Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
QUIASON, J.:
This is an appeal from the decisions of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 105,
Quezon City, convicting appellant in Criminal Cases No. Q-11867 and No. Q11868.
The dispositive portion of the decision in Criminal Case No. Q-11867 reads as
follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds the
accused Farhad Hatani y Abolhassan, GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal practice of medicine in violation of
R.A. 2382 otherwise known as the Medical Act of 1959 (Secs.
8, 10) penalized by Section 28 thereof with "a fine of not less
than one thousand pesos nor more than ten thousand pesos
In the evening of the same day, Precila was fetched by appellant and Marita and
was brought to appellant's house. Again, Precila was given an injection which
caused her to sleep. When she awoke, she realized that she was naked and her
entire body was in pain. Appellant was seated on the bed and was fondling her
private parts. Shocked, Precila called for her mother and tried to get up.
Appellant, however, punched her on the chest and forced her to lie down. He
pressed a pillow on her face and injected her again, causing her to fall asleep.
When Precila awoke the second time, she found appellant in bed with her. He
was naked and fondling her private parts. The pain all over her body lingered.
When Precila touched her private parts, she saw blood stains on her hand. She
tried to stand up but she was too weak. Appellant gave her another injection
rendering her unconscious.
The following morning, Agustina went to fetch Precila. Upon reaching the
Fontreras' residence, she went straight to the bedroom, where, to her great
dismay, she found Precila and appellant both asleep and naked. She hurriedly
dressed up Precila and brought her home.
When Precila woke up, she noticed she was already home and her mother was
crying. Precila remained dizzy, with throbbing pains all over her body. When
talked to, she was incoherent.
That evening, Precila's oldest sister, Josefina, a nurse by profession, came home
and saw Precila looking very weak. Her mother, who was crying narrated what
she had witnessed that morning. She also told Josefina that appellant was in the
other bedroom, treating another sister, Wilma whom he also diagnosed as a
drug addict. Josefina immediately proceeded to the bedroom and saw appellant
about to inject Wilma.
Josefina saw the open bag of appellant, which contained empty capsules of
dalmane and empty vials of valium. She inquired on the need of the injection
and appellant replied that a second shot of plain distilled water was required to
cure Wilma of her drug addiction. Josefina told appellant to stop but he
persisted. Only upon threat that she would call the police did appellant stop.
Appellant and his wife then left the Borja residence.
The following day, Agustina and Josefina brought Precila and Wilma to the
Philippine Constabulary Headquarters at Camp Crame, Quezon City, where
Josefina and Wilma gave their statements (Exhs. "D" and "F"). Precila was
physically examined by a doctor, whose medical report stated that Precila's
hymen and "deep, healing lacerations" and that "subject is in non-virgin state
physically" (Exh. A). Several needle puncture marks were also found on
Precila's arms and buttocks.
Precila and Marita chatted the whole night. Accordingly, Precila confessed that
she was not really sick. She merely related her personal problems, involving her
parents. She also admitted her vice, such as drinking, smoking and taking drugs.
A physical examination was likewise done on Wilma, which showed that she
too had a needle puncture, as shown in the Medico-Legal Report (Exh. "L").
Precila and Marita shared the same bed. Appellant; who was wearing only his
pajama pants, slept on the floor at the opposite end of the room.
The following morning Agustina arrived and Marita related some of Precila's
problems. Nothing untoward happened that day and Agustina headed for home
while Precila and Marita followed later.
Their talk lasted until the wee hours of the morning and during their
conversation, appellant would occasionally enter the room but he never joined
their discussion.
At past midnight of July 15, 1979, a raid was conducted by CANU agents in the
house of the appellant under the supervision of C1C Agustin Timbol, Jr. The
raid was made upon Josefina's complaint for illegal possession of drugs.
Appellant and his wife were driven out of their bedroom, while three-men
remained. Later, appellant was called to join them in the bedroom and he was
shocked to see assorted drugs scattered around. Appellant denied owning them.
Photographs were taken of him with the drugs. A barangay official was called
to attest to the list of the confiscated drugs. Appellant, however, refused to sign
the said list.
C1C Timbol offered to fur the case in exchange of money. Instead of acceding,
appellant demanded to see the search warrant. C1C Timbol failed to show a
warrant on the pretext that they were military men without need of any
identification or search warrant. Appellant, his wife and brother-in-law were
forced to join C1C Timbol for questioning in Camp Crame. Upon boarding the
van, appellant saw Josefina aboard kissing C1C Timbol and both exchanged
victory signs.
The trial court rendered two separate decisions and convicted the appellant of
both crimes. In finding appellant guilty of illegal purchase of medicine,
considerable weight was given to the prosecution's exhibits.
Appellant faults complainant for recounting her ordeal only after four years
when she took the witness stand. This argument is misleading. The record
shows that the day after the rape, Josefina and Wilma Borja, accompanied by
their mother, Agustina, issued their statements at Camp Crame. Agustina gave
her statement twice on separate days. Precila did not give any statement due to
her weak condition but it cannot be denied that she was instead physically
examined. Suffice it to say, the Medico Legal Report (Exh. "A") indicates
swellings and lacerations and concludes that Precila was no longer a virgin.
Although the records fail to show any sworn statement by Precila, such is not
fatal where the sworn affidavits of her mother, her two sisters and the medicolegal report are sufficient to show probable cause of rape (People v. Yambao,
193 SGRA 571 [1991]).
Precila was either dizzy or unconscious at the time she was sexually abused. We
find her testimony consistent and credible. While her testimony is limited to the
times when she would gain her consciousness, it is not unlikely that such
traumatic incidents would still be engraved on her mind even four years after.
Appellant's assertion that Precila failed to inform her family of his misdeeds is
explainable. As correctly pointed out by the Solicitor General, Precila was still
dizzy and incoherent as a consequence of the injections administered by
appellant. In fact, when Precila was physically examined by the doctor the day
after, she was still sleepy and groggy (TSN, March 31, 1980, pp. 7-8).
Appellant also finds it strange that considering the acts allegedly committed by
him against Precila, the medico-legal report fails to specify any injuries on the
body of Precila. Appellant need not inflict heavy blows on Precila for the
simple reason that she was under sedation. The absence of the injuries does not
negate the commission of rape (People v. Torrevillas, 203 SCRA 576 [1991];
People v. Arenas, 198 172 [1991]) for rape may be committed after rendering a
woman unconscious (Art. 335, Revised Penal Code; People v. Gerones, 193
SCRA 263 [1991]).
Appellant alleges that Precila was no longer a virgin on that fateful day and that
her bleeding was actually the start of her menstrual cycle. It is settled
jurisprudence that virginity is not an essential element of rape (People v. Corro,
197 SCRA 121 [1991]; People v. Banayo, 195 SCRA 543 [1991]). To claim
that Precila's menstrual cycle began on that day is highly speculative.
Appellant claims that the sworn statements of the Borjas (Exhs. "D", "E" and
"F") were antedated and were prepared after the illegal search was conducted in
his residence. He also cites some inconsistencies in said statements. We find the
claim to be devoid of merit. It is only now on appeal that appellant disputes the
and later bare herself to the disgrace brought to her honor in a public trial unless
she was motivated solely by a desire to have the culprit apprehended and
brought to justice (People v. Patilan, 197 SCRA 354 [1991]; People v. Yambao,
193 SCRA 571 [1991]).
Appellant claims that his right to be presumed innocent was violated. He cites
the trial court's decision holding that it.
. . . finds that with these circumstantial evidences (sic) pieced
together the prosecution has proved the crime of rape, and the
burden shifted on the defense to show the contrary (Rollo, p.
40).
Appellant was afforded a fair trial and in fact he availed of surrebuttal evidence.
The statement of the trial court, as correctly argued by the Solicitor General,
implies that the circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support appellant's
conviction unless the defense is able to provide evidence to the contrary.
With respect to his conviction of illegal practice of medicine, appellant
presented inconsistent claims. On one hand, he claims that the drugs and other
paraphernalia were planted by the raiding team; while on the other hand, he
claims that these were seized without any warrant.
If indeed the evidence were all planted, how can appellant explain his
handwriting on the prescription pads in the name of Dr. Jesus Yap? A perusal of
the photographs showing accused during the raid, fails to indicate any
protestation by him. In fact, the other photographs (Exhs. "G-l", "G-2", "G-4"
"G-8") do not bear any sign of disorder, in contrast to appellant's testimony
that his room was made into a mess during the raid.
