SECOND DIVISION
|
VALENTIN
ZAFRA y DECHOSA and EROLL MARCELINO y REYES, Petitioners, -versus- PEOPLE OF
THE Respondent. |
G.R. No. 190749 Present: CARPIO,J., Chairperson, BRION,
PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: April 25, 2012 |
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O N
PEREZ, J.:
For review before this Court is the
Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 31713 dated 30 October
2009,[1]
affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 76, Malolos,
Bulacan,[2]
which found petitioners Valentin Zafra y Dechosa (Zafra) and Eroll Marcelino y
Reyes (Marcelino) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Possession of Dangerous
Drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 (the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and imposing on each of them the
penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as the minimum term, to thirteen (13) years as
maximum, and of fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The Facts
The prosecution charged Zafra and
Marcelino with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165[3]
before the RTC of Bulacan under the Information below:
That
on or about the 12th day of June, 2003, in the municipality of
Balagtas, province of Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and legal
justification, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in
their possession and control dangerous
drug consisting of two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.061[4] gram, in conspiracy with one
another.[5]
The prosecutions lone witness, SPO4[6]
Apolinario Mendoza (SPO4 Mendoza), Chief of the Investigation and Drug
Enforcement Unit of the Philippine National Police of Balagtas, Bulacan,
testified that on 12 January 2003, at around 4:30 in the afternoon, he
conducted surveillance in front of a sari-sari
store at the corner of Miraflor Subdivision and P. Castro Street in Balagtas,
Bulacan, due to reported drug trafficking in the area. SPO4 Mendoza found there the group of Zafra,
Marcelino, and a certain Marlon Daluz (Daluz) standing and facing each other.[7] In that position, he saw Zafra and Marcelino
holding shabu, while Daluz was
holding an aluminum foil and a disposable lighter.[8] Seeing this illegal activity, SPO4 Mendoza
single-handedly apprehended them. He
grabbed the shabu from the hands of
Zafra and Marcelino, and confiscated the drug paraphernalia from Daluz. Then,
he ordered the three to lie down; he frisked them. Boarding a tricycle, he brought them to the
Balagtas Police Station,[9]
where he personally marked the confiscated two (2) sachets of shabu, one with VSD, the initials of
Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and the other with EMR, the initials of Eroll Marcelino
y Reyes.[10]
On the following day,
The RTC, Branch 76, Malolos, Bulacan,
in a decision dated
WHEREFORE, finding guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 2297-M-2003, accused VALENTIN ZAFRA y DECHOSA and accused EROLL
MARCELINO y REYES are hereby CONVICTED
for possession of sachets of methylamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known
as shabu, with a weight of 0.31 gram and 0.30 gram, respectively, which are
classified as dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
Act of 2002 and are each SENTENCED to
suffer the IMPRISONMENT of, applying
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, TWELVE
(12) YEARS AND ONE DAY, AS THE MINIMUM TERM, TO THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, AS THE
MAXIMUM TERM, and to pay the FINE of
THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00).[13]
Daluz, on the other hand, who was
charged of possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of Section 12 of RA
No. 9165 pleaded guilty to the charge and was released after serving his
sentence of eight (8) months.[14]
Zafra and Marcelino appealed; but the
CA affirmed in toto the RTC Decision:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the
instant appeal is DENIED for lack of
merit. Accordingly, the assailed
Hence, this appeal on the following
grounds: first, the arrest was
unlawful; second, the prohibited
drugs are inadmissible in evidence; third,
Section 21 of RA No. 9165 was not complied with; and, finally, the prosecution failed to prove petitioners guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
The Courts Ruling
We resolve to ACQUIT petitioners Zafra and Marcelino on the following grounds:
First, the
prosecutions lone witness, SPO4 Mendoza,[16]
testified that, from a distance, he saw Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu by their bare hands, respectively,
while Daluz was holding an aluminum foil and a disposable lighter.[17] Seeing this illegal activity, he single-handedly
apprehended them.[18] He grabbed the shabu from the hands of Zafra and Marcelino, and confiscated the
drug paraphernalia from Daluz.
In his affidavit, however, SPO4
Mendoza stated, that:
Na, nitong nakaraang Hunyo 12, 2003 ng 4:30 ng hapon humigit kumulang, sa P. Casto St., Barangay Borol-1, Balagtas Bulacan, habang ako ay nagsasagawa ng surveillance sa Suspected Drug Pusher sa nasabing lugar ay aking nakita ang tatlo (3) kalalakihan na nakatalikod sa isang corner ng tindahan sa P. Castro St., na nakilala ko na sina Valentine D. Zafra @ Val, Eroll R. Marcelino @ Eroll, at Marlon B. Daluz @ Marlon na pawang mga residente ng Borol-1, Balagtas, Bulacan.
