Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Baguio City
SECOND division
People of the philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, - versus - sammy umipang y abdul, Accused-Appellant. |
G.R. No. 190321 Present: CARPIO, J.,
Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: April 25, 2012 |
|
x - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - x
D E C I S I O N
SERENO, J.:
Before the Court is an
appeal from the 21 May 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA)[1]
affirming the 24 July 2007 Joint Decision of the Pasig City Regional Trial
Court (RTC) in Criminal Cases No. 14935-D-TG and No. 14936-D-TG.[2]
The RTC Decision convicted Sammy Umipang y
Abdul (Umipang) for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 (R.A. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002.
Facts
The pertinent
facts, as determined by the CA, are quoted as follows:
Acting on a tip from a
confidential informant that a person named Sam was selling drugs along Cagayan
de Oro Street in Maharlika Village, Taguig City, a buy-bust team from the [Station
Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF)] of the Taguig
City Police was dispatched on April 1, 2006 at around 6:00 in the evening. [Police
Officer (PO) 2] Gasid was assigned to act as poseur buyer and he was given a
₱500.00 marked money. The operation was coordinated with the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
Upon arrival at the area,
PO2 Gasid and the confidential informant sauntered the length of the street
while the other members of the team strategically positioned themselves. The
confidential informant saw the man called Sam standing near a store. The
confidential informant and PO2 Gasid then approached Sam. Straight off, the
confidential informant said Sam, pa-iskor
kami. Sam replied Magkano ang
iiskorin nyo? The confidential informant said Five hundred pesos. Sam took out three (3) plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance with various price tags500, 300, and
100. After making a choice, PO2 Gasid handed the marked ₱500.00 to Sam
who received the same.
Upon receipt by Sam of the
marked money, PO2 Gasid took off his cap as the pre-arranged signal that the
sale had been consummated. Sensing danger, Sam attempted to flee but PO2 Gasid immediately
grabbed and arrested Sam. In a few seconds, the rest of the buy-bust team
[comprised of their team leader, Police Senior Inspector (PS/INSP.) Obong,
Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Mendiola, PO3 Hajan, PO3 Maglana, PO3 Salem, and
PO1 Ragos] joined them. PO1 Ragos handcuffed Sam. Five (5) more plastic sachets
containing the same white crystalline substance were recovered from Sam. PO2
Gasid marked the items with the initials SAU [which stood for Sammy A.
Umipang, the complete name, including the middle initial, of accused-appellant].
Sam was forthwith brought to the police station where he was booked,
investigated and identified as accused-appellant Sammy Umipang y Abdul. PO2
Gasid then brought the confiscated items to the crime laboratory for testing.
The specimens all tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride,
popularly known as shabu, a dangerous drug.
On the other hand, the
defense presented accused-appellant himself and his brother Nash Rudin Umipang.
According to them:
In the evening of April 1,
2006, while they were sleeping, accused-appellant and his family were awakened
by loud knocking on the door. The persons outside shouted Mga pulis kami. Buksan mo ang pinto kung hindi gigibain namin ito.
Accused-appellant obliged and opened the door. Five (5) policemen barged into
his house and pointed a gun at him. Against his will and amid the screams of
his wife, accused-appellant was brought to a waiting vehicle and brought to the
police headquarters. At the Taguig Police station, PO2 Gasid tried to extort
from him ₱100,000.00 for his release. He denied the charges and that the
alleged evidence were all planted by the police.[3]
Consequently, the
following charges were brought against Umipang:
That on or about the 1st
day of April 2006, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having
been authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly
sell deliver and give away to poseur buyer PO2 Ruchyl Gasid, one heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance,
which substance was found positive to the test for Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride also known as shabu a dangerous drug, in consideration of the
amount of ₱500.00, in violation of the above-cited law.
That on or about the 1st
day of April 2006, in the City of Taguig, Philippines and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having
been authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly
possess and have in his custody and control five (5) heat sealed transparent
plastic sachets, each containing 0.05 gram, 0.05 gram, 0.05 gram, 0.04 gram and
0.04 gram with a total weight of 0.23 gram of white crystalline substance,
which substances were found positive to the tests for Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride also known as shabu a dangerous drug, in violation of the
above-cited law.