The records fail to disclose a copy of a search warrant. However, the
prosecution was able to present its return (Exh. "ZZ") and we are satisfied that
indeed a lawful search warrant was obtained. Besides, the judge who granted
the search warrant was the same judge who initially heard both criminal cases.
It can therefore be presumed, that the search was made with a search warrant
and absent of any showing that it was procured maliciously, the items seized are
admissible in evidence (People v. Umali, 193 SCRA 493 [1991]).
for an entrapment operation and put together a team, with SPO4 Sison, as team
leader; Police Officer 3 Ricky Calamiong (PO3 Calamiong) and PO3 Roy
Mateo (PO3 Mateo), as back-up officers; and Police Officer 2 Edgar
Antolin (PO2 Antolin), as the poseur buyer.
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 186387
The accused alleges that in the afternoon of April 14, 2005, he was walking
down Sepic Road, Baguio City, on his way home from his brothers house in
Guisad, where he had just finished washing diapers and clothes. A vehicle
stopped beside him and SPO4 Sison alighted. The accused knew SPO4 Sison
because the latter arrested him for a drug offense way back in 1997, for which
he was convicted and incarcerated in Camp Sampaguita for five years.
SPO4 Sison showed him a photograph and demanded information about the
person in the photo. When he insisted that he did not know who it was, SPO4
Sison invited him to the BCPO-DES. As he could not decline, he went along
with him.
At the DES, the police again asked him if he knew the person in the photo and a
certain Gary Chua, but he replied in the negative. He was also questioned
whether he knew someone who was selling drugs, and he again replied in the
negative. He told the police that since his release from prison, he no longer
dabbled in the drug trade, as he already had a family. When he told SPO4 Sison
that he did not know anyone who was selling drugs, SPO4 Sison got angry.
After an hour, he was informed that he would be subjected to a drug test. Again,
unable to refuse, he was subjected to a drug test at the BCPO Station 7
laboratory, in front of the DES. He was then brought to the Baguio General
Hospital (BGH) for a medical examination, and later back to the police station.
During the interrogation at the police office, he did not have a counsel
present.7 SPO4 Sison did not inform him that he was being arrested for the
possession of the 5 heat-sealed plastic sachets containing shabu.8
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its Decision dated February 6, 2007, the RTC found the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt in both Criminal Case No. 24384-R and Criminal
Case No. 24385-R. The dispositive portion thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 24384-R, judgment is rendered finding
the accused GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt and he is hereby sentenced
to suffer Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of 500,000.00 and in Criminal
Case No. 24385-R, judgment is rendered finding the accused GUILTY beyond
In its Decision10 dated June 5, 2008, the CA affirmed with modification the
RTC decision. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit.
The Decision dated 06 February 2007 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio
City, Branch 61 finding the accused-appellant JUAN MENDOZA Y VICENTE
guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case Nos. 24384-R and 24385-R and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
500,00[0].00, and the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1)
day to fourteen (14) years, respectively, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION in that said accused-appellant is hereby ordered to pay a
fine of 300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 24385-R.
SO ORDERED.11
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
In his Supplemental Brief for the Accused-Appellant,12 the accused submits that
the court a quo erred:
In not finding that the procedures for the custody and disposition of
confiscated dangerous drugs in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not
complied with, rendering the evidence compromised.
In convicting the accused-appellant notwithstanding the fact that his guilt
was not established beyond reasonable doubt.13
Ruling of the Court
1. The fact that the forensic chemist examined the drugs and
prepared the report thereon but qualified that it did not come from
the accused;
2. Medico-legal Report;
3. The witnesses to the inventory witnessed the inventory taking,
signed the inventory but they have no knowledge that the drugs came
from the accused.
4. Order of detention, booking sheet and preliminary test;
5. Existence of the pre-operation report and the request for drug
test.19 [Emphases supplied]
The prosecution also presented several documents that traced how the evidence
changed hands.
The Inventory in the Presence of Witnesses20 (Exhibit "D") listed six small
transparent heat-sealed plastic sachets, each weighing approximately 0.3g and
containing white crystalline substance suspected to be Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride or shabu, previously marked as "ECA" 04/14/0521 , and showed
the corresponding photos taken during the inventory (Exhibit "N").22
The Certificate of Preliminary Test23 (Exhibit "F") prepared under the signature
of Marites Vizcara Tamio of the BCPO DES and addressed to the Baguio City
Prosecutor, certified that on April 14, 2005, at 3:00 oclock in the afternoon, she
conducted a preliminary test on the same marked items24 by using Simons
reagent on the white crystalline substance contained in the individually heatsealed plastic sachets. All the items yielded a "dark blue color," indicating the
presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The same
certificate stated that the alleged confiscated pieces of evidence were turned
over the to the PNP Crime Laboratory Service at Camp Bado Dangwa, La
Trinidad, Benguet for chemistry analysis and disposition.
Finally, Chemistry Report No. D-044-200525 (Exhibit "G")26 issued by the PNP
Regional Crime Laboratory Office at Camp Bado Dangwa, La Trinidad,
Benguet stated that following a qualitative examination conducted on the same
marked items,27 it was found that the specimens produced a positive result for
the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
The illegal drugs subject of the buy-bust transaction and those recovered from
the person of the accused were positively identified by PO2 Antolin, marked
and presented as evidence during trial:
xxx
Q I am presenting to you five sachets which your office marked as Exhibit
CDEF and G with the marking ECA, 04/14/05 signature and a letter R. Are
these the same items which you referred a while back?
A Yes, sir.
Q And for the record, what does ECA stands (sic) for?
WITNESS:
WITNESS:
A Edgar Cortes Antolin, sir.
A These are the buy bust item, sir.
PROS. CATRAL:
PROS. CATRAL:
Q And what does 04/14/05 means (sic)?
Q Now what does ECA stands (sic) for again?
A The date, sir.
A Edgar Cortes Antolin, sir.
Q The date of what?
Q And that will be you
A The date of the transaction, sir.
A Yes, sir.
Q And what does "R" in the five sachets represents (sic)?
Q And 04/14/05 would be the date of the transaction?
A Recovered, sir.
A Yes, sir.
PROS. CATRAL:
Q And BB. What would those letters mean?
A My signature, sir.
COURT:
Mark it. 28
From the foregoing circumstances, it is unmistakable that there is no break in
the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs from the time that it came to
the possession of PO2 Antolin to the point when such items were presented and
identified during trial. Clearly, there is no doubt that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drug were properly preserved, in
compliance with what the law requires.
WHEREFORE, the June 5, 2008 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.
HC-No. 02734 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
The accusatory portions of the separate Informations both dated 10 April 2006
filed and raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 65, Makati read:
[Criminal Case No. 06-750
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 194721
That on or about the 8th day of April 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [JOHN BRIAN
AMARILLO y MAPA alias "Jao Mapa/Jao"], without the corresponding license
or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell,
give away, distribute and deliver zero point zero three (0.03) gram of
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
VILLARAMA, JR.*
[Criminal Case No. 06-751
DECISION
PEREZ, J.:
Once again, on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, we uphold the state's
compliance with the chain of custody rule and sustain the conviction1 of
accused-appellant of the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu.
That on or about the 8th day of April 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [JOHN BRIAN
AMARILLO y MAPA alias "Jao Mapa/Jao"], not being lawfully authorized by
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his
possession direct custody and control the following items with markings, to wit:
"JAO 1" - 0.03 gram
The Facts
"JAO 2" - 0.02 gram
Accused-appellant identified himself as "John Brian Amarillo, 25 years old, a
resident of Laperal Compound, Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City, single, a
washing boy."2 The records do not indicate when, how and upon whose liking
the a.k.a. "Jao Mapa" came to be associated with the accused.
"Jao Mapa," the "washing boy" who was acquitted for violation of Sections 5
and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 in Criminal Case Nos. 03-204445,3 in 2004, and whose name appeared in the drugs Watchlist
of Barangay Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City,4 was again charged with illegal sale
and illegal possession of shabu this time allegedly committed in 2006.
xxxx
of shabu. The results thereof showed that the substances therein were positive
for Methylamphetamine,Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.13
The version of the defense, on the other hand, consisted of the sole testimony of
the accused, to wit:
The Accused-Appellant testified that, on April 8, 2006, at around 3:00 oclock
in the afternoon, he was watching a game at the basketball court in Laperal
Compound, Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City, when several men arrived and asked
him if he knew the whereabouts of a certain Alvin. When he could not give any
information, they brought him to the Makati Police Station. It was only after he
was detained that he learned that charges were being filed against him for the
sale and possession of dangerous drugs.14
After trial, the court found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
both crimes.15 The dispositive portion of the Decision dated 28 July 2008 reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as
follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 06-750, finding the accused JOHN BRIAN
AMARILLO y MAPA, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for
violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos
(P 500,000.00);
2. In Criminal Case No. 06-751, finding the same accused JOHN BRIAN
AMARILLO y MAPA, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for
violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer
the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) days as minimum
to twenty (20) years as maximum and to pay a fine of three hundred thousand
pesos (P 300,000.00).16
On appeal, the Court of Appeals AFFIRMED17 the decision of the trial court.
