criminal law 2 cases

7/25/2019 Criminal Law 2 cases

1/33

Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus-

ALLEN UDTOJAN MANTALABA,

Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 186227

Prese!:

CARPIO,*J.

!"ASCO, #R.,J., Chairperson,

P!RA"$A,

A%A&, and

M!'&O(A,JJ.

Pro"#$%&!e':

#ul) +, +

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D E ( I S I O N

PERALTA,J.:

or this Court/s consideration is the &ecision 01dated #ul) 2, ++3 of the Court of Appeals

4CA5 in CA-6.R. CR-7.C. 'o. ++8+-MI', affirmin9 the Omnibus #ud9ment 01dated September 8,

++, of the Re9ional $rial Court, %ranch , %utuan Cit) in Criminal Case 'o. ++ and Criminal

Case 'o. +, findin9 appellant Allen ;dto?.

$he facts, as culled from the records, are the follo@in9:

$he $as orce Re9ional Anti-Crime !mer9enc) Response 4RAC!R5 in %utuan Cit) recei=ed

a report from an informer that a certain Allen Mantalaba, @ho @as se=enteen 4B5 )ears old at the time,

@as sellin9shabu at Puro 8, %aran9a) 2, A9ao &istrict, %utuan Cit). $hus, a bu)-bust team @as

or9anied, composed of PO Rand) Pa


2/33

$hereafter, t@o separate Informations @ere filed before the R$C of %utuan Cit) a9ainst

appellant for =iolation of Sections and of RA >?, statin9 the follo@in9:

Criminal Case 'o. ++

$hat on or about the e=enin9 of October , ++2 at Puro 8, %aran9a) 2, A9ao,

%utuan Cit), Philippines and @ithin the ?5.021

Criminal Case 'o. +

$hat on or about the e=enin9 of October , ++2 at Puro 8, %aran9a) 2, A9ao,

%utuan Cit), Philippines and @ithin the ?5.081

!=entuall), the cases @ere consolidated and tried


3/33

A: He prepared the operational plan for bu)-bust a9ainst the suspect. He prepared a

reEuest for po@der dustin9 for our mared mone)s to be used for the operation.

: &id )ou use mared mone)s in this caseJ

: $hen armed @ith these mared mone)s, @hat steps did )ou tae netJ

A: After briefin9 of our team, @e proceeded immediatel) to the area.

: Gou mentioned of poseur-bu)er, @hat @ould the poseur-bu)er doJ

A: He made an arran9ement @ith the poseur-bu)er that durin9 the bu)in9 of shabu

there should be a pre-arran9ed si9nal of the poseur-bu)er to the police officer.

)* +&! &--ee' e /o#r -ose#r0#/er o, &r"e' ! !s "&r3e'

"oe/s, &--ro&4e' !e %#/ o &s se$$% s &! !&! !"e5

A* Te -ose#r0#/er '#r% !&! !"e %&e !e "&r3e' "oe/s !o !e s#s-e4!.

: Hhere @ere )ou @hen this poseur-bu)er 9a=e the mone)s to the suspectJ

A: He positioned oursel=es about + meters a@a) from the area of the poseur-bu)er

and the suspect.

)* o# "e!oe' o !e -re0&rr&%e' s%&$, &! o#$' !s e5

A* Ts s & 4&se0!o04&se &ss, /o#r Hoor, !e -re0&rr&%e"e! s%&$

e4se !e -re0&rr&%e' s%&$ e #se' & 4&- &' & !oe$. 9s4: I !e 4&se,

o !s s#s-e4!, !ere &s o !oe$ !ere &s o 4&- &! !e !"e o %% !e

s &' !e "&r3e' "oe/s !o !e s#s-e4! &' 4os'er% &$so !&! !&! &s

&o#! 7*;; o


4/33

In the first place, coordination @ith the P&!A is not an indispensable reEuirement

before police authorities ma) carr) out a bu)-bust operation. Hhile it is true that

Section 3?081of Republic Act 'o. >? reEuires the 'ational %ureau of

In=esti9ation, P'P and the %ureau of Customs to maintain Kclose coordination @ith

the P&!A on all dru9-related matters,K the pro=ision does not, b) so sa)in9, mae

P&!A/s participation a conditionsine #ua nonfor e=er) bu)-bust operation. After

all, a bu)-bust is 1that there is

no ri9id or tetboo method of conductin9 bu)-bust operations.

leibilit) is a trait of 9ood police @or. $he police officers ma)

decide that time is of the essence and dispense @ith the need for

prior sur=eillance. 0+1

$he rule is that the findin9s of the trial court on the credibilit) of @itnesses are entitled to 9reat respect

because trial courts ha=e the ad=anta9e of obser=in9 the demeanor of the @itnesses as the) testif). $his

is more true if such findin9s @ere affirmed b) the appellate court. Hhen the trial court/s findin9s ha=e

been affirmed b) the appellate court, said findin9s are 9enerall) bindin9 upon this Court.01

In connection there@ith, the R$C, as affirmed b) the CA, @as also correct in findin9 that the appellant

is eEuall) 9uilt) of =iolation of Section of RA >?, or the ille9al possession of dan9erous dru9. As

an incident to the la@ful arrest of the appellant after the consummation of the bu)-bust operation, the

arrestin9 officers had the authorit) to search the person of the appellant. In the said search, the

appellant @as cau9ht in possession of +.?2 9rams of shabu. In ille9al possession of dan9erous dru9s,

the elements are: 45 the accused is in possession of an item or ob


5/33

Section of RA >? reads:

S!C. . Custo&y an& 'isposition o$ Con$iscate&, Sei(e&, an&)or Surren&ere&

'angerous 'rugs, Plant Sources o$ 'angerous 'rugs, Controlle& Precursors an&

Essential Che"icals, Instru"ents)Paraphernalia an&)or Laboratory E#uip"ent.

$he P&!A shall tae char9e and ha=e custod) of all dan9erous dru9s, plant sources

of dan9erous dru9s, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as @ell as

instrumentsLparaphernalia andLor laborator) eEuipment so confiscated, seied andLor

surrendered, for proper disposition in the follo@in9 manner:

45 $he apprehendin9 team ha=in9 initial custod) and control ofthe dru9s shall, immediatel) after seiure and confiscation,

ph)sicall) in=entor) and photo9raph the same in the presence of

the accused or the personLs from @hom such items @ere

confiscated andLor seied, or hisLher representati=e or counsel, a

representati=e from the media and the &epartment of #ustice

4&O#5, and an) elected public official @ho shall be reEuired to

si9n the copies of the in=entor) and be 9i=en a cop) thereof.

'on-compliance b) the apprehendin9Lbu)-bust team @ith Section is not fatal as lon9 as there is

1of the seied dru9s or other

related items immediatel) after the) are seied from the accused. Marin9 after

seiure is the startin9 point in the custodial lin, thus, it is =ital that the seied

contraband are immediatel) mared because succeedin9 handlers of the specimens@ill use the marin9s as reference. $he marin9 of the e=idence ser=es to separate

the mared e=idence from the corpus of all other similar or related e=idence from

the time the) are seied from the accused until the) are disposed of at the end of

criminal proceedin9s, ob=iatin9 s@itchin9, Kplantin9,K or contamination of

e=idence.02+1
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn31


6/33

Anent the a9e of the appellant @hen he @as arrested, this Court finds it appropriate to discuss the effect

of his minorit) in his suspension of sentence. $he appellant @as se=enteen 4B5 )ears old @hen the

bu)-bust operat ion too place or @hen the said offense @as committed, but @as no lon9er a minor at

the time of the promul9ation of the R$C/s &ecision.

It must be noted that RA >288 too effect on Ma) +, ++?, @hile the R$C promul9ated its decision on

this case on September 8, ++, @hen said appellant @as no lon9er a minor. $he R$C did not suspend

the sentence in accordance @ith Article > of P.&. ?+2, he Chil& an& *outh +el$are Co&e021and

Section 2 of A.M. 'o. +--3-SC, the Rule on Juveniles in Con$lict ith the La,021the la@s that

@ere applicable at the time of the promul9ation of ? is life imprisonment to death.

It ma) be ar9ued that the appellant should ha=e been entitled to a suspension of his sentence

under Sections 23 and ?3 of RA >288 @hich pro=ide for its retroacti=e application, thus:

S!C. 23.!uto"atic Suspension o$ Sentence.- Once the child @ho is under ei9hteen

435 )ears of a9e at the time of the commission of the offense is found 9uilt) of the

offense char9ed, the court shall determine and ascertain an) ci=il liabilit) @hichma) ha=e resulted from the offense committed. 7o@e=er, instead of pronouncin9

the "#" &%e o !e!/0oe 921: /e&rs.