RTC Ruling
In its 24 July
2007 Joint Decision, the Pasig City RTC found accused-appellant guilty of
violating Section 5 (Sale, Trading,
Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals) and Section
11 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs), Article II of R.A. 9165. The RTC gave more
weight to the testimonies of the arresting officers on how they conducted the
buy-bust operation than to accused-appellants claim of frame-up by the police.
Thus, for violating Section 5 (Criminal Case No. 14935-D-TG), Umipang was
sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₱500,000. For violating Section 11 (Criminal Case No.
14936-D-TG), he was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14)
years and twenty-one (21) days as maximum and to pay a fine of ₱300,000.
CA Ruling
In its 21 May
2009 Decision, the CA affirmed in toto
the 24 July 2007 Joint Decision of the RTC. According to the appellate court,
the elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal possession and sale
of dangerous drugs were present and established. Thus, it no longer disturbed
the RTCs assessment of the credibility of the prosecution witnesses. Furthermore,
the CA found that there was no showing of improper motive on the part of the
police officers. With the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
duties, it ruled against the denials of accused-appellant, and his defense of
frame-up.
We have consistently
declared that a review of the factual findings of the lower courts is not a
function that is normally undertaken in appeals before this Court. However,
after a careful scrutiny of the CA Decision, we find it proper to reevaluate
the factual issues surrounding the present case, especially since it is not
clear from the Decision whether the proper implementation of the strict procedural
safeguards laid down in R.A. 9165 was established.
Issue
Whether or not the
RTC and the CA erred in finding that the testimonial evidence of the prosecution
witnesses were sufficient to convict accused-appellant of the alleged sale and
possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, which are violations under
Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of R.A. 9165.
Discussion
Accused-appellant argues[4]
that since there were two versions presented during trial one, that of the
prosecution; and the other, that of the accused the latter version must be
adopted, because the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties
should not take precedence over the presumption of innocence of the accused. He
also contends that a surveillance of just 30 minutes was insufficient to
establish that Umipang was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. Lastly, accused-appellant
claims that the fact of possession of the confiscated plastic sachets was not
clearly established, and that the evidence allegedly confiscated from him was
merely planted.[5] Alluding
to the testimony of PO1 Ragos, he points out that the former did not see him
holding the drugs, and that the sachet was shown only to PO1 Ragos by PO2 Gasid.
On the other hand, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) prays for
the affirmation of the RTC Joint Decision in all respects, as it was decided in
accord with law and evidence.[6] The OSG argues[7] that the necessary elements to convict a person under
Sections 5 and 11 were proven beyond reasonable doubt. It then contends that,
absent independent proof and substantiated evidence to the contrary,
accused-appellants bare-faced denial should be deemed merely as a self-serving
statement that does not hold merit. Finally, the OSG asserts that, where there
is no evidence of improper motive on the part of the prosecution witness to
testify falsely against accused-appellant, the testimony must be given full
faith and credence.
Substantive law requires strict observance of
the procedural safeguards outlined in R.A. 9165
At the outset,
we take note that the present case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted
by the SAID-SOTF. We thus recall our pronouncement in People v. Garcia:
A buy-bust operation gave
rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been proven to be an
effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted
covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust
operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the
framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of
which is its use as a tool for extortion. In People v. Tan, this Court itself recognized that by the very nature of anti-narcotics
operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as
informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be
planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the
secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is
great. Thus, courts have been exhorted
to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to
suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. Accordingly, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have
been laid down in the law (R.A. No. 9165) for the police to strictly follow.
