Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
FIRST
DIVISION
|
PEOPLE
OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - EDWIN
ULAT y AGUINALDO @ PUDONG, Accused-Appellant. |
|
G.R.
No. 180504 Present: CORONA, C.J.,
Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: October
5, 2011 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This
is an appeal of the Decision[1]
dated May 30, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01800
entitled, People of the Philippines v. Edwin
Ulat y Aguinaldo @ Pudong, which
affirmed the Decision[2]
dated October 12, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati, Branch 65,
in Criminal Case No. 03-597. In said RTC
Decision, the trial court found appellant Edwin Ulat y Aguinaldo @ Pudong
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and
imposed upon him the penalty of life imprisonment as well as a fine of Five Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
In an Information[3]
dated February 11, 2003, appellant was charged with violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as set forth below:
That
on or about the 10th day of February 2003, in the City of Makati,
Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, without the necessary license or prescription
and without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously sell, deliver and distribute Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, weighing zero point zero two (0.02) gram, in consideration of P100.00.
Appellant pleaded not guilty to
the charge leveled against him when arraigned on March 3, 2003.[4]
Thereafter, trial commenced.
The
prosecutions version of the events leading to appellants arrest and his being
charged with the above-mentioned offense was summarized as follows:
On February 10, 2003, a confidential informant
relayed information regarding the illegal drug pushing activities of one alias
Pudong along Seabird Street, Barangay Rizal, Makati City to Barangay Chairman
Dreu, head of the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC, for brevity) Cluster 6
(TSN, Aug. 6, 2003, p. 5).
Consequently, the MADAC Cluster 6, in coordination
with the Makati Police Drug Enforcement Unit (Makati DEU, for brevity), met and
decided to go to the place of alias Pudong at Seabird Street, Barangay Rizal,
Makati City to verify if alias Pudong is indeed selling illegal drugs and to
conduct an entrapment operation under the supervision of PO1 Randy Santos.
During the briefing, it was agreed that one of the MADAC volunteers, Armando
Pol-ot (Pol-ot, for brevity), together with the confidential informant, would
act as poseurbuyer and buy illegal drugs from alias Pudong that very same day.
The pre-arranged signal for the back-up team to know that the transaction was
already consummated would be the poseur-buyers act of lighting a cigarette.
The buy-bust money was then marked and was handed to the poseur-buyer (TSN,
Aug. 6, 2003, pp. 6-8, 10; TSN, Aug. 10, 2005, p. 9).
Thus, at about 7:15 p.m. of February 10, 2003,
Pol-ot and the confidential informant went to Seabird Street, Barangay Rizal,
Makati City on foot while the rest of the team rode a tricycle and followed the
two. Upon reaching the place, the members of the back-up team positioned
themselves 10 to 15 meters from where Pol-ot and the confidential informant
were, so they could see the transaction take pace (TSN, Aug. 10, 2005, pp.
10-12).
Meanwhile, Pol-ot, who was then accompanied by the
confidential informant, approached alias Pudong and was introduced by the
informant as a buyer in need of shabu. Alias Pudong asked how much and Pol-ot
replied Piso lang naman, meaning One Hundred Pesos only. Thereafter, alias
Pudong took the marked money and left. Upon his return, he handed Pol-ot a
small plastic sachet containing suspected substance. Pol-ot then gave the
pre-arranged signal and lighted a cigarette, signifying that the transaction
was consummated (TSN, Aug. 6, 2003, pp. 9-10).
Upon seeing the pre-arranged signal, PO1 Santos and
Rogelio Patacsil (Patacsil, for brevity) approached alias Pudong and
apprehended him. Pol-ot then identified himself as member of the MADAC. Alias
Pudong was then ordered to empty the contents of his pockets and the marked
money was recovered. PO1 Santos immediately asked alias Pudong his real name.
PO1 Santos then informed him of the nature of his arrest and apprised him of
his Constitutional rights in Tagalog. Thereafter, alias Pudong was brought to
the barangay hall of Barangay Rizal to have the incident listed in the barangay
blotter. The confiscated substance contained in the plastic sachet which Pol-ot
bought from alias Pudong was then marked EUA (TSN, Aug. 6, 2003, pp. 23-24;
TSN, Aug. 10, 2005, pp. 13-15)
Subsequently, alias Pudong was brought to the Makati
DEU office for proper investigation. The duty investigator prepared a request
for laboratory examination of the specimen (the substance contained in the
plastic sachet bought from the accused) marked EUA and a drug test for the
accused (TSN, Aug. 6, 2005, pp. 15-16).
P/Insp. Richard Allan B. Mangalip conducted the
laboratory examination on the contents of the plastic sachet marked EUA and
it tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (TSN, May 6, 2003, pp.
4-9).