7ence, the appellant, @ho is no@ be)ond the a9e of t@ent)-one 45 )ears can no lon9er a=ail

pro=isions of Sections 23 and 8+ of RA >288 as to his suspension of sentence, because such is

moot and academic. It is hi9hl) noted that this @ould not ha=e happened if the CA, @hen this ca

under its 4++5, hence, @hen RA >288 became effecti=e in

appellant @as + )ears old, and the case ha=in9 been ele=ated to the CA, the latter should

suspended the sentence of the appellant because he @as alread) entitled to the pro=isions of Sec

of the same la@, @hich no@ allo@s the suspension of sentence of minors re9ardless of the p

imposed as opposed to the pro=isions of Article > of P.&. ?+2. 0281

'e=ertheless, the appellant shall be entitled to appropriate disposition under Section

'o. >288, @hich pro=ides for the confinement of con=icted children as follo@s:021

S!C. . Con$ine"ent o$ Convicte& Chil&ren in !gricultural Ca"ps an& other

raining /acilities.- A child in conflict @ith the la@ ma), after con=iction and upon

order of the court, be made to ser=e hisLher sentence, in lieu of confinement in a

re9ular penal institution, in an a9ricultural camp and other trainin9 facilities that
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn36


7/33

ma) be established, maintained, super=ised and controlled b) the %;COR, in

coordination @ith the &SH&.

In findin9 the 9uilt be)ond reasonable doubt of the appellant for =iolation of Section of RA >?, the

R$C imposed the penalt) of reclusion perpetuaas mandated in Section >3 02?1of the same la@. A

=iolation of Section of RA >? merits the penalt) of life imprisonment to deathD ho@e=er, in

Section >3, it is pro=ided that, @here the offender is a minor, the penalt) for acts punishable b) life

imprisonment to death pro=ided in the same la@ shall be reclusion perpetuato death. %asicall), this

means that the penalt) can no@ be 9raduated as it has adopted the technical nomenclature of penalties

pro=ided for in the Re=ised Penal Code. $he said principle @as enunciated b) this Court in People v.

Si"on,02B1thus:

He are not una@are of cases in the past @herein it @as held that, in imposin9 the

penalt) for offenses under special la@s, the rules on miti9atin9 or a99ra=atin9

circumstances under the Re=ised Penal Code cannot and should not be applied. A

re=ie@ of such doctrines as applied in said cases, ho@e=er, re=eals that the reason

therefor @as because the special la@s in=ol=ed pro=ided their o@n specific penalties

for the offenses punished thereunder, and @hich penalties @ere not taen from or

@ith reference to those in the Re=ised Penal Code. Since the penalties then pro=ided

b) the special la@s concerned did not pro=ide for the minimum, medium ormaimum periods, it @ould conseEuentl) be impossible to consider the aforestated

modif)in9 circumstances @hose main function is to determine the period of the

penalt) in accordance @ith the rules in Article ?8 of the Code.

$his is also the rationale for the holdin9 in pre=ious cases that the pro=isions of the

Code on the 9raduation of penalties b) de9rees could not be 9i=en supplementar)

application to special la@s, since the penalties in the latter @ere not components of

or contemplated in the scale of penalties pro=ided b) Article B of the former. $he

suppletor) effect of the Re=ised Penal Code to special la@s, as pro=ided in Article

+ of the former, cannot be in=oed @here there is a le9al or ph)sical impossibilit)

of, or a prohibition in the special la@ a9ainst, such supplementar) application.

$he situation, ho@e=er, is different @here althou9h the offense is defined in and

ostensibl) punished under a special la@, the penalt) therefor is actuall) taen fromthe Re=ised Penal Code in its technical nomenclature and, necessaril), @ith its

duration, correlation and le9al effects under the s)stem of penalties nati=e to said

Code. Hhen, as in this case, the la@ in=ol=ed speas ofprision correccional, in its

technical sense under the Code, it @ould conseEuentl) be both illo9ical and absurd

to posit other@ise.

Prefatoril), @hat ordinaril) are in=ol=ed in the 9raduation and conseEuentl)

determine the de9ree of the penalt), in accordance @ith the rules in Article ? of the

Code as applied to the scale of penalties in Article B, are the sta9e of eecution of

the crime and the nature of the participation of the accused. 7o@e=er, under

para9raph of Article ?8, @hen there are t@o or more ordinar) miti9atin9

circumstances and no a99ra=atin9 circumstance, the penalt) shall be reduced b) one

de9ree. Also, !e -rese4e o -r$e%e' "!%&!% 4r4#"s!&4es, &s -ro'e'

Ar!4$es 67 &' 68, 4& re'#4e !e -e&$!/ / oe or !o 'e%rees, or ee

"ore.$hese pro=isions of Articles ?845, ?B and ?3 should not appl) in totoin the

determination of the proper penalt) under the aforestated second para9raph ofsection + of Republic Act 'o. ?8, to a=oid anomalous results @hich could not

ha=e been contemplated b) the le9islature.

$hus, para9raph of Article ? pro=ides that @hen the la@ prescribes a penalt) in

some manner not speciall) pro=ided for in the four precedin9 para9raphs thereof,

the courts shall proceed b) analo9) there@ith. 7ence, @hen the penalt) prescribed

for the crime consists of one or t@o penalties to be imposed in their full etent, the

penalt) net lo@er in de9ree shall lie@ise consist of as man) penalties @hich

follo@ the former in the scale in Article B. If this rule @ere to be applied, and since

the comple penalt) in this case consists of three discrete penalties in their full

etent, that is,prision correccional, prision "ayorand reclusion te"poral, then one

de9ree lo@er @ould be arresto "enor, &estierroand arresto "ayor. $here could,

ho@e=er, be no further reduction b) still one or t@o de9rees, @hich must each

lie@ise consist of three penalties, since onl) the penalties of fine and publiccensure remain in the scale.

$he Court rules, therefore, that @hile modif)in9 circumstances ma) be appreciated

to determine the periods of the correspondin9 penalties, or e=en reduce the penalt)

b) de9rees, in no case should such 9raduation of penalties reduce the imposable

penalt) be)ond or lo@er thanprision correccional. It is for this reason that the three

component penalties in the second para9raph of Section + shall each be considered

as an independent principal penalt), and that the lo@est penalt) should in an) e=ent

beprision correccionalin order not to depreciate the seriousness of dru9

offenses.Interpretatio $ien&a est ut res "agis valeat #ua" pereat. Such

interpretation is to be adopted so that the la@ ma) continue to ha=e efficac) rather

than fail. A perfect 1can no@ be appreciated in

the penalt) that should be imposed. $he R$C, as affirmed b) the CA, imposed the penalt) ofre

perpetua@ithout considerin9 the minorit) of the appellant. $hus, appl)in9 the rules stated abo

proper penalt) should be one de9ree lo@er than reclusion perpetua, @hich is reclusion te"po
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/july2011/186227.htm#_ftn40


8/33

pri=ile9ed miti9atin9 circumstance of minorit) ha=in9 been appreciated. 'ecessaril), also appl)in9 the

Indeterminate Sentence "a@ 4IS"AH5, the minimum penalt) should be taen from the penalt) net

lo@er in de9ree @hich is prision "ayorand the maimum penalt) shall be taen from the medium

period of reclusion te"poral, there bein9 no other miti9atin9 circumstance nor a99ra=atin9

circumstance.08+1$he IS"AH is applicable in the present case because the penalt) @hich has been

ori9inall) an indi=isible penalt) 4reclusion perpetuato death5, @here IS"AH is inapplicable, became a

di=isible penalt) 4reclusion te"poral5 b) =irtue of the presence of the pri=ile9ed miti9atin9

circumstance of minorit). $herefore, a penalt) of si 4?5 )ears and one 45 da) ofprision "ayor, as

minimum, and fourteen 485 )ears, ei9ht 435 months and one 45 da) of reclusion te"poral, as

maimum, @ould be the proper imposable penalt).

+HEREFORE, the &ecision dated #ul) 2, ++3 of the Court of Appeals 4CA5 in CA-6.R. CR-7.C.

'o. ++8+-MI', affirmin9 the Omnibus #ud9ment dated September 8, ++ of the Re9ional $rial

Court, %ranch , %utuan Cit) in Criminal Case 'o. ++ and Criminal Case 'o. +, findin9

appellant Allen ;dto? is hereb) AFFIRMED@ith the MODIFI(ATIONthat the penalt) that should

be imposed on appell ant/s con=iction of =iolation of Section of RA >?, is si 4?5 )ears and one 45

da) ofprision "ayor, as minimum, and fourteen 485 )ears, ei9ht 435 months and one 45 da)

of reclusion te"poral, as maimum.