The prosecution must adduce evidence
that these procedures have been followed in proving the elements of the
defined offense.[8]
(Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)
Section 21 of
R.A. 9165 delineates the mandatory procedural safeguards[9]
that are applicable in cases of buy-bust operations:
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:
(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;
(2) Within
twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as
well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA
Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification
of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic
laboratory examiner, shall be
issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s:
Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not
allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory
examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities
of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided,
however, That a final certification shall
be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within
the next twenty-four (24) hours;
(4) After the filing of the criminal case, the Court shall, within seventy-two (72)
hours, conduct an ocular inspection of
the confiscated, seized and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals, including
the instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, and through the
PDEA shall within twenty-four (24) hours thereafter proceed with the
destruction or burning of 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 DOJ, civil
society groups and any elected public official. The Board shall draw up the
guidelines on the manner of proper disposition and destruction of such item/s
which shall be borne by the offender: Provided, That those item/s of
lawful commerce, as determined by the Board, shall be donated, used or recycled
for legitimate purposes: Provided, further, That a representative sample, duly weighed and recorded is retained;
(5) The Board shall then issue a sworn
certification as to the fact of destruction or burning of the subject item/s
which, together with the representative sample/s in the custody of the PDEA,
shall be submitted to the court having jurisdiction over the case. In all
instances, the representative sample/s shall
be kept to a minimum quantity as determined by the Board;
(6) The
alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed
to personally observe all of the above proceedings and his/her presence shall
not constitute an admission of guilt. In case the said offender or accused
refuses or fails to appoint a representative after due notice in writing to the
accused or his/her counsel within seventy-two (72) hours before the actual
burning or destruction of the evidence in question, the Secretary of Justice
shall appoint a member of the public attorney's office to represent the former;
x x x. (Emphasis supplied.)
Congress introduced
another complementing safeguard through Section 86 of R.A. 9165, which requires
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Philippine National Police (PNP),
and Bureau of Customs (BOC) to maintain close coordination with PDEA in matters
of illegal drug-related operations:
Section 86. Transfer, Absorption, and
Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and
Transitory Provisions. x x x.
x x x x x x x x x
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution
of the investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all other crimes as
provided for in their respective organic laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation being conducted by
the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc
anti-drug task force is found to be a violation of any of the provisions of
this Act, the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or any of the
task force shall immediately transfer the same to the PDEA: Provided,
further, That the NBI, PNP and the
Bureau of Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug
related matters. (Emphasis supplied.)
Thus, the 2002
Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 (IRR) set the following procedure
for maintaining close coordination:
SECTION 86. Transfer,
Absorption, and Integration of All Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into
the PDEA and Transitory Provisions. x x x.
x x x x x x x x x
(a)
Relationship/Coordination between PDEA and Other
Agencies The PDEA shall be the lead agency in the enforcement of the Act,
while the PNP, the NBI and other law enforcement agencies shall continue to
conduct anti-drug operations in support of the PDEA: Provided, that the
said agencies shall, as far as practicable, coordinate with the PDEA prior to
anti-drug operations; Provided, further, that, in any case, said agencies shall
inform the PDEA of their anti-drug operations within twenty-four (24) hours
from the time of the actual custody of the suspects or seizure of said drugs
and substances, as well as paraphernalia and transport equipment used in
illegal activities involving such drugs and/or substances, and shall regularly
update the PDEA on the status of the cases involving the said anti-drug
operations; Provided, furthermore, that raids, seizures, and
other anti-drug operations conducted by the PNP, the NBI, and other law
enforcement agencies prior to the approval of this IRR shall be valid and
authorized; Provided, finally, that nothing in this IRR shall
deprive the PNP, the NBI, other law enforcement personnel and the personnel of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from effecting lawful arrests and
seizures in consonance with the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules
of Court. (Emphasis supplied.)
Given the nature
of buy-bust operations and the resulting preventive procedural safeguards
crafted in R.A. 9165, courts must tread carefully before giving full credit to
the testimonies of those who conducted the operations. Although we have ruled
in the past that mere procedural lapses in the conduct of a buy-bust operation are
not ipso facto fatal to the
prosecutions cause, so long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items have been preserved,[10]
courts must still thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those errors that
constitute a simple procedural lapse from those that amount to a gross, systematic,
or deliberate disregard of the safeguards drawn by the law. Consequently, Section 21(a) of the IRR provides for a saving
clause in the procedures outlined under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, which
serves as a guide in ascertaining those procedural aspects that may be relaxed under
justifiable grounds, viz:
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. x x x:
(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; (Emphasis
supplied.)
We have
reiterated that this saving clause applies only where the prosecution
recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable
grounds after which, the prosecution must show that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved.[11]
To repeat, noncompliance with the required procedure will not necessarily
result in the acquittal of the accused if: (1) the noncompliance is on justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.[12]
Accordingly,
despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of the official duties
of law enforcers,[13]
we stress that the step-by-step procedure outlined under R.A. 9165 is a matter
of substantive law, which cannot be simply brushed aside as a simple procedural
technicality. The provisions were crafted by Congress as safety precautions to
address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty
imposed may be life imprisonment. In People
v. Coreche,[14]
we explained thus:
The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity for
tampering with evidence found legislative expression in Section 21 (1) of
RA 9165 on the inventory of seized
dangerous drugs and paraphernalia by putting in place a three-tiered requirement on the time,
witnesses, and proof of inventory by imposing on the apprehending team having
initial custody and control of the drugs the duty to 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.)
