THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 205414, April 04, 2016
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. EDUARDO DELA CRUZ Y GUMABAT @ "EDDIE", Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
For the Court's consideration is the Decision1 dated March 19, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04587 affirming the Decision2 dated August 2, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 09-271907, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In an information filed on November 5, 2009, appellant Eduardo dela Cruz y Gumabat was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of Article II of RA No. 9165, the accusatory portion of which reads:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That on or about October 23, 2009, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale to poseur-buyer, one (1) Blister pack with label "Valium" containing Ten (10) round blue tablets weighing ONE POINT SEVEN TWO ZERO (1.720) grams which after a qualitative examination, gave positive result to the test of diazepam, a dangerous drug.Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Consequently, trial on the merits ensued.4
Contrary to law.3ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered, finding the accused, Eduardo dela Cruz y Gumabat @ Eddie, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. He is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.Appellant appealed his conviction arguing that his warrantless arrest was unlawful for he was not, in fact, caught selling dangerous drugs but was merely committing the offense of illegal gambling. Thus, the ten (10) tablets of Valium allegedly seized from him is inadmissible as evidence.15 Appellant also argued that there was no showing that he was informed of the reason for his arrest, of his constitutional right to remain silent and to be assisted by a counsel of his choice.16 Appellant further faulted the prosecution for not only failing to present the buy-bust money as evidence in court17 but also failing to show proof that the confiscated Valium was subjected to a qualitative examination.18 He noted that the chemist who supposedly conducted the laboratory examination on the drug did not know the source from which it came.19
The specimen is forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to turn over with dispatch and upon receipt the said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in accordance with the law and rules.
SO ORDERED.14ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Appellant maintains that the instant case does not fall under the exceptions to the requirement of obtaining a judicial warrant prior to making an arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. According to appellant, for in flagrante warrantless arrests to be lawful, the following elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. But here, appellant asserts that he was not exhibiting any strange actuation at the time of his arrest, merely playing cara y cruz with a friend. Thus, absent any physical act on the part of the accused, positively indicating that he had just committed a crime or was committing or attempting to commit one, no reasonable suspicion would be sufficient enough to justify his arrest and subsequent search without a warrant.28I
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE ARRESTING OFFICERS OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER R.A. NO. 9165.II.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CORPUS DELICTI.27ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Sec 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:Contrary to appellant's claims, there is overwhelming evidence that he was actually committing a crime in the presence of the police officers who arrested him without a warrant. To repeat, straightforward and unwavering testimonies were presented by the prosecution narrating, in detail, how the police officers personally witnessed the sale by appellant of the dangerous drug, being actual participants of the buy-bust operation. Indeed, a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment, in which the violator is caught in flagrante delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized, but duty-bound, to apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the commission of the crime.32 Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, appellant's plain denial of the offense charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail.33
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.31ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:Notwithstanding the foregoing, and as admitted by appellant, the failure to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items, as well as to take photographs of the same in the presence of the persons required above, will not automatically render an arrest illegal or the seized items inadmissible in evidence,34 pursuant to the following Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165:
(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 (DO.I), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
In view of the preceding, the Court has, time and again, ruled that non-compliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 shall not necessarily render the arrest of an accused as illegal or the items seized as inadmissible if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved in compliance with the chain of custody rule.36 The Court explained the rule on the chain of custody to be as follows:
(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[.]35
The rule on chain of custody 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 arc presented in court. Moreover, as a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such manner that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness7 possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.37ChanRoblesVirtualawlibraryIt is evident from the records of this case that the prosecution sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule. Contrary to the claims of appellant, the unbroken chain of custody of the tablets seized from him was categorically established by the testimonies presented by the prosecution's witnesses. PO1 Galotera gave a clear and detailed account of the events that transpired from the moment he handed the marked money to appellant, to the time appellant pulled out the blister pack containing ten (10) pieces of round, blue tablets from his right pocket, all the way up to his execution of the pre-arranged signal and subsequent arrest of appellant. He testified that he informed appellant of his constitutional rights, apprised him of the nature of his arrest, and marked the seized tablets with appellant's initials. Fie also attested to the process by which he turned appellant and the seized items over to PO1 Magpale, who in turn, clearly narrated how he took photographs thereof, prepared the Booking and Information Sheet, and eventually turned over appellant and the seized items to Forensic Chemist Calabocal.