SO ORDERED.

SE(OND DIVISION

SU ?HI SHAN @ ALVIN (HING SO,

Petitioner,

- =ersus -

PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINESSOLI(ITOR GENERAL,

Respondent.

G.R. No. 16CC

Present:

;IS;M%I'6,J., Chairperson,

CARPIO,

CARPIO MORA"!S,$I'6A, and

!"ASCO, #R.,JJ.

Promul9ated:

March >, ++B

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

D E ( I S I O N

(ARPIO MORALES,J.*

$@o informations for =iolation of Republic Act 4RA5 ?8, as amended b) RA B?> 4&an9erou

Act5, a9ainst Su (hi Shan alias Al=in Chin9 So @ere filed before the Re9ional $rial Court

of Malabon. $he first, doceted as Criminal Case 'o. >>-M', reads:

$hat on or about Ma) 2, +++, in Malabon, Metro Manila, Philippines, and

@ithin the .25 9rams of "etha"pheta"ine hy&rochlori&e, more or

less, and commonl) no@n asshabu, @hich is a re9ulated dru9.

CO'$RARG $O "AH.

01

$he second, doceted as Criminal Case 'o. >>2-M', reads:

$hat on or about March 2, +++, in %aran9a) Potrero, Malabon, Metro

Manila, Philippines, and @ithin the


9/33

rom the account of the prosecution, the follo@in9 e=ents led to the filin9 of the cases:

On bein9 informed on March +, +++ b) a confidential informant that one Su (hi Shan alias

Al=in Chin9 So 4the accused5 @as pushin9 dru9s in Manila, the Philippine 'ational Police 4P'P5

'arcotics 6roup conducted a +-da) sur=eillance in the =icinit) of the residence of the accused at

> Gello@bell, Araneta illa9e, Potrero, Malabon, Metro Manila.

In the course of the sur=eillance, a test-bu) operation @as conducted b) SPO

!d %adua 4SPO %adua5 and the informant durin9 @hich .B 9rams of a substance @ere

obtained. Hhen sub.2 9rams of methamphetamine h)drochloride and

of ille9all) possessin9 ,+B?. 9rams of said substance, @hich are penalied under

Sections and ?, Art. III, RA ?8, as amended b) RA B?>. In =ie@ of the

attendance of one a99ra=atin9 circumstance in the commission of these offenses 0use
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn5http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn6http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn10


10/33

of a motor =ehicle1, @hich @as not offset b) an) miti9atin9 circumstance, the

accused is hereb) condemned to suffer the penalt) of DEATHand to pa) a fine of

P+,+++,+++.++ in each of the t@o cases.

$he Re=o an o@ned b) So as sho@n in !hibit @hich is no@ in the

possession of the Special Pro1ha=in9 been denied,0+1the accused, throu9h couns

the instant Petition01for re=ie@, assi9nin9 8 errors01@hich are s)nthesied in capsule f

follo@s:

. Con=ictin9 the @ron9 person

. 'ot findin9 irre9ularities in the procurement and ser=ice of the search @arrant

2. Considerin9 documents @hich @ere not offered in e=idence, thus i9norin9 Sec.

28, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court

8. ailin9 to compl) @ith standard procedures of dru9 anal)sis

. 7oldin9 that possessin9 or sellin9 of an) substance, such as taas, asshabuis

punishable

?. ailure to appl) the rulin9 inPeople v. 2entura[23]that it is incredible to bu)

@ithout theshabuin si9ht081

B. ailin9 to appl) the rule on entertained denial or alibi

3. Imposin9 t@o outlandish death penalties and imposin9 P+ million fine
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn24


11/33

>. Creditin9 the clear hearsa) e=idence re9ardin9 the alle9ed test-bu) and the

biarre stor) re9ardin9 the alle9ed bu)-bust

+. 7oldin9 that the elements of sellin9 and possessin9shabuare present althou9h

not pro=ed 4specificall) the element that the accused laced the authorit) to

sellshabu501

. indin9 that there @as no @ithdra@al of P++,+++, and

. I9norin9 non-compliance @ith safe9uards a9ainst ille9al bu)-bust or @ith

Supreme Court decisions on bu)-bust.

At the outset, this Court declares it unnecessar) to entertain the issues on alle9ed irre9ularities

in the procurement and ser=ice of the search @arrant, the Court of Appeals ha=in9 acEuitted the

accused in the case for ille9al possession ofshabu. #ust as it declares it unnecessar) to d@ell on the

alle9ed impropriet) in the imposition of the death penalt), the appellate court ha=in9 imposed

instead reclusion perpetua,and 9i=en that RA >28? has prohibited the imposition of death penalt) tothus accordin9l) modif) the present pro=ision of RA B?>. 0?1

In support of his plea for acEuittal, the accused 4hereafter petitioner5 submits that the follo@in9

9rounds dent the credibilit) of PO 6ustes account on the bu)-bust operation:

IRS$ %adua and confidential informant alle9edl) conducted a test-

bu). $he) ne=er mentioned or arran9ed a bu)-bust operation @ith 6uste or

an)bod). Instead, %adua and %alolon9 applied for a se&r4 &rr&!based on the

alle9ed !es!0#/. $he) did not participate in the alle9ed #/0#s!. $he) ne=er

coordinated @ith 6uste the) ne=er arran9ed an) bu)-bust @ith 6uste.

S!CO'& $here @as no ne9otiation to sell. %adua and the confidentialinformant ne=er ne9otiated @ith the accused to sell alon9 MacArthur

7i9h@a) cor. ictoneta A=enue @here the alle9ed bu)-bust @as conducted. %adua,

%alolon9 and the alle9ed confidential informant @ere not presented durin9 the trial.

$7IR& $here @as no s#re$$&4e o !e e#eof the alle9ed #/0#s!

o-er&!o. Matta testified that @hat @as placed under sur=eillance @as alle9edl)

the res'e4e of the appellant and R)an On9 or !e -#r-ose o se4#r% !e

se&r4 &rr&!.

O;R$7 $he alle9ed mone) @as not in si9ht. It @as alle9edl) @rapped.

I$7 Al=in Chin9 So 4not Su #in9 Gue or So Al=in Chen95 alle9edl)

deli=ered the s !o#! rs! see% !e "oe/. 6uste alle9edl) deli=ered

the r&--e'boodle @ithout seein9 the shabu first.

SIF$7 On cross-eamination, 6uste admitted that his onl) participation

@as alle9edl) as poseur-bu)er.

S!!'$7 Te !es!"o/ o G#s!e, &$$e%e' -ose#r0#/er &s o!

4orroor&!e' e4e, 4re'$e.

!I67$ $he alle9ed bu)-bust is contrar) to human eperience and ordinar)

course of thin9s. $he boodle is readil) detectible, especiall) onl) t@o 45 pieces of

9enuine mone) @ere alle9edl) placed on top andbottom of the bundles of

boodle. $he bundles @ere @rapped @ith bro@n en=elope folded t@ice. $he boodle

@as not sho@n to the alle9ed seller. 7o@ could there be bu)in9 and bustin9 under

the circumstancesJ $he bu)er himself does not belie=e sellin9 could be made for a

boodle appearin9 as faeD hence the clums) use of t@o 45 pieces of 9enuine mone).

0B14!mphasis in the ori9inal5

Petitioners submissions do not persuade. PO 6ustes testimon) @as not hearsa). 7e

poseur-bu)er @ho participated in the bu)-bust operation. 7is testimon) @as corroborated b

Inspector !leaar Matta @ho declared that: 7e 4Matta5 @as present @hen the confidential

rela)ed information re9ardin9 Al=in Chin9 Sos dru9 pushin9 acti=itiesD031he participated in p

and conductin9 the sur=eillance operation in the =icinit) of the residence of the accusedD 0>1

test-bu) @as conducted, SPO %adua reported to himD02+1and he @as the team leader dispa

conduct and he @as present durin9 the bu)-bust operation on March 2

at ictoneta A=enue, Malabon.021

PO 6ustes account is lie@ise complemented b) o=er@helmin9 documentar) an

e=idence, includin9 his reEuest for laborator) eamination of the seied substance,

021

the laeamination reports,0221 the bu)-bust mone) used,0281the pre-operational coordination sheet of

'arcotics 6roup, 021the %ooin9 SheetLArrest Report, 02?1and the substance obtained durin9 the b

operation02B1and a photo9raph thereof.0231
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn35http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn38


12/33

$hat the prosecution failed to present SPO %adua and the confidential informer does not

@eaen its case as the discretion to choose @itnesses to be presented for the State and to dispense @ith

the testimonies of @itnesses @ho @ould onl) 9i=e corroboration rests on the prosecution. 02>1

If petitioner belie=ed that there @ere @itnesses @ho could ha=e eculpated him, he could ha=e

called for them, e=en b) compulsor) process, 08+1but he did not.