Consequently, in a line of
cases,[15]
we have lain emphasis on the importance of complying with the prescribed
procedure. Stringent compliance is justified under the rule that penal laws
shall be construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of
the accused.[16] Otherwise,
the procedure set out in the law will be mere lip service.[17]
Material irregularities in the conduct of the
buy-bust operations
In the recent
case of People v. Relato, we
reiterated the following:
In a prosecution of the sale and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride
prohibited under Republic Act No. 9165, the State not only carries the heavy burden of proving the elements of the
offense of, but also bears the obligation
to prove the corpus delicti,
failing in which the State will not discharge its basic duty of proving the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is settled that the State does not establish the corpus delicti when the prohibited
substance subject of the prosecution is missing or when substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the prohibited
substance raise grave doubts about the authenticity of the prohibited substance
presented as evidence in court. Any
gap renders the case for the State less than complete in terms of proving the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, Relato deserves
exculpation, especially as we recall that his defense of frame-up became
plausible in the face of the weakness of the Prosecutions evidence of guilt.[18]
(Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)
The conduct of
the buy-bust operations was peppered with defects, which raises doubts on the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items from
accused-appellant.
First, there were material inconsistencies in the marking of the seized items. According to his testimony, PO2 Gasid used the initials of the complete name, including the middle initial, of accused-appellant in order to mark the confiscated sachets. The marking was done immediately after Umipang was handcuffed. However, a careful perusal of the testimony of PO2 Gasid would reveal that his prior knowledge of the complete initials of accused-appellant, standing for the latters full name, was not clearly established. Thus, doubt arises as to when the plastic sachets were actually marked, as shown by PO2 Gasids testimony:
A
[PO2 Gasid]: We
conducted a buy-bust operation on April 1, 2006.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Against whom did you
conduct this buy-bust operation?
A: Against
alias Sam, sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: What prompted you to
conduct this operation against this alias
Sam?
A: We received information from our
confidential informant that one alias
Sam is selling shabu at Cagayan De Oro Street, Maharlika Village, Taguig.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Aside from this information that you received from your informant, was
there anything more that your informant told you about the real identity of
this alias Sam?
A: Nothing more, sir, he gave us only his
alias, sir.[19]
x x x x x x x x x
PROSEC.
SANTOS: So, after you have
taken the item and paid alias Sam and then you executed the pre-arranged signal
that you have already purchased from him, what happened then?
A: After
I made the pre-arranged signal, mabilis po yung mata ni alias Sam, para ho bang balisa, siguro napansin nya na hindi lang
kami dalawa (2), aakma syang tatakbo, sinunggaban ko na po sya.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: So, you held Sam
already during that time?
A: Yes,
sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: What happened after
that?
A: I
introduced myself as police officer and at that time I arrested him.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: What about your
companions who serves [sic] as your immediate back up, what happened to them
when you were already hold and arrested [sic] this alias Sam?
A: I
noticed my companions approaching us.
x x x x x x x x x
PROSEC.
SANTOS: And what did your
colleague Ragos do when he arrived at your place?
A: When
he arrived at the place, after arresting alias
Sam, he was the one who handcuffed him.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Was there anything
more that was done in that place of occurrence during that time, Officer?
A: Yes,
sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Tell us please?
A: After
arresting alias Sam, I frisk [sic] him for the remaining items he showed me and
the buy-bust money I gave him.
x x x x x x x x x
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Was there anything
that you and your team did in the items that you confiscated from the
possession of the accused during that time and the shabu that you bought from
him?
A: I
marked the items I confiscated at the place of incident.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: How did you marked [sic] the
item that you bought from this alias Sam?
A: SAU, sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: And what does that stand for? That SAU?
A: Stands for the initials of alias Sam.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Is that the only
thing that you placed on the plastic sachet containing the shabu that you
bought from this alias Sam during that time?
