Republic of the
Supreme Court
THIRD DIVISION
|
PEOPLE OF THE Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - GARET SALCENA Y VICTORINO,
Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R. No. 192261 Present: VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, PERALTA, ABAD, PEREZ,* and MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: November 16, 2011 |
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is an
appeal from the February 9, 2010 Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-HC No. 02894, which affirmed the July 10, 2007 Decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 103, Quezon City, (RTC) in Criminal
Case No. Q-05-134553, finding accused Garet Salcena y Victorino (Salcena)
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment
and ordering her to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00.
In the
Information[3] dated
That on or about the 19th day of May, 2005, in Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and
mutually helping each other, 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 four gram (0.04) of
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO
LAW.
When
arraigned, both Salcena and Armas entered a plea of NOT GUILTY[4] to
the offense charged. After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits
ensued. The prosecution presented the testimonies of Barangay Security Development
Officer (BSDO) Ronnie Catubay (Catubay),
the poseur buyer; BSDO Elmer Esguerra (Esguerra); and
Forensic Chemist Filipinas Francisco Papa (Papa). The defense, on the other
hand, presented the lone testimony of Salcena.
The Version
of the Prosecution
The
Peoples version of the incident has been succinctly recited by the Office of
the Solicitor General (OSG) in its
Brief[5] as
follows:
In the afternoon of
Upon arriving at the entrapment place,
Catubay and Esguerra went to appellant and asked if they could buy shabu.
Appellant handed to Catubay a plastic sachet containing shabu and in return
received the ₱100
marked money. At this point, Catubay immediately arrested appellant and
recovered from her the marked money. Just as appellant was apprehended, another
woman (identified in court as Arlene M. Armas), ran from the scene, prompting
the tanods to arrest her. The two women were brought to the BSDO office of the
barangay hall of Barangay San Antonio for recording purposes. After which, they
were taken to the PNP Headquarter in
Forensic Chemist Filipinas Francisco Papa
of the CPD Crime Laboratory conducted the test on the specimen submitted and
the result yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.[6]
After the prosecution had formally
offered its evidence and rested, co-accused Armas filed a demurrer to evidence
anchored on the ground that the evidence adduced by the prosecution failed to
meet that quantum of proof necessary to support her criminal conviction for the
offense charged. On
The Version of the
Defense
In
her Brief,[8]
Salcena denied that she was caught, in flagrante, selling shabu and claimed
that she was just a victim of a frame-up. Her version of the events that
transpired in the afternoon of
On
Subsequently, the duo were invited to the
barangay hall where they were bodily frisked by a female barangay tanod. After
they were frisked, the lady tanod said, negative ito. Despite this, however,
a male tanod said, kahit na negative yan, positive yan.
Consequently, a plastic sachet was taken
from the table of one of the tanods and planted as evidence against the
accused. The duo was subsequently brought to the
She vehemently denied the accusations
against her.[9]
The Decision of the RTC
On
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is rendered finding
the accused GARET SALCENA y VICTORINO GUILTY of violation of Section 5 of R.A.
9165 (for pushing shabu) as charged and she is sentenced to suffer a jail term
of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00.
The shabu in this case weighing 0.04 gram
is ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru DDB for disposal as per RA 9165.
SO ORDERED.[10]
The Decision of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction
of the accused on the basis of the testimonies of Catubay and Esguerra which it
found credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction. The CA was of the view
that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty in favor
of the barangay tanods was not sufficiently controverted by Salcena. It stated that
the prosecution was able to establish the elements of the crime of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs as well as the identity of Salcena as its author. The appellate
court rejected the defense of frame-up for her failure to substantiate the
same.
Moreover, the CA held that the
apprehending team properly observed the procedure outlined by Section 21 of
R.A. No. 9165 and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the subject shabu
was duly preserved. The appellate court also sustained the RTC in holding that Salcenas
constitutional right to counsel was never impaired as she was adequately
represented and assisted by a counsel at all stages of the trial proceedings. The
dispositive portion of the CA Decision dated
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
appealed Decision dated
SO ORDERED.[11]
On
In the Resolution dated
The Issues
Insisting on her innocence, Salcena ascribes
to the RTC the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
TO COUNSEL.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN RENDERING A VERDICT OF CONVICTION
DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT WAS NOT PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
III
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN RENDERING A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DESPITE THE
FACT THAT THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGED SHABU WAS NEVER ESTABLISHED.
