SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 205823, August 17, 2015
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. REGIE BREIS Y ALVARADO AND GARY YUMOL Y TUAZON,*Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, J.:
That in the afternoon of February 10, 2010, at Gov. Pack Road, this City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in conspiracy with each other, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in their possession, custody and control marijuana with a recorded net weight of 8,181 grams of dried marijuana leaves/fruiting tops wrapped in plastic and further wrapped with brown packaging tape and placed inside a brown box, without the authority of law and knowing fully well that said dried marijuana leaves/fruiting tops are dangerous drugs, in violation of the afore-cited provisions of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW to Sec. 11 of RA 9165.3
Around 3:00 o'clock PM of February 10, 2009 (sic), an informant went to the PDEA-CAR field office at Melvin Jones, Harrison Road, Baguio City and offered the information that the accused were bound to transport a box of marijuana from Baguio City to Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga. Mangili gathered that the accused have been frequently traveling from Pampanga to Baguio to get marijuana bricks from their supplier at La Trinidad, Benguet. Mangili referred the informant to Senior PDEJA Officer Tacio for further interview and then the matter was referred to the PDEA Officer-in-Charge Edgar Apalla, who after careful evaluation, ordered Agent Tacio to form a team for the entrapment of the accused.
Agent Tacio created a team composed of Mangili and Peralta as arresting officer and seizing officer, respectively, and briefed them on the operations to be conducted. Tacio disclosed to the team that the accused were to transport by a public transport bus from Baguio City to Dau, Pampanga bricks of marijuana packed in a carton and that the departure from Baguio was scheduled at around 5:00 o'clock PM of that day. The accused Breis would be in a white t-shirt with "Starbucks" logo and dark jeans while accused Yumol would be wearing a black t-shirt with a white print and blue jeans. Both the accused were described as standing about 5 feet and 5 inches, thin, and dark complexion.
When the briefing was through, the team proceeded to the Genesis Bus terminal at Governor Pack Road, Baguio City at around 4:30 o'clock PM. Due to time constraints, the PDEA team chose not to secure any warrant nor coordinate with the nearest police station.
Upon reaching the bus terminal, Mangili asked the bus conductor to identify the bus which would leave at 5:00 o'clock PM. Mangili was directed to Genesis bus with plate number TXX 890. Thus, pretending to be passengers, Mangili and Peralta boarded the bus and they observed two male individuals whose physical appearances fitted the descriptions given by the informant. Both agents likewise saw a box placed in between the legs of accused Breis.
Mangili sat behind the accused while Peralta, stood near where the accused were seated. In order to have a clearer view of the box tucked in between the feet of accused Breis if the same fit the box described by informant, Mangili took the seat opposite where the accused were seated and saw that the box was with the markings "Ginebra San Miguel" and which was described by the informant. Mangili then casually asked accused Yumol who owned the "Ginebra San Miguel" box, the accused replied that it was theirs.
Accused Yumol suddenly stood up and tried to leave but before he could do so, Peralta blocked his way while Mangili confronted accused Breis and asked what was contained in the box. Instead of answering, Breis shoved Mangili and tried to flee but Mangili was able to block his way as he was much larger than the accused Yumol (sic). Mangili ordered him to sit down.
Agent Peralta then summoned the back-up officers to help secure the bus and subdue the accused. After introducing themselves as PDEA agents, Mangili asked the accused Breis to open the box but Breis ignored the request which made Mangili lift and open the box. He took one brick and discovered it was marijuana. The "Ginebra San Miguel" box yielded three more bricks of marijuana. Mangili then marked the items on site.
Agent Peralta then informed the accused that they were being arrested for violation of Rep. Act No. 9165 and then he read their constitutional rights in Pilipino to them.
Thereafter, the team returned to the PDEA-CAR office of Melvin Jones, Baguio City for documentation such as the preparation of the affidavits of Agents Mangili and Peralta, Booking Sheet and Arrest Report of both accused, Request for Physical Exam and Request for Laboratory Exam. Inventory likewise was done around 7:43 o'clock PM on February 10, 2010 at the said PDEA-CAR office.