A: I
marked the shabu I bought as SAU-1.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: How about the other
five (5) plastic sachets containing the suspected shabu, what happened to that?
A: I
marked them as SAU-2, SAU-3, SAU-4, SAU-5 and SAU-6.[20]
x x x x x x x x x
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Now, after you have marked and inventoried
the items that you bought and confiscated from this alias Sam during that time,
what else happened?
A: After the inventory of the evidences, I turn [sic] them over to the investigator.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Where did you turn these items to your investigator?
A: At the office, sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Who was your
investigator during that time?
A: PO1
Alexander Saez, sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: When you turn these
items to your investigator, where were you?
A: At
the office, sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: What happened to
these items that you turn it over [sic] to your investigator?
A: He
made a request for laboratory examination of the items confiscated.[21]
x x x x x x x x x
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Now, Officer, this Sam when you have already arrested
him, were you able to know his real name?
A: Yes, sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: What was his real name?
A: Sammy Umipang, sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Is he present here in
Court?
A: Yes,
sir.[22]
x x x x x x x x x
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: When you arrived at the
place, by the way, where was your target area, Mr. Witness?
A: Cagayan
De Oro Street, Barangay Maharlika, Taguig City.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: When you were there,
you did not buy [sic] anybody to buy shabu from the accused?
A: No,
sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: So, you did not conduct
any test buy?
A: No,
sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: Nor did you make any
inquiry with Cagayan De Oro Street regarding the accused?
A: Not
anymore, sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: At that moment, you dont have any idea regarding the identity of the
accused and also whether he was engaged in illegal activity?
A: Regarding the identity, he was described by
the informant.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: It was only the informant who knows the accused?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: And also your other members, they did not know the accused?
A: Yes, sir.[23] (Emphasis supplied.)
A clearer
picture of what transpired during the buy-bust operation, from the marking of
the confiscated items to the arrest of accused-appellant, is provided by the
testimony of PO1 Ragos:
PROSEC.
SANTOS: And what is the
effect to you of the act of Gasid taking off his cap?
A: That
is the sign that he already bought the shabu.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: When you saw Gasid
acting that way, being the back up of him during that time, what did you do?
A: I
run [sic] towards them.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Were you able to go
near him when you run [sic] towards him?
A: Yes,
sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: What happened?
A: I
saw him holding Sam.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: When you saw Gasid
already holding Sam, what did you do?
A: I
handcuffed Sam.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: After that, what happened?
A: The items confiscated by Gasid were marked with his initials.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Did you see Gasid
marking those things that he took from this Sam during that time?
A: Yes,
sir.
x x x x x x x x x
PROSEC.
SANTOS: What marked [sic] did he put
on these plastic sachets?
A: SAU, sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Do you know what SAU connotes?
A: Yes,
sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Tell us?
A: Sammy Abdul Umipang.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: After that, what happened?
A: He was apprising [sic] of his constitutional rights.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: After this person was apprised of his rights, was there anything more
that was done?
A: We went back to the office.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: All the members of
the team went back to the office?
A: Yes,
sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: And together with this alias Sam?
A: Yes,
sir.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: What happened in your
office?
A: We
turn [sic] over the evidence to the investigator.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Who was your
investigator during that time?
A: PO1
Saez.
x x x x x x x x x
PROSEC.
SANTOS: So, after the team has
turn [sic] over the evidences to your investigator in the person of Officer
Saez, was there anything more that transpired in relation to this event, this
incident?
A: We
prepared an affidavit of arrest.[24]
x x x x x x x x x
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: And this information
regarding the accused was relayed to you by your immediate superior?
A: Yes,
sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: And this information was the first information
regarding the accused, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: What was told you was
that your target person was alias Sam?
A: Yes,
sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: No photographs of alias Sam was shown to you?
A: None, sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: You have no derogatory records of this alias Sam in your office?
A: None, sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: You have no warrant of arrest?
A: None, sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: This alias Sam was not included in your watch list?
A: No, sir.[25]
x x x x x x x x x
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: So, the markings were placed on the plastic
sachets?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: After that Mr. Witness, you brought the accused together with the
items to your office?
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Already answered,
Your Honor. We are just repeating the same pattern, Your Honor.
x x x x x x x x x
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you
investigated the accused?