The following day, or on 11 February 2003, PO1
Santos and MADAC volunteers Pol-ot and Patacsil executed a sworn statement
entitled Pinagsanib na Salaysay ng Pag-aresto in connection to the buy-bust
operation which led to the arrest of appellant Edwin Ulat y Aguinaldo alias
Pudong (TSN, Aug. 10, 2005, pp. 16-18; Records, p. 6).[5]
On the other hand, the defense
narrated a different version of the incident, to wit:
In the evening of 10 February 2003, at about 7:30
oclock p.m., the accused, EDWIN ULAT (Ulat for brevity), was at home watching
television when he saw five (5) to seven (7) men in front of their door whom he
thought were looking for someone. He approached them and asked who they were
looking for. Suddenly, a gun was poked at him and he was told to go with them
to the barangay hall. Ulat then asked who they were but he was told not to ask
question or else he might get hurt. Two (2) of the men forced him out of the
house. He resisted but he was punched in the stomach and was dragged towards a
blue Revo. The accused was likewise asked if he knew a certain Sandy. He denied
knowing the said person. He was brought to the barangay hall and then to the
Criminal Investigation Division (CID).[6]
After due proceedings, the trial court convicted appellant of violation
of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in its Decision dated October
12, 2005. The dispositive portion of said
Decision reads:
THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the court is of the
opinion and so holds accused Edwin Ulat y Aguinaldo guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the offense charged. He is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and
is fined the sum of five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The period of detention of the accused should be
given full credit.
Let the dangerous drug subject matter of this case
be disposed of in the manner provided for by law.[7]
On review, the Court of Appeals, in
its Decision dated May 30, 2007, affirmed the ruling of the trial court and
disposed of the appeal in this wise:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, appeal is hereby
DISMISSED for lack of merit and EDWIN ULAT y AGUINALDO should be made to suffer
the penalty correctly imposed by the trial court.[8]
Hence, appellant interposed the
present appeal with this Court wherein he submits the following assignment of
errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY WITH VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165
DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE OFFENSE CHARGED BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND
CREDENCE TO THE INCONSISTENT AND CONTRADICTING TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION
WITNESSES.[9]
In the instant petition, appellants
chief argument highlights the fact that the witnesses for the prosecution allegedly
presented conflicting testimonies on material points regarding the chain of
custody of the illegal drug taken from appellant, resulting in the failure of
the prosecution to sufficiently establish the corpus delicti and engendering doubt as to appellants guilt.
In light of the attendant circumstances
in the case at bar, the argument is persuasive.
The law presumes that an accused in
a criminal prosecution is innocent until the contrary is proved. This basic constitutional principle is fleshed
out by procedural rules which place on the prosecution the burden of proving
that an accused is guilty of the offense charged by proof beyond reasonable
doubt. Whether the degree of proof has
been met is largely left for the trial courts to determine. However, an appeal throws the whole case open
for review such that the Court may, and generally does, look into the entire
records if only to ensure that no fact of weight or substance has been
overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.[10]
Moreover, owing to the built-in dangers of
abuse that a buy-bust operation entails, the law prescribes specific procedures
on the seizure and custody of drugs, independently of the general procedures
geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation and of
the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded.[11]
In this regard, Section 21,
paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 states:
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.
Furthermore, Section 21(a), Article
II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 expounds
on the aforementioned provision of law:
(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 the 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.
In the crime of sale of dangerous
drugs, the prosecution must be able to successfully prove the following
elements: (1) identities of the buyer
and seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
thing sold and the payment therefor.[12]
Similarly, it is essential that the
transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the
presentation in court of evidence of corpus
delicti which means the actual commission by someone of the particular
crime charged.[13]
A meticulous review of the records
of this case has led us to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to demonstrate
with moral certainty that the identity and integrity of the prohibited drug,
which constitutes the corpus delicti,
had been duly preserved.
First, the records reveal that the
prosecution did not establish the exact location where the confiscated illegal drug
was marked and the identity of the person who marked it because of
contradicting testimonies from the prosecutions witnesses.
According to witness Armando Pol-ot
(Pol-ot), a Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC) civilian volunteer who acted
as poseur-buyer in the entrapment operation, it was Police Officer 1 Randy
Santos (PO1 Santos), the leader of the buy-bust team, who placed the marking on
the confiscated sachet of shabu that
was obtained from appellant. The
relevant portion of the transcript is quoted here:
Q: Why
do you say it is the same plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
delivered to you by alias Pudong?
A: Because
of the markings, sir.
Q: And
who placed these markings?
A: PO1
Santos, sir.
Q: Where
were you when PO1 Santos placed these markings in this plastic sheet?
A: In
front of him.
Q: Now,
can you tell us what is that marking placed by PO1 Santos?
A: Name
of the accused.
Q: What
is that mark, Mr. Witness?
A: Edwin
Ulat Y Aguinaldo.