After the documentation and inventory, the accused were brought to the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC) and Medico-Legal Certificates were issued showing that the accused had no external signs of physical injuries at the time of their examination. Chemistry Report No. D-08-2010 indicates that the confiscated items from the accused yielded positive to (sic) the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drugs (sic).4
Accused, both construction workers, left Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga for Baguio at around 6:00 o'clock AM of February 9, 2010 to visit a certain Edwin Garcia, an acquaintance and a resident of Loakan, Baguio City. Edwin Garcia had offered the accused to be upholsterers in his upholstery business way back in December of 2008.
At around 11:00 o'clock AM, the accused arrived in Baguio City and because they did not know the exact address and contact number of Edwin Garcia, they took a chance and decided to take a cab to Loakan. However, they failed to find Garcia's house despite asking the residents of Loakan. So, they decided to go back to the Genesis bus terminal and go back home to Pampanga.
Upon reaching the terminal, they ate and took the 4:30 o'clock PM bus for Pampanga. They were already boarded when accused Yumol stepped out to buy a bottle of water. Thereafter, Mangili went near accused Breis and uttered something inaudible, and thinking that the seat he was occupying was Mangili's, accused Breis stood up to give up his seat but instead Mangili pushed him and accused Breis asked what seems to be the problem. Mangili then asked if he owns the box under the seat in front of his, Breis replied in the negative. Mangili then opened the box, got one of the bricks contained therein, sliced the same and saw that it was marijuana. Accused Breis, infuriated, retorted that the accusation is baseless and malicious.
Mangili then summoned his companions and they dragged accused Breis outside the bus when suddenly, accused Yumol arrived and inquired what the commotion was all about. The group then asked if he (Yumol) was a companion of accused Breis and when he answered positively, Yumol was likewise apprehended.
Both the accused were then brought to the PDEA Office and were forced to admit ownership of the box of marijuana, but they refused and thus they were hit with the bricks of marijuana. One of the agents even squeezed the scrotum of accused Yumol in the hope that he will admit ownership over the box of marijuana.5
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered finding the accused Regie Breis y Alvarado and Gary Yumol y Tuazon GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt and they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and each to pay a fine of P5,000,000.00.
Both the accused are immediately ORDERED TO BE TRANSFERRED to the National Penitentiary in Muntinlupa City, Metro Manila.
SO ORDERED.7
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.8
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the appealed Decision dated February 14, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Baguio City, Branch 61, in Criminal Case No. 30409-R, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.9
1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory' and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items; x x x. (Boldfacing and underscoring supplied)
Nonetheless, the Court has acknowledged the practical value of the process of marking the confiscated contraband and considered it as an initial stage in the chain of custody - a process preliminary and preparatory to the physical inventory and photograph requirements in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165:LawlibraryofCRAlawThis step initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 [of Republic act No. 9165] and on allegations of robbery or theft.
"Marking" is the placing by the apprehending officer of some distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on the items seized. It helps ensure that the dangerous drugs seized upon apprehension are the same dangerous drugs subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station or at some other practicable venue rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items - to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence — should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.
"Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. Indeed, marking upon immediate confiscation has been interpreted as to even include marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. In this case, the dangerous drugs taken from accused-appellants were marked in his presence immediately upon confiscation at the very venue of his arrest.21 (Citations omitted)
The irregularities in the handling procedure of the seized items are manifold. There is no indication what steps were taken after the seizure, whether the items were turned over to the investigator or to the desk officer before SPO4 Abordo allegedly delivered it to the crime laboratory.