A: No more,
it was PO1 Saez who investigated the
accused.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: So, you did not ask the full name of the accused?
A: It was PO1 Saez who investigated him, sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: It was PO1 Saez who got his full name and on you [sic] part, that was the first time that you were
able to learned [sic] the full name
of the accused?
A: Yes, sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: Because you knew him only as alias Sam?
A: Yes,
sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: How about Officer Gasid, it was also the first time that he learned the
full name of the accused?
A: Maybe not, sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you
mentioned that it was Officer Saez who delivered the items to the crime lab?
A: No
sir, it was Gasid.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: But you were not with
him when he delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory?
A: Yes,
sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: No further question,
Your Honor.
PROSEC.
SANTOS: No re-direct, Your
Honor. x x x[26] (Emphasis supplied.)
The circumstances
surrounding the marking of the seized items are suspect. From their testimonies
during the trial, PO2 Gasid and PO1 Ragos both admitted that they only knew their
target by the name Sam. They both testified that, after accused-appellant was
handcuffed, frisked, and read his rights, they immediately brought him to the
police precinct. They then said that it was a certain PO1 Saez who investigated
him. In fact, in their joint affidavit, PO2 Gasid and PO1 Ragos stated thus:
Na dinala namin
siya [accused] sa aming opisina para
sa pagsisiyasat at pagtatanong tungkol sa detalye ng kaniyang pagkatao at
sa layuning masampahan ng kaukulang reklamo sa paglabag ng Section 5 and 11 of
RA 9165.[27]
(Emphasis supplied.)
Evidence on record does not establish that PO2 Gasid had prior knowledge of the complete name of accused-appellant, including the middle initial, which enabled the former to mark the seized items with the latters complete initials. This suspicious, material inconsistency in the marking of the items raises questions as to how PO2 Gasid came to know about the initials of Umipang prior to the latters statements at the police precinct, thereby creating a cloud of doubt on the issues of where the marking really took place and whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. All that was established was that it was PO1 Saez who asked accused-appellant about the latters personal circumstances, including his true identity, and that the questioning happened when accused-appellant was already at the police station. We thus reiterate:
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of
the seized drugs or other related
items immediately after they are
seized from the accused. Marking after
seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus it is vital that
the seized contraband[s] are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of
the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the
corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized
from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings,
obviating switching, planting, or
contamination of evidence.
Long before Congress passed
RA 9165, this Court has consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs raises
reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus
delicti and suffices to rebut the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duties, the doctrinal fallback of every
drug-related prosecution. Thus, in People
v. Laxa and People v. Casimiro,
we held that the failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized
from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal
on reasonable doubt. These rulings are refinements of our holdings in People v. Mapa and People v. Dismuke that doubts
on the authenticity of the drug specimen occasioned by the prosecutions
failure to prove that the evidence submitted for chemical analysis is the same
as the one seized from the accused suffice to warrant acquittal on reasonable
doubt.[28]
(Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)
It is true that the
failure of the arresting officers to mark the seized items at the place of
arrest does not by itself impair the integrity of the chain of custody and render
the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence.[29]
We have already clarified that the marking upon immediate confiscation of the
prohibited items contemplates even that which was done at the nearest police
station or office of the apprehending team.[30]
We will analyze this possible seed of doubt that has been planted by the
unexplained marking of the shabu with
the complete initials of Umipang, together with the other alleged
irregularities.
Second, the SAID-SOTF failed to show genuine and sufficient effort to
seek the third-party representatives enumerated under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165.
Under the law, the inventory and photographing of seized items must be
conducted in the presence of a representative from the media, from the
Department of Justice (DOJ), and from
any elected public official. The testimony of PO2 Gasid, as quoted below, is enlightening:
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: Mr. Witness, you also
made the certificate of inventory, is that correct?
A: Yes,
sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: And since this is a
drug operation, you are required by law to make a certificate of inventory?
A: Yes,
sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: And that inventory, you
are required by law that there should be a signature of any representative from
the media, is that correct?
A: Yes,
sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: And also representative
from the Department of Justice, is that correct?
A: Yes,
sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: And also elected
official, Mr. Witness?
A: Yes,
sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: Im showing to you Mr.
Witness your certificate of inventory, do
you confirm that there are no signatures placed by any member of the media,
representative from the Department of Justice and any elected official?