Salcena contends that the prosecution
failed to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She avers that both the RTC
and the CA were mistaken in giving undue credence to the testimonies of Catubay
and Esguerra as well as in upholding the validity of the alleged buy-bust
operation. She decries that she was a victim of a frame-up claiming that a
barangay tanod merely planted the subject shabu on her for the purpose of harassing
her. She adds that the omission of the two barangay tanods to observe the
procedure outlined by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 impaired the prosecutions
case. She assails the prosecution for its failure to establish the proper chain
of custody of the shabu allegedly seized from her. Also, she submits that her
acquittal is in order in the light of the denial of her basic constitutional
rights to counsel and to due process.
The OSG, on the other hand, counters that the culpability
of Salcena for the crime of illegal sale of shabu was proven beyond reasonable
doubt. It alleges that contrary to her stance, she was afforded with adequate
and effective legal representation at all stages of the trial. It avers that
there was proper coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) before the buy-bust operation was
conducted, and that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken and
cohesive chain of custody of the confiscated narcotic substance.
The Courts Ruling:
The foregoing assignment of errors
can be synthesized into: first, the core issue of whether there was a
valid buy-bust operation; and second, whether sufficient evidence exists to support Salcenas conviction
for violation of Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 9165.
Prefatorily, it must be emphasized that
an appeal in a criminal case throws the whole case open for review and it is
the duty of the appellate court to cite, appreciate and correct errors in the
appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.[15]
After a meticulous review and
examination of the evidence on record, the Court finds merit in the appeal.
True, the trial courts assessment of
the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies, as a rule, is entitled to
great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule, however, does not
apply where it is shown that any fact of weight and substance has been overlooked,
misapprehended or misapplied by the trial court.[16] The case at
bar falls under the above exception and, hence, a deviation from the general
rule is justified.
Jurisprudence
has firmly entrenched that in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the following essential elements must be proven: (1) that the
transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was
presented as evidence; and (3) that the buyer and seller were identified.[17]
Implicit in all these is
the need for proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled
with the presentation in court of the confiscated prohibited or regulated drug
as evidence.
An assiduous evaluation of the
evidence on record in its totality exposes flaws in the prosecution evidence
which raises doubt as to its claim of an entrapment operation. Not all the elements necessary for
the conviction of Salcena for illegal sale of shabu were clearly established in
this case.
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, which in recent
years has been accepted as valid and effective mode of arresting violators of
the Dangerous Drugs Law.[18]
It has been proven to be an effective way of unveiling the identities of drug
dealers and of luring them out of obscurity.[19]
To determine whether there was a valid entrapment or whether proper procedures
were undertaken in effecting the buy-bust operation, it is incumbent upon the
courts to make sure that the details of the operation are clearly and
adequately established through relevant, material and competent evidence. The
courts cannot merely rely on, but must apply with studied restraint, the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law
enforcement agents. Courts are duty-bound to exercise extra vigilance in trying
drug cases and should not allow themselves to be used as instruments of abuse
and injustice lest innocent persons are made to suffer the unusually severe
penalties for drug offenses.[20]
The prosecution seeks to prove the entrapment operation
through the testimonies of barangay tanods Catubay and Esguerra. Accordingly,
the innocence or culpability of Salcena hinges on the issue of their credibility.
In determining the credibility of prosecuting witnesses regarding the conduct
of a legitimate buy-bust operation, the objective test as laid down in People v. De Guzman[21]
is utilized. Thus:
We therefore stress that the objective test
in buy-bust operation demands that the details of the purported transaction
must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the initial contact
between the poseur-buyer and the pusher, the offer for purchase, the promise or
payment of the consideration until the consummation of the sale by the delivery
of the illegal drug subject of the sale. The manner by which the initial
contact was made, whether or not through an informant, the offer to purchase
the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the delivery of the illegal
drug, whether to the informant alone or the police officer, must be the subject
of strict scrutiny by courts to insure that law-abiding citizens are not
unlawfully induced to commit an offense.
Applying this objective test, the Court is of the
considered view that the prosecution failed to present a complete picture of
the buy-bust operation highlighted by the disharmony and inconsistencies in its
evidence. The Court finds loose ends in the prosecution evidence, unsupported
by coherent and rational amplification.