Hence, this automatic review of the accused conviction.
Our Ruling
The Joint Affidavit of Arrest21 executed by PO1 Mendoza and PO1 Randy C.
Santos, the allegations of which PO1 Mendoza affirmed and confirmed during
his direct testimony, is clear on two points: (1) that the seized items were
marked and inventoried at the place where accused-appellant was arrested; and
(2) that the integrity of the seized items was preserved. Thus:
5. That, before the SAID SOTF office, the investigator on case acknowledge the
complaint, and in preparation for the formal filing of formal charges against
herein suspects, same was subjected to the procedural Drug Test at SOCO/SPD
and mandatory MEDICO LEGAL examinations at OSMAK Malugay as
assisted by the same arresting officers, xxx. The confiscated pieces of evidence,
only in so far with the suspected illegal drugs and the small white plastic
Mercury Drug were referred at SOCO SPD for laboratory examinations and
safe keeping.22
The Joint Affidavit of Arrest is consistent with the following testimony of PO1
Mendoza on direct examination:
Q: Mr. Witness, after the inventory what did you do next, if theres
any?
A: We proceeded to our office, SAID SOFT office, sir.
Q: And what did you do when you reached your office?
A: We made the necessary documents for filing the case, sir.
Q: What did you do with the items you recovered from the accused?
A: We turned it over to the investigator together with the subject
person to SOCO crime laboratory for drug test examination and
for laboratory examination, sir.23 (Emphasis supplied.)
As to the required "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, and any elected
public official," Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 specifically provides:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or
Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. x x x:
1) 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,
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;
x x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Q: May we know xxx if you knew all along before the buy bust operation where
to be conducted by the said anti-narcotics team?
Also, after a thorough examination of the records, we find the testimonies of the
witnesses for the prosecution credible. For instance, after the cross examination
of Barangay Captain Gatchalian, the presiding judge asked him a number of
clarificatory questions, which he readily answered in a straightforward manner.
Thus:
This has been substantially complied with after the prosecution was able to
show that the accused, the arresting officers and a public official were all
present during the inventory of the seized items as evidenced by the testimonies
of the witnesses, the photographs, and the Acknowledgement Receipt of the
items seized.
A: Yes, sir, because I am the Cluster head, every time we have an operation
beforehand they tell me the operation.
Even assuming for the sake of argument that all of these were defective for one
reason or another, the defense failed to consider the following well-settled
principle:
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted the
required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated
pursuant to said guidelines, is not fatal and does not automatically render
accused-appellants arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him
inadmissible. xxx25
The Court has long settled that an accused may still be found guilty, despite the
failure to faithfully observe the requirements provided under Sec. 21 of RA
9165, for as long as the chain of custody remains unbroken.26
As to the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies, we hold, as we have
done time and again, that "the determination by the trial court of the credibility
of witnesses, when affirmed by the appellate court, is accorded full weight and
credit as well as great respect, if not conclusive effect"27 and that "findings of
the trial courts which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are
accorded respect when no glaring errors; gross misapprehension of facts; or
Q: So you knew all along that you will be called to act as the witness when the
inventory would be prepared?
Q: When you reached the place where the incident happened, was the inventory
sheet already accomplished wherein the items allegedly seized from the accused
were listed?
A: Not yet, when I arrived, thats the time they prepared the inventory sheet,
so, when I arrived, then they started to write the items.29 (Emphasis
supplied)
PO3 Lique corroborated material facts in the testimony of PO1 Mendoza, to the
effect that the sale of shabubetween accused-appellant and PO1 Mendoza was
consummated, and that Barangay Captain Gatchalian was present during the
inventory of the seized items.
The doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty is
likewise applicable in the instant case there being no showing of any ill motive
on the part of the arresting officers to falsely accuse accused-appellant of the
crimes charged. In fact, he himself testified that "he did not know any of the
persons who arrested him and that he did not also have any misunderstanding
with any one of them."30 The Court elucidated:
SO ORDERED.
xxx. And in the absence of proof of any intent on the part of the police
authorities to falsely impute such a serious crime against appellant, as in this
case, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty, . . ., must
prevail over the self-serving and uncorroborated claim of appellant that she had
been framed.31
Finally, we find the penalties imposed by the trial court in order.
Under Sec. 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, a person found guilty of unauthorized
sale of shabu shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine
ranging from Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P 500,000.00) to Ten Million
Pesos (P10,000,000.00).32
On the other hand, under Section 11, Article II of the same Act, the crime of
illegal possession of shabu weighing less than five (5) grams is punishable by
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years, and a
fine ranging from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to Four
Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).33
Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law in the determination of the
appropriate penalty,34 the trial court correctly imposed the following penalties:
(1) in Criminal Case No. 06-750 for the crime of illegal sale of shabu, life
imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500.000.00)
considering that these arc within the period and range of the fine prescribed by
law35 and (2) in Criminal Case No. 06-751 for the crime of illegal possession of
0.33 gram of shabu, imprisonment for an indeterminate term of twelve (12)
years and one (1) day, as minimum, to twenty (20) years, as maximum, and a
fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00), which is within the
range of the amount imposable therefor. 36
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 31 May 2010 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03579 isAFFIRMED, and, thereby the 28 July 20C'8
Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case Nos. 06-750-751 is
hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
Contrary to law.
When arraigned on June 9, 1992, the appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial
thereafter ensued.
SECOND DIVISION
The Case for the Prosecution
G.R. No. 132135
Richelle Banluta was born on August 10, 1979. When she was about four (4)
years old, Nimfa Banluta, a beach resort owner, allowed Richelle to stay in their
house and considered her as a natural daughter. Nimfa had Richelle enrolled in
the elementary school using her surname, "Banluta."
Sometime in 1990, the Banluta family transferred their residence to No. 5,
Linaluz Street, San Carlos Subdivision, Tayuman, Binangonan, Rizal. Opposite
their house was that of Elizabeth de Luna. Another neighbor of the Banluta
family was the appellant, then fifty-year-old Domingo Sabardan, a cathecist
who resided in a two-storey apartment about fifteen meters away from the
Banluta residence. The appellant came to meet Richelle as he frequented the
Banluta house and befriended Rico Banluta, Nimfas twenty- one-year-old son.
At about 10:00 p.m. on September 15, 1991, Nimfa berated Richelle for playing
with the diaper of her niece. Richelle, who was then a little more than twelve
years old, placed some underwear, shorts, long pants, and four shirts in her
school bag and surreptitiously left the house. She passed by the appellants
apartment while the latter was on his way out to throw garbage. The appellant
inquired where she was going, and Richelle replied that she was earlier berated
by her mother and was leaving the house. The appellant invited Richelle to his
apartment, and to spend the night therein. Richelle agreed. She felt happy,
thinking that she was in good hands.3 Besides, she had nowhere to go.4
The appellant led Richelle to a room on the second floor of the apartment,
where she slept without removing her pants and underwear. The following
morning, the appellant served breakfast to Richelle in her room. He told
Richelle that Ella, who stayed in the house, had left earlier at 5:00 a.m. The
room where Richelle slept had three padlocked windows with jalousies.5
Later that day, the appellant served lunch and dinner to Richelle in her room.
That night, the appellant entered the room completely naked. Surprised,
Richelle asked what he was doing in the room, but the appellant did not
respond. Richelle kicked him and pulled his hair, and told him to get out. The
appellant left the room.
The next morning, Richelle told the appellant that she wanted to go home
already. The appellant dissuaded her from leaving and told Richelle that her
mother might get angry if she found out that she had slept in his apartment.
Elizabeth waited for daybreak, and at 6:00 a.m. reported the incident to Val
Banluta, Richelles brother. Elizabeth and Val went to the appellants house and
knocked on the door. No one responded. The two left and kept the incident to
themselves.14 At about 11:00 a.m., Elizabeth sensed that someone in the
appellants house was watching television. She related the incident to Richelles
other brother, Rico Banluta, who climbed the wall of the appellants house
which abutted a vacant lot, and through the window saw Richelle inside the
apartment. Rico informed Val of his discovery. They proceeded to the police
station where they reported the incident. Three policemen arrived, and along
with Rico and Val, they proceeded to the appellants apartment. They saw that it
was locked from the outside with three padlocks. Instead of destroying the
padlocks, the policemen asked Rico and the latters friends to climb over the
wall. Toto and Binoy, who were friends of Rico, climbed the wall, and managed
to extricate Richelle from the second floor of the apartment through the
window, after removing the jalousies.15 The appellant was not in the house at
that time.