$hat no e=idence @as presented on the conduct of the sur=eillance and of the =enue for the

test-bust operation and that the sur=eillance @as for the purpose of procurin9 the search @arrant do not

help petitioners case. or e=en if no prior sur=eillance @ere made, the =alidit) of an entrapment

operation, especiall) @hen the bu)-bust team members @ere accompanied to the scene b) their

informant,081as in the case at bar,081is not affected.

In=oin9People v. 2entura0821and in=itin9 attention to the fact that the purchase mone)

presented as e=idence of the second bu)-bust operation @as not =isible as it @as @rapped in an

en=elope, petitioner ar9ues:

In [People v. Ventura], the Supreme Court ruled that it is incredible to

buy ithout the shabu in si!ht. "o!ically, it is incredible to sell ithout the money

in si!ht. #o sell ithout the seein! and countin! the money is contrary to human

nature, habit and ordinary course o$ thin!s.08814Italics and emphasis in the ori9inal5

Petitioners ar9ument does not persuade too. It @ill be recalled that a test-bu) operation had

earlier been conducted, facilitated b) the same confidential informant @ho @as undoubtedl) no@n to

petitioner. 6i=en the trust accorded to the informant, the hurried nature of consummatin9 similar

transactions and the place of the transaction a bus) street open to b)standers and passersb), there

@as nothin9 unusual about petitioners not checin9 first the contents of the bro@n en=elope.

'either does the contention of petitioner tha t it @ould ha=e been improbable for the bu)-bust

sale to ha=e taen place because under the circumstances the boodle mone) could ha=e been easil)

detected as fae persuade. $his Court has affirmed con=ictions in cases of bu)-bust operation

the accused actuall) sa@ that the mone) @as boodle.081

Respectin9 petitioners disclaimer that he is the Su (hi Shan alias Al=in Chin9 So ac

the case, he contends that there is no scintilla of e=idence offered to pro=e that said accused is th

Su #in9 Gue alias So Al=in Chen9 that he is. 08?1$his contention falls in the face of this Courts

rulin9s that the erroneous desi9nation in the Information of the name of the accused does not =i

it is clearl) pro=en that the person accused and brou9ht to court is the person @ho committed th

08B1

AsPeople v. Nava9a0831holds, @hether there li=ed another person @ith the same nam

accused in the area @here the bu)-bust operation @as conducted is immaterial, the identit)

therein accused as the person @ho sold the mari1as in the present case.

It bears notin9 that the information char9in9 petitioner @as prepared after he @as arre

@hile he @as in custod). $here could, therefore, be no doubt that the person @ho @as arre

brou9ht to court is the same person char9ed in the information. !=en PO 6uste identified peti

open court0+1as the person @ho sold theshabuto him as the poseur-bu)er.

On petitioners tain9 issue @ith the manner b) @hich laborator) anal)sis of the conf

plastic ba9s ofshabu@ere eamined, thus:

$he Chemist alle9edl) eamined onl) 2 of the confiscated

substance. Hith respect to the 2 specimen, she did not no@ ho@ and @h) the 2

represented the entire substance in ? 0sic1 paca9es. She did not 9et the specimen or

samplin9 in accordance @ith uni=ersall) accepted samplin9 procedureD that

is ">%, 4o% &' #&r!er% o 1; -&43&%esin accordance @ith the ;'

6uideline. Tereore, se 4o#$' o! 3o !&! !e C s-e4"e&s !e 4orre4!

re-rese!&!e s-e4"e.014!mphasis in ori9inal5,
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn40http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn41http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn42http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn43http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn44http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn45http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn47http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn48http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn51


13/33

he proffers that a Euantitati=e eamination of the confiscated substance should ha=e been done because

0the1 substance sold as shabu bein9 merel) re9ulated, should be

pro=ed be)ond reasonable doubt as real shabu. 7ence, !e esse!&$ re#s!e o

-ro-er #&$!&!e &' #&!!&!eeamination to determine the shabu content of

a substance suspected as shabu. Te re&so s* Te -#s&$e 4r"e s se$$% or

-ossess% s. Bes'es, !e -e&$!/ s &se' o !e s 4o!e!. For

e>&"-$e, e &e & 2;; %r&"s sic o !&&s. . s !&&s, .;;1 s

s. Te 2;; %r&"s o !&&s 4&o! e !e &ss o !e -e&$!/ e4se ! s

o$/ -os!e o .;;1 o s.

01

4!mphasis in the ori9inal5

Albeit this issue is immaterial in so far as the char9e for ille9al possession is concerned,

petitioner ha=in9 been acEuitted b) the appellate court, this Court notes, en passant, that petitioners

position does not lie@ise persuade.

"aborator) tests confirmed that the substance confiscated durin9 the operations isshabu.

021$he records of the case re=eal that the forensic chemical officer, Police Inspector Miladenia O.

$apan, @ho conducted the laborator) eamination too representati=e samples, b) usin9 the Euarterin9

method, from the plastic ba9 of substance sub


14/33

!hibits and ? the photocopies of @ithdra@al slips 0?1presented b) the accused to pro=e that

he @ithdre@ mone) before the supposed huli&apincident do not help petitioners case. As the trial

court noted,

$he hulidap aspect of the defense put up b) So @ill not hold @ater in =ie@

of !hibit H, a pass boo of !Euitable PCI %an in the name of Al=in C. So bearin9

the same account number as those listed in !hibits and ?. $his passboo does not

reflect an) @ithdra@al ha=in9 been made on M&r4 C1, 2;;; in the total amount of

P?+?,+++.++. As a matter of fact, no @ithdra@als in said total amount could ha=e

been made at all on said date because !e o#!s!&'% &$&4e o !e 'e-os! &s oM&r4 2, 2;;; &s o$/ P2=, 2=6.1 and this is the $&s! e!r/ !e s&' -&ss

oo3, !#s so% !&! o M&r4 C1, 2;;;, o !'r&&$ &! &$$ &s "&'e

ro" s&' &44o#!.0??14!mphasis and underscorin9 supplied5

Petitioner ne=ertheless contends that the trial court, in appreciatin9 the ban passboo as

e=idence, =iolated Section 28, Rule 2 of the Rules of !=idence @hich prohibits courts from

considerin9 e=idence @hich has not been formall) offered. $he records of the case sho@, ho@e=er, that

the passboo @as formall) offered as e=idence. 0?B1

inall), on the discreditin9 of petitioners defenses of denial andLor alibi, these defenses 9ain

stren9th onl) if the prosecution fails to meet the Euantum of proof reEuired to o=ercome the

constitutional presumption of innocence. 0?31In the case at bar, ho@e=er, the prosecution has pro=en the

9uilt of petitioner be)ond reasonable doubt.

+HEREFORE, the petition is DENIEDand the challen9ed decision of the Court of Appeals

appealed from is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.


Supreme Court

Manila

SECOND DIVISION


Appellee,

- versus -

JACK RACHO yRA!ERO,

Appellant.

G.R. No. 186529

Present

!ARP"#,J.,

Chairperson,

NA!$%RA,

P&RA'(A,

A)A*, an+

&N*#A,JJ.

Proul/ate+

Au/ust 0, 21

x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn68http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn66http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn67http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2007/march2007/169933.htm#_ftn68


15/33

NACH!RA, J"#

#n appeal is the !ourt of Appeals !A3 *ecision 41+ate+ a 22, 28 in !A-G.R. !R-$.!.

No. 725 affirin/ the Re/ional (rial !ourt42R(!3 oint *ecision40+ate+ ul 8,

27 fin+in/ appellant ac Racho y Ra:uero /uilt beon+ reasonable +oubt of ;iolation of


16/33

$hat at about 2:++ ocloc 4sic5 in the afternoon on Ma) +, ++2 in %aler,

Aurora, the said accused did then and there, unla@full), feloniousl) and @illfull)

transportin9 or deli=erin9 dan9erous dru9 of .+ 0or 8.81 9rams of shabu @ithout

an) permit or license from the proper authorities to transport the same.