How can the trial court rule that the integrity of the corpus delicti was preserved when in fact, the prosecution failed to identify who was in possession of the marijuana from the place of the seizure; to whom the same was turned over; and how it came to the custody of SPO4 Abordo who allegedly delivered the seized items at (sic) the laboratory. Nor was there any prosecution's evidence showing the identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drug after its examination and pending presentation in court.24
x x x It must be remembered that testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. As such, what is of importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered.34 (Emphasis supplied)
The corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the dangerous drug itself. To sustain conviction, its identity must be established in that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance offered in court as exhibit. The chain of custody requirement performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.36
A-One (1) carton knot tied with gray plastic straw labeled GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL with markings '02-10-2010 ELM and signature', containing four (4) bricks of dried suspected marijuana fruiting tops each wrapped with plastic and further wrapped with brown packaging tape with the following markings and recorded net weights:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
A-1 - [02-10-2010-A ELM and signature] = 2000.1 grams
A-2 = [02-10-2010-B ELM and signature] = 2158.3 grams
A-3 = [02-10-2010-C ELM and signature] = 2051.1 grams
A-4 = [02-10-2010-D ELM and signature] = 1971.5 grams39
(Emphasis supplied)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.40
Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are allowed in recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. Peace officers in such cases, however, are limited to routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection. When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains a[n] item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.43
Q And you wanted to confirm your suspicion by asking from Gary Yumol who owns the box? A Yes, sir. Q And Gary Yumol, of course, did not give you any answer? A He said that it is theirs. Q Did you also talk to the companion of Gary Yumol? A After Gary stood up suddenly I also spoke to Regie Breis. Q And did he also give you any answer? A He just pushed me and tried to leave the bus. x x x x Q Before you talked to Gary Yumol did you identify yourself as PDEA agents? A When I asked him who owns the box, I then identified myself. Q Did you ask them if you can see the contents of the box? A I told Regie to open the box but he did not want that's why I was the one who opened it. Q Gary Yumol according to you stood up? A Yes, sir. Q And when he stood up, he was held by Agent Peralta? A Yes, sir. Q And Regie Breis also stood up after you talked to him? A Yes, sir. Q But he was also held by Agent Peralta? A I was the one who told him to sit down. Q Before you told him to sit down did you introduce yourself as a PDEA agent? A Yes, sir.51 (Emphasis supplied)
A person in authority, his agent or a public officer who exceeds his power can not be said to be in the exercise of the functions of his office. The law that defines and establishes his powers does not protect him for anything that has not been provided for.
The scope of the respective powers of public officers and their agents is fixed. If they go beyond it and they violate any recognized rights of the citizens, then the latter may resist the invasion, specially when it is clear and manifest. The resistance must be coextensive with the excess, and should not be greater than what is necessary to repel the aggression.
The invasion of the prerogatives or rights of another and the excess in the functions of an office, are the sources that make for legitimate resistance, especially, in so far as it is necessary for the defense of the persons or their rights in the manner provided for in article 8 of the Penal Code.61
Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights, which, like some other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted. A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed. And since the exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, it is proper to permit only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated to benefit from the rule's protections.64 (Citations omitted)
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
x x x x
SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law/, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:LawlibraryofCRAlawThe penalty imposed upon appellants is in order.
x x x x
7) 500 grams or more of marijuana;
x x x x
Endnotes:
* Also referred to in the Records as Gary Yumul y Tuazon.
1Rollo, pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Rodil V. Zalameda concurring.
2 Records, pp. 179-185. Penned by Judge Antonio C. Reyes.
3Rollo, p. 3.
4 Records, pp. 179-180.
5 Id. at 180-181,
6 CA rollo, p.19.
7 Records, ] 185.
8 CA rollo, P- 34.
9 Id. at 101.
10 Id. at 32-45, 59-84.
11 Rollo, pp. 39-40.
12 CA rollo, pp. 39-40.
13 Id. at 40-41.
14Brief for the Accused-Appellants, id. at 39-40.
15 TSN, 12 May 2010, pp. 26, 30-31; TSN, 7 July 2010, p. 25.
16 TSN, 25 August 2010, pp. 38-40, 43-44; TSN, 8 November 2010, p. 13.
17 Exhibits "C-l," "C-2," and "C-3," Records p. 10.
18 Exhibit "C," id.
19 Exhibits "I," "I-1," "I-2," "I-3," and "I-4," id. at 51-55.
20 Brief for the Accused-Appellants, CA rollo, pp. 40-41.
21People v. Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, 13 July 2013, 701 SCRA 525, 545-546.