First, there are marked discrepancies
between the Joint Affidavit of Arrest[22]
dated
Catubays testimony, however, was in stark contrast to the
above declaration. Thus:
Fiscal Gibson Araula
(On Direct Examination)
Q: Mr.
Witness, do you remember where were you in the morning of
A: I
was at the Barangay Hall
Q: What
barangay is that?
A: Barangay
xxx
Q: How about in the
afternoon of May 19?
A: In the afternoon the informant
arrived at the barangay office.
Q: Can
you tell this Honorable Court what information that informant relayed to your office?
A: According
to the informant si Garet raw po ipapaano roon, nagbebenta.
Q: What
do you mean by Nagbebenta?
A: Nagbebenta
ng droga.
Q: Who received that
information?
A: I and my colleague BSDO by the name of
Elmer Esguerra.
xxx
Q: What
was the action taken by you and your companion with respect to that information?
A: We
went to the place pointed out by the informant somewhere near
Q: What
time was that?
A: About
Q: Who were with you
when you went there?
A: Elmer and I, sir.[23]
[Emphases supplied]
During cross-examination, Catubay maintained that he and Esguerra (not the barangay
chairman) were the ones informed by the CI about the drug pushing activities of
Salcena in the afternoon (not 8:00
oclock in the morning) of May 19, 2005 and that they were the only ones who
went to the place named by the CI for the conduct of the alleged buy-bust operation
without the aid and support of any police operative.
Atty. Concepcion
(Cross-examination)
Q: YOU
SAID ON
A: Yes sir.
Q:
You and Elmer proceeded to the
place where that confidential informant was telling this Garet is selling
shabu, mr. witness?
A: Yes sir.
Q: With no other companion, no police officer, you conducted the buy bust operation, mr. witness?
A:
Yes sir.
xxx
Q: When
you decided, you and Elmer decided to conduct the buy bust operation, what
preparation did you made, mr. witness?
A: We
have a briefing sir.
Q: Can
you tell us what the briefing all about between you and Elmer, mr. witness?
A:
Ako ang bibili at siya ang
huhuli po.[24]
[Emphases supplied]
What then happened to the entrapment
team which was supposedly formed for the purpose of arresting Salcena red-handedly,
and whose members were individually named and enumerated in the Pre-Operation
Report[25]
(Exh. H)? They seemed to have suddenly vanished into thin air when the
operation was about to be set into motion. Was an entrapment team really
organized?
Second, Catubay
and Esguerra made it appear in their joint affidavit that it was the CI who had
access to Salcena and who was tasked by the latter to look for prospective
buyers and to arrange for the sale and delivery of the shabu. While at the
witness stand, however, these two barangay tanods claimed that they directly
approached Salcena and bought shabu from her without the intervention and
participation of the CI. Should it not have been the CI, who was the conduit to
the pusher, who should have arranged for such a meeting?
The Court finds
it hard to believe that these two barangay tanods were able to pick the
propitious time to be in front of the Palamigan store, Barangay San Antonio, to
consummate the alleged sale with Salcena who conveniently appeared thereat. It
must be stressed that neither Catubay nor Esguerra testified that the CI
arranged the time of the meeting with the alleged drug pusher and, yet, they
astoundingly guessed the time that Salcena would turn up on the scene.
Third, another slant that nags the mind of
the Court is the confused narration of prosecution witness Catubay anent how
the sale occurred. The Court finds it hard to believe the testimony of Catubay
on the transaction he had with Salcena:
Fiscal Araula:
(On Direct Examination)
Q: When you arrived at that place what
happened there?
A: I
myself was intending to buy from Garet.
Q: Where?
A: Sa
harap ng palamigan doon sa No. 32 yata.
Q: Where
you able to talk to that person at that time?
A: I
did not, I was not able to talk to her.
Q: You
were not able to talk to her at that time?
A: Yes,
sir.
xxx
Q: When
the two of you were not able to talk to Garet, what did you do, if any?
A: I
was intending to buy shabu.
Q: To whom?
A: Garet and I did not talk to each other
since I was buying shabu nagkaabutan lang ho kami.
xxx
Q: In other words
you were able to talk to Garet?