CO'$RARG $O "AH.031

*urin/ the arrai/nent, appellant plea+e+ Not Guilt to both char/es.

At the trial, appellant +enie+ liabilit an+ claie+ that he =ent to )aler, Aurora to visit his

brother to infor hi about their ailin/ father. $e aintaine+ that the char/es a/ainst hi

=ere false an+ that no shabu=as taen fro hi. As to the circustances of his arrest, he

e?plaine+ that the police officers, throu/h their van, bloce+ the triccle he =as ri+in/ in@

force+ hi to ali/ht@ brou/ht hi to


17/33

constitutional an+ate that ever accuse+ shall be presue+ innocent unless his /uilt is

proven beon+ reasonable +oubt.417

After a thorou/h revie= of the recor+s of the case an+ for reasons that =ill be +iscusse+

belo=, =e fin+ that appellant can no lon/er :uestion the vali+it of his arrest, but the

sachet of shabuseie+ fro hi +urin/ the =arrantless search is ina+issible in evi+ence

a/ainst hi.

(he recor+s sho= that appellant never obBecte+ to the irre/ularit of his arrest

before his arrai/nent. "n fact, this is the first tie that he raises the issue. !onsi+erin/

this lapse, couple+ =ith his active participation in the trial of the case, =e ust abi+e =ith

Burispru+ence =hich +ictates that appellant, havin/ voluntaril subitte+ to the

Buris+iction of the trial court, is +eee+ to have =aive+ his ri/ht to :uestion the vali+it of

his arrest, thus curin/ =hatever +efect a have atten+e+ his arrest. (he le/alit of the

arrest affects onl the Buris+iction of the court over his person. Appellants =arrantless

arrest therefore cannot, in itself, be the basis of his ac:uittal.415

As to the a+issibilit of the seie+ +ru/ in evi+ence, it is necessar for us to

ascertain =hether or not the search =hich iel+e+ the alle/e+ contraban+ =as la=ful.416

(he 198C !onstitution states that a search an+ conse:uent seiure ust be carrie+

out =ith a Bu+icial =arrant@ other=ise, it becoes unreasonable an+ an evi+ence obtaine+

therefro shall be ina+issible for an purpose in an procee+in/. 41Carrantless search inci+ental to a la=ful arrest@

2.


18/33

stron/ in theselves to =arrant a cautious an to believe that the person accuse+ is /uilt

of the offense =ith =hich he is char/e+.422

(he +eterination of the e?istence or absence of probable cause necessitates a

ree?aination of the establishe+ facts. #n a 19, 20, a confi+ential a/ent of the police

transacte+ throu/h cellular phone =ith appellant for the purchase of shabu. (he a/ent

reporte+ the transaction to the police authorities =ho ie+iatel fore+ a tea to

apprehen+ the appellant. #n a 2, 20, at 11 a.., appellant calle+ up the a/ent

=ith the inforation that he =as on boar+ a Genesis bus an+ =oul+ arrive in )aler, Aurora

antie of the +a =earin/ a re+ an+ =hite stripe+ (-shirt. (he tea ebers poste+

theselves alon/ the national hi/h=a in )aler, Aurora, an+ at aroun+ 0 p.. of the

sae +a, a Genesis bus arrive+ in )aler. >hen appellant ali/hte+ fro the bus, the

confi+ential a/ent pointe+ to hi as the person he transacte+ =ith, an+ =hen the latter

=as about to boar+ a triccle, the tea approache+ hi an+ invite+ hi to the police

station as he =as suspecte+ of carrin/ shabu. >hen he pulle+ out his han+s fro his pants

pocet, a =hite envelope slippe+ therefro =hich, =hen opene+, iel+e+ a sall sachet

containin/ the suspecte+ +ru/.420(he tea then brou/ht appellant to the police station for

investi/ation an+ the confiscate+ specien =as are+ in the presence of appellant. (he

fiel+ test an+ laborator e?ainations on the contents of the confiscate+ sachet iel+e+

positive results for ethaphetaine h+rochlori+e.

!learl, =hat propte+ the police to apprehen+ appellant, even =ithout a =arrant, =as

the tip /iven b the inforant that appellant =oul+ arrive in

)aler, Aurora carrin/ shabu. (his circustance /ives rise to another :uestion =hetherthat inforation, b itself, is sufficient probable cause to effect a vali+ =arrantless arrest.

(he lon/ stan+in/ rule in this Buris+iction is that reliable inforation alone

sufficient to Bustif a =arrantless arrest. (he rule re:uires, in a++ition, that the ac

perfor soe overt act that =oul+ in+icate that he has coitte+, is actuall co

or is atteptin/ to coit an offense.427>e fin+ no co/ent reason to +epart fro

=ell-establishe+ +octrine.

(he instant case is siilar to People v. Aruta,425People v. Tudtud,426an+ Pe

Nuevas.42C

"n People v. Aruta, a police officer =as tippe+ off b his inforant that a certain Alin

=oul+ be arrivin/ fro )a/uio !it the follo=in/ +a =ith a lar/e volue of ari

Actin/ on sai+ tip, the police asseble+ a tea an+ +eploe+ theselves ne

Philippine National )an PN)3 in #lon/apo !it. >hile thus positione+, a ;ictor 'in

stoppe+ in front of the PN) buil+in/ =here t=o feales an+ a an /ot off. (he info

then pointe+ to the tea ebers the =oan, Alin/ Rosa, =ho =as then carrtravelin/ ba/. (hereafter, the tea approache+ her an+ intro+uce+ theselves.

ase+ about the contents of her ba/, she han+e+ it to the apprehen+in/ officers.

inspection, the ba/ =as foun+ to contain +rie+ ariBuana leaves.428

(he facts in People v. Tudtud sho= that in ul an+ Au/ust, 1999, the (oril Police hile con+uctin/ stationar surveillance an+ onitorin/ of ille/al +ru/ trafficin/, the

sa= the accuse+ =ho fit the +escription, carrin/ a plastic ba/. (he police accoste+ the

accuse+ an+ infore+ hi that the =ere police officers. %pon inspection of the plastic

ba/ carrie+ b the accuse+, the ba/ containe+ ariBuana +rie+ leaves an+ brics =rappe+

in a blue cloth. "n his bi+ to escape char/es, the accuse+ +isclose+ =here t=o other ale

persons =oul+ ae a +eliver of ariBuana leaves. %pon seein/ the t=o ale persons,

later i+entifie+ as Renal+o *in an+ Dernan+o "nocencio, the police approache+ the,

intro+uce+ theselves as police officers, then inspecte+ the ba/ the =ere carrin/. %pon

inspection, the contents of the ba/ turne+ out to be ariBuana leaves.40

"n all of these cases, =e refuse+ to vali+ate the =arrantless search precisel because there

=as no a+e:uate probable cause. >e re:uire+ the sho=in/ of soe overt act in+icative of

the criinal +esi/n.

As in the above cases, appellant herein =as not coittin/ a crie in the presence of the

police officers. Neither +i+ the arrestin/ officers have personal no=le+/e of facts

in+icatin/ that the person to be arreste+ ha+ coitte+, =as coittin/, or about to

coit an offense. At the tie of the arrest, appellant ha+ Bust ali/hte+ fro the Geini

bus an+ =as =aitin/ for a triccle. Appellant =as not actin/ in an suspicious anner that

=oul+ en/en+er a reasonable /roun+ for the police officers to suspect an+ conclu+e that he

=as coittin/ or inten+in/ to coit a crie. >ere it not for the inforation /iven b

the inforant, appellant =oul+ not have been apprehen+e+ an+ no search =oul+ hav

a+e, an+ conse:uentl, the sachet of shabu=oul+ not have been confiscate+.

>e are not una=are of another set of Burispru+ence that +ees reliable infor

sufficient to Bustif a search inci+ent to a la=ful =arrantless arrest. As cite+ in Pe

Tudtud,these inclu+ePeople v.