Na, ako ay lumapit na naglalakad kina Valentine Zafra, Errol Marcelino at Marlon Daluz at sa aking paglapit sa kanilang tatlo ay aking nakita at naaktuhang inabot ni Valentine Zafra kay Eroll Marcelino ang isang (1) plastic sachet ng shabu may timbang na 0.30 grams, at isa pang plastic sachet ng shabu na si Marlon Daluz ay hawak ang isang disposable lighter at 2 piraso ng aluminum foil na inaayos na nilalagyan ng lupi at 7 piraso ng empty plastic sachet. (Emphasis supplied)[19]
x x x x
On cross examination, SPO4 Mendoza
testified that it was Zafra and not Daluz, who was holding the aluminum foil
(contrary to his earlier testimony that Zafra was holding shabu);[20]
that Daluz (whom he claimed during the direct examination to be holding the
aluminum foil) and Marcelino were holding handkerchiefs and on top of them were
shabu;[21]
When the defense confronted SPO4 Mendoza about the inconsistency, he told the
court that his version during his direct testimony was the correct one.[22]
While, it is hornbook doctrine that the evaluation of the trial court on the
credibility of the witness and the testimony is entitled to great weight and is
generally not disturbed upon appeal,[23] such rule does not apply
when the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied any fact of
weight or substance.[24] In the instant case, these
circumstances are present, that, when properly appreciated, would warrant the
acquittal of petitioners.
Certainly, SPO4 Mendozas credibility has to
be thoroughly looked into, being the only witness in this case. While in his
affidavit, SPO4 Mendoza claimed that he saw the sachet of shabu (0.30 gram) because Zafra was in the act of handing it to
Marcelino, his testimony during the direct examination reveals another version,
that is, from a distance, he saw Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu, respectively, hence, he
approached them from behind and confiscated the shabu from both of them and the paraphernalia from Daluz. How he
saw a 0.30 gram of shabu from a
distance in a busy street, baffles this Court. Asked, however, on cross
examination, who among the three were holding the shabu and drug paraphernalia, SPO4 Mendoza failed to be consistent
with his earlier testimony and pointed to Daluz as the one holding shabu with a handkerchief in his hand
and Zafra as the one in possession of drug paraphernalia. These inconsistencies are not minor ones, and,
certainly, not among those which strengthens the credibility of a witness. Possession
of drug paraphernalia vis--vis shabu, are two different offenses under
RA No. 9165. That Zafra was holding drug paraphernalia and not shabu is material to this case, to the
accusation against him, and to his defense.
Second, a
reading of the RTC decision on this matter reveals that the conviction was
arrived at upon reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of
It is noteworthy, however, that presumption
of regularity in the performance of official functions cannot by its lonesome
overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence.[26]
Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and nothing else can eclipse the
hypothesis of guiltlessness. And this burden is met not by bestowing distrust
on the innocence of the accused but by obliterating all doubts as to his
culpability.[27]
Third, SPO4
Mendoza was the lone arresting officer, who brought the petitioners to the
police station,[28] who himself
marked the confiscated pieces of evidence sans witnesses, photographs,
media, and in the absence of the petitioners.
His colleagues were nowhere.[29] And, worse, he was the same person who took
custody of the same pieces of evidence, then, brought them on his own to the
crime laboratory for testing.[30] No
inventory was ever done;[31] no inventory was presented in court.
The solo performance by SPO4 Mendoza of
all the acts necessary for the prosecution of the offense is unexplained and
puts the proof of corpus delicti, which
is the illegal object itself in serious doubt.
No definite answer can be established regarding the question as to who
possessed what at the time of the alleged apprehension. More significantly, we are left in doubt
whether not the two sachets of shabu allegedly seized from the petitioners
were the very same objects offered in court as the corpus delicti.
Prosecutions for illegal possession
of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a
prohibited substance be established with moral certainty.[32]
The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the
offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.[33]
Essential therefore in these cases is that the identity of the prohibited drug
be established beyond doubt.[34]
Be that as it may, the mere fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to
create in a reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a finding
of guilt.[35] More
than just the fact of possession, the fact that the substance illegally
possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit
must also be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that requisite
to make a finding of guilt.[36]
The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.[37]
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II
of RA No. 9165 reads:
(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.
