PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 190640
Appellee,
Present:
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
- versus - NACHURA,
PERALTA,
ABAD,
and
MENDOZA,
JJ.
LUIS PAJARIN y
DELA CRUZ and
EFREN PALLAYA y TUVIERA, Promulgated:
Appellants.
January 12, 2011
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
ABAD, J.:
This case is about the need for the
prosecution and all law enforcement agencies involved in illegal drugs
operations to ensure proper observance of the rules governing entrapment of
peddlers of prohibited substances.
The Facts and the Case
The City Prosecutor of Manila charged
the accused Luis Pajarin and Efren Pallaya before the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) of Manila in Criminal Cases 05-237756 and 05-237757 with violation of
Section 5 in relation to Sections 26 and 11 (3) in relation to Section 13,
respectively, of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The
prosecution presented PO2 Nestor Lehetemas, member of the buy-bust team and PO2
James Nolan Ibañez, the poseur-buyer.
They testified that on June 1, 2005 at around 10:00 p.m., an informant
arrived at their Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID) with the report that drugs would
be sold on P. Ocampo and Dominga Streets the next day at around 5:00 pm. As the poseur-buyer, PO2 Ibañez marked
a P500.00 bill with SAID on top of its serial number.
On
June 2, 2005 the buy-bust team went to the site of the operation on board a
Tamaraw FX which they parked near Dominga Street. The informant pointed to the two accused,
Luis Pajarin and Efren Pallaya. They stood
10 to 20 steps away beside a red scooter.
PO2 Ibañez and the informant approached them. After the informant introduced PO2 Ibañez as
an interested buyer, the police officer bought shabu from the two, using
the marked P500.00 bill. Pajarin
opened the compartment of the red scooter and took from it one heat-sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. When Pallaya asked for the money, PO2 Ibañez
handed it to him. Then Pajarin gave one
plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu to the officer, who raised
his right hand as a pre-arranged signal.
PO2 Ibañez’s companions immediately rushed to the group. PO2 Ibañez grabbed Pallaya. Pajarin tried to escape but PO2 Lehetemas got
hold of him.
The
police searched the red scooter’s compartment and recovered another plastic
sachet containing the same substance.
They then brought the accused to their station. The arresting officers turned over the seized
suspected shabu to PO3 Roel Young who marked the plastic sachet seized from the
scooter with the letters “ETP,” and the sachet Pajarin handed over with
the letters “LDCP.” Chemistry
Report D-369-05 showed that upon examination of the submitted specimen, the
same yielded positive result for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
regulated drug.
The
defense had a completely different version.
Pajarin said that at around 2:00 p.m. of June 2, 2005 he was at Pallaya’s
house, repairing the latter's motor pump.
As he left the house and got into the street, someone hit his helmet, grabbed
him, and dragged him into a Tamaraw FX.
They then brought him back to Pallaya’s house where four police officers
got in and brought Pallaya out with them after about three minutes. The officers brought the two accused to the
police station where they were investigated.
PO2 Ibañez showed Pajarin a plastic sachet which he supposedly recovered
from Pajarin’s scooter. Pajarin denied
owning the sachet. It was a police
officer who drove the scooter to the police station.
For
his part, Pallaya testified that on June 2, 2005 he was taking a bath at the
fourth floor of his four-storey house when he heard knocking at the door. When he opened it, he was surprised to see
four men there, claiming to be police officers.
They broke open the doors of the house from the ground to the third
floor. The officers ordered him to dress
up and forced him to go with them.
Pallaya asked for a warrant of arrest or a search warrant but he got no
response from them. They made him board
a Tamaraw FX where Pajarin sat. They
then brought the accused to the police station.
On
March 31, 2008 the RTC found both accused guilty of the crime charged and
imposed on them the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00
in Criminal Case 05-237756. In Criminal
Case 05-237757, the RTC sentenced Pajarin to suffer 12 years and 1 day to 17
years and 4 months of imprisonment and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. The RTC absolved Pallaya of this second
offense.
