PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. FREDDIE
LADIP Y RUBIO, Accused–Appellant.
G.R. No. 196146, March 12, 2014
FACTS:
The Prosecution’s Version of Facts
The prosecution presented Police Officer (PO) 1 Marcelino Sibal (PO1 Sibal) and PO1 Romeo Tayag (PO1 Tayag), who both testified that while on duty in the morning of 7 December 2006, together with other police operatives namely: PO2 Zamora, PO1 Almario, and PO2 Salas, at the Station Anti–Illegal Drugs (SAID) – Station Operation Task Group, Quirino Police Station (PS–09), Anonas Road, Project 2, Quezon City, a male confidential informant came to the station and provided them with the information that a certain Freddie Ladip was selling illegal drugs in Area 1, Barangay Batasan, Quezon City. Consequently, a buy–bust operation was conducted on the same day whereupon the accused was arrested for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.5
As narrated during the trial, PO1 Sibal, who acted as poseur–buyer, and the informant went to a house located in the abovementioned area around 1 o’clock in the afternoon of 7 December 2006, wherein the accused was already waiting for them outside the said house. The informant introduced PO1 Sibal to the accused as a buyer of shabu. Accused immediately inquired as to the quantity of shabu that he intends to purchase by asking, “magkano?” PO1 Sibal replied that he wanted to buy P300.00 worth of shabu. Accused then asked for the payment, for which PO1 Sibal readily gave him the marked money consisting of three 100–peso bills. In return, accused handed to PO1 Sibal a transparent heat–sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules. Upon the exchange and conveyance of shabu and the marked money having been completed, PO1 Sibal gave the pre–arranged signal by removing the cap from his head to signify to his back–up team, strategically stationed near the scene of the crime, that the transaction was consummated. Afterwards, the accused was arrested by the team.6
It was further stated under oath that, prior to the turnover of the evidence to the investigator–on–duty in said station, PO1 Sibal and PO1 Tayag revealed that they placed their respective markings on the two (2) small heat sealed transparent plastic sachets,8 denominated as MS–FL–12–07–06 and RT–PU–12–07–06. Subsequently, an inventory of the seized items was made in the presence of the police operatives and the arrested persons. Photographs of the arrested persons, the marked money, and the seized items were likewise taken, followed by various requests for laboratory examination of said specimens, and for drug dependency examination of the arrested persons.9 Later on, the subject sachets were brought to the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) Crime Laboratory.
The Defense’s Version of the Facts
Accused testified that at around 1 o’clock in the afternoon of 7 December 2006, he was engaged in a drinking session inside the house of his live–in partner’s (Perlyn) friend (a certain Wilma) at BarangayBotocan, Quezon City.11 Suddenly, three men in civilian clothes arrived and searched the house but found nothing illegal. Nevertheless, the three men grabbed and handcuffed him and Perlyn,boarded them in a vehicle and brought them to a police station to show them the shabu without explaining where it came from.To corroborate the testimony of the accused, Lerma testified that she was in the house of her friend Wilma having a drinking spree with them when the accused was unexpectedly and swiftly arrested by a group of three male individuals clad in civilian clothes for no apparent reason.
The prosecution presented Police Officer (PO) 1 Marcelino Sibal (PO1 Sibal) and PO1 Romeo Tayag (PO1 Tayag), who both testified that while on duty in the morning of 7 December 2006, together with other police operatives namely: PO2 Zamora, PO1 Almario, and PO2 Salas, at the Station Anti–Illegal Drugs (SAID) – Station Operation Task Group, Quirino Police Station (PS–09), Anonas Road, Project 2, Quezon City, a male confidential informant came to the station and provided them with the information that a certain Freddie Ladip was selling illegal drugs in Area 1, Barangay Batasan, Quezon City. Consequently, a buy–bust operation was conducted on the same day whereupon the accused was arrested for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.5
As narrated during the trial, PO1 Sibal, who acted as poseur–buyer, and the informant went to a house located in the abovementioned area around 1 o’clock in the afternoon of 7 December 2006, wherein the accused was already waiting for them outside the said house. The informant introduced PO1 Sibal to the accused as a buyer of shabu. Accused immediately inquired as to the quantity of shabu that he intends to purchase by asking, “magkano?” PO1 Sibal replied that he wanted to buy P300.00 worth of shabu. Accused then asked for the payment, for which PO1 Sibal readily gave him the marked money consisting of three 100–peso bills. In return, accused handed to PO1 Sibal a transparent heat–sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules. Upon the exchange and conveyance of shabu and the marked money having been completed, PO1 Sibal gave the pre–arranged signal by removing the cap from his head to signify to his back–up team, strategically stationed near the scene of the crime, that the transaction was consummated. Afterwards, the accused was arrested by the team.6
It was further stated under oath that, prior to the turnover of the evidence to the investigator–on–duty in said station, PO1 Sibal and PO1 Tayag revealed that they placed their respective markings on the two (2) small heat sealed transparent plastic sachets,8 denominated as MS–FL–12–07–06 and RT–PU–12–07–06. Subsequently, an inventory of the seized items was made in the presence of the police operatives and the arrested persons. Photographs of the arrested persons, the marked money, and the seized items were likewise taken, followed by various requests for laboratory examination of said specimens, and for drug dependency examination of the arrested persons.9 Later on, the subject sachets were brought to the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) Crime Laboratory.
