THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 179757, September 13, 2017
LEONARDO P. CASONA, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, J.:
Too much reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties on the part of the arresting officers in the prosecution of drug-related offenses is unwarranted if the records show noncompliance with the affirmative safeguards prescribed to preserve the chain of custody of the contraband. The presumption of regularity applies only when there is no showing of non-compliance.
That on or about the 6th day of February 2004, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and knowingly have in his possession, custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing 0.03 and 0.02 grams of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as 'shabu' a dangerous drug, without corresponding license and prescription.The CA adopted the summary of the evidence of the State as presented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) in the appellee's brief, to wit:
Contrary to law.3
On February 6, 2004, at 7:20 in the morning, the drug enforcement unit of the Mandaluyong City Police Station received a telephone call from a concerned citizen regarding an illegal drug activity in Barangay Poblacion, particularly in Paraiso Street. On the basis of said information, PO2 Oliver Yumul, the officer-in-charge of the said unit, called a meeting to conduct a surveillance operation in the said area.On the other hand, the petitioner vigorously denied the accusation. He insisted during the trial that he was on his way to the off-track betting station at around 7:20 pm on February 6, 2004 when he encountered police operatives from the Anti-Illegal Drugs Unit along Paraiso Street in Mandaluyong City who mentioned to him that they would be conducting a raid; that on his way back from the betting station he again encountered the same police operatives but this time they arrested him for allegedly selling shabu; that he resisted the arrest because he was surprised by their conduct, but to no avail; and that they brought him with them to the hospital before taking him to their office, where he was investigated and eventually detained.5
Immediately after coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), a team, composed of PO1 Gomez, PO1 Alfaro, PO1 Saupi, PO1 Madlangbayan, POS Adriano and their team leader, proceeded to the area.
Upon arrival thereat, PO1 Gomez and PO1 Alfaro stay (sic) inside the van while the rest of the group namely: PO1 Madalangbayan (sic), POS Adriano, PO1 Saupi and their team leader went off While walking in their civilian clothes, they saw two (2) male persons in the middle of Paraiso street exchanging something. PO1 Madalangbayan (sic), who was only an arm's length away from the two (2) suspects, saw one of them place a small plastic sachet in between his two (2) fingers and then hand it to the other. The person to whom the plastic sachet was handed turned out to be the appellant.
Immediately, the group approached appellant and his companion and introduced themselves as police officers. At that instance, appellant's companion ran away. The other police officers chased him but he escaped. Appellant, on the other hand, was prevented from fleeing by PO1 Madlangbayan who arrested him. Upon arrest, PO1 Madlangbayan noticed that appellant was holding a plastic sachet in his hand. After discovering that it contained suspected shabu, he ordered him to pull out the contents of his pocket. Consequently, PO1 Madlangbayan recovered another plastic sachet from appellant containing white crystalline substance.
PO1 Madlangbayan informed appellant of his constitutional rights and brought him to the Mandaluyong City Police Station for investigation. The plastic sachets recovered from appellant were submitted to the SOCO for chemical analysis which, after examination, yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu."4 (Citations omitted)
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
Accused is credited in full of the preventive imprisonment he has served in confinement.
Let the physical evidence subject matter of this case be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the State and referred to the PDEA for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.6
In sum, we find no cogent reason to alter the findings of the trial court, and no ground to question its conclusions.The CA accorded more weight to the testimonies of the police officers based on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and for lack of showing of any improper motive on their part to falsely testify against the petitioner. Also, it observed that the arresting police officers properly preserved the integrity of the dangerous drug.
WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error committed by the trial court, the appealed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 214, Mandaluyong City in Criminal Case No. MC-04-7897-D, finding appellant Laonardo Casono (sic) y Perez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article [II] of Republic Act 9165, the appeal is hereby AFFIRMED IN TOTO.