Maspil, Jr.,401People v. Bagista,402People v. Balingan,400People v. Lising,407Peo

Montilla,405People v. Valdez,406an+ People v. onzales.40C"n these cases, the

sustaine+ the vali+it of the =arrantless searches not=ithstan+in/ the absence of

acts or suspicious circustances that =oul+ in+icate that the accuse+ ha+ coitte

actuall coittin/, or atteptin/ to coit a crie. )ut as aptl observe+ b the

e?cept in Valdez an+ onzales,the =ere covere+ b the other e?ceptions to th

a/ainst =arrantless searches.408

Neither =ere the arrestin/ officers ipelle+ b an ur/enc that =oul+ allo= the

a=a =ith the re:uisite =arrant. As testifie+ to b Police #fficer 1 Aurelio "ni=eber of the arrestin/ tea, their office receive+ the tippe+ inforation on

20. (he lie=ise learne+ fro the inforant not onl the appellants phsical +esc

but also his nae. Althou/h it =as not certain that appellant =oul+ arrive on the sa

a 193, there =as an assurance that he =oul+ be there the follo=in/ +a a

!learl, the police ha+ aple opportunit to appl for a =arrant. 409

#bviousl, this is an instance of seiure of the fruit of the poisonous tree, henc

confiscate+ ite is ina+issible in evi+ence consonant =ith Article """,


20/33

>ithout the confiscate+ shabu, appellants conviction cannot be sustaine+ base+ on the

reainin/ evi+ence. (hus, an ac:uittal is =arrante+, +espite the =aiver of appellant of his

ri/ht to :uestion the ille/alit of his arrest b enterin/ a plea an+ his active participation in

the trial of the case. As earlier entione+, the le/alit of an arrest affects onl the

Buris+iction of the court over the person of the accuse+. A =aiver of an ille/al, =arrantless

arrest +oes not carr =ith it a =aiver of the ina+issibilit of evi+ence seie+ +urin/ an

ille/al =arrantless arrest.47

#ne final note. As clearl state+ in People v. Nuevas,471

? ? ? "n the final analsis, =e in the a+inistration of Bustice =oul+ have no

ri/ht to e?pect or+inar people to be la=-abi+in/ if =e +o not insist on the

full protection of their ri/hts.


21/33

That on or about the 24th day of May 2003, in Pasay City, Metro

Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,

the above-named accused DON DJOWEL A. SALES, without authority of

law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his

possession, custody and control 0.23 gram of dried Marijuana fruiting

tops, a dangerous drug.

Rollo, pp. 27-41. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang with Associate Justices Arturo

G. Tayag and Michael P. Elbinias concurring.

Id. at 42-43.

CA rolla, pp. 18-28. Penned by Judge Pedro B. Corales

Page 2

Decision

2

G.R. No. 191023

Contrary to law. x x x

4

Upon arraignment, petitioner duly assisted by counselde oficio,

pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial established that on

May 24, 2003, petitioner was scheduled to board a Cebu Pacific plane bound

for Kalibo, Aklan at its 9:45 a.m. flight. He arrived at the old Manila

Domestic Airport (now Terminal 1), Domestic Road, Pasay City at around

8:30 in the morning. As part of the routine security check at the pre-

departure area, petitioner passed through the Walk-Thru Metal DetectorMachine and immediately thereafter was subjected to a body search by a

male frisker on duty, Daniel M. Soriano, a non-uniformed personnel (NUP)

of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Aviation Security Group (ASG).

5

While frisking petitioner, Soriano felt something slightly bulging

inside the right pocket of his short pants. When Soriano asked petitioner to

bring the item out, petitioner obliged but refused to open his hands. Soriano

struggled with petitioner as the latter was nervous and reluctant to show

what he brought out from his pocket. Soriano then called the attention of his

supervisor, PO1 Cherry Trota-Bartolome who was nearby.

6

PO1 Trota-Bartolome approached petitioner and asked him to open

his hands. Petitioner finally opened his right hand revealing two rolled paper

sticks with dried marijuana leaves/fruiting tops. After informing petitioner ofhis constitutional rights, PO1 Trota-Bartolome brought petitioner and the

seized evidence to the 2

nd

Police Center for Aviation Security (2

nd

PCAS),

PNP-ASG Intelligence and Investigation Branch and immediately turned

over petitioner to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Airport

Team at the Ramp Area, Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA)

Complex, Pasay City.

7

The investigating officer, POII Samuel B. Hojilla,

8

placed the markings on the two marijuana sticks: SBH-A and SBH-B.

9

The specimens marked SBH-A and SBH-B when subjected t o

chemical analysis at the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, QuezonCity yielded positive results for the presence of marijuana, a dangerous

drug.

10

Denying the charge against him, petitioner testified that on May 24,

2003, he, together with his girl friend and her family were headed to

Boracay Island for a vacation. While he was queuing to enter the airport, he

was frisked by two persons, a male and a female. The two asked him to

4

Records, p. 1.

5

Rollo, p. 30.

6

Id. at 30-31.

7

Exhibit I (Booking Sheet/Arrest Report), folder of exhibits, pp. 9-10.

8

Also referred to as Hubilla in some parts of the records.

9

TSN, February 2, 2005, pp. 7-8, 12-13.

10

Exhibits E and F, folder of exhibits, pp. 7-8.

P

Decision

3

G.R. No. 191023

empty his pockets since it was bulging. Inside his pocket were a pack ofcigarettes and cash in the amount of P8,000.00 i n 500 peso-bills. His girl

friend told him to get a boarding pass but he asked her to wait for him as he

will still use the comfort room. On the way to the comfort room, he was

blocked by a male person who frisked him for a second time, asking for his

boarding pass. This male person wearing a white shirt wit hout an ID card,


22/33

asked petitioner to empty his pockets which he did. The male person then

said it was okay but as petitioner proceeded to go inside the comfort room,

the male person called him again saying that this fell from you and

showing him two small white wrappings whi ch seemed to be marijuana.

Petitioner told the male person that those items were not his but t he latter

said they will talk about it in the comfort room.

11

At that point, petitioner claimed that his girl friend was already

shouting (Ano yan, ano yan?) as she saw PO1 Trota-Bartolome

approaching them. PO1 Trota-Bartolome then told petitioner to explain at

the ground floor while the male person (Soriano) was showing to her the

marijuana sticks saying Maam, I saw this from him. Petitioner went backto the comfort room and there he saw his girl friends father (the Mayor of

their hometown, Camiling, Tarlac) talking with a police officer. However,

his girl friend and her family left him and he was investigated by the police

officers.

12

The prosecution presented the testimonies of the following: PO1

Trota-Bartolome, P/Insp. Sandra Decena-Go (Forensic Officer, Chemistry

Division, PNP-Crime Laboratory) and NUP Soriano.

After trial, the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of

which reads:

WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the Court finds the

accused, Don Djowel Sales y Abalahin, GUILTY beyond reasonable

doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, also

known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer indeterminate penalty of

imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum, to

fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as maximum, and to

pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) without

subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

The 0.23 gram of dried marijuana fruiting tops confiscated from

the accused is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government. The

officer-in-charge of this Court is hereby ordered to immediately turnover

the same to the appropriate government agency for proper disposition in

accordance with law.

Cost against the accused.

SO ORDERED.

1311

TSN, April 16, 2008, pp. 3-12.

12

Id. at 12-16.

13

CA rollo, p. 28.

P

Decision

4

G.R. No. 191023

On appeal, the CA ruled that the body search conducted on petitioner

is a valid warrantless search made pursuant to a routine airport security

procedure allowed by law. It found no merit in petitioners theory of frame-

up and extortion. On the issue of the integrity and probative value of the

evidence used to convict petitioner, the CA held that there is no hiatus or

confusion that the marijuana that was marked at the airport, then subjected to

qualitative examination on the same day and eventually introduced as

evidence against petitioner, is the same prohibited drug that was found in his

custody and possession when he was apprehended at the pre-departure area

of the airport in the morning of May 24, 2003.

The CA also explained that while the marijuana leaves referred to

by Soriano in his testimony was otherwise called by the public prosecutor

and the Forensic Chemical Officer as dried marijuana fruiting tops in both

the criminal information and the Laboratory Report, these do not refer to

different items. Both marijuana leaves with fruiting tops were rolled in two

papers which were actually found and seized from petitioners possession in

the course of a routine security search and frisking.

With the denial of his motion for reconsideration, petitioner is now

before us alleging that the CA failed to address the following assignederrors:

IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED WITH COMPETENT

EVIDENCE THAT THE ITEMS SUPPOSEDLY TAKEN FROM THE

APPELLANT WERE THE VERY SAME ITEMS THAT REACHED

THE CHEMIST FOR ANALYSIS;

THIS, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF THE PROSECUTIONS

IMPROBABLE SCENARIO AT THE AIRPORT WHERE, FOR NO

SPECIAL REASON GIVEN, THE APPELLANT HAD TO BE

METICULOUSLY BODILY SEARCHED EVEN AFTER HE HAD

TWICE SUCCESSFULLY PASSED THROUGH THE DETECTOR.

14

The petition has no merit.

