ordered immediately released from detention unless
their continued confinement is warranted from some other cause or ground.
SO ORDERED.
|
JOSE Associate Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
TERESITA J. LEONARDO DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
|
MARIA 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 Courts Division.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
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 Chairpersons 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 Courts Division.
RENATO C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] Penned
by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Vicente
S.E. Veloso and Arturo G. Tayag, concurring.
Rollo, pp. 2-27.
[2] TSN,
15 June 2004, pp. 1-6.
[3]
[4] TSN,
15 June 2004, pp. 1-36.
[5]
[6] TSN,
19 April 2004, p. 21.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] TSN,
15 June 2004, p. 15.
[12] TSN,
19 April 2004, p. 23.
[13]
[14] TSN,
15 June 2004, p. 33.
[15]
[16] TSN,
28 February 2005, pp. 4-9.
[17] TSN,
18 April 2005, p. 3.
[18] TSN,
28 February 2005, pp. 10-14.
[19]
[20]
[21] TSN,
18 April 2005, p. 7.
[22]
[23] TSN,
26 April 2005, pp. 4-6.
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] RTC
Decision. CA rollo, p. 26.
[28] Appellees
Brief.
[29] Decision
of the Court of Appeals. Rollo, p. 44.
[30] People
v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, 31 July 2007, 528 SCRA 750, 757
citing People v. Bandang, G.R. No.
151314, 3 June 2004, 430 SCRA 570, 579.
[31] People
v. Miranda, G.R. No. 174773, 2 October 2007, 534 SCRA 552,
567.
[32] People
v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 174771, 11 September 2007, 532 SCRA 630,
636-637 citing People v. Orteza,
supra note 30 at 758 citing further People
v. Zeng Hua Dian, G.R. No. 145348, 14 June 2004, 432 SCRA 25, 34.
[33] People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 179213, 3 September 2009, 598
SCRA 92, 101 citing People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 169141, 6 December
2006, 510 SCRA 554, 562.
[34]
People v. Racho, G.R. No. 186529, 3 August 2010;
[35]
People v. Hajili, 447 Phil. 283, 296 (2003);
People v. Gonzales, Jr., 424 Phil. 336,
352-353 (2002) citing People v. Tabones, 364 Phil. 439, 449 (1999); People
v. Ticalo, 425 Phil. 912,
917 (2002).
[36] TSN,
15 June 2004, pp. 11-13.
[37] TSN,
19 April 2004, pp. 19-22.
[38] RTC
Decision. Rollo p. 71.
[39] Police
Inspector and Chief,
[40] RTC
Decision. Rollo, p. 73.
[41] TSN, 15 June 2004, p. 13.
[43] People
v. Magpayo, G.R. No. 187069, 20
October 2010.
[44]
[45]
[46] TSN,
15 June 2004, pp. 15-16.
[47] TSN,
19 April 2004, pp. 22-23.
[48] TSN, 5 October 2004, pp. 20-23.
[49]
People v. Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, 19 January 2011; People v. Sanchez, supra note 42 at 207.
[50] People
v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, 29 October 2008, 570 SCRA 273, 283.