Court:
Abutan lang daw, walang usapan.
xxx
Q: How
about the money you mentioned between the two of you that person you mentioned Garet, what is the first, the money you gave to Garet or Garet gave you the
shabu?
A: Garet first gave
the shabu and I gave her the money.
Q: Now
when you said that you received the shabu in exchange to (sic) P100.00 bill,
what did you do after?
A: After
I got the shabu we immediately arrested Garet.[26]
xxx
Q: Now,
you said that you arrested Garet at that time, how about your c0-BSDO officer, where was he?
A: In
my right side.[27]
[Emphases Supplied]
Not even the barest conversation took place between the poseur-buyer
and the alleged drug peddler. Catubay, along with Esguerra, approached Salcena
and then the latter instantly handed over to him a small heat-sealed
transparent plastic containing suspected shabu. In turn, Catubay gave Salcena a ₱100.00
bill. Thereafter, the barangay tanod arrested Salcena. The situation was simply
ludicrous.
The Court is not unaware that drug transactions are usually
conducted stealthily and covertly and, hence, the parties usually employed the
kaliwaan system or the simultaneous exchange of money for the drugs. Still,
it baffles the mind how Salcena knew exactly who between Catubay and Esguerra would
buy shabu, and how much would be the subject of the transaction despite the
absence of an offer to purchase shabu, through words, signs or gestures, made
by either of the two tanods. Evidence to be believed must not only proceed from
the mouth of a credible witness but it must also be credible in itself such
that common experience and observation of mankind lead to the inference of its
probability under the circumstances.[28]
Catubays story of silent negotiation is just not credible. It simply does not
conform to the natural course of things.
Fourth,
equally damaging to the cause of the prosecution is the confusion that marks its
evidence as to who confiscated the buy-bust money and from whom it was seized. It
was stated in both the Investigation Report[29]
submitted by P/Supt. Ratuita and the Joint Affidavit of Arrest that it was
Esguerra who confiscated the buy-bust money from the right palm of Armas because,
allegedly, immediately after receiving the ₱100.00 bill, Salcena passed
the money to Armas. Catubay, however, claimed that he recovered the buy-bust
money from Salcena herself.
Q: Likewise
when you arrested Garet where was the buy-bust money, the ₱100.00 bill?
A: I
also got the money from Garet.
Q: Where
in particular, what part of her body?
A: Right
pants pocket of her pantalon.
Court:
You mean to say you put your hand inside her
pocket?
A: Yes, your Honor.[30]
The foregoing conflicting narrations and improbabilities,
seemingly trivial when viewed in isolation, cast serious doubt on the
credibility of the prosecution witnesses when considered together.
Unfortunately, they were glossed over by the RTC and the CA invoking the
presumption that barangay tanod Catubay and Esguerra were in the regular
performance of their bounden duties at the time of the incident. It should be
stressed, however, that while the court is mindful that the law enforcers enjoy
the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this
presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be
presumed innocent and it cannot, by itself, constitute proof of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.[31] The attendant circumstances negate the
presumption accorded to these prosecution witnesses.
Viewed vis--vis the peculiar factual milieu of this case, it
is pertinent to mention the ruling in the case of People v. Angelito Tan[32]
that courts are mandated to put the prosecution evidence through the crucible
of a severe testing and that the presumption of innocence requires them to
take a more than casual consideration of every circumstance or doubt favoring
the innocence of the accused. In the case at bench, the prosecution evidence,
when placed under severe testing, does not prove with moral certainty that a
legitimate buy-bust operation was conducted against Salcena.
Moreover, the
Court finds the prosecution fatally remiss in establishing an unbroken link in
the chain of custody of the allegedly seized shabu. Thus, doubt is engendered
on whether the object evidence subjected to laboratory examination and offered
in court is the same as that allegedly sold by Salcena.
Proof
beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in
establishing the corpus delicti the body of the crime whose core is
the confiscated illicit drug.[33]
Hence, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established. The chain of custody requirement
performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning
the identity of the evidence are removed.[34]
In People
v. Kamad,[35] the
Court enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of
custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: 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.
