|
PEOPLE OF THE Appellee, |
G.R. No. 184954
|
|
- versus - |
Present: Carpio Morales, J., Chairperson, brion, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ. |
|
JAY LORENA y LABAG, Appellant. |
Promulgated: January 10, 2011 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:
The instant appeal assails the Decision[1]
dated
In an Information[3]
dated
That on
or about February 9, 2003, at about 7:30 o’clock (sic) in the evening, at Pier
Site, Sta. Rosa, Pasacao, Camarines Sur, and within the jurisdiction of the
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully,
unlawfully, criminally and knowingly sell Methamphetamine Hydrocholoride, with
a total weight of 0.21 gram[,] a dangerous drug, contained in a plastic sachet,
to a poseur[-]buyer, without authority of law, and one (1) Five Hundred Peso bill
with serial number MS [979614][4] was confiscated from the accused, to the damage and
prejudice of the People of the Philippines.
ACTS CONTRARY
TO LAW.
During pre-trial, the prosecution and defense stipulated on the following facts:
1. Identity of the accused;
2.
That the
arresting officers were organic members of the PNP Pasacao, Camarines Sur;
3.
That the accused
was within the premises of [P]ier [S]ite, Sta. Rosa, Pasacao, Camarines Sur on
February 9, 2003 at around 7:30 o’clock (sic) in the evening; and
4.
That the accused
knew a certain Iris Mae Cleofe.[5]
When arraigned, appellant pleaded not guilty.[6] In the ensuing trial, the prosecution presented seven witnesses: P/Insp. Mauro E. Solero, SPO1 Constantino Espiritu, SPO2 Ernesto Ayen, P/Insp. Josephine Macura Clemen, P/Insp. Ma. Cristina Nobleza, Police Chief Insp. Jerry Bearis, and P/Insp. Nelson del Socorro. Taken altogether, the evidence for the prosecution tried to establish the following facts:
On
Around P500-bill to appellant who was then sitting down. While handing
over the money, Iris uttered the words “O,
uya na an bayad ko kaiyan ha, baad kun wara-waraon mo iyan, uya na an bayad ko
ha” (This is my payment, you might misplace it), her voice deliberately
made louder for the buy-bust team to hear. Simultaneously, appellant handed
over a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to Iris. At that
point, Solero, Espiritu and Ayen rushed to the porch, arrested appellant and
handcuffed him. Ayen recovered from appellant’s pocket the P500-bill
while Iris turned over the sachet of shabu to Espiritu. Then they brought
appellant to the police station where he was detained. The sachet containing white crystalline
substance was thereafter personally submitted by Bearis to the Camarines Sur
Provincial Crime Laboratory, where it was tested by P/Insp. Ma. Cristina D.
Nobleza.
The initial field test showed that the white crystalline substance contained in the sachet was Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or Shabu. Thus, it was submitted to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 5 for confirmatory testing by P/Insp. Josephine Macura Clemen, a forensic chemist. There, the specimen likewise tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.
The defense, for its part, presented an entirely different version. Testifying as sole witness for the defense, appellant tried to establish the following facts:
During the first week of February 2003, appellant, a
resident of San Felipe,
On
On
WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing disquisition, judgment is hereby rendered finding
accused JAY LORENA y Labag, guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of
Sec. 5, … [Article] II of R.A. 9165. This court hereby sentences him to suffer
the penalty of life imprisonment.
Since the accused has been undergoing preventive
detention during the pendency of the trial of this case, let the same be
credited in the service of his sentence.
SO ORDERED.[7]
The trial court found the prosecution evidence credible and sufficient to prove appellant’s culpability beyond reasonable doubt. It held that even if the prosecution failed to present the poseur-buyer by reason of her death, her failure to testify was not fatal to the prosecution’s evidence since prosecution witnesses Solero, Espiritu and Ayen were able to observe the transaction between Iris and appellant, and the shabu and buy-bust money recovered from him were presented as evidence to prove the sale. The trial court also ruled that the police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner in the absence of evidence that they were motivated by spite, ill will, or other evil motive. The trial court did not give credence to appellant’s defense of denial, frame-up and maltreatment. It held that his claim cannot prevail over the positive identification made by credible prosecution witnesses and in light of the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties of law enforcers.
Appellant appealed to the CA. In his brief, appellant alleged that:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY [OF] VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165
[DESPITE] THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE OFFENSE CHARGED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.[8]
On
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered AFFIRMING WITH MODIFICATION the Judgment of the
Since the accused has been undergoing preventive
detention during the pendency of the trial of this case, let the same be
credited in the service of his sentence.
SO
ORDERED.[9]
Aggrieved, appellant filed the instant appeal.
On
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT FINDING THAT
THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE BUY-BUST TEAM’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF SECTION 21, R.A. NO. 9165.