Q: Can
you read these markings?
A: E.U.E.
(sic)[14]
This testimony contradicts what
Pol-ot declared in the Pinagsanib na
Salaysay ng Pag-aresto or the Joint Affidavit of Arrest[15]
which was executed by the members of the buy-bust team on February 11, 2003. The pertinent portion of which reads:
Na, ang
aking (Madac Armando Pol-ot) nabiling isang sachet na naglalaman ng
pinaghihinalaang shabu mula kay @ Pudong ay aking minarkahan sa harapan
ng mga akusado ng inisyal na EUA (subject of sale) bago ito isinumite sa PNP Crime Laboratory Field Office para sa kaukuilang (sic) pagsisiyasat.[16]
When confronted by the defense
counsel about this discrepancy, Pol-ot merely surmised that it might be the
product of typographical error, to wit:
Q: You
mentioned that it was Santos who made the markings on the sachet EAU, is that
correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You
were present when Santos placed these markings?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Are
you sure?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Very,
very sure.
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: I am
just wondering Mr. Witness, in your Pinagsanib
na Salaysay ng Pag aresto, the second to the last sentence, and I quote; Na, ang aking (Madac Armando Pol-ot) nabiling isang sachet na naglalaman ng
pinaghihinalaang shabu mula ka @ Pudong ay aking minarkahan sa harapan ng mga
akusado na inisyal na EUA (subject of sale). Mr. Witness, your testimony
earlier and your affidavit, is conflicting, which is correct, your testimony or
your affidavit?
A: PO1
Santos marked, sir.
Q: So
your affidavit is not true?
PROS. SALAZAR:
In
so far as the marking is concerned, not all affidavit, your Honor.
PROS. SALAZAR:
Q: This
paragraph is not true?
THE COURT:
Read
your affidavit.
A: Maybe
its just typographical error, sir.
Q: Who
prepared this affidavit, Mr. Witness?
A: At
the DEU office, sir.
Q: Did you read this affidavit before you sign?
A: Not
any more, sir.
THE COURT:
You
did not read?
A: No,
your honor.
Q: How
did you know if its right?
A: I
reviewed it after several days.
THE COURT:
After
you signed, you read it after signing?
A: Yes, sir.[17]
However, when it was PO1 Santos
turn to testify, he discredited Pol-ots testimony with regard as to who marked
the confiscated sachet of shabu:
Q: Why
do you say this is the same plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance purchased from the accused in this case?
A: Because
of the marking EUA, sir.
Q: And
who placed this marking, Mr. Witness?
A: Armando
Pol-ot, sir.
Q: Where
were you when this marking were placed, Mr. Witness?
A: In
front of him, sir.
Q: By
the way what does that marking EUA represents, Mr. Witness?
A: Edwin
Ulat y Aguinaldo, sir.[18]
Indubitably, this conspicuous
variance in the testimonies for the prosecution casts serious doubt on the arresting
teams due care in the custody of the confiscated illegal drug. Worse, the foregoing is not the only instance
of conflict between the narrations of Pol-ot and PO1 Santos with regard to the
handling of the confiscated sachet of shabu.
In his testimony, Pol-ot declared
that he was present when an inventory report of the confiscated illegal drug,
which is required by Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, was prepared by PO1
Santos at the barangay hall where
they brought appellant immediately after arresting him. The pertinent portion of his testimony reads:
Q: Did
you make any inventory report to the item that was allegedly confiscated from
the accused?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Where
is your inventory report?
A: With
the police, then brought to the Crime Laboratory for examination?
Q: Inventory
report, you examine the inventory report to the crime lab?
A: The
item that was confiscated.
Q: Were
you present when this police made this inventory report?
A: Yes,
sir at the Barangay.
Q: Can
you tell us the name of the police who made the inventory report?
A: PO1
Santos, sir.
Q: Again,
Santos?
A: Yes,
sir.[19]
On the other hand, PO1 Santos
emphatically denied ever making any inventory report:
Q: Did
you make an inventory of those items that were confiscated?
A: None,
maam.[20]
Furthermore, when Pol-ot was asked
by the defense counsel if the confiscated sachet of shabu was photographed, as mandated by Section 21 of Republic Act
No. 9165, he answered in the affirmative, and, when asked by the trial court if
the accused was present when this was being done as required by the law, he
likewise answered yes to the query, as can be gleaned from this portion of the
transcript:
Q: Did
you photograph the item that was confiscated from the accused?
A: Yes,
sir.
Q: Who
was the photographer?
A: Our
companion, sir.
Q: Who?
A: Mr.
Baisa, sir.
Q: When
you took the picture of the item, who were present?
PROS. SALAZAR:
Misleading,
your Honor. He was not the one who took the pictures.
THE COURT:
When
the pictures were taken who were present?
A: My
teammates.
THE COURT:
With
the accused?