The testimony of Forensic Chemist PS I. Erickson L. Calabocal was dispensed with after the parties had stipulated on the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report No. D-787-09 (Exhibit "C").In like manner, the trial court similarly noted appellant's admission, during pre-trial, of the parties' stipulation as to the qualification of PS I. Erickson L. Calabocal as a Forensic Chemist, as well as the genuineness and due execution of the documents he brought together with the specimen, part of which were his Final Chemistry Report and his Findings and Conclusions resulting from the laboratory examination he conducted on the seized tablets, which yielded positive results for dangerous drugs.39 Due to these stipulations, the testimony of Forensic Chemist Calabocal was not presented at trial not because the prosecution failed to do so, but because the same was dispensed with as expressly agreed to by the parties.
x x x x
x x x Quoting from their testimonies, the Solicitor General aptly traced the unbroken chain of custody of the valium tablets seized from appellant, thus:
x x x x
Worthy of note, as well is the fact that the parties stipulated during pre-trial that the forensic chemist who conducted the qualitative examination of the seized item received a letter request dated October 23, 2009 from PO1 Magpale. Attached to said letter was the specimen with markings EDG.38ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
It is well to note that the records of the case are bereft of evidence that appellant, during trial, interposed any objection to the non-marking of the seized items in his presence and the lack of information on the whereabouts of the shabu after it was examined by P/Insp. Calabocal. While he questioned the chain of custody before the CA, the alleged defects appellant is now alluding to were not among those he raised on appeal. The defects he raised before the CA were limited to the alleged lack of physical inventory, non-taking of photographs of the seized items, and the supposed failure of the police officers to mark the sachets of shabu at the crime scene. But even then, it was already too late in the day for appellant to have raised the same at that point since he should have done so early on before the RTC. It bears stressing that the Court has already brushed aside an accused's belated contention that the illegal drugs confiscated from his person is inadmissible for failure of the arresting officers to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165.20 This is considering that "[w]hatever justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers from literally complying with Section 21 will remain unknown, because [appellant] did not question during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of an objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the question for the first time on appeal. x x x"Be that as it may, the Court has always reiterated that "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."41 Here, the Court opines that said requirement was sufficiently complied with. It is evidently clear, therefore, that there exists no gap in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug seized from appellant for all the links thereof beginning from the moment the item was obtained from appellant up to the time the same was presented in court were sufficiently accounted for. Thus, it is because the apprehending team properly preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items that the Court excuses their failure to strictly comply with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 for on said failure, alone, appellant cannot automatically be exonerated.
Endnotes:
* Designated Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza, per Raffle dated October 1, 2014.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Rebecca De Guia-Salvador, with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring; rollo, pp. 2-22.
2 Penned by Presiding Judge Alejandro G. Bijasa, CA rollo, pp. 9-15.
3Rollo, p. 3.
4Id.
5Id. at 4.
6Id.
7Id. at 5.
8Id.
9Id. at 6.
10Id.
11Id.
12 CA rollo, p. 13.
13Id. at 14.
14Id. at 15.
15Id. at 46.
16Id. at 51.
17Id. at 53.
18Id. at 54.
19Id.
20Rollo, p. 8.
21Id. at 9.
22 Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. - A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(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.
23Rollo, p. 11.
24Id. at 17.cralawred
25Id. at 21.
26Id. at 23.cralawred
27Id. at 35.
28Id. at 36.
29Id. at 37.
30People v. Mariano, G.R. No. 191193, November 14, 2012, 685 SCRA 592, 600.
31 Emphasis ours.
32People v. Adriano, G.R. No. 208169, October 8, 2014.
33People v. Almodiel, 694 Phil. 449, 464 (2012).
34People of the Philippines v. Manuela Flores y Salazar, G.R. No. 201365, August 3, 2015.
35 Emphasis ours.
36People of the Philippines v. Edwin Dalawis y Hidalgo, G.R. No. 197925, November 9, 2015, citing People ofthe Philippines v. Michael Rosy Ortega, et al., G.R. No. 201146, April 15, 2015.
37Id.
38Rollo, pp. 5 and 21. (Emphasis ours)
39 CA rollo, pp. 9-10.cralawred
40 G.R. No. 195245, February 16, 2015. (Emphasis supplied)
41People v. Manlangit, 654 Phil. 427, 442 (2011).
42People of the Philippines v. Bienvenido Miranda y Feliciano, G.R. No. 209338, June 29, 2015.