The appellant later left the house. When Richelle tried to open the door, she
found out that it was locked from the outside.6
In the evening of the fourth day of her detention, or on September 18, 1991,
Richelle was seated on a coach in the sala on the ground floor of the
apartment.7 The appellant forced her to drink a glass of ice cold beer. When she
refused, the appellant threatened to kill her. Afraid for her life, she drank the
beer from a glass. The appellant then embraced her, kissed her and touched her
breasts. Richelle resisted. Momentarily, she felt dizzy and fell unconscious.
Early the next morning, Richelle woke up and found herself lying in bed
completely naked. She felt severe pains in her vagina. She saw the appellant
beside her, also completely naked.8 She noticed that her vagina was bleeding
profusely. She asked Sabardan what he did to her and he told her
nothing.9 Richelle washed her vagina with water.10
In the evening of the fifth day of her detention, or on September 19, 1991, while
Richelle was sitting on the sofa on the ground floor, the appellant again forced
her to drink beer. She resisted but the appellant threatened to kill her anew. She
drank the beer, but consumed only about one-half of the contents of the glass.
She felt dizzy and lost consciousness. When she woke up in the morning, she
again felt severe pains in her vagina and saw blood in it.11
The appellant forced Richelle to drink either beer or juice on four other
occasions. Richelle felt dizzy afterwards, and would wake up completely naked,
feeling pains in her vagina.
On September 30, 1991, the appellant left the house, but closed the door outside
with three padlocks. At about 5:00 a.m. on that same day, Elizabeth de Luna, a
housewife who lived about thirty meters away from the appellant, heard
Richelle was, thereafter, brought to the police station for investigation. There,
she executed a written sworn statement dated October 2, 1991. She also signed
a criminal complaint charging the appellant of serious illegal detention with
rape.16
Dr. Jesusa O. Nieves, a medico-legal officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory
Service, conducted a physical and medical examination on the private
complainant on October 3, 1991. She prepared a Medico-Legal Report,17 with
the following findings:
Genital:
After due trial, the court rendered judgment on October 25, 1997, the decretal
portion of which reads:
CONCLUSION:
Subject is in non-virgin state physically.
There are no external signs of recent application of any form
of violence.
REMARKS:
Vaginal and peri-urethral smears are negative for gramnegative diplococci and for spermatozoa.
The Defense of the Appellant
The appellant denied having raped Richelle. He testified that he was single, 56
years of age, and was residing at No. 11 Luz Street, San Carlos Heights
Subdivision, Tayuman, Binangonan, Rizal.18 He alleged that he taught
catechism in front of the Central School of Angono and the school in Barangay
Pag-asa.19 He was a person of good moral character and could not have
perpetrated the crime charged.
Anent the first and second assigned errors, the appellant contends that he was
deprived of his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him because he was charged of detaining and raping the private
complainant in his apartment at No. 5 Linaluz Street, San Carlos Heights
Subdivision, Tayuman, Binangonan, Rizal. However, the prosecutions
evidence shows that she was detained and raped at No. 11-C Luz Street, San
Carlos Heights Subdivision, Tayuman, Binangonan, Rizal. Furthermore, the
appellant asserts that under the allegations of the Information, the private
complainant was raped when she was "deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious by reason of a drug" which the appellant supposedly administered
to her. The prosecution, however, failed to adduce evidence that he
administered any drug to the private complainant before she was raped.25 If this
were true, Richelle could not have known that she was raped by the appellant
since she testified that she felt dizzy and lost consciousness after drinking beer
and juice.
The appellant asserts that the prosecution failed to prove that Richelle was
illegally detained by the appellant in his apartment, and that he forced her to
have sexual intercourse with him. The evidence on record, the appellant insists,
shows that Richelle agreed to stay with him in his apartment after leaving their
house and consented to having sexual intercourse with him. From the time
Richelle arrived at his apartment in the evening of September 15, 1991 up to
September 30, 1991, she never tried to escape, nor shouted for help, despite the
proximity of the appellants apartment to their house and that of Elizabeth de
Luna.
The contention of the appellant does not persuade.
The verisimilitude and probative weight of the testimony of Richelle, that the
appellant detained her against her will and raped her in his apartment, were not
debilitated by her mistake in declaring that the apartment of the appellant was at
No. 5-C Linaluz Street, when, in fact, it was at No. 11-C Luz Street, San Carlos
Heights Subdivision, Tayuman, Binangonan, Rizal. It must be stressed that
the situs criminis is not an essential element in rape. The gravamen of the felony
is the carnal knowledge by the accused of the private complainant under any of
the circumstances provided in Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended. Richelles mistake was only minor and collateral to the gravamen of
the crime charged. She consistently testified that the appellant detained and
raped her in his apartment, only about thirty meters away from their house in
appellant succeeded in forcing her to drink the beverage. Richelle felt dizzy and
unconscious as a consequence, and when she came to, found herself completely
naked with the appellant beside her who was also completely nude.29
Q So that, it is a fact that you were made to drink beer for seven (7)
times?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Q How about juice, how many times did he made (sic) you [to] drink
juice?
A Sometimes he asked me to drink juice and sometimes beer for seven
(7) times, Your Honor.
Q So that, what you want to tell us on those seven (7) occasions that
you were made to drink it was either beer or juice?
A Yes, Your Honor.
ATTY. MENDOZA:
Q Do you recall how many times you were asked to drink beer?
A I dont know, sir. I just know juice and beer.
Q Do you recall how many times you were asked to drink juice?
A Yes, sir.
A No, sir.
Q How many times did the accused ask you to drink juice?
Q Was there any instance that the accused asked you to drink beer and
juice at the same time?
Q When you were asked by the accused to drink juice, is it not a fact
that you were asked to drink juice while you were in the sofa or
downstairs?
COURT:
Understandably, Richelle could not have seen the appellant insert his penis into
her vagina since she lost consciousness after drinking the beer and juice.
However, in rape cases, carnal knowledge of the victim by the accused may be
proven not only by direct evidence but also by circumstantial evidence,
provided that there is more than one circumstance; the facts from which the
inferences are derived are proven; the combination of all the circumstances is
such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable doubt.31
In the case at bar, the evidence on record shows that, on the fourth and fifth day
of Richelles captivity, and while seated on the sofa in the sala of the ground
floor of the appellants apartment, the appellant forced her to drink beer. She
felt dizzy and lost consciousness, and when she came to, found herself in the
room on the second floor of the apartment, completely naked, with the appellant
beside her. Richelle felt severe pains in her vagina and was petrified when she
saw plenty of blood on it. She washed her bloodied vagina with water. To quote
the testimony of Richelle:
Q Madam witness, lets go back to the 4th day that you were inside the
room and that the following day you wake (sic) up early in the morning
nude where the accused was nowhere in that place, when you wake
(sic) up in that morning, what did you feel in your body?
Q On the 5th day when you wake (sic) up in the sofa was your vagina
bleeding?
A Yes, sir.
Q On the 4th, on the 5th day that your vagina was bleeding, Madame
witness, is it not a fact that you washed your vagina?
A I washed it, sir.
Q What did you use in washing your vagina?
A Water, sir.
Q With a soap?
A No, sir.33
A Upon the examination of the genie layer, the sex organ of the victim,
the only pertinent findings Ive got was the laceration, a deep healed
laceration at the hymen, sir.
Q What does that signifies (sic)?
Q What did you do with your vagina with full of blood as you testified?
A That a hard blunt object was forcefully inserted to the genie layer of
the victim, sir.
Q I notice in this findings (sic) of yours there is a laceration at 7:00
oclock, can you please clarify this?
A The laceration at the 7 oclock only means that since the hymen is
circular in appearance, it is being correlated to the face of the watch so
when we say that the laceration is located at 7 oclock then it only
means the same that the laceration or the tear is located in the same
position as the number 7 of the clock, sir.
Q Now, you claimed that upon your examination, one of your findings
that [there]is a laceration of (sic) 7 oclock, what could have cause (sic)
the laceration of (sic) 7 oclock?
Atty. Mendoza:
Already answered, Your Honor, the forceful insertion by blunt
instrument.
Fiscal Tacla:
Q Would you consider the penis or a male organ as the blunt
instrument which to have put (sic) into her organ?