A: Yes, sir, there is none, sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: And there appears to be
an initial of RS above the type written name Sammy Umipang, who wrote this
initial RS?
A: That
stands for refuse [sic] to sign, sir.
ATTY.
HERNANDEZ: Who refuse [sic] to
sign?
A: Sammy
Umipang, sir.[31]
x x x x x x x x x
PROSEC.
SANTOS: Why was the certificate of inventory not witnesses [sic] and signed by any members of the media, the
DOJ and elected officials, Officer?
A: That
time there is no available
representative, sir.
COURT: How did you exert effort to locate
available representative of those officers or persons in the certificate of
inventory?
A: The investigator contacted representative from
the media, Your Honor.
COURT: What barangay
this incident happened?
A: Barangay
Maharlika, Your Honor.
COURT: Did you talk to the barangay captain?
A: No, Your Honor.
COURT: What about the barangay councilman?
A: No, Your Honor.[32] (Emphasis supplied.)
Indeed, the absence of these representatives during the physical inventory and the marking of the seized items does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. However, we take note that, in this case, the SAID-SOTF did not even attempt to contact the barangay chairperson or any member of the barangay council. There is no indication that they contacted other elected public officials. Neither do the records show whether the police officers tried to get in touch with any DOJ representative. Nor does the SAID-SOTF adduce any justifiable reason for failing to do so especially considering that it had sufficient time from the moment it received information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest.
Thus, we find that there was no genuine and sufficient effort on the part of the apprehending police officers to look for the said representatives pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. A sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse. We stress that it is the prosecution who has the positive duty to establish that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165,[33] or that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so.[34]
Third, the SAID-SOTF failed to duly accomplish the Certificate of Inventory and to take photos of the seized items pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. As pointed out by the defense during trial,[35] the Certificate of Inventory did not contain any signature, including that of PO2 Gasid the arresting officer who prepared the certificate[36] thus making the certificate defective. Also, the prosecution neither submitted any photograph of the seized items nor offered any reason for failing to do so. We reiterate that these requirements are specifically outlined in and required to be implemented by Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165.[37]
Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. 9165 would not automatically
exonerate an accused from the crimes of which he or she was convicted.[38] This is especially true when
the lapses in procedure were recognized and explained in terms of []
justifiable grounds.[39] There must also be a
showing that the police officers intended to comply with the procedure but
were thwarted by some justifiable consideration/reason.[40] However, when there is
gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in
the substantive law (R.A. 9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the identity
of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence.[41] This uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply
invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties,
for a gross, systematic,
or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an
irregularity in the performance of official duties.[42] As a result, the prosecution is deemed to have failed
to fully establish the elements of the crimes charged, creating reasonable
doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.[43]
For the arresting officers failure to adduce justifiable grounds, we are led to conclude from the totality of the procedural lapses committed in this case that the arresting officers deliberately disregarded the legal safeguards under R.A. 9165. These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we must resolve the doubt in favor of accused-appellant, as every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[44]
As a final note,
we reiterate our past rulings calling upon the authorities to exert greater
efforts in combating the drug menace using the safeguards that our lawmakers
have deemed necessary for the greater benefit of our society.[45]
The need to employ a more stringent approach to scrutinizing the evidence of
the prosecution especially when the pieces of evidence were derived from a buy-bust
operation redounds to the benefit of the criminal justice system by
protecting civil liberties and at the same time instilling rigorous discipline
on prosecutors.[46]
WHEREFORE, the appealed 21 May 2009 CA Decision affirming the 24 July 2007 RTC Joint Decision is SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant
Sammy Umipang y Abdul is hereby ACQUITTED of the charges in Criminal Cases No.
14935-D-TG and No. 14936-D-TG on the ground of reasonable
doubt. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to
immediately RELEASE accused-appellant from custody, unless he is
detained for some other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA
LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
JOSE
PORTUGAL PEREZ Associate Justice |
BIENVENIDO
L. REYES
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 Courts Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second
Division
CERTIFICATION
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]
The Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02898 was penned by CA Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato,
Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Arturo
G. Tayag.
[2]
The Joint Decision in Criminal Cases Nos. 14935-D-TG and 14936-D-TG was penned
by Judge Florito S. Macalino.