II
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE
TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.[12]
Appellant questions the validity of his warrantless
arrest, contending that none of the circumstances provided under Section 5,
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, which
justify a warrantless arrest is present.
He likewise points out that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer coupled
with the inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and
their testimony to the effect that they did not see the sale itself, taint the
credibility of the buy-bust operation. He adds that the lower court misapplied
the presumption of regularity in the performance of official function,
especially since the arresting officers failed to comply with the guidelines
prescribed by the law regarding the custody and control of the seized drugs as
mandated by Section 21, R.A. No. 9165.
We reverse appellant’s conviction.
In a
prosecution for illegal sale of a prohibited drug under Section 5 of R.A. No.
9165, the prosecution must prove the following elements: (1) the identity of
the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. All these require evidence
that the sale transaction transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of
the corpus delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the crime that
establishes that a crime has actually been committed, as shown by presenting
the object of the illegal transaction.[13]
Further, considering 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, there is a need to comply strictly with procedure in its seizure and
custody.[14] Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 provides such procedure:
(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[.] (Emphasis supplied.)
Evident from the records of this case, however, is the fact that the
members of the buy-bust team did not comply with the procedure laid down in
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Nothing in the testimony of Solero, Commander of Task
Force Ubash, would show that the procedure was complied with. He even admitted
that he has not seen the inventory of the confiscated drugs allegedly prepared
by the police officers and that he only read a little of R.A. No. 9165:
Q Now,
Mr. Witness, did you prepare an inventory insofar as the apprehension of the
shabu allegedly taken from the suspect?
A That
is the work of the Investigator, sir, we were just after the buy-bust
operation.
Q Was
there any inventory prepared insofar as the operation is concerned?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Where
is that inventory?
A At
the Investigation Section, sir.
Q Are
you sure that there was indeed an inventory prepared?
A Yes,
sir.
Q So,
you are telling this court that the shabu that was allegedly taken from Jay
Lorena was endorsed to the Investigation Section?
A To
the desk officer on duty first for the recording.
Q Do
you know what is investigation, Mr. Witness?
A The
details, the money involved including the suspect.
Q This
case was filed in the year 2003 and I suppose you are already aware of Rep. Act
No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
the persons who prepare the inventory are the persons who apprehended, are you
aware of that?
A Yes
sir, but the desk officer is also a member of the police station.
Q So,
you turned over the shabu to the desk officer?
A Yes
sir, including the suspect.
Q And
to your own knowledge, there was an inventory prepared by the desk officer?
A The
Investigation Section, sir.
Q And
in that inventory, Insp. Del Socorro signed?
A No,
sir.
Q Or
the local elected official signed that inventory?
A I
did not see the inventory, sir.
Q So,
you are talking about a particular document which you have not seen?
A But
I know it was inventoried.
Q Now,
during the supposed buy-bust operation, upon apprehending Jay Lorena and the
shabu that your group allegedly taken from him, was there any photograph taken?
A None,
sir.
Q Was
there any police officer from the Pasacao Police Station or even the Chief of
Police himself instructed your group about the requirements prescribed under
Rep. Act No. 9165?
A None,
sir.
Q But
personally you are aware of Rep. Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Have
you read that?
A A
little.[15]
Nonetheless, People v. Pringas[16] teaches
that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21 is
not necessarily fatal. Its
non-compliance will not automatically render an accused’s arrest illegal or the
items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is
the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or
innocence of the accused.[17] We recognize that
the strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may not always be
possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied conditions,
and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the
handling of confiscated evidence.[18] As provided in Section 21, Article II
of the Implementing Rules of R.A. No. 9165:
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 x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
Even so, for the saving clause to apply, it is
important that the prosecution should explain the reasons behind the procedural
lapses and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been
preserved.[19]
It must be shown that the illegal drug presented in court is the very same specimen
seized from the accused. This function is performed by the “chain of custody”
requirement to erase all doubts as to the identity of the seized drugs by
establishing its movement from the accused, to the police, to the forensic
chemist and finally to the court.[20] Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board
Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines “chain of custody” as follows:
“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of
each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record
of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and
signature of the person who held
temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of
custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
and the final disposition[.][21]
In
this case, there was no compliance with the inventory and photographing of the
seized dangerous drug and marked money immediately after the buy-bust operation. We have held that such non-compliance does
not necessarily render void and invalid the seizure of the dangerous
drugs. There must, however, be
justifiable grounds to warrant exception therefrom, and provided that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/s.[22] While a perfect chain of custody is almost
always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes indispensable and
essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to
alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. Hence, every link must be accounted for.[23]
Prosecution
witnesses Solero, Ayen and Espiritu were united in testifying that after the
consummation of the transaction and immediately upon appellant’s apprehension, Iris
turned over the plastic sachet to Espiritu. It was likewise clear that Espiritu turned
over to Solero the specimen allegedly seized from appellant at the police
station.