A Yes, sir.
We reject the appellants submission that he could not have raped Richelle
during the period of September 17, 1991 to September 30, 1991 because when
she was examined by Dr. Nieves on October 3, 1991, the lacerations in her
hymen had already healed. The appellants reliance on the testimony of Dr.
Nieves, that the healing period of the lacerations on the hymen was seven (7)
days from the infliction of such lacerations, is misplaced. The doctor did not
testify that the laceration in the hymen of Richelle could not have been healed
in less than seven days. Indeed, the healing of wounds is dependent on several
factors: (a) vascularity; (b) age of the person; (c) degree of rest or
immobilization; and (d) nature of injury.35
In fine, although the lacerations were already healed by the time Richelle was
examined by Dr. Nieves on October 3, 1991, it is not impossible that Richelle
was raped by the appellant for the first time on the fourth day of her captivity. It
is well settled that healed lacerations do not necessarily negate rape.36
The appellant asserted that Richelle consented to having sex with him, because
she shouted, "Mang Domeng, tama na, ayaw ko na!," when he kissed and
embraced her, and mashed her breasts. The appellant asserts that, in saying,
"ayaw ko na," twelve-year-old Richelle was consenting to his prior sexual
assaults. Richelles testimony reads:
Q Throughout these days that the accused embraced you, kissed you
and got hold of your breast, you did not shout?
A I shouted everyday, sir.
Q Will you tell this Court what words you used when you shouted?
Q What was the state of the virginity of the lady when you conducted
an examination upon her person?
Q Why, Madame witness, when you said "ayaw ko na," was there any
instance that you agreed to Mang Domeng?
FISCAL TACLA:
What is that agreement all about, Your Honor?
ATTY. MENDOZA:
Well, "ayaw ko na" Your Honor, she presumed that ayaw na niya iyong
nagaganap sa kanya. My question is on what was happening to her that
she is now testifying, was there any occasion that she agreed.
COURT:
Answer.
Witness:
A Ayaw ko na po iyong ginagawa niya sa akin. Gusto ko nang umuwi
sa amin.
ATTY. MENDOZA:
Q In all that occasions you did not box nor kick the accused, is it not?
A I tried to fight back and I even pulled his hair, sir.37
The appellants contention deserves scant consideration. As gleaned from
Richelles testimony, she had been shouting and pleading to the appellant
everyday to stop the lascivious acts and the sexual advances on her. She
resolutely fought back and even pulled the appellants hair. In fine, when the
appellant subjected Richelle to his bestial desires, Richelle resisted, to no avail.
If, as claimed by the appellant, Richelle had consented to having sexual
intercourse with him from September 16, 1991 to September 30, 1991, there
would no longer have been a need for him to force her to drink beer and juice to
render her dizzy and unconscious.
The testimony of Richelle should not be considered in its truncated parts but in
its entirety. The meaning of the words in a portion of the testimony of a witness
should be considered, taking into account the entirety of the latters testimony.
Besides, bearing in mind the chastity and bashfulness of a typical Filipina,
especially one in her tender years, it is highly inconceivable for Richelle, a
young girl, to consent to sexual acts with the appellant. Richelle was barely in
her teens when the harrowing experience took place. We find it deviant for a
support given to him by his siblings. We agree with the findings of the trial
court, viz:
The accused tried to insinuate ulterior or improper motive on the part of
the complainant by alleging that complainant Richelle charge[d] him
with this offense because they are asking money as told [to] him by
Atty. Mendoza.
This allegation is patently unmeritorious and cannot be given any value
by the court, as it was hearsay, and Atty. Mendoza was not presented to
pursue or give light on this allegation. At any rate, the mother of the
offended party, Nimfa Banluta, testified that she got the insinuation that
the sister of the accused was willing to settle the case through her
friend living near the street of the accused.44
It is rudimentary that where there is no showing that the private complainant was
impelled by any improper motive in making the accusation against the appellant,
her complaint is entitled to full faith and credit. Hence, when the appellant could not
present any sensible justification as to why the private complainant had accused
him, such fact logically proves that no improper motive propelled the latter to
charge the former of such a serious offense as rape.45
The trial court correctly awarded Richelle civil indemnity of P50,000. This is in the
nature of actual and compensatory damages, and is obligatory upon conviction for
rape.46 In addition, she is entitled to moral damages in the amount of P50,000.
Moral damages are automatically awarded to rape victims without the necessity of
proof, for it is assumed that she suffered moral injuries entitling her to such award.
Such award is separate and distinct from civil indemnity.47
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 69, in Criminal Case No. 1590-B, finding the
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of serious illegal detention
with rape is MODIFIED. Appellant DOMINGO SABARDAN is found guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code and
is sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The appellant
is ORDERED to pay the victim, Richelle Banluta, P50,000 as civil indemnity
and P50,000 as moral damages. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
April 7, 2014
Contrary to law.4
When arraigned, all three accused pleaded not guilty. Upon demurrer to
evidence filed by accused Jenny del Rosario, the trial court rendered judgment
acquitting her of the crime charged considering that her mere presence in the car
used by appellant is not indicative of conspiracy in the sale of illegal drugs.5
At the pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the following:
1. The identity of the accused as the persons charged;
2. The jurisdiction of this Court over the persons of the accused;
3. Police Inspector Ruben Mamaril Apostol Jr. is a member of a PNP
Crime Laboratory Office as of July 12, 2006 and he is an expert in
Forensic Chemistry;
4. That a request for laboratory examination was made for the
specimens allegedly confiscated from the accused;
5. The existence and authenticity of the request for examination of the
seized items and Request for a drug test on the persons of the accused;
6. That pursuant to the requests for the drug test and examination of the
specimens, the corresponding Regional Crime Laboratory Office,
Calabarzon issued two (2) chemistry reports, D-267-06 and
CRIM[D]T-286-06 that subject specimens submitted are positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride; and
7. That only a representative sample of the specimens submitted were
examined by the Forensic Chemist which consist of one (1) transparent
sachet containing white crystalline substance in black and red
markings.6
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented the following factual milieu based on the testimonies
of SPO1 Jaime A. Cariaso (poseur-buyer), SPO1 Norman Jesus P. Platon and
Police Inspector Ruben M. Apostol, Jr. (Forensic Chemical Officer):
In the morning of July 11, 2006, a Confidential Informant (CI) went to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office 4-A
(CALABARZON) at Camp Vicente Lim in Calamba City, Laguna. The CI
informed Regional Director P/Supt. Raul L. Bargamento that he was able to set
up a deal with a certain "Aida" who directed him to look for a buyer of 100
grams of shabu for the price of P360,000.00.7
Immediately, P/Supt. Bargamento instructed Police Chief Inspector Julius
Ceasar V. Ablang to form a team who will conduct a buy-bust operation. PCI
Ablang organized the team composed of eleven police officers and made the
proper coordination with PDEA. Since the target area is situated in Barangay
Bayanan, Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila, the team likewise obtained the
requisite "Authority to Operate Outside AOR".8 During the briefing, SPO1
Cariaso was designated as poseur-buyer while SPO1 Platon will be his back-up
arresting officer. Four pieces of five hundred peso (P500) bills were then
prepared and marked by SPO1 Cariaso. The said bills stacked on the boodle
money were placed inside SPO1 Cariasos belt bag. On the same day, SPO1
Cariaso and SPO1 Platon, along with the CI, conducted a surveillance of the
house of "Aida" and vicinity. Prior to these preparations, the CI had contacted
"Aida" through her cellphone and arranged the 2:00 p.m. meeting/sale
transaction the following day.9
The next day, July 12, 2006, at around 12:00 noon, the team accompanied by
the CI boarded two service vehicles and proceeded to the target area. They
arrived at Barangay Bayanan at 1:45 p.m. SPO1 Cariaso and the CI parked the
Toyota Revo infront of the house of "Aida" while SPO1 Platon and the rest of
the team, who rode on another vehicle (Isuzu Crosswind), waited at a distance.