[3]
CA Decision at 4-5, rollo, pp. 5-6.
[4]
Brief for the Accused-Appellant at 9-12 (People v. Umipang, CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 02898, decided
on 21 May 2009), CA rollo, pp. 47-50.
In our 5 April 2010
Resolution, this Court noted the Manifestation of accused-appellant that he is
adopting his 13 December 2007 Brief for the Accused-Appellant filed with the CA
as his supplemental brief (rollo, p.
51).
[5]
Brief for the Accused-Appellant at 11 (People v. Umipang, CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 02898, decided
on 21 May 2009), CA rollo, p. 49.
[6]
Brief for the Appellee at 19 (People v. Umipang, CA-G.R. CR
H.C. No. 02898, decided on 21 May 2009), CA rollo,
p. 97. In our 5 April 2010
Resolution, this Court noted the Manifestation of the Office of the Solicitor
General that it is no longer filing a supplemental brief, as it has already
exhaustively discussed all the issues in its 22 April 2008 Brief for the
Appellee (rollo, p. 51).
[7]
Brief for the Appellee at 8-19
(People v. Umipang, CA-G.R. CR
H.C. No. 02898, decided on 21 May 2009), CA rollo,
pp. 86-97.
[8] G.R. No. 173480, 25 February 2009, 580 SCRA 259, 266-267.
[9] Id.
[10] Imson v. People, G.R. 193003, 13 July 2011, 653 SCRA 826.
[11] People v. Garcia, supra note 8, at 272-273.
[12]
People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No.
177222, 29 October 2008, 570 SCRA 273.
[13] Imson v. People, supra note 10.
[14]
G.R. No. 182528, 14 August 2009, 596 SCRA 350, fn. 16 at 358-359.
[15]
People v. Garcia, supra note 8
(citing People v. Nazareno, G.R. No.
174771, 11 September 2007, 532 SCRA 630; People
v. Santos, G.R. No. 175593, 17 October 2007, 536 SCRA 489; People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 181545, 8
October 2008, 568 SCRA 273; and People v.
De la Cruz, supra note 12).
[16] People v. Garcia, supra note 8 (citing People v. De la Cruz, supra note 12).
[17]
People v. Martin, G.R. No. 193234, 19
October 2011.
[18]
G.R. No. 173794, 18 January 2012.
[19]
Direct examination of Witness PO2 Gasid, TSN, 22 November 2006, p. 4, RTC records, p. 90.
[20]
Id. at 16-19, RTC records, pp.
102-105.
[21]
Id. at 20, RTC records, p.
106.
[22]
Id. at 25, RTC records, p.
111.
[23]
Cross-examination of Witness PO2 Gasid, id. at 32-33, RTC records, pp. 118-119.
[24]
Direct examination of Witness PO1 Ragos, TSN, 6 December 2006, pp. 15-17, RTC records, pp. 151-153.
[25]
Cross-examination of Witness PO1 Ragos, id. at 21-22, RTC records, pp. 157-158.
[26]
Id. at 30-32, RTC
records, pp. 166-168.
[27]
Pinagsamang Salaysay ng Pag-Aresto at
Paghaharap ng Reklamo o Demanda, RTC records, p. 69.
[28]
Supra note 14,
at 357-358.
[29] Imson v. People, supra note 10.
[30] Id.
[31]
Cross-examination of Witness PO2 Gasid, supra note 19
at 47-48, RTC records, pp.
133-134.
[32]
Re-direct examination of Witness PO2 Gasid, id. at 49, RTC records, pp. 135.
[33]
See People v. Garcia, supra note 8.
[34]
See People v. De la Cruz, supra note 12.
[35]
Cross-examination of Witness PO2 Gasid, supra note 19
at 47, RTC records, p. 133.
[36]
RTC records, p. 73.
[37]
People v. Garcia, supra note 8;
People v. De la Cruz, supra note 12.
[38]
People v. Ulama, G.R. No. 186530, 14
December 2011.
[39]
People v. Martin, supra note 17.
[40]
Id.
[41]
See People v. Garcia, supra note 8.
[42]
See id.
[43]
Id.
[44]
People v. De la Cruz, supra note 12,
at 286.
[45]
People v. Garcia, supra note 8,
at 278.
[46]
People v. Coreche, supra note 14,
at 365.