However,
as to the subsequent handling of said specimen at the police station until it
was presented in court, the prosecution failed to clearly account for each link
in the chain due to the vagueness and patent inconsistencies in the testimonies
of the prosecution witnesses.
Solero testified that after he got hold of
the specimen, the same was turned over to the desk officer whose name he
cannot remember.[24]
During his direct examination, he promised that he will find out who the desk
officer was during that particular day.[25]
He however failed to name the said desk
officer when he came back on another hearing date for his cross examination and
still referred to him or her as “the desk officer on duty.”[26] And when asked what their office did to the
specimen, he declared that what he knows is that it was brought to the provincial
crime laboratory for testing but cannot remember who brought it to the provincial
crime laboratory.[27]
Bearis, on the other hand, testified
that it was he who brought the specimen to the provincial crime laboratory and when
asked from whom he got the specimen, he stated that it was Solero who handed
it over to him (Bearis).[28]
He identified in court that it was the
same specimen he brought to the provincial crime laboratory since it had the
marking “MES,” presumably corresponding to the initials of Solero, and claimed
that it was marked in his presence.[29] There
was no evidence to show, however, if Solero indeed made said marking in the
presence of Bearis since there was no mention of this when Solero testified. We find Solero’s failure to mention the supposed
marking as consistent with his claim that he turned over the specimen to the
unidentified desk officer and not to Bearis. It is thus unclear whether after
Solero, the next person who came into possession of the specimen was the unidentified
desk officer OR Bearis, given the
latter’s testimony that he directly got the same from Solero.
Also unaccounted for is the transfer
of the specimen from the provincial crime laboratory to the regional crime
laboratory. Nobleza, who received the specimen from Bearis and conducted the initial
field test on it, testified that after the examination and preparing the
result, she turned over the same to the evidence custodian, SPO3 Augusto
Basagre.[30] Clemen, the chemist who conducted the confirmatory
test at the regional crime laboratory, testified that she received the specimen
from one P/Insp. Alfredo Lopez,[31]
Deputy Provincial Officer of the Provincial Crime Laboratory, the signatory of
the memorandum for request for laboratory examination.[32]
The prosecution failed to present evidence to show how the specimen was
transferred from Basagre to Lopez.
Given the foregoing lapses committed
by the apprehending officers, the saving clause cannot apply to the case at
bar. Not only did the prosecution fail to offer any justifiable ground why the
procedure required by law was not complied with, it was also unable to establish
the chain of custody of the shabu allegedly taken from appellant. The obvious
gaps in the chain of custody created a reasonable doubt as to whether the specimen
seized from appellant was the same specimen brought to the crime laboratories
and eventually offered in court as evidence. Without adequate proof of the corpus delicti, appellant’s conviction
cannot stand.
As a result of the irregularities and
lapses in the chain of custody requirement which unfortunately the trial and
appellate courts overlooked, the presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duties cannot be used against appellant. It needs no elucidation
that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty must be
seen 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, in other words, obtains only where nothing in the
records is suggestive of the fact that the law enforcers involved deviated from
the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. Otherwise,
where the official act in question is irregular on its face, an adverse
presumption arises as a matter of course.[33]
WHEREFORE, we hereby REVERSE and SET ASIDE
the
The
Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this
Decision with deliberate dispatch and to report to this Court the action taken
hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
With
costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
|
WE CONCUR: CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS
P. BERSAMIN 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 Court’s Division.
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice Chairperson, Third Division |
C E
R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the 1987 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 |
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-9. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate Justices Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Vicente S.E. Veloso concurring.
[2] Records, pp. 236-241. Penned by Judge Jaime
E. Contreras.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8] CA rollo, p. 65.
[9] Rollo, p. 8.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] People v. Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029, August 9, 2010, p. 7, citing People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259, 266.
[14] People
v. Kamad, G.R. No.174198,
[15] TSN,
[16] G.R. No. 175928,
[17]
[18] People v. Pagaduan, supra note 13 at 10-11.
[19] People v. Almorfe, G.R. No. 181831, March 29, 2010, 617 SCRA 52, 60, citing People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 212.
[20] People
v. Almorfe, id. at 60-61, citing Malillin
v. People, G.R. No. 172953,
[21] See People v. Denoman, G.R. No.
171732,
[22] People v. Almorfe, supra note 19 at
59, citing Sec. 21(a), Art. II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of
R.A. No. 9165.
[23]
[24] TSN,
[25]
[26] TSN,
[27] TSN,
[28] TSN,
[29]
[30]
[31] Lauta in the TSN.
[32] TSN,
[33] People
v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492,