These links
in the chain of custody were not adequately established by the testimonies of
the prosecution witnesses and the documentary records of the case. It is significant to note that the testimonies
of poseur-buyer Catubay and
his back-up, Esguerra, lack specifics on the post-seizure custody and handling
of the subject narcotic substance. Although Catubay testified that he seized
the small plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu from Salcena and
brought it to the BSDO office, he never disclosed the identity of the person/s
who had control and possession of the shabu at the time of its transportation to
the police station. Neither did he claim that he retained possession until it
reached the police station.
Furthermore, the prosecution failed
to supply vital details as to who marked the sachet, where and how the same was
done, and who witnessed the marking. In People v. Martinez,[36] the
Court ruled that the "marking" of the seized items, to truly ensure
that they were the same items that enter the chain and were eventually the ones
offered in evidence, should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended
violator; and (2) immediately upon confiscation in order to protect innocent
persons from dubious and concocted searches and to shield the apprehending
officers as well from harassment suits based on planting of evidence and on
allegations of robbery or theft.
Records show that both the RTC and
the CA agreed in holding that it was Catubay who marked the plastic sachet
containing the subject shabu. The RTC wrote:
x x x. In passing, the court is satisfied
that the plastic sachet at bench was properly identified. Tanod Esguerra said
he saw Tanod Catubay put markings thereon and remembers the letters RC which
letters appear on the sachet. Tanod Catubay recalls that he marked the sachet
but could not remember if it is RC or GV.[37]
Excerpts from the assailed CA
Decision on this score is hereto quoted, to wit:
xxx. Esguerra
remembered that Catubay marked the plastic sachet with the initials RC and
Catubay, on the other hand, cannot remember if the markings he made is GB or
RC.[38]
xxx. In the instant case, it was shown to
the satisfaction of the Court that when the sale transaction was consummated,
the shabu was first handed-over to the poseur-buyer, who placed the necessary
markings in the confiscated items.[39]
A perusal of the pertinent Transcript
of Stenographic Notes, however, shows that these observations are not reflected.
Contrary to the findings of the RTC and CA, there is nothing on record that Esguerra
made a categorical declaration that he saw Catubay put the marking RC on the
plastic sachet. All that he testified to was that he could identify the subject
shabu because it had the marking RC.[40] Neither
was there any statement from Catubay that he placed markings on the plastic
sachet of shabu right after seizing it from Salcena. In fact, Catubay claimed
that he could not remember whether the marking was RC or GV. Thus:
Atty. Concepcion:
(On Cross- Examination)
Q: You identified the buy bust money because
of the initial GB, am I correct to say that, Mr. witness?
A: I
could not recall if it is RC or G[V] sir.
Q: Why
cant you remember, RC or G[V], what is the relation, Mr. witness?
A: RC
refers to Ronnie Catubay sir.
Q: G[V]?
A: I
dont know what it means sir. [41]
Verily, the records of the case do not provide
for the identity of the officer who placed the marking RC GVS
It is likewise noteworthy that the
prosecution evidence is wanting as to the identity of the police investigator
to whom the buy-bust team turned over the seized item; as to the identity of
the person who submitted the specimen to the Philippine National Police (PNP)
Crime Laboratory; as to whether the forensic chemist whose name appeared in the
chemistry report was the one who received the subject shabu when it was
forwarded to the crime laboratory; and as to who exercised custody and
possession of the specimen after the chemical examination and before it was
offered in court. Further, no evidence was adduced showing how the seized shabu
was handled, stored and safeguarded pending its offer as evidence in court.
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.[42] Accordingly,
each and every link in the custody must be accounted for, from the time the
shabu was retrieved from Salcena during the buy-bust operation to its
submission to the forensic chemist until its presentation before the RTC. In
the case at bench, the prosecution failed to do so.
Lastly, the subject 0.04 gram of
shabu was never identified by the witnesses in court. Neither BSDO Catubay nor BSDO
Esguerra was confronted with the subject shabu for proper identification and
observation of the uniqueness of the subject narcotic substance when they were
called to the witness stand because at that time, the subject shabu was still
in the possession of the forensic chemist as manifested by Assistant City
Prosecutor Gibson Araula, Jr.[43] They
were not given an opportunity to testify either as to the condition of the item
in the interim that the evidence was in their possession and control. Said flaw
militates against the prosecutions cause because it not only casts doubt on
the identity of the corpus delicti but also tends to discredit, if not negate,
the claim of regularity in the conduct of the entrapment operation. The records
bare the following:
Fiscal Gibson Araula
(On Direct Examination)
Q: If the transparent plastic sachet is shown
to you, can you identify that transparent plastic sachet?