In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the

following facts must be proven with moral certainty: (1) that the accused isin possession of the object identified as prohibited or regulated drug; (2) that

such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and

consciously possessed the said drug.

15

In this case, the prosecution has satisfactorily established that airport


23/33

security officers found in the person of petitioner the marijuana fruiting tops

contained in rolled paper sticks during the final security check at the

airports pre-departure area. Petitioner at first refused to show the contents

of his short pants pocket to Soriano who became suspicious when his hand

felt the slightly bulging item while frisking petitioner.

14

Rollo, p. 18.

15

People v. Del Norte, G.R. No. 149462, March 29, 2004, 426 SCRA 383, 388.

Page 5

Decision

5

G.R. No. 191023

In People v. Johnson,

16

which also involved seizure of a dangerous

drug from a passenger during a routine frisk at the airport, this Court ruled

that such evidence obtained in a warrantless search was acquired

legitimately pursuant to airport security procedures, thus:

Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by

exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a

lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is

prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport

security procedures. With increased concern over airplane hijacking andterrorism has come increased security at the nations airports. Passengers

attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors;

their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected

to x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of

suspicious objects, physical searches are conducted to determine what the

objects are. There is little question that such searches are reasonable,

given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests

involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline

travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified through airport public address

systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to

search and, if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such

would be subject to seizure. These announcements place passengers on

notice that ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches

and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures.17

Petitioner concedes that frisking passengers at the airport is a standard

procedure but assails the conduct of Soriano and PO1 Trota-Bartolome in

singling him out by making him stretch out his arms and empty his pockets.

Petitioner believes such meticulous search was unnecessary because, as

Soriano himself testified, there was no beep sound when petitioner walked

past through the metal detector and hence nothing suspicious was indicated

by that initial security check. He likewise mentioned the fact that he was

carrying a bundle of money at that time, which he said was not accounted

for.

We find no irregularity in the search conducted on petitioner who was

asked to empty the contents of his pockets upon the friskers reasonable

belief that what he felt in his hand while frisking petitioners short pants was

a prohibited or illegal substance.

Such search was made pursuant to routine airport security procedure,

which is allowed under Section 9 of R.A. No. 6235. Said provision reads:

SEC. 9. Every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or aircarrier concerned shall contain among others the following condition

printed thereon: Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are

subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances.

Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft,

which shall constitute a part of the contract between the passenger and the

air carrier. (Italics in the original)

16

401 Phil. 734 (2000).

17

Id. at 743.

P

Decision6

G.R. No. 191023

The ruling in People v.Johnson was applied in People v. Canton

18

where the accused, a female passenger was frisked at the NAIA after passing

through the metal detector booth that emitted a beeping sound. Since the

frisker noticed something bulging at accuseds abdomen, thighs and genital

area, which felt like packages containing rice granules, accused was

subjected to a thorough physical examination inside the ladies room. Three

sealed packages were taken from accuseds body which when submitted for

laboratory examination yielded positive results for methamphetamine

hydrochloride or shabu. Accused was forthwith arrested and prosecuted for

illegal possession of a regulated drug.

Affirming accused Cantons conviction for the crime of illegalpossession of shabu, we ruled that accused-appellant was lawfully arrested

without a warrant after being caught inflagrante delicto. We further held

that the scope of a search pursuant to airport security procedure is not

confined only to search for weapons under the Terry search

19


24/33

doctrine.

The more extensive search conducted on accused Canton was necessitated

by the discovery of packages on her body, her apprehensiveness and false

statements which aroused the suspicion of the frisker t hat she was hiding

something illegal. Thus:

x x x. It must be repeated that R.A. No. 6235 authorizes search

for prohibited materials or substances. To limit the action of the airport

security personnel to simply refusing her entry into the aircraft and

sending her home (as suggested by appellant), and thereby depriving them

of the ability and facility to act accordingly, including to further search

without warrant, in light of such circumstances, would be to sanction

impotence and ineffectivity in law enforcement, to the detriment of

society. Thus, the strip search in the ladies room was justified under the

circumstances.

20

(Emphasis supplied)

The search of the contents of petitioners short pants pockets being a

valid search pursuant to routine airport security procedure, the illegal

substance (marijuana) seized from him was therefore admissible in evidence.

Petitioners reluctance to show the contents of his short pants pocket after

the friskers hand felt the rolled papers containing marijuana, and his

nervous demeanor aroused the suspicion of the arresting officers that he was

indeed carrying an item or material subject to confiscation by the said

authorities.

The trial and appellate courts correctly gave credence to thestraightforward and candid testimonies of PO1 Trota-Bartolome and NUP

18

442 Phil. 743 (2002).

19

From the US Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 20 L. Ed. 2nd 889 (1968) cited in

People v. Canton, id. at 756-757.

The Terry search or the stop and frisk situation refers to a case where a police officer

approaches a person who is acting suspiciously, for purposes of investigating possibly criminal

behavior in line with the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection. To assure

himself that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly

and fatally be used against him, he could validly conduct a carefully limited search of the outer

clothing of such person to discover weapons which might be used to assault him.

20

People v. Canton, id. at 757-758.

Page 7

Decision

7

G.R. No. 191023

Soriano on the frisking of petitioner at the pre-departure area, during which

the two rolled papers containing dried marijuana fruiting tops were found in

his possession, and on petitioners immediate arrest and investigation by

police officers from the 2

nd

PCAS and PDEA teams stationed at the airport.

As a matter of settled jurisprudence on illegal possession of drug cases,

credence is usually accorded the narration of the incident by the

apprehending police officers who are presumed to have performed their

duties in a regular manner.

21

Petitioner reiterates his defense of being a victim of an alleged frame-up and extortion. However, the CA found his claim unworthy of belief

considering that there is no evidence that the apprehending police authorities

had known petitioner before he was caught and arrested for possession of

marijuana. The CA aptly observed:

It bears stressing that while the defense of Sales is anchored

heavily on his theory of purported frame-up and extortion, nonetheless

Sales testimony is without any allegation t hat the police and security

personnel who participated in his arrest, investigation and detention have

demanded money in exchange for his freedom, the withdrawal of the

drugs charge against him, or otherwise their desistance from testifying

against him in court. True enough, Sales himself admitted in the course of

the trial that the security and police personnel demanded him to turn over

and surrender all his possessions, to wit: cellular phone, pla[n]e ticket and

boarding pass, except his money (TSN, April 16, 2008, p. 18). This, to

the mind of this Court, strongly belied Sales imputation of frame-up by

the police to secure monetary gain.

22

(Emphasis and underscoring in the

original)

Petitioner questions the integrity of the drug specimen supposedly

confiscated from him at the airport by PO1 Trota-Bartolome. He maintains

that there was no evidence adduced to assure that those items that reached

the Chemist were the same items which were taken from him. This is

crucial since the Chemist had said that the items were brought to her, not by

the PNP officer, but another person (SPO2 Rosendo Olandesca of PDEA)

who was not presented as witness.

As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rulerequires that the presentation and admission of the seized prohibited drug as

an exhibit be preceded by evidence to support a finding that the matter in

question is what the proponent claims it to be. This requirement is essential

to obviate the possibility of substitution as well as to ensure that doubts

regarding the identity of the evidence are removed through the monitoring


25/33

and tracking of the movements and custody of the seized prohibited item,

from the accused, to the police, to t he forensic laboratory for examination,

and to its presentation in evidence in court. Ideally, the custodial chain

would include testimony about every link in the chain or movements of the

illegal drug, from the moment of seizure until it is finally adduced in

21

Castro v. People, G.R. No. 193379, August 15, 2011, 655 SCRA 431, 441.

22

Rollo, p. 37.

Page 8

Decision8

G.R. No. 191023

evidence. It cannot be overemphasized, however, that a testimony about a

perfect chain is almost always impossible to obtain.

23

The identity of the seized substance in dangerous drug cases is thus

established by showing its chain of custody. Section 1(b) of Dangerous

Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defined the concept of chain

of custody as follows:

b. Chain of Custody means 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 tosafekeeping 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 t he course of

safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]

The rule on chain of custody under R.A. No. 9165 and its

implementing rules and regulations (IRR) expressly demands the

identification of the persons who handle the confiscated items for the

purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs

and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused

until the time they are presented in court.

24

We have held, however, that the

failure of the prosecution to show compliance with the proceduralrequirements provided in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR

is not fatal and does not automatically render accused-appellants arrest

illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.

25

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 or innocence of the accused.

26

As long as the chain of custody remains

unbroken, the guilt of the accused will not be affected.