As agreed during the briefing, SPO1 Platon positioned himself in a spot where
he could see SPO1 Cariaso. The other police officers posted themselves where
they could see SPO1 Platon as the latter will wait for a "missed call" from SPO1
Cariaso.10
SPO1 Cariaso and the CI alighted from the Revo and went to the gate of the
house of "Aida". They called the attention of a woman whom the CI identified
as "Aida". The woman came out of the house and the CI introduced SPO1
Cariaso to her as the buyer of shabu. After the introduction, the CI left. The
woman asked SPO1 Cariaso where the money is and he opened his belt bag to
show her the money. SPO1 Cariaso in turn asked her where the shabu is and she
replied that he should wait for Marco (appellant). SPO1 Cariaso and the woman
then went inside the Revo and waited for appellant. After about five minutes, a
Toyota Vios arrived and parked infront of the Revo. The woman told SPO1
Cariaso that the driver of the Vios was appellant.11
Appellant alighted from the Vios and went inside the Revo. The woman
introduced appellant to SPO1 Cariaso as the buyer. After appellant ascertained
that SPO1 Cariaso had the money with him, he went down and got something
from the Vios. When appellant returned, he was carrying an item wrapped in
newspaper. Inside the Revo, appellant uncovered the item and SPO1 Cariaso
saw a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which
appellant handed to him. Appellant then demanded for the money. SPO1
Cariaso gave appellant the belt bag containing the marked bills and boodle
money and quickly pressed the call key of his cellphone, the pre-arranged signal
for the team that the sale had been consummated.12
Within fifteen seconds, SPO1 Platon rushed towards the Revo and the rest of
the team followed. The team introduced themselves as PDEA agents. SPO1
Cariaso arrested appellant and the woman ("Aida") who was later identified as
Imelda G. Solema. Meanwhile, SPO1 Platon arrested the woman passenger in
the Vios who was later identified as Jenny del Rosario.
The seized plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was marked by
SPO1 Cariaso with his initials "EXH. A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" and signed it at
the bottom. SPO1 Cariaso also recovered the marked P500 bills and boodle
money from appellant. The three accused and the confiscated items were
brought to the PDEA Regional Office in Camp Vicente Lim.13
At the PDEA regional office, appellant and his co-accused were booked and the
confiscated items were inventoried by the investigator in the presence of SPO1
Cariaso, a media representative and a barangay councilor. A request for
laboratory examination of the seized transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance, weighing 98.51 grams, was prepared and signed by
P/Supt. Bargamento. There were also requests made for the physical
examination and drug test of the arrested persons. The request for laboratory
examination and the specimen marked "EXH. A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" were
"Aida". She shouted to them that she is not "Aida" but "Im." These armed
persons searched her house for shabu and when she shouted she was pushed
into a chair. After ten minutes of searching, nothing was found in her house.
When somebody knocked on the door, one of the armed men opened it and they
saw appellant. They pulled appellant inside, poked a gun at him, made him lie
down and handcuffed him. She and appellant were brought outside the house
and boarded into the Revo. They waited for the other car for the armed men to
board appellant there. Thereafter, they were brought to the PDEA office in
Canlubang where they were detained.20
The RTC found that the police officers complied with all the requirements in
conducting a buy-bust operation, and that their testimonies were spontaneous,
straightforward and consistent on all material points. On the other hand, the
RTC observed that the testimonies of defense witnesses do not jibe or are
inconsistent with each other. It held that appellants denial of the crime charged
is a negative self-serving evidence and cannot prevail over the positive and
straightforward testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution who, being
police officers, are presumed to have performed their duties in accordance with
law, and who have no reason to fabricate the charges against the accused.
Convinced that appellant and his co-accused Imelda Solema had conspired in
selling shabu, the RTC noted that it was the latter who called up the former
about the offer of the poseur-buyer SPO1 Cariaso to buy shabu. Appellant thus
brought the pack of shabu to be sold to SPO1 Cariaso, unaware of the
entrapment plan of the police officers. As to their warrantless arrest, the RTC
held that such arrest was legal since the accused were caught in flagrante delicto
selling shabu, a dangerous drug, to a poseur-buyer who turned out to be a police
officer, in a legitimate buy-bust operation.
The above elements were satisfactorily established by the prosecution. Poseurbuyer SPO1 Cariaso identified appellant as the seller of shabu. While the police
officers were initially unaware of the identity of appellant, as their CI had only
informed them about appellants co-accused, "Aida" (Imelda Solema) with
whom the CI had set up a drug deal for 100 grams of shabu for the price
of P360,000.00, appellants presence at the buy-bust scene, and his act of
delivering the shabu directly to SPO1 Cariaso clearly identified him as the seller
who himself demanded and received the payment from SPO1 Cariaso after
giving the shabu to the latter.
Appellants arrival at the house of Imelda Solema at the appointed time of the
sale transaction arranged the previous day by the CI, and with Imelda Solema
informing SPO1 Cariaso that they should wait for appellant after SPO1 Cariaso
asked for the shabu, were clear indications that they acted in coordination and
conspiracy to effect the sale of shabu to a buyer brought by the CI and who
turned out to be a police officer detailed with the PDEA. SPO1 Cariaso placed
his initials and date of buy-bust on the plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance sold to him by appellant. After Forensic Chemical Officer
Pol. Insp. Apostol, Jr. conducted a chemical analysis of the said specimen, the
result yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a
dangerous drug. The same specimen was presented in court as evidence after it
was properly identified by SPO1 Cariaso and Pol. Insp. Apostol, Jr. to be the
same substance handed by appellant to SPO1 Cariaso and examined by Pol.
Insp. Apostol, Jr.
SPO1 Platon corroborated the testimony of SPO1 Cariaso that they conducted a
buy-bust operation as he positioned himself across the street 15 meters from the
house of Imelda Solema. From his vantage, SPO1 Platon saw the following
transpired: SPOI Cariaso accompanied by the CI in front of the house of Imelda
Solema; SPO1 Cariaso conversing with Imelda Solema; the subsequent arrival
of appellant on board the Vios; appellant going inside the Revo where SPO1
Cariaso and Imelda Solema waited for him; appellant getting something from
the Vios and returning to the Revo carrying the said item. Upon hearing the call
from SPO1 Cariasos cellphone, SPO1 Platon immediately proceeded to the
scene and arrested Jenny del Rosario who was still inside the Vios. At that
moment, SPO1 Cariaso had already arrested appellant and Imelda Solema,
confiscated the transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
and recovered the marked money from appellant.
Clearly, all the elements of the crime were established by both the oral and
object evidence presented in court. It is settled that in cases involving violations
of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are
police officers for they enjoy the presumption of having performed their duties
in a regular manner, unless, of course, there is evidence to the contrary
suggesting ill-motive on their part or deviation from the regular performance of
their duties.27 Since no proof of such ill-motive on the part of the PDEA buybust team was adduced by appellant, the RTC and CA did not err in giving full
faith and credence to the prosecutions account of the buy-bust operation. This
Court has repeatedly stressed that a buy-bust operation (which is a form of
entrapment) is a valid means of arresting violators of R.A. No. 9165.28
Appellant assails the CA in not correctly interpreting the requirements set forth
in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rules and
regulations. He harps on the failure to immediately mark the seized shabu at the
scene of the incident and photograph the same, and the inventory of the
confiscated items which was not shown to have been done in the presence of the
accused. As to the absence of testimony by the investigator and the receiving
employee of the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory, appellant argues this is fatal
to the case of the prosecution. He thus contends that the chain of custody was
broken in this case.
We sustain the CAs ruling on the chain of custody issue.
Under Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of
2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, "chain of custody" is defined as the
duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled
chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each
stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory
to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature
of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time
when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use
in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 laid down the procedure for the custody
and disposition of confiscated, seized or surrendered dangerous drugs.
On the other hand, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations
(IRR) of R.A. 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[.] (Emphasis supplied.)
In this case, while SPO1 Cariaso testified that he immediately marked the
transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance sold to him by
appellant, there was no statement as to whether such marking was made at the
place of arrest. From the records it is clear that such marking was done upon
reaching the PDEA office before its turnover to the investigator on duty. What
is important is that the seized specimen never left the custody of SPO1 Cariaso
as he was present throughout the physical inventory being conducted by the said
investigator.
This Court has already ruled in several cases that the failure of the prosecution
to show that the police officers conducted the required physical inventory and
photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant to the guidelines, is not fatal. It
does not automatically render accused-appellants arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the
same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt of the accused.29
Records reveal that only the marked money was photographed at the PDEA
office. The Certificate of Inventory, though not signed by the accused, was duly
signed by team leader PCI Ablang, a representative from the media and a
In the case of People v. Kamad,31 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.32
The first link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of the transparent
plastic sachet containing shabu during the buy-bust operation. Records show
that from the time appellant handed to SPO1 Cariaso the said item, only SPO1
Cariaso was in possession of the same until it was brought to the PDEA office.