Section 21(a) Article II of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165 reads:
(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.
As a method of authenticating
evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit
be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in
question is what the proponent claims it to be.[38]
It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the
item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that
every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received,
where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the
condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered
to the next link in the chain.[39]
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there
had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone
not in the chain to have possession of the same.[40]
The records readily raise significant
doubts as to the identity of the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from
Zafra and Marcelino. SPO4 Mendozas claim that the two sachets of shabu
presented in court were the same ones confiscated from the petitioners, cannot
be taken at its face value, solely on the presumption of regularity of ones
performance of duty. SPO4 Mendoza blatantly broke all the rules established by
law to safeguard the identity of a corpus
delicti. There was even no mention
about the details of the laboratory examination of the allegedly seized
drugs. To allow this to happen is to abandon
everything that has been said about the necessity of proving an unbroken chain
of custody. SPO4 Mendoza cannot alone
satisfy the requirements in RA No. 9165 which is anchored on, expressly, the
participation of several personalities and the execution of specified
documents.
And, while jurisprudence has refined
the enumerated duties of an apprehending officer in a drug case and has thus
described the equivalent requirements for a proper chain of custody of the corpus
delicti, still, the case at bar cannot pass the constitutional requirement
of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
We
reiterate, that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed
procedures in the handling of the seized drugs should be observed. In People
v. Salonga,[41] we
acquitted the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph
the confiscated items. We also reversed a
conviction in People v. Gutierrez,[42]
for the failure of the buy-bust team to inventory and photograph the seized
items without justifiable grounds. People v. Cantalejo[43]
also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever made
by the police.
We reached
the same conclusions in the recent cases of People
v. Capuno,[44] People v. Lorena,[45]
and People v. Martinez.[46]
The
present petition is the sum total of all the violations committed in the cases
cited above.
Lest the
chain of custody rule be misunderstood, we reiterate that non-compliance with
the prescribed procedural requirements does not necessarily render the seizure
and custody of the items void and invalid; the seizure may still be held valid,
provided that (a) there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b)
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are shown to have been
properly preserved.[47] These conditions, however, were not met in the
present case as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any justification
for the failure of SPO4 Mendoza to follow the prescribed procedures in the
handling of the seized items. As we held
in People v. De Guzman,[48]
the failure to follow the procedure mandated under RA No. 9165 and its Implementing
Rules and Regulations must be
adequately explained. The
justifiable ground for the non-compliance must be proven as a fact. The Court cannot presume what these grounds
are or that they even exist.
In our constitutional system, basic
and elementary is the presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an
accused lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own
evidence and not on the weakness of the defense.[49]
The rule is invariable whatever may be the reputation of the accused, for the
law presumes his innocence unless and until the contrary is shown.[50] In
dubio pro reo.[51]
When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on
reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right.[52]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, we REVERSE and SET
ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished
to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections,
SO ORDERED.
|
|
JOSE
|
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ARTURO D.
BRION MARIA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L.
REYES
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.
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the
Constitution, and the Division Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified
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] Penned by Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan Vidal with Associate Justices Jose Catral Mendoza (now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) and Marlene Gonzales Sison, concurring. CA rollo, 126-141.
[2] Penned by Presiding Judge Albert R.
Fonacier.
[3] Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
[4] Based on the findings of the RTC decision, the two (2) sachets of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) weighing 0.31 and 0.30 gram, respectively, which totals to 0.61 and not 0.061 gram.
[5] Records, p. 9.
[6] TSN,
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] TSN,
[11]
[12]
[13] CA rollo, p. 78.
[14] Records, pp. 113-114.
[15] CA rollo, p. 141.
[16] Records, pp. 13-30.
[17]
[18] RTC
Decision, CA rollo, p. 48.
[19]
[20] TSN,
[21] Id
at 5.
[22] Id
at 6.
[23] People v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 146277,
[24]
[25] RTC
Decision, CA rollo, p. 37.
[26] Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953,
[27]
[28] TSN,
[29] Petition. Rollo, p. 24.
[30]
[31]
[32] Malillin v. People, supra note 26 at 631.
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41] G.R. No. 186390,
[42] G.R. No. 179213,
[43] G.R. No. 182790,
[44] G.R. No. 185715,
[45] G.R. No. 184954,
[46] G.R. No. 191366,
[47]
[48] G.R. No. 186498,
[49] Malillin v. People, supra note 26 at 639.
[50]
[51]
[52]