A: Yes,
sir. That is the one we got from her so we can remember it.
Q: Other than that you mentioned the one that
you recovered, you cannot identify the shabu other than what you mentioned now?
A: Makikilala
po.
Q: How will you know that that is the shabu?
A: I
knew it yun ang nahuli naming.
Fiscal Araula:
By
the way your Honor the shabu was in possession of the chemist. Im going to reserve the right
to identify the shabu, your Honor.
Court:
Okay,
granted.[44]
x x x.
Esguerra
testified on this matter, as follows:
Q: The
two accused were arrested at that time. What happened after that?
A: We
brought them to
Q: You said you were able to turn over the shabu and the money. Can you identify that shabu and the money?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why?
A: Because it has a marking, sir.
Q: What was the marking there that your companion was able to buy shabu from Garet at that time, what marking was placed?
A: RC
Q: How
about the money?
A: RC
din po sir.
Fiscal Araula: Your Honor, may we reserve the right to present the
transparent plastic sachet?
Court: Okay, granted.[45]
Despite the reservation of the right,
the prosecution never presented the transparent plastic sachet for
identification by the two barangay tanods.
In view of the loopholes in the
prosecution evidence as well as the gaps in the chain of custody, there is no
assurance that the identity and integrity of the subject narcotic substance has
not been compromised. In Catuiran v. People,[46]
the Court held that the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of
key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a
specimen of shabu, and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the
evidence before the same was finally offered in court, fatally conflicted with
every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused.
The Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed
innocent until the contrary is proved. Concededly, the evidence for the defense
is weak and uncorroborated and could even engender belief that Salcena indeed perpetrated
the crime charged. This, however, does not advance the cause of the prosecution
because its evidence must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed
to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.[47]
The prosecution has the burden to overcome the presumption of innocence and
prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt.
In the light of the failure of the prosecution evidence to pass
the test of moral certainty, a reversal of Salcenas judgment of conviction
becomes inevitable. Suffice it to say, a slightest doubt should be resolved in
favor of the accused.[48]
In dubio pro reo.[49]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The February
9, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02894 is hereby REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused
Garet Salcena y Victorino is hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged
against her and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless she is
being held for some other lawful cause.
The Superintendent of the Correctional
Institution for Women is ORDERED to forthwith implement this decision
and to INFORM this Court, within five (5) days from receipt hereof, of
the date when Salcena was actually released from confinement.
SO
ORDERED.
JOSE CATRAL
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA ROBERTO A. ABAD
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 Courts Division.
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
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
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
* Designated as
additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe, per
Special Order No. 1152 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-20.
[2] Penned by Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 12-16.
[3] Records, pp. 1-2.
[4]
[5] CA rollo, pp. 57-75.
[6]
[7] Records, pp. 72-74.
[8] CA rollo, pp. 29-46.
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Rollo, pp. 30-36.
[15] People
v. Balagat, G.R. No. 177163,
[16] People
v. Baga, G.R. No. 189844,
[17] People
v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 177222,
[18] People v. Agulay, G.R. No. 181747, September 26, 2008,566 SCRA 571, 594.
[19] People v. Concepcion, G.R. No. 178876,
[20]
[21] G.R.
No. 151205,
[22] Records, pp. 6-7.
[23] TSN,
[24] TSN,
[25] Records, p. 14.
[26] TSN,
[27]
[28] People v. Manambit, 338 Phil. 57, 91(1997).
[29] Records, pp.4-5.
[30] TSN,
[31] People
v. Magat, G.R. No. 179939,
[32] 432 Phi. 171, 198 (2002).
[33] People v. Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029,
[34] People
v. De Leon, G.R. No. 186471,
[35] G.R.
No. 174198,
[36] G.R.
No. 191366,
[37] CA rollo, p. 16.
[38]
[39]
[40] TSN,
[41] TSN,
[42] People v. Almorfe, G.R. No. 181831,
[43] TSN,
[44]
[45]
[46] G.R.
No. 175647,
[47] People v.
[48] People v.
[49] Latin legal maxim which literally means when in doubt, for the accused.