SPO1 Cariaso himself marked the said sachet of shabu with his initials and date
of buy-bust: "EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006." While the marking was not
immediately made at the crime scene, it does not automatically impair the
integrity of the chain of custody as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items have been preserved.33
The second link is the turnover of the shabu at the PDEA office. SPO1 Cariaso
testified that he turned over the seized plastic sachet containing shabu with his
markings "EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" to the investigator who proceeded with
the inventory thereof, along with the marked money also confiscated from
appellant. He was present next to the investigator while the latter was
conducting the inventory.
The third link constitutes the delivery of the request for laboratory examination
and the specimen to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory. It was likewise SPO1
Cariaso who brought the said request and the specimen to the PNP Regional
Crime Laboratory on the same day. He personally turned over the specimen
marked "EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" to the receiving clerk as evidenced by
the stamp receipt on the said request bearing the time and date received as
"10:25 PM July 12, 2006."34
and should show that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any
improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. Otherwise, the
police officers' testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit.38 No
such evidence was presented by appellant in this case. The CA even quoted in
part the decision of the RTC which highlighted the irreconcilable
inconsistencies in the testimonies of defense witnesses on what transpired
during the buy-bust operation.
The fourth link seeks to establish that the specimen submitted for laboratory
examination is the one presented in court. Forensic Chemical Officer Pol. Insp.
Apostol, Jr. testified that the transparent plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance which was marked "EXH A J.A.C. July 12, 2006", was
given to him by the receiving clerk. Within twenty-four hours, he conducted the
chemical analysis by taking a representative sample from the specimen, even
explaining in detail the process of testing the specimen for shabu. He identified
the specimen with markings "EXH. A J.A.C. July 12, 2006" presented as
evidence in court (Exhibit "J") as the same specimen he examined and which he
found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.1wphi1
Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the penalty of life imprisonment
to death and fine, ranging fromP500,000.00 to P10,000,000.00 shall be imposed
upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or
transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy
regardless of the quantity and purity involved. Hence, the RTC, as affirmed by
the CA, correctly imposed the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
of P1,000,000.00.
July 3, 2013
board an owner-type jeep. They brought with them two pieces of premarked P100 bills.3
On arrival at the place, the team members positioned themselves at about 15 to
20 meters from where they spotted Mercy Oniza and a male companion, later
identified as her accused husband Romeo Oniza. The police informant
approached Mercy and initiated the purchase. 4 He handed the two marked P100
bills to her which she in turn gave to Romeo.5 After pocketing the money, the
latter took out a plastic sachet of white crystalline substance from his pocket
and gave it to the informant. The latter then scratched his head as a signal for
the police officers to make an arrest.6
The police officers came out of concealment to arrest Mercy and Romeo.7 On
seeing the police officers, however, the two quickly ran into their house, joined
by Valentino Cabarle (separately charged) who had earlier stood nearby, and
locked the door behind them. The officers rammed the door open to get in. They
apprehended Mercy, Romeo, and Valentino.8 Officer Jiro recovered four heatsealed plastic sachets believed to contain shabu from Mercy. Officer Albarico
retrieved two marked P100 bills and a similar plastic sachet from Romeo.
Officer Antonio seized an identical sachet from Valentino.9
The police officers brought their three captives to the police station for
investigation and booking. Officer Jiro marked all the items the police seized
and had these brought to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory for examination.10 After forensic chemical analysis, the contents of
the sachets proved to be shabu.11
The prosecution and the defense stipulated that the specimens that PO1 Annalee
R. Forro, a PNP forensic chemical officer, examined were methamphetamine
hydrochloride (shabu). They further stipulated, however, that Officer Forro
"could not testify on the source and origin of the subject specimens that she had
examined."12 As a result, PO1 Forro did not testify and only her report was
adduced by the prosecution as evidence.
The evidence for the accused shows, on the other hand, that at around 9:30 p.m.
on June 16, 2004, the spouses Mercy and Romeo were asleep at their home
when Mercy was suddenly awakened by the voice of Belen Morales calling on
her from outside the house. As Mercy peeped through the window, Belen told
her that the police had arrested and mauled Mercys brother, Valentino. Mercy
hurriedly ran out of the house to find out what had happened to her brother.13
When Mercy got to where Valentino was, she saw some police officers forcibly
getting him into an owner-type jeep while Zenaida Cabarle, Mercy and
Valentinos mother, kept pulling him out of the owner-type jeep. When Mercy
approached Valentino, the police officers told her to accompany him to the
police station. This prompted her to shout for her husbands help.14
Meanwhile, when Romeo had awakened, he came out of the house, and saw
two police officers in black jackets, Albarico and Antonio, who approached
him. They seized and shoved him into the owner-type jeep to join Mercy and
Valentino. Romeo noticed that Valentino was grimacing in pain, having been
beaten up by the police.15
At the police station, the police officers asked their three captives to
produce P30,000.00 in exchange for their release.16 Officer Antonio took out
something from his pocket, showed it to them, and told them that he would use
it to press charges against them. Afterwards, PO1 Antonio took Mercy to the
kitchen room and hit her head with two pieces of pot covers ("pinompyang").17
Nearly after five years of trial or on April 2, 2009 the RTC rendered a
decision18 that found Romeo and Mercy guilty of possession of dangerous drugs
in Criminal Cases 7598 and 7599, respectively, and imposed on them both the
penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and a fine
of P300,000.00. Further, the trial court found them guilty of selling dangerous
drugs in Criminal Case 7600 and imposed on them both the penalty of life
imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. The trial court, however, acquitted
Valentino of the separate charge of possession of dangerous drugs filed against
him in Criminal Case 7597.
On appeal in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04301, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the
judgments of conviction against Romeo and Mercy, hence, the present appeal to
this Court.
Issue Presented
The issue presented in this case is whether or not the prosecution proved beyond
reasonable doubt that Romeo and Mercy were in possession of and were selling
dangerous drugs when the team of police officers arrested them on June 16,
2004.
Ruling of the Court
The law prescribes certain procedures in keeping custody and disposition of
seized dangerous drugs like the shabu that the police supposedly confiscated
from Romeo and Mercy on June 16, 2004. Section 21 of Republic Act (R.A.)
9165 reads:
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; x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
Compliance with the above, especially the required physical inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs in the presence of the accused, the media, and
responsible government functionaries, would be clear evidence that the police
had carried out a legitimate buy-bust operation. Here, the prosecution was
unable to adduce such evidence, indicating that the police officers did not at all
comply with prescribed procedures. Worse, they offered no excuse or
explanation at the hearing of the case for their blatant omission of what the law
required of them.
Apart from the above, the prosecution carried the burden of establishing the
chain of custody of the dangerous drugs that the police allegedly seized from
the accused on the night of June 16, 2004. It should establish the following links
in that chain of custody of the confiscated item: 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.19
Still, jurisprudence has established a rare exception with respect to the first
required linkimmediate seizure and marking of the seized items in the
presence of the accused and others20namely, that (a) there must be justifiable
grounds for non-compliance with the procedures; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
Pros. Gonzales : And thereafter, what happened to the evidence gathered, Mr.
Witness?
PO1 Albarico : PO1 Jiro marked the evidence, sir.
xxxx
Pros. Gonzales : Mr. Witness, those substance[s] that were marked by PO1 Jiro,
what happened to them after the markings?
PO1 Albarico : After marking the pieces of evidence, he turned them over to the
Desk Officer and prepared a request for examination and those were brought to
Camp Crame for examination, sir.
xxxx
Here, the prosecutions own evidence as recited by the CA and the RTC is that
the police officers did not make a physical inventory of the seized drugs nor did
they take a picture of the same in the presence of the accused, someone in the
media, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, and any elected public
official.
Pros. Gonzales : If you know, what was the result of the request for
examination?
All that Officer Albarico could say is that his companion, Officer Jiro, marked
the plastic sachets with the initials of the accused already at the police station
and then turned over the same to the desk officer who prepared the Request for
Laboratory Examination.21 Thus:
Yet, the police officers did not bother to offer any sort of reason or justification
for their failure to make an inventory and take pictures of the drugs immediately
after their seizure in the presence of the accused and the other persons
designated by the law. Both the RTC and the CA misapprehended the
significance of such omission. It is imperative for the prosecution to establish a
justifiable cause for non-compliance with the procedural requirements set by
law.22 The procedures outlined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 are not merely empty
formalitiesthese are safeguards against abuse,23 the most notorious of which
is its use as a tool for extortion.24
Pros. Gonzales : And after that, what, if any, did you do next?
PO1 Albarico : After arresting them, we brought them to our police station, sir.
Pros. Gonzales : And at the station, Mr. Witness, what happened to the items
that you said was [sic] recovered from the possession of accused Romeo?
