FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 193862, October 01, 2019
ELIZABETH SARANILLAS-DELA CRUZ AND HENRY DELA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
BERSAMIN, C.J.:
The observance of the rule on chain of custody is essential in the preservation of the integrity of the dangerous drugs as evidence of the corpus delicti. The law requires that any deviation from the rule must be upon justifiable grounds, and must nonetheless not negate the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs as evidence of guilt; otherwise, the conviction will be overturned.
That on or about the 6th day of April, 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping one another, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there, wil[l]fully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as a broker in the said transaction, 0.03 gram of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
That on or about the 6th day of April, 2003 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused not being authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did then and there, wil[l]fully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her/his/their possession and control, 0.05 grams of Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
About 12:00 midnight of April 5, 2003, while PO1 Jose Teraña, PO2 Zamura, and PO2 Pamilar were on duty at the Police Station 1, Galas, Quezon City, an informant went to their headquarters to inform them that a male and two female persons were engaged in selling illegal drugs at No. 106, Manunggal Street, Barangay Tatalon, Quezon City. PO2 Zamura referred the matter to their Senior Police Officer 3 Hector Hernandez, who immediately called a meeting and created a team to conduct a buy-bust operation whereby PO1 Jose Teraña was designated as a poseur-buyer and was given one hundred pesos as buy-bust money, while PO2 Zamura and PO2 Pamilar would act as back-up. Thereafter, the rest of the team left the precinct on board a Tamaraw FX and proceeded to the area.
Upon their arrival, PO1 Teraña and the informant went directly to appellant's house wherein they saw appellant Elizabeth together with appellants Henry and Corazon while his companions posted themselves at a seeing distance. The informant told "Mommy Beth" (appellant Elizabeth) that they are interested to buy shabu. She then asked how much. PO1 Teraña replied "piso" (a drug idiom for P100.00). Appellant Elizabeth thereafter, demanded money. After receiving the marked money, "Mommy Beth" whispered something to appellant Henry, from his pocket, he got a small sachet containing white crystalline substance and handed it over to "Mommy Beth" who in turn gave it to PO1 Teraña. PO1 Teraña pinched the sachet to determine its content. After lighting a cigarette which is the pre-arranged signal for the back-up men, the appellants were arrested. PO1 Teraña frisked the appellants and recovered the buy-bust money from appellant Elizabeth and found one sachet each from the respective pockets of appellants Henry and Corazon. At the time of the frisking, the informant had left already.
Thereafter, the appellants were brought to the headquarters and the sachets containing the white crystalline powder recovered from the appellants were marked. The specimen subject of the buy-bust operation was marked as "JT"; the specimen recovered from appellant Henry was marked as "JT-HD-1"; and the specimen recovered from appellant Corazon was marked as "JT-CC-2". The suspected shabu was brought to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame, Quezon City, for examination. Forensic Chemical Officer, Engr. Paul Jerome S. Puentespina concluded that the specimens contained Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Countervailing the prosecution version, the defense witnesses testified that no such buy-bust operation was conducted on the date and time in question. Rather it was on April 4, 2003 between 7:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and not on April 6, 2003 at 3:30 a.m. when four (4) policemen entered the house of appellant-spouse Elizabeth and Henry.
x x x x
Appellant Henry testified that when the police raided their house, he was at the third floor preparing the beddings of his grandchildren when he heard a commotion taking place at the ground floor near the stairs. He then looked down and asked his wife, appellant Elizabeth about it, but before she could answer, two policemen came up to him (whom he identified as PO1 Teraña and PO3 Hernandez) and told him to bring out the shabu. Subsequently, the police brought him to the ground floor joining appellant Elizabeth. Afterwhich (sic), the police went up again and conducted a search for about 10 minutes. Thereafter, he and appellant Elizabeth, together with appellant Corazon, were all forced to go to the police station. He vehemently denied that they were peddling and in possession of illegal drugs.8 x x x x
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is hereby rendered finding xxx HENRY DELACRUZ y Revillon and xxx GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of drug pushing and finding xxx HENRY DELACRUZ y Revillon xxx GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of drug possession and they are hereby respectively sentenced as follows:
- In 03-116540 - [he is] sentenced to a jail term of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 xxx;
x x x
- In 03-116542 - accused Henry dela Cruz y Revillon is sentenced to a jail term of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, and THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
The drugs involved in these cases are hereby ordered transmitted to the PDEA thru DDB for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.