22People v, Cervantes, 600 Phil. 819 (2009).
23People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 191753, 17 September 2012, 680 SCRA 680, 690-691, citing People v. Bautista, 665 Phil. 815, 833 (2011).
24 CA rollo, p. 43.
25People v. Arriola, 681 Phil. 578, 594 (2012).
26 TSN, 12 May 2010, pp. 17-18.
27 TSN, 7 July 2010, pp. 25-26; TSN, 25 August 2010, pp. 37-42.
28 TSN, 7 July 2010, pp. 26-27; TSN, 25 August 2010, pp. 40-42.
29 Exhibit "F," Records, p. 14.
30 Exhibit "G," id. at 34.
31 Id.
32 Id. at 29.
33 Minutes of Preliminary Conference, id. at 31.
34 Supra note 25, at 597.
35 G.R. No. 206738, 11 December 2013, 712 SCRA 776.
36 Id. at 795.
37 TSN, 12 May 2010, pp. 31-32.
38 Exhibit "I" marked on 12 May 2010. Records, p. 51.
38 Id. at 34.
40 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2. 1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 3(2).
42 G.R. No. 136860, 20 January 2003. 395 SCRA 407.
43 Id. at 414.
44People v. Valdez, 363 Phil. 481,489 (1999).
45People v. Ayangao, 471 Phil. 379, 388 (2004).
46People v. Ayangao, id.; People v. Libnao, supra; People v. Valdez, supra; People v. Mariacos, 635 Phil. 315(2010).
47 635 Phil. 315(2010).
48 Id. at 331.
49 TSN, 7 July 2010, p. 17.
50 In contrast to Mariacos, the confidential informant in the present case not only described the box, but also the appearances and clothing of appellants, thus:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Q The description given was the height and the built (sic) only, correct?
A And also the clothes they are wearing and the description of the box. (TSN, 7 July 2010, p. 13)
51 TSN, 7 July 2010, pp. 21-23.
52 246 Phil. 424 (1988).
53 Id. at 434.
54 Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. - The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not being included in the provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.
When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging from 10 to 100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender.
55Vytiaco v. Court of Appeals, 126 Phil. 48, 59 (1967).
56United States v. Taylor, 6 Phil. 162 (1906).
57 Republic Act No. 9165, provides in part:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
Sec. 82. Creation of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). - To carry out the provisions of this Act, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which serves as the implementing arm of the Board, and shall be responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in this Act. xxx x
Sec. 84. Powers and Duties of the PDEA. - The PDEA shall: x x x x
b) Undertake the enforcement of the provisions of Article II of this Act relative to the unlawful acts and penalties involving any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical and investigate all violators and other matters involved in the commission of any crime relative to the use, abuse or trafficking of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical x x x;
x x x x
d) Arrest and apprehend as well as search all violators and seize or confiscate, the effects or proceeds of the crimes as provided by law and take custody thereof, for this purpose the prosecutors and enforcement agents are authorized to possess firearms, in accordance with existing laws;
x x x x
58United States v. Taylor, supra.
59People v. Chan Fook, 42 Phil. 230 (1921).
60 Id.
61 Id. at 233-234; citing 3 Groizard, p. 456, et seq.
62 439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978).
63 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, similar to Section 2 of our Bill of Rights, states:LawlibraryofCRAlaw
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
64 Id.
65Domalsin v. Sps. Valenciano, 515 Phil. 745, 764 (2006).
66Yu v. DeLara, 116 Phil. 1105(1962).
67 Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960).
68 Id.
69 Id.
70 265 U.S. 57 (1924).
71 Id.
72 499 U.S. 621 (1991).
73 Id.
74People v. Sapigao, Jr., 614 Phil. 589, 599 (2009).
75People v. De Jesus, supra note 23, at 688-689.