Republic of the Philippines REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF BOHOL Branch 49 City of Tagbilaran
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff, Criminal Cases Nos. 15010 15011 For: Violation of ections ections ! " ## $rticle %% of R&$& 9#'!
-v -versus-
EFREN B. CASTRO, $ccuse(& )-----------------------------------------*
MEMORANDUM $CC+, through the un(ersigne( counsel, an( before this .onorab .onorable le Court, Court, /ost /ost respec respectfu tfully lly sub/it sub/itss this this 0e/oran 0e/oran(u/ (u/ in support of his $C1+%TT$2 of the cri/es for 3hich he is charge(, an( states, thus: PREFATORY The The Co Cons nst tut uton on mand manda aes es ha ha an accu accuse sed d shal shalll be presumed innocen innocen untl he conrary conrary is proven beyond reasonable doub. I is he burden of he prosecuton o overcome such presumpton of innocence by presentng he quanum of evidence required. Corollarily, he prosecuton mus res on is own meris and mus no rely on he weakness of he defense. In fac, if he prosecuton prosecuton fails o mee he required quanum quanum of evidence, he defense may logically no even presen evidence in is own behalf. behalf. In which case, he presumpton presumpton of innocence innocence shall prevail and hence, he accused shall be acquied. acquied. owever, owever, once he presumpton of innocence is overcome, overcome, he defense bears he burden of evidence o show reasonable doub as o he guil of he accused. Reasonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an invesgaon of the whole proof and an inability aer such invesgaon to let the mind rest each upon the certainty of guilt . !bsolue cerainy of guil is no demanded by he law o
1
convic a criminal charge, bu moral cerainy is required as o every propositon of proof requisie o constue he o"ense. # $The presumpton of innocence is a conclusion of law in favor of he accused, accused, whereby his innocence innocence is no only esablished bu contnues untl su%cien evidence is inroduced o overcome he proof which he law creaed&namely, his innocence. 'hen a doub is creaed, i is he resul of proof and no he proof iself. iself. The cours will no impue a guily consructon consructon or inf inferen erence ce o he he facs acs when when a cons onsru ruct cton on or inf inferen erence ce compatble compatble wih innocence innocence arises herefrom wih equal force and fairness. In fac, i is always he duy of a cour o resolve he circum circums sanc ances es of evide evidenc nce e ()*+ ()*+ ! T*T*- */ I++*C I++*C+C +C raher han upon a heory of guil where i is possible o do so. The accused is no o be presumed guily because he facs are consisen wih his guil0 his will be done only where he facs are inconsisen wih his innocence.1 2
ARGUMENTS AND DISCUSSION
I. THE PROSECUTION FAILE TO PORTRA! A BELIE"ABLE PICTURE OF THE ALLEGE BU!#BUST OPERATION. $ccuse( is being charge( of violating Se$%ion 5, Ar%i$le II o& R.A. '1(5 3hich prohibits the sale of illegal (rugs& The upre/e Court, in Peo)le *. Loren+o , cites the ele/ents of the cri/e 3hich inclu(e: 5a6%e i-en%i%ies o& %e /er an- %e seller, %e oe$% o& %e sale, an- %e $onsi-era%ion 7 7 an( 5b6%e -eli*er o& %e %in2 sol- an- %e )amen% &or %e %in2 & %n the instant case, the account of the Prosecution8s police3itn 3itnes esses ses are are /ar /are( e( by glar glarin ing g inco incons nsis iste tenc ncie iess an( an( loos loose e en(s en(s 3hich invali(ate their allegation that a transaction ha( transpire( bet3een a (esignate( poseur-buyer 3ith the help of a police asset, an( herein $ccuse( for the ele/ents of the illegal sale of prohibite( (rug (rugss to pros prospe per& r& Fact Fact is, is, the the in(i in(ivi vi(u (ual al $ffi $ffi(a (avi vits ts of PO3 PO3 Ben Ben 5(esignat nate( e( poseur poseur-bu -buyer6 yer6 an( SPO1 Ane$i%o G/rion Seroios 5(esig 5off ffic icer er (esig (esigna nate( te( as clos close e bac bac-u -up6 p6,, incl inclu( u(in ing g thei theirr Am)on2 5o 1 People v. Gerardo Orteza, G.R. No. 173051 [Formerly G.R. No. 161678], Jly 31, !007. 2 " #$arto%&' (r)m)%al *v)de%+e, 11 t$*d., e+-o% 7! +)ted )% Fra%+)'+o, (r)m)%al Pro+edre,
!%d *d., 1/6/, p. 55. 3 G.R. No. 18760, pr)l !3, !010, 61/ (R 38/, 00, +)-%2 People v. )lla%eva, 536 P$)l. //8, 100
4!006.
2
collective testi/onies in court vis--vis the other (ocu/ents offere( in evi(ence by the Prosecution are inconsistent 3ith their story of a buy-bust& The narration of events that suppose(ly transpire( (uring their e)ecution of the entrap/ent of herein $ccuse( is far fro/ being a straightfor3ar( testi/ony of the sai( arresting officers& %t is /in(boggling, to say the least, that the t3o 5;6 officers 3ho suppose(ly play playe( e( ey role roless in the the purp purpor orte te( ( buy-b buy-bus ustt 3oul 3oul( ( have have e)tre/ e)tre/e e inconsistencies in their testi/onies on the se
UNCERTAINTY OVER
IDENTITY ASSET STORY
OF
THE
THROWS OF
A
THE
THE
CIVILIAN ENTIRE
BUY -BUST
IN
TOTAL DISARRAY .