The Defense’s Version of the Facts
Accused testified that at around 1 o’clock in the afternoon of 7 December 2006, he was engaged in a drinking session inside the house of his live–in partner’s (Perlyn) friend (a certain Wilma) at BarangayBotocan, Quezon City.11 Suddenly, three men in civilian clothes arrived and searched the house but found nothing illegal. Nevertheless, the three men grabbed and handcuffed him and Perlyn,boarded them in a vehicle and brought them to a police station to show them the shabu without explaining where it came from.To corroborate the testimony of the accused, Lerma testified that she was in the house of her friend Wilma having a drinking spree with them when the accused was unexpectedly and swiftly arrested by a group of three male individuals clad in civilian clothes for no apparent reason.
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a Decision15 finding
the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article
II of R.A. No. 9165 (for drug pushing). The dispositive portion of which
is hereunder quoted
CA:On appeal, the accused contended that the confiscated drugs were not marked immediately at the time and place of its seizure, and that the subsequent physical inventory thereof was not made in the presence of representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, and any elected public official, in violation of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, thus, destroying the identity and integrity of the evidence against him; that there were inconsistencies in the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution; and that ultimately, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.17The CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC and dismissed the appeal.18 The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court
CA:On appeal, the accused contended that the confiscated drugs were not marked immediately at the time and place of its seizure, and that the subsequent physical inventory thereof was not made in the presence of representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, and any elected public official, in violation of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, thus, destroying the identity and integrity of the evidence against him; that there were inconsistencies in the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution; and that ultimately, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.17The CA affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC and dismissed the appeal.18 The case was then elevated to the Supreme Court
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in
finding that the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to convict the
accused of the alleged sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu,
in violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.
RULING:
The Court finds no merit in the appeal.
It has been consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.24 In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.25 To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.26
The point, understandably, of the accused is noncompliance by the arresting officers with Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the chain of custody of seized drugs, particularly as to the following:
We are not persuaded by these arguments.
This Court has time and again spoken on the chain of custody rule,34 a method of authenticating evidence which 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. This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is 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. 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.35
It has been consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.24 In other words, there is a need to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.25 To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.26
The point, understandably, of the accused is noncompliance by the arresting officers with Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 regarding the chain of custody of seized drugs, particularly as to the following:
We are not persuaded by these arguments.
This Court has time and again spoken on the chain of custody rule,34 a method of authenticating evidence which 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. This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is 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. 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.35
As often as there are occasions to apply the chain of custody
rule, the Court has pronounced that the requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR are not inflexible. What is
essential is “the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.” 37 Thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
From the point of view of jurisprudence, we are not beating any
new path by holding that the failure to undertake the required photography and
immediate marking of seized items may be excused by the unique circumstances of
a case. In People v.
Resurreccion, we already stated that “marking upon immediate
confiscation” does not exclude the possibility that marking can be at the
police station or office of the apprehending team. In the cases of People v. Rusiana, People v. Hernandez, andPeople
v. Gum–Oyen, the apprehending team marked the confiscated
items at the police station and not at the place of seizure. Nevertheless, we
sustained the conviction because the evidence showed that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the items seized had been preserved. To reiterate
what we have held in past cases, we are not always looking for the strict
step–by–step adherence to the procedural requirements; what is important is to
ensure the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as these would determine the guilt or innocence of the
accused. We succinctly explained this in People v. Del Monte when
we held:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
We would like to add that non–compliance with Section 21 of said
law, particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the
drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in
evidence. Under Section 3
of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant
to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence
to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its
reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted
subject only to the evidentiary weight that will [be] accorded it by the
courts. x x x
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non–admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non–compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non–compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight — evidentiary merit or probative value — to be given the evidence.The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.38 (Emphasis supplied)
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non–admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non–compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non–compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight — evidentiary merit or probative value — to be given the evidence.The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.38 (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Court of Appeals Decision in CA–G.R. CR–H.C. No. 03635 dated 22 September 2010, is AFFIRMED in all respects.
No comments:
Post a Comment