IIN HOLDING THAT ACCUSED-PETITIONERS ARE GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED IN THE INFORMATIONIIIN HOLDING THAT THE TESTIMONY OF ACCUSED-PETITIONER HENRY, THE HUSBAND OF ACCUSED-PETITIONER ELIZABETH, THAT HE WAS BROUGHT TO THE POLICE STATION IN ORDER FOR HIM TO PINPOINT (SIC) THE DRUG PUSHERS IN THE AREA CANNOT BE BELIEVED BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE COURT, IT IS VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE COMMON PRACTICIE OF POLICE OFFICERS IN USING AN ASSET TO IDENTIFY THE DRUG CRIMINALS IN A CERTAIN AREA; THE COURT FURTHER SAID THAT IF THIS WAS TRUE, THEN THERE IS NO MORE NEED ON THE PART OF POLICE OFFICERS HERNANDEZ AND TERAÑA TO ARREST HIS WIFE, ACCUSED-PETITIIONER ELIZABETH AND CONRAZON CUNANAN AS WELL AS SEARCH THEIR ENTIRE HOUSEIIIIN FINDING THAT THE COURT SEES NO ILL MOTIVE ON THE PART OF THE POLICE OFFICERS IN ARRESTING ACCUSED-PETITIONERS AND CORAZON CUNANANIVIN NOT FINDING THAT SINCE IT IS ONLY THE SERIAL NUMBER OF THE SO-CALLED BUY-BUST MONEY AND A XEROX COPY THAT WAS TESTIFIED TO, THE ORIGINAL NOT HAVING BEEN ACTUALLY INTRODUCED AND PRESENTED., THE SERIAL NUMBER AND XEROX COPY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE THE FRUITS OF A POISONOUS TREE THEIR ARREST BEING ILLEGALVIN NOT FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED-PETITIONERS TOGETHER WITH CORAZON CUNANAN Y BILBANO WERE NOT READ THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER THE MIRANDA DOCTRINE WHILE THEY WERE IN FACT BEING ARRESTEDVIIN NOT FINDING THAT SINCE THE POLICE OFFICERS DID NOT DUST THE BUY-BUST MONEY WITH FLUORESCENT POWDER, THE ARREST OF THE ACCUSED-PETITIONERS TOGETHER WITH CORAZON CUNANAN Y BILBANO IN THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION IS NOT CREDIBLEVIIIN NOT FINDING THAT SINCE THE ASSET SO-CALLED OR INFORMANT WAS NOT PRESENTED AS WITNESS AND HE BEING THE ONLY PERSON WHO COULD CORROBORATE THE STATEMENTS OF THE POLICE OFFICERS, WAS A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, AND IF, AS ALLEGED, HE REGULARLY BUYS SHABU FROM ACCUSED-PETITIONER ELIZABETH, THERE IS NO SHOWING OF ANY PRIOR ARREST BY THE POLICE OF THE ASSET AND/OR ACCUSED-PETITIONER ELIZABETHVIIIIN NOT FINDING THAT THE SEARCHES MADE, ESPECIALLY ON THE PERSON OF CORAZON CUNANAN AND THE ALLEGED EMPTYING OF HER POCKETS WHERE ONE SACHET OF SHABU WAS ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED FROOM HER IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL BECAUSE FROM THE TESTIMONIES OF THE POLICE OFFICERS, SHE WAS NOT DOING ANYTHING SUSPICIOUS TO WARRANT THE SAMEIXIN MAKING SPECULATIVE OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS NOT BASED ON EVIDENCE IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHICH SHOWS IN BOLD RELIEF THE MINDSET, PREJUDICE AND BIAS OF THE PRESIDING JUDGE AGAINST ACCUSED-PETITIONERS TOGETHER WITH CORAZON CUNANAN Y BILBANOXIN NOT FINDING THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OR TESTIMONY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE POLICE OFFICER WHO CONFISCATED THE ALLEGED SHABU WAS THE ONE WHO SUBMITTED THE SAME TO THE PNP LABORATORY FOR FORENSIC EXAMINATIONXIITH EPUNISHMENT METED OUT TO THE ACCUSED-PETITIONERS WHICH ARE LIFE IMPRISONMENT AND P500,000.00 EACH, AS FINE, AND 12 YEARS AND ONE DAY, AS MINIMUM, AND 13 YEARS, AS MAXIMUM, ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND AGAINST SEC. 19, ART, III OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AS A CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT BECAUSE OF ALLEGEDLY SELLING ONLY A SACHET OF SO-CALLED SHABU10
"Chain of Custody" refers to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment at 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 items 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.
x x x x
(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
Q: In other words you were the only police officer who recovered the three sachets the item (sic) at that time? A: Yes, sir. Q: When you recovered these items from the accused where were your (sic) back ups Mr. Witness? A: They were just around me, sir. Q: How about the informant? A: The informant walked to our vehicle. Q: Now, after you recovered the buy-bust money to Elizabeth, you got the plastic sachets and likewise from Corazon Cunanan what happened after that? A: When we recovered that we brought them to our station and then we marked the sachets that we confiscated and then after the marking we have brought them to the crime laboratory. Q: Who was in possession of that plastic sachet when you went to your station? A: I was the one, sir. Q: You said that you put the marking on the transparent plastic sachet. What was the marking? A: My initial sir and then the initial of each of the accused. x x x x Q: During the investigation Mr. Witness what did you do with the items you confiscated form (sic) the three accused? A: We had it brought to the PNP Crime laboratory, sir. Q: Who was with you when you brought that specimen to the Crime Laboratory? A: Hector Hernandez, your Honor.14
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 33-45; penned by Associate Justice Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., with Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes (later a Member of the Court but since retired) and Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso concurring.
2 Corazon Cunanan y Bilbano.
3 CA rollo, pp. 19-23; penned by Judge Jaime N. Salazar, Jr.
4Rollo, p. 294.
5 Article 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability is totally extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the death of the offender occurs before final judgment;
x x x x
6 CA rollo, p. 7.
7 Id. at 11.
8Rollo, pp. 35-37.
9 Supra note 3.
10Rollo, pp. 2-5.
11People v. Sumili, G.R. No. 212160, February 4, 2015, 750 SCRA 143, 149.
12People v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 197371, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 604, 618.
13People v. Dahil, G.R. No. 212196, January 12, 2015, 745 SCRA 221, 240-241.
14 TSN, April 12, 2004, pp. 22-27
15People v. Dahil, supra, note 13, at 239.