PO1 Albarico : We have the pieces of evidence blottered, sir.
And what is the prosecutions evidence that the substances, which the police
chemist examined and found to be shabu, were the same substances that the
police officers allegedly seized from Romeo and Mercy? No such evidence
exists. As pointed out above, the prosecution stipulated with the accused that
the police chemist "could not testify on the source and origin of the subject
specimens that she had examined." No police officer testified out of personal
knowledge that the substances given to the police chemist and examined by her
were the very same substances seized from the accused.1wphi1
In regard to the required presence of representatives from the DOJ and the
media and an elective official, the prosecution also did not bother to offer any
justification, even a hollow one, for failing to comply with such requirement.
What is more, the police officers could have easily coordinated with any elected
barangay official in the conduct of the police operation in the locality.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the February 23, 2012
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 04301, which affirmed
the April 2, 2009 Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Cases 7598,
7599, and 7600 and, accordingly, ACQUITS the accused-appellants Romeo
Oniza y Ong and Mercy Oniza y Cabarle of the charges against them in those
cases on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The National Police Commission is DIRECTED to INVESTIGATE PO1
Reynaldo M. Albarico, PO1 Fortunato P. Jiro III and PO1 Jose Gordon Antonio
for the possible filing of appropriate charges, if warranted.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to immediately
RELEASE both the above accused-appellants from custody unless they are
detained for some other lawful cause.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
SPO2 Nagera was also called to the witness stand to present his version of the
events. However, some inconsistencies surfaced during his examination at the
witness stand.
When asked about the gender of the informant who came to their office, he
answered that the informant was a female, contradicting the statement of PO3
Ramos.23 He also differed from the statement of PO3 Ramos when he testified
that only two modes of transportation, instead of three, were used by the buybust team in proceeding to the target area, one Nissan Maxima and one ownertype jeep.24 He also had difficulty in identifying the accused inside the court
room when he was asked upon by the prosecutor to do so.25
Further contradiction was made when SPO2 Nagera narrated that PO3 Ramos
was the one holding the plastic sachet before it was turned over to PO1 Jimenez
for investigation.26 He also admitted in his cross examination that he never saw
Ningning during the entire buy-bust operation.27 Finally, when asked about on
who placed the initial "LRR" on the plastic sachet, he positively identified that
it was the investigator who put the same.28
PO1 Jimenez was also presented in court as a prosecution witness to give details
of the buy-bust operation. His version, however, also differed from the versions
presented by PO3 Ramos and SPO2 Nagera. He testified that the plastic sachet
confiscated was already marked by the apprehending officers when it was
turned over to him for investigation, a contradiction of the statements of both
PO3 Ramos and SPO2 Nagera that it was him who marked the plastic sachet
with the initial "LRR."29 He positively identified that he saw the item being
marked by the apprehending officers in their office.30
The defense interposed denial.
Accused Joel denied any involvement in the buy-bust operation. He recalled
that he was inside his house sleeping between 9:00 to 10:00 oclock in the
evening of 12 September 2005 when five uniformed police officers entered his
house.31 They got hold of his arm and frisked him but failed to recover
anything.32 The police officers did not inform him of the reason for his arrest;
neither did they recite his constitutional rights. Afterwards, he was made to ride
an owner type vehicle and was taken to the police station where he was only
asked for his name.33 He denied having sold drugs and having seen the marked
money and plastic sachet containing shabu.34
On cross examination, Joel was also inconsistent in portions of his testimony.
He testified that all of his siblings were in the province and his only companions
in the house at the time of the arrest were his nephew and niece.35However,
when asked why the door was still open at around 10:00 oclock in the evening,
he replied that he was waiting for his sister.36 He also contradicted his earlier
statement that he was sleeping with his nephew and niece downstairs when in
his cross examination he said that his niece was staying on the second floor of
the house at the time of the arrival of the police officers.37
Joel was eventually charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs punishable
under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 before the Prosecutors Office of
Quezon City. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
Criminal Case No. 05-136719
That on or about the 12th day of September, 2005, in Quezon City, Philippines,
the said accused, 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 SEVEN (0.07) gram of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.38
When arraigned, Joel pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.39
During pre-trial, it was agreed upon by both parties that Forensic Chemist
Jabonillo had no personal knowledge as to how the plastic sachet containing
specimen positive for illegal drug came to of police officers possession. The
forensic chemist merely examined the specimen and found it to be positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride. As a consequence of these stipulations, his
testimony was dispensed with by the court.40
Ruling of the Trial Court
The trial court on 21 March 2007 found the accused guilty of the offense
charged. The dispositive portion of the decision41 reads:
Our Ruling
After a careful review of the evidence, we resolve to reverse the ruling of
conviction and render a judgment of acquittal in favor of the accused.
PO3 Ramos identified Joel as the seller who sold to him a small plastic sachet
containing shabu in exchange of two hundred pesos. We quote the relevant
portions:
A: When we reached the house sir, we knocked at the door and alias Gigi open
(sic) it.
Q: Did Ningning go to the place where you were talking with Gigi at that time?
A: No sir, she just open (sic) the door and handed the sachet of shabu.
xxxx
xxxx
Q: What was the conversation with you during that time?
Q: When he received that from Ningning at that time, what did you do?
A: The informant first introduced me to Gigi that I will be the one to buy shabu.
A: After Gigi got it he gave it to me, sir.
Q: What was the answer of Gigi at that time?
A: He asked how much.
Q: Can you describe that item you received from Gigi that came from Ningning
at that time?
A: Yes sir.
A: I said dos.
Q: After informing him that you intend to buy dos of illegal drug, what
happened?
PO3 Ramos initially testified that he placed his marking on the small plastic
sachet he was able to buy from Joel:
Q: If that small plastic sachet is shown to you can you indentify the specimen?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Why?
A: LRR.
Q: Showing to you this transparent plastic sachet containing illegal drug, what
can you say about that, what is the relation of that transparent plastic sachet to
the plastic sachet you have just mentioned?
Q: You said that the investigator placed the marking in the transparent plastic
sachet and likewise he was the one who made the inventory receipt. In what
particular place that he prepared this particular document?
However, he would later present a new version on who marked the plastic
sachet:
Q: Now, going [back] to the police station, other than searching, what other
matters were taken during the arrest?
A: The evidence that I was able to get from Ningning and it was the investigator
who marked it.
The testimony of PO3 Ramos, which apparently was given as proof of all the
elements that constitute an illegal sale of drug is however, inconsistent on
material points from the recollection of events of PO3 Ramos, SPO2 Nagera
and PO1 Jimenez regarding the marking, handling and turnover of the plastic
sachet containing the dangerous drug of shabu.
Q: Other than putting the initial on the transparent plastic sachet immediately
after the arrest Mr. Witness, what was the SOP in a buy-bust operation, after
taking or receiving the item from the accused during the arrest?
SPO2 Nagera narrated that it was PO1 Jimenez who marked the plastic sachet
after it was handed by PO3 Ramos:
xxxx
Q: x x x. You said that it was the investigator who made the marking in the
transparent plastic sachet, where were you when the marking was placed on it?
A: I was in front of the investigator.
A: They placed their initial and prepared request for examination address to the
Crime Laboratory sir.55 (Emphasis supplied)
xxxx
Q: Where was PO3 Ramos when that plastic sachet, when the police
investigator put the initial, Mr. Witness?
However, PO1 Jimenez later testified that it was PO3 Ramos who marked the
plastic sachet in their office.
A: Ramos, sir.
A: Yes, sir.
A: It was turn (sic) over to the police investigator, sir.59 (Emphasis supplied)
Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No.
9165 provides for the procedure to be observed in preserving the integrity of
chain of custody:
PO3 Ramos positively pointed that it was PO1 Jimenez who took possession of
the item from the time of the arrest until arrival at the police station.73 However,
when SPO2 Nagera was asked, he pointed out that it was PO3 Ramos who held
the item from the time of the arrest until they reached the police where it was
turned over to Jimenez for investigation.74
In Malillin v. People,75 it was explained that the chain of custody rule includes
testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked
up to the time it was offered in 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.76
The prosecution cannot rely on the saving clause provided under Section 21(a)
of the IRR that non-compliance with the legal requirements shall not render
void and invalid seizures of and custody over said items. This saving clause is
applicable only if prosecution was able to prove the twin conditions of (a)
existence of justifiable grounds and (b) preservation of the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the items.77 The procedural lapses in this case put to doubt
the integrity of the items presented in court.
The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, is adamant in its
argument that there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by
police officers conducting buy-bust operation.
SO ORDERED.