SO ORDERED.7
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE PATENT WEAKNESS OF THE PROSECUTION EVIDENCE.8The petitioner submits that the testimony of PO1 Madlangbayan was not worthy of belief; that the police officers had no probable cause to apprehend him because they had acted only on the basis of information from an unnamed concerned citizen; and that the CA erred in finding that the chain of custody was preserved by the arresting officers.
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:Complementing this provision is Section 21(a) of Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
x x x x
x x x xAs the law stands, there can be no avoidance of the responsibility to comply on the part of the arresting officers.
(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 x
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 to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition;The Court has already recognized that strict adherence to the rule on chain of custody was almost always impossible to do.15 Strict adherence is not always expected, therefore, as borne out by the saving declaration in the last paragraph of Section 21 (a) of the IRR to the effect that the seizure and custody of the dangerous substances should not be rendered void or invalid by the non-compliance with the requirements under justifiable grounds for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved by the apprehending officers.16 But such saving declaration did not come into play herein because, one, the seizing officers did not tender their justification for the lapses committed;17 and, two, there was really no showing by the State that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu had been properly preserved.
x x x x We should remind ourselves that we cannot presume that the accused committed the crimes they have been charged with. The State must fully establish that for us. If the imputation of ill motive to the lawmen is the only means of impeaching them, then that would be the end of our dutiful vigilance to protect our citizenry from false arrests and wrongful incriminations. We are aware that there have been in the past many cases of false arrests and wrongful incriminations, and that should heighten our resolve to strengthen the ramparts of judicial scrutiny.WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on March 30, 2007 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 214, in Mandaluyong City finding and declaring petitioner Leonardo P. Casona guilty of a violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 as charged in the information; and ACQUITS him for failure of the State to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Nor should we shirk from our responsibility of protecting the liberties of our citizenry just because the lawmen are shielded by the presumption of the regularity of their performance of duty. The presumed regularity is nothing but a purely evidentiary tool intended to avoid the impossible and time-consuming task of establishing every detail of the performance by officials and functionaries of the Government. Conversion by no means defeat the much stronger and much firmer presumption of innocence in favor of every person whose life, property and liberty comes under the risk of forfeiture on the strength of a false accusation of committing some crime.
The criminal accusation against a person must be substantiated by proof beyond reasonable doubt. The Court should steadfastly safeguard his right to be presumed innocent. Although his innocence could be doubted, for his reputation in his community might not be lily-white or lustrous, he should not fear a conviction for any crime, least of all one as grave as drug pushing, unless the evidence against him was clear, competent and beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the presumption of innocence in his favor would be rendered empty.
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on March 30, 2017 affirming the decision of the Regional Tiralcourt, Branch 214, in Mandaluyong City finding and declaring petitoner Leonardo P. Casona guilty of a violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 as charged in theinformation; and ACQUITS him for failure of the State to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release LEONARDO P. CASONA unless there are other lawful causes for which he should be further detained, and to return this Order with the certificate of your proceedings within five (5) days from notice hereof.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 70-84; penned by Associate Justice Enrico A. Lanzanas, with Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente concurring.
2 Id. at 39-41; penned by Judge Edwin D. Sorongon.
3 Id. at 39.
4 Id. at 71-72.
5 Id. at 12-13.
6 Id. at 41.
7 Id. at 83-84.
8 Id. at 15.
9 Section 2, Rule 133 of the Rules of Court.
10People v. Adrid, G.R. No. 201845, March 6, 2013, 692 SCRA 683, 697.
11Rollo, p. 119.
12 Id. at 82.
13People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014, 727 SCRA 113, 126.
14Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 180177, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA 148, 163.
15People v. Angngao, G.R. No. 189296, March 11, 2015, 752 SCRA 531, 543.
16 Id. at 543-544.
17People v. Alagarme, G.R. No. 184789, February 23, 2015, 751 SCRA 317, 329.
18People v. Barte, G.R. No. 179749, March 1, 2017.
19 G.R. No. 183700, October 13, 2014, 738 SCRA 105, 118-119.