On
appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03291, the latter rendered
a decision dated September 30, 2009, affirming the RTC decision, hence the
present appeal to this Court.
The Issues Presented
Accused Pajarin and Pallaya raise two
issues:
1. Whether
or not the CA erred in not excluding the evidence of the seized shabu on the ground that the prosecution
failed to prove their integrity by establishing the chain of custody of the
same until they got to the trial court; and
2. Whether
or not for this reason the CA erred in affirming their conviction.
The Rulings of the Court
Appellants chiefly argue that the police officers involved in
the buy-bust operation failed to comply with Section 21 (a), Article II of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165, which requires them to take
immediate inventory of and photograph the seized item in the presence of the
accused or his representative or responsible third persons mentioned but always
taking care that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized articles are
preserved.
The
Court has held in numerous cases that the failure of the police to comply with
the procedure laid down in R.A. 9165 would not render void the seizure of the
prohibited substance for as long as the apprehending officers give justifiable
reason for their imperfect conduct[1]
and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items had
not been compromised.[2]
Here, the prosecution failed to show that
the substances allegedly seized from the accused were the same substances
presented in court to prove their guilt.
Usually, the seized article changes hands from the police officer who takes
it from the accused, to the supervising officer at their station, to the
messenger who brings them to the police crime laboratory, and then to the court
where it is adduced as evidence. Since
custody and possession change over time, it has been held indispensable that the
officer who seized the article places it in a plastic container unless it is
already in one, seals it if yet unsealed, and puts his marking on the cover. In this way there is assurance, upon
inspection, that the substance reaches the laboratory in the same condition it
was seized from the accused.[3]
Here, the police officers did not
mark the sealed plastic sachets to show that they were the same things they
took from the accused. Rather, the
marking on the items were done by the station investigator who would have no
way of knowing that the substances were really seized from the accused. The marking of captured items immediately
after they are seized from the accused is the starting point in the custodial
link. This step is vital because
succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. Failure to place such markings paves the way
for swapping, planting, and contamination of the evidence.[4] These lapses seriously cast doubt on the
authenticity of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal on reasonable
doubt.[5]
Further, as a rule, the police chemist
who examines a seized substance should ordinarily testify that he received the
seized article as marked, properly sealed and intact; that he resealed it after
examination of the content; and that he placed his own marking on the same to
ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. In case the parties stipulate to dispense
with the attendance of the police chemist, they should stipulate that the latter
would have testified that he took the precautionary steps mentioned. Here, the record fails to show this.
It is a serious concern that quite
often the failure of the police to observe the rules governing buy-bust
operations results in acquittals. Drug enforcement
agencies should continually train their officers and agents to observe these
rules and transfer out those who would not.
The prosecutors conducting preliminary investigation should not file in
court drugs cases where the sworn statements of the police officers, the report
of the chemical analyst, and the object evidence do not show compliance with the
same. And trial courts should order the
case dismissed and the accused released from detention if on examination the
supporting documents are wanting in this respect. They should not waste their precious time to
useless exercise where the police and the prosecution fail to observe the rule
of law especially in so serious offenses.
WHEREFORE,
the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE
the decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 30, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-HC
03291 as well as the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2,
in Criminal Cases 05-237756 and 05-237757, and ACQUITS the accused-appellants Luis Pajarin and Efren Pallaya on
the ground of reasonable doubt. The
Court orders their immediate RELEASE
from custody unless they are being held for some other lawful cause.
SO
ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA
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.
RENATO
C. CORONA
Chief Justice
[1] People v. Habana, G.R. No. 188900, March 5, 2010.
[2] People v. Daria, Jr., G.R. No. 186138, September 11, 2009, 599 SCRA 688, 700, citing People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008, 566 SCRA 571, 595.
[3] People v. Habana, supra note 1.
[4] People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 357.
[5] People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156, 170 (2001).