THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 233466, August 07, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MARK ANDREW PAZ Y ROCAFORD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before this Court is an appeal from the March 21, 2017 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08042 which affirmed the January 22, 2016 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 127, finding accused-appellant Mark Andrew Paz y Rocaford (Paz) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The facts are as follows:
Paz was indicted for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in an Information dated May 10, 2013. The accusatory portion reads:
That on or about the 9th day of May, 2013 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to IO1 REAGAN B. SILVERIO, who posed as buyer, Two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each later marked as RBS-1 05/09113 and RBS-2 05/09/13 containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 4.1001 grams & 3.2714 grams, which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and knowing the same to be such.3When arraigned, Paz pleaded not guilty to the charge. After termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring accused Mark Andrew Paz y Rocaford in Criminal Case [No. 89942] for violation of Sec. 5. Art. II[,] R.A. 9165 guilty beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand ([P]500,000.00) Pesos.The trial court held that the prosecution duly proved and established the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. IO1 Silverio, the poseur-buyer, disclosed that Paz was caught in flagrante delicto selling P40,000.00 worth of shabu. Paz received the marked money along with the boodle money from IO1 Silverio after he offered the brown envelope containing two plastic sachets of suspected shabu. The RTC gave more credence to the positive and straightforward testimony of IO1 Silverio as against Paz's bare denial and defense of frame-up. Paz never presented any witness to support his claim considering that there were passersby on the road at that time. As a hairdresser for three and a half years in the area where he also resides, he will be easily recognized, thus, it would have been easy for him to seek assistance from anyone to inform any of his relatives or friends about his alleged ordeal.11 The inconsistencies in IO1 Delgado's affidavit and testimony as to the date of the commission of the offense, and that of IO1 Silverio's affidavit and testimony on whether the team leader and the CI made the negotiation with Paz are inconsequential for they had nothing to do with the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The minor inconsistencies in the narration of the witness do not detract from its essential credibility as long as it is, on the whole, coherent and intrinsically believable.12
The drug subject of this instant case is hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.10
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The January 22, 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City in Crim. Case No. C-89942 is AFFIRMED.In a Resolution16 dated November 6, 2017, this Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire. In his Manifestation in Lieu of a Supplemental Brief17 dated January 24, 2018, Paz opted not to file a supplemental brief since no new issue material to the case was discovered. Also, the Office of the Solicitor General, in its Manifestation and Motion in lieu of Supplemental Brief18 dated January 29, 2018, informed the Court that it elects to dispense with the filing of a supplemental brief considering that the facts, issues, and arguments in the case have been succinctly amplified in its Brief for the Appellee dated December 9, 2016.
SO ORDERED.15 (Emphases in the original.)
SEC. 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:From the foregoing, Section 21 now only requires two (2) witnesses to be present during the conduct of the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items, namely: (a) an elected public official; and (b) either a representative from the DOJ or the media.
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.
Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items after they have been seized. It is the starting point in the custodial link. It is vital that the seized items be marked immediately since the succeeding handlers thereof will use the markings as reference.26 The rule also requires that the marking of the seized contraband be done "(1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation."27 Here, there is no showing that the marking was accomplished in the presence of Paz. All that was established was that, while at the PDEA office, IO1 Silverio marked the sachets with "RBS-1 05/09/13" and "RBS-2 05/09/13," while the other details are left out for this Court to speculate.
Q And if shown to you, can you still identify the plastic sachets you bought from the accused? A Yes, ma'am. Q How will you be able to do so? A I put a marking ma'am. Q What markings did you place on the plastic sachets? A Ma'am, the initials of my name and the date of the arrest. Q Can you just tell what does it read? A RBS and the date. x x x x Q Both RBS? A No, ma'am. Q What? A I already forgot ma'am but I put on the plastic sachets 1 and 2. x x x x Q The buy-bust money was taken by Delgado from the hand of the accused, still in the hand of the accused? A Yes, ma'am. Q You said Delgado conducted further searched (sic) on the body of the accused and he frisked him, from where was the cellphone taken? A "ma'am, hindi na po ako naki-alam sa kanya." Q So, the frisking was all [d]one by Delgado? A [Y]es, ma'am. Q And he handed to you this cellphone also? A Yes, ma'am. Q All these were in your custody together with the specimen from the place of arrest outside the gate of Tala until you arrive[d] at your office? A Yes, ma'am. Q And where did you proceed? A Ma'am, at the office. Q PDEA office? A At the PDEA headquarters. Q Main? A Yes, ma'am. Q And what office at PDEA did you go? A Ma'am, at the PDEA-RO-NCR office ma'am. Q What office in the PDEA there, particular office? A At the receiving area. Q Was it the same place where you conducted the investigation of the accused? A Ma'am, what investigation, is that the inventory? Q Yes, the investigation consisting of inventory and taking of the documents. A Yes, ma'am. Q So, what office is that? A At the PDEA-RO-NCR ma'am, behind the main headquarters, ma'am. Q And who investigated the accused there? A I was the one who investigated the accused ma'am. Q And that investigation, does it consist also of taking of his personal circumstances and picture taking? A Yes, ma'am. Q Of evidences (sic)? A Yes, ma'am. Q You mentioned about inventory, was it done also there? A Yes, ma'am. x x x x Q Were you also the one who took pictures? A Ma'am, yes, ma'am.25