27

After a thorough review of the records, we hold that the prosecution in

this case has established by facts proved at the trial that the chain of custody

requirement was not broken.

During her direct-examination, PO1 Trota-Bartolome narrated clearly

and consistently how she obtained initial custody of the seized dangerousdrug while on duty at the airports pre-departure area. Said witness

identified Exhibits G and H with markings SBH-A and SBH-B

presented in court to be the same dried marijuana fruiti ng tops in two rol led

papers that they found in the possession of petitioner while the latter was

being frisked by Soriano. She also testified that petitioner and the

23

Castro v. People, supra note 21, at 440.

24

People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666 SCRA 518, 533.

25

People v. Rosialda, G.R. No. 188330, August 25, 2010, 629 SCRA 507, 520-521, citing People

Rivera, G.R. No. 182347, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 879, 897-898.

26

Id. at 521, citing People v. Del Monte, G.R. No. 179940, April 23, 2008, 552 SCRA 627, 636.

27

People v. Manlangit, G.R. No. 189806, January 12, 2011, 639 SCRA 455, 469-470, citing Peop

Rosialda, supra note 25, at 522.

P

Decision

9

G.R. No. 191023

confiscated marijuana were promptly brought to the PDEA team stationed at

the airport where it was marked in her presence by the assigned officer,

Samuel B. Hojilla, using his own initials.

28

The two rolled papers containingmarijuana fruiting tops with markings SBH-A and SBH-B was

submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory on the same day by SPO2 Rosendo

Olandesca.

29

Police Inspector Engr. Sandra Decena-Go, Forensic Chemical


26/33

Officer at the PNP Crime Laboratory likewise testified that on the same day,

she personally received from SPO2 Olandesca the letter-request together

with the seized dried marijuana fruiting tops in two rolled papers (sheet

cigarette wrapper) like improvised cigarette sticks, marked as SBH-A and

SBH-B and wrapped in white bond paper.

30

After describing the condition

of the specimen at the time she received it, P/Insp. Decena-Go confirmed the

findings of the chemical analysis of the said substance already presented in

court, and identified her Initial Laboratory Report and Certification, both

dated May 24, 2003, stating that the qualitative examination gave positive

results for the presence of Marijuana.31

We find no merit in petitioners argument that the non-presentation of

SPO2 Olandesca and PO2 Hojilla as witnesses is fatal to the prosecutions

case. As this Court held in People v. Amansec

32

:

x x x there is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in its

implementing rules, which requires each and everyone who came into

contact with the seized drugs to testify in court. As long as the chain of

custody of the seized drug was clearly established to have not been broken

and the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is

not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of

the drugs should take the witness stand. This Court, inPeople v.

Hernandez,

33

citing People v. Zeng Hua Dian,

34

ruled:

After a thorough review of the records of this case

we find that the chain of custody of the seized substance

was not broken and that the prosecution did not fail to

identify properly the drugs seized in this case. The non-

presentation as witnesses of other persons such as SPO1

Grafia, the evidence custodian, and PO3 Alamia, the officer

on duty, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The

matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is

not for the court to decide. The prosecution has thediscretion as to how to present its case and it has the right

to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses.

35

In the light of the testimonial, documentary and object evidence on

record, the CA correctly concluded that the identity, integrity and probative

value of the seized marijuana were adequately preserved. The prosecution

28

TSN, February 2, 2005, pp. 6-10, 12-14.

29

Exhibit D, folder of exhibits, p. 6.

30

Exhibit D-2, id.; TSN, August 16, 2005, pp. 11-16, 33-43, 51-52, 58-60.

31

Exhibits E and F, id. at 7-8; id. at 18-22.

32

G.R. No. 186131, December 14, 2011, 662 SCRA 574.

33G.R. No. 184804, June 18, 2009, 589 SCRA 625, 647-648.

34

G.R. No. 145348, June 14, 2004, 432 SCRA 25, 32.

35

People v. Amansec, supra note 32, at 595.

Pa

Decision

10

G.R. No. 191023

has proved with moral certainty that the two pieces of rolled papers

containing dried marijuana fruiting tops presented in court were the same

items seized from petitioner during the routine frisk at the airport in the

morning of May 24, 2003. It s presentation in evidence as part of the corpus

delicti was therefore sufficient to convict petitioner.

As to the penalty imposed by the R TC, we find the same in order and

proper.

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari isDENIED.

The Decision dated September 30, 2009 and Resolution dated January 27,

2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 31942 are hereby

AFFIRMED and UPHELD.

With costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED


Supreme CourtManila

FIRST DIVISION


27/33


Plaintiff-Appellee,

- versus-

(ESAR BAUTISTAySANTOS,Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 177C2;

Present:

CORO'A, C.J., Chairperson,

"!O'AR&O-&! CAS$RO,

%!RSAMI',

I""ARAMA, #R., and*P!R"AS-%!R'A%!,JJ.

Promul9ated:

ebruar) , +

;


28/33

;pon arri=in9 at the tar9et area, the informant pointed out %autista to the team. %autista @as

then standin9 in front of a house. PO $a)a9 and the informant then approached %autista e=en as the

rest of the team too up positions nearb). $he informant introduced PO $a)a9 to %autista as biyahero

ng shabu,after @hich the informant left PO $a)a9 and %autista alone to themsel=es. PO $a)a9 told

%autista: Cesar, pa:uha ng piso.%autista dre@ a plastic sachet from his pocet and handed it to PO

$a)a9, @ho in turn handed the P++.++ bill bu)-bust mone) to %autista. PO $a)a9 then turned his cap

bac@ards as the pre-arran9ed si9nal to the bac-up members. $he latter rushed for@ard and arrested

%autista. ;pon informin9 %autista of his constitutional ri9hts, SPO Gbae frised him and found in

his pocet si other plastic sachets, @hile PO Cara9da9 seied the bu)-bust mone) from %autistas

hand. $he team brou9ht %autista and the seied plastic sachets bac to the police station. 01

In the police station, the team recorded the bu)-bust bill in the police blotter and turned o=er

the plastic sachets to PO 7ector Castillo, the in=esti9ator on dut). 0?1PO Castillo mared the sachet

handed b) %autista to PO $a)a9 as C%S 4%autistas initials5 %u)-bust, and the other si sachets

reco=ered b) SPO Gbae from appellants possession as C%S-, C%S-, C%S-2, C%S-8, C%S-, and

C%S-?.0B1

%ased on the @ritten reEuest of Insp. Cru, orensic Chemist Albert S. Arturo conducted alaborator) eamination on the contents of the mared sachets,031and stated in his Ph)sical Science

Report that the mared sachets contained methamphetamine h)drochloride orshabu, a dan9erous

substance. $he Ph)sical Science Report enumerated the mared sachets eamined and 9a=e the @ei9ht

of theshabuin each as follo@s: C%S 4%autistas initials5 %u)-bust +.+ 9ramD C%S- +.+ 9ramD C%S-

+.+> 9ramD C%S-2 +.+ 9ramD C%S-8 +.+> 9ramD C%S- +.+B 9ramD and C%S-? +.+? 9ram. 0>1

E'e4e o !e A44#se'

%autista denied the char9e. 7e claimed that on April , ++2, at around ?:++ p.m., he and his

@ife, Rosario, @ere in their house cuttin9 cloth to be made into door mats @hen PO $a)a9 and t@o

others bar9ed inD that @hen he ased @hat the) @anted, the) told him that it @as none of his businessD

that the three introduced themsel=es as policemen and ordered him to 9o @ith themD that the) forced

him to 9o @ith them, @ith PO $a)a9 hittin9 him on the napeD that as the) @ere @alin9 on the road,

the) demanded mone) from him, but he told them that he had noneD and that he @as brou9h

detained at the Caloocan Cit) #ail. 0+1

De4so o !e RT(

After trial, the R$C found %autista 9uilt) as char9ed throu9h its >2 for iolation of Sec. , Art. II of RA

>?, this Court in the absence of an) a99ra=atin9 circumstance hereb) sentences

same Accused to a prison term of t@el=e 45 )ears, ei9ht 435 months and one da) to

se=enteen 4B5 )ears and ei9ht 435 months and to pa) the fine of $hree hundred

thousand pesos 4P2++,+++.++5 @ith subsidiar) imprisonment in case of insol=enc)D

and

. In Crim. Case 'o. C-?B>>8 for iolation of Section , Art. II of R.A.

>?, this Court in the absence of an) a99ra=atin9 circumstance hereb) sentences

said Accused to "I! IMPRISO'

criminal law 2 cases

Documents