A: He
was present, but they photographed only the items confiscated from him, your
Honor.
Q: The
items only.
A: Yes,
your honor.[21]
However, PO1 Santos did not
corroborate Pol-ots claim and instead testified that:
Q: Do
you take photos of the items that were recovered, Mr. Witness?
A: None,
maam.[22]
Taking into consideration all the
conflicting accounts of Pol-ot and PO1 Santos, the Court believes that any
reasonable mind would entertain grave reservations as to the identity and integrity
of the confiscated sachet of shabu
submitted for laboratory examination. As
likewise correctly raised by appellant, apart from the testimony that PO1
Santos turned over the accused to an unnamed duty inspector,[23]
the prosecution evidence does not disclose with clarity how the confiscated sachet
passed hands until it was received by the chemical analyst at the Philippine
National Police (PNP) crime laboratory. In other words, the prosecution could not
present an unbroken chain of custody for the seized illegal drug.
In Zaragga v. People,[24]
we held that the material inconsistencies with regard to when and where the
markings on the shabu were made and
the lack of inventory on the seized drugs created reasonable doubt as to the
identity of the corpus delicti. Thus, the accused were acquitted due to the
prosecutions failure to indubitably show the identity of the shabu.
In People v. Sitco,[25]
we enumerated other occasions wherein acquittal was proper for failure of the
prosecution to establish a complete chain of custody, such as:
In a string of cases, we declared 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 it was
finally offered in court, fatally conflicts with every proposition relative
to the culpability of the accused.
As in People
v. Partoza, this case suffers from the failure of the prosecution witness
to provide the details establishing an unbroken chain of custody. In Partoza, the police officer
testifying did not relate to whom the custody of the drugs was turned over.
The evidence of the prosecution likewise did not disclose the identity of
the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination
and pending presentation in court.[26]
(Emphases supplied; citations omitted.)
We are not unaware of existing
jurisprudence holding that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team
with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal as long as there is
justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team. Its
non-compliance will not render an accuseds 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.[27]
It
is this assurance of evidentiary integrity that is lacking in the case at bar. Thus, as a consequence thereof, appellants
acquittal from the criminal charge against him would be in order.
Recently,
we held that the unjustified failure of the police officers to show that the
integrity of the object evidence - shabu
- was properly preserved negates the presumption of regularity accorded to acts
undertaken by them in the pursuit of their official duties.[28]
As a rule, the testimony of arresting
police officers in drug cases is accorded faith and credit because of the
presumption that they have performed their duties regularly.[29]
Slight infractions or nominal deviations
by the police from the prescribed method of handling the corpus delicti should not exculpate an otherwise guilty defendant.[30]
However, in the present case, there were
not merely trifling lapses in the handling of the evidence taken from the
accused but the prosecution could not even establish what procedure was
followed by the arresting team to ensure a proper chain of custody for the
confiscated prohibited drug.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated
May 30, 2007 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 01800 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. For failure of the prosecution
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, appellant Edwin Ulat y Aguinaldo is
ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
Let a copy of this Decision be
furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, who is
ORDERED to cause the immediate release of appellant, unless he is being
lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this Court of action taken
thereon within ten (10) days from notice.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice
|
MARIANO C. Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-14; penned by Associate
Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. with Associate Justices Jose C. Mendoza (now a
member of this Court) and Ramon M. Bato, Jr., concurring.
[2] CA
rollo, pp. 12-15.
[3] Records,
p. 1.
[4] Id.
at 13.
[5] CA rollo, pp. 59-62.
[6] Id.
at 34-35.
[7] Id. at 15.
[8] Rollo, p. 14.
[9] CA
rollo, p. 31.
[10] Zarraga v. People, 519 Phil. 614, 620 (2006).
[11] People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832,
October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 208.
[12] People v. Roble, G.R. No. 192188, April
11, 2011.
[13] Id.
[14] TSN,
August 6, 2003, p. 15.
[15] Records,
pp. 6-7.
[16] Id.
at 7.
[17] TSN,
August 6, 2003, pp. 26-27.
[18] TSN,
August 10, 2005, p. 20.
[19] TSN,
August 6, 2003, p. 24.
[20] TSN,
August 10, 2005, p. 27.
[21] TSN,
August 6, 2003, pp. 24-25.
[22] TSN,
August 10, 2005, p. 27.
[23] Id.
at 15.
[24] Supra
note 10 at 621.
[25] G.R. No. 178202, May 14, 2010, 620 SCRA 561.
[26] Id. at 579.
[27] People v. Pringas, G.R. No. 175928,
August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843.
[28] People v. Navarrete, G.R. No. 185211,
June 6, 2011.
[29] People v. Frondozo, G.R. No. 177164,
June 30, 2009, 591 SCRA 407, 419.
[30] People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 187737, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 542, 552.