Before starting with the inventory, the team first secured the presence of the required witnesses under section 21 of R.A[.] 9165, we managed to get elected public official in the personality of Brgy. Kagawad Jose Y Ruiz of Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City.30 (Emphasis in the original.)The testimony of IO1 Delgado further confirms the failure of the apprehending team to observe the proper procedure mandated by Section 21:
The Court stressed in People v. Mendoza32 that "[w]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the rseized drugs], the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of [R.A.] No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the x x x presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody."33
Q: So, upon reaching the gate near the gate (sic) of the Tala Leprosarium you already alighted from your vehicle? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: And where did you specifically positioned yourself? A: Around 7 to 10 meters away from the vehicle, ma'am. Q: From where you were positioned Mr. Witness, could you directly observe what is going on in the vehicle? A: No, ma'am. Q: So, my question now is, how will you be able to determine that the transaction was already consummated? A: When the pre-arranged signal was executed by blinking of the hazard light, ma'am. x x x x Q: And Mr. Witness, what happened after you reached your office, the PDEA office? A: When we reached the PDEA office we process[ed] the arrested person, we subjected him to medical and physical examination, drug testing and then he was turned over to the investigator of PDEA office, ma'am. Q: During that investigation of the person at the PDEA office was there any pictures taken? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Inventory of evidence? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Was there a turn over (sic) also? A: Yes, ma'am. x x x x Q: Who took these pictures, if you know? A: I don't remember anymore, ma'am. Q: What you remember is that the pictures that were reflected herein were actually transpired during investigation? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: I'm showing to you also certification inventory of seized properties/items, booking sheet and arrest report, do you recognize these pictures? A: Yes, ma'am, I signed this document. PROS. GALLO: The certification was already marked Exhibit "O", your Honor. COURT: Noted. Q: And, whose signature is this above handwritten name IO1 Reagan Silverio? A: His signature, ma'am. Q: Above handwritten name IO1 A1 Vincent Ma. G. Delgado? A: My signature, ma'am. Q: There is a signature above handwritten name KGD Jose Y. Ruiz, Jr., Bgy. Pinyahan, District IV, Quezon City, whose signature is that? A: That is the signature of an elected official of Bgy. Pinyahan, District IV, Quezon City, ma'am, as witness during the inventory of evidence. Q: Where were you when Silverio and Ruiz signed in this document? A: I was also present when they signed, ma'am.31 (Emphases supplied.)
Very truly yours, WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court By: (SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III Deputy Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 21, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08042 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Mark Andrew Paz y Rocaford is accordingly ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to Drove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt The Director Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to immediately cause the release of accused-appellant from detention, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and to REPORT to this Court compliance herewith within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release MARK ANDREW PAZ y ROCAFORD 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, WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court By: (SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III Deputy Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-17. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a member of this Court).
2 CA rollo, pp. 11-29. Penned by Presiding Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
3 Records, p. 2.
4 CA rollo, pp. 14-15.
5Rollo, pp. 4-5
6Id. at 5.
7Id. at 6.
8 Records, p. 14.
9Rollo, pp. 6-7.
10 CA rollo, p. 29.
11Id. at 26.
12Id. at 28-29.
13Rollo, p. 13.
14Id. at 14.
15Id. at 16.
16Id. at 24.
17Id. at 26-28.
18Id. at 31-33.
19People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 299 (2010).
20People v. Morales y Midarasa, 630 Phil. 215, 227-228 (2010).
21People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015).
22People v. Viterbo, et al., 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
23 AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHER WISE KNOWN AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002." Approved on July 15, 2014.
24People v. Jovencito Miranda y Tigas, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018.
25 TSN, February 6, 2014, pp. 28-32.
26People v. Alejandro, 671 Phil. 33, 46 (2011).
27Id. at 47.
28 Records, p. 17.
29Id. at 8-9.
30Id. at 8.
31 TSN, March 20, 2014, pp. 13-23.
32 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
33Id. at 764 (emphases supplied).
34 G.R. No. 230717, June 20, 2018.
35Id.
36People v. Umipung, 686 Phil. 1024, 1038 (2012).
37People v. Pringas, 558 Phil. 579, 594 (2007).
38People v. Roberto Andrada y Caumpued, G.R. No. 232299, June 20, 2018.
39 630 Phil. 637 (2010).
40Id. at 649.
41Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 476 (2016).
42People v. Umipang, supra note 36, at 1053.
43People v. Marcelino Crispo y Descalso, et al., G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018.
44People v. Raul Manansala v. Maninang, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018.
45People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 595 (2017).
46People v. Pagaduan, 641 Phil. 432, 449-450 (2010).