%n the recor(s recor(s of the instant instant cases, cases, it is unclea unclearr as to 4HO AE THE INITIAL CONTACT 4ITH THE ACCUSE as buyer of the shabu & %n fact fact,, the the t3o offi fficers cers coul oul( not not agre agree e ho3 the the transa transacti ction on 3as carrie( carrie( out, out, 6e%er %e $i*ilian asse% 6om %e /%ili+e- in %e en%ra)men% o& erein A$$/se- 6as a AN or a 4OAN & The police officer suppose(ly (esignate( as poseurbuyer (eclare( (uring trial that the civilian asset*infor/ant 3ho/ he 3ore( 3ith in carrying out the (rug-transaction 3ith the $ccuse( 3as a man& Thus: !y. !y. !leck /rancis T. 3im cross&e4amines cross&e4amines PO3 ero$)o' [N, 17!013, pp. 1891/]: ;: : ;: : ;:
444 Now, you mentoned a civilian asse who was wih you, is ha correc? Yes, Sir. And his civilian asse we all know is a lady, lady, correc? No, I did no say she is a lady, Sir. Bu I’m asking you now ha his civilian asse was a lady?
3
: ;: ;: : ;: : ;: : ;: : ;: : ;: :
No, Sir. A male? !A"#, SI$. A male. Now, he %amily name o% his male is #lle? I canno answer ha. Sir. Is i no !r. &iness ha here were wo '() civilian asses who were wih you during he o*eraton? +nly one '). Now, you said you wen o his -B Bar in $emolador Sree near /ogon, correc? Yes, Sir. +nly ogeher wih his male civilian asse, correc? ogeher wih he eam. And also his male civilian asse? !A"#. So, he was wih you? Yes, Sir. [*mp$a')' or'] 444
>n the other han(, P># $/pong testifie( the e)act opposite 3hen he 3as calle( to the 3itness stan(, saying that the asset they utili?e( in sai( entrap/ent 3as a 6oman: !y. !leck /rancis T. 3im cross&e4amines PO1 mpo%2 [N, 6!5!013, p. 13]: ;: : ;: A ;:
: ;: :
444 Now, you said ogeher wih you wih he eam is an asse, correc? Yes. IS 0A ASS# A !A"# +$ 1#!A"# &I0+2 3IS4+SIN5 [sic] 0# NA!#? 1#!A"#. So *ar o% he eam ha wen inside he -6 Bar which you could no longer recall is 4olice +7cer Serohi8os ha %emale asse and you, correc, i’s only he hree o% you? hree '9) only. So you will con:rm ha i’s only you, 4olice +7cer Serohi8os and he asse wen inside he -6 Bar, correc? Yes. [*mp$a')' or'] 444
Ho6 is i% )ossile %a% %e %6o o&&i$ers 6o/l- a*e -issimilar re$olle$%ions as %o %e i-en%i%, or more $orre$%l %e 2en-er, o& %e asse%7 %t /ust be e/phasi?e( that, in these instant cases, %e $er%ain% as %o %e e8is%en$e o& %e )oli$e# asse%9$i*ilian in&orman% m/s% e $learl es%alise-, as %is is *i%al %o %e )or%raal o& %e en%ire )i$%/re o& %e /#/s%, sin$e i% 6as %ro/2 sai- asse% %a% %e o&&er %o / sa/ 6as alle2e-l ini%ia%e-. I% 6as *ia sai- asse% %a% %e -r/2#
4
%ransa$%ion 6i% %e A$$/se- 6as s/))ose-l se%#/)& %n all these confusion, ho3ever, the truth prevails&
But first, to put things in perspective, the upre/e Court8s ruling in Peo)le *. e G/+man ,4 3hich lai( (o3n the ob=ective test in (eter/ining the cre(ibility of the prosecution8s 3itnesses regar(ing the con(uct of a legiti/ate buy-bust operation, is 3orth e/phasis: We therefore stress that the objecve test in buy-bust operaon demands that the details of the purported transacon must be clearly and adequately shown. This must start from the inial contact between the poseurbuyer and the pusher the o!er for purchase the promise or payment of the consideraon unl the consummaon of the sale by the delivery of the illegal drug subject of the sale. T"# $%&&#R '( W")*" T"# )&)T)%+ *,&T%*T W% $%# W"#T"#R ,R &,T T"R,/0" %& )&1,R$%&T T"# ,11#R T, 2/R*"%# T"# R/0 T"# 2%($#&T ,1 T"# '/(-'/T $,&#( %& T"# #+)3#R( ,1 T"# )++#0%+ R/0 W"#T"#R T, T"# )&1,R$%&T %+,&# ,R T"# 2,+)*# ,11)*#R $/T '# T"# /'4#*T ,1 TR)*T *R/T)&( '( *,/RT to insure that law-abiding ci5ens are not unlawfully induced to commit an o!ense. [*mp$a'e' 'ppl)ed]
$pplying the above test, an( sin$e %e i-en%i% o& %e $i*ilian asse% is no6 /n-er a -ar: $lo/- o& -o/%, it follo3s that %e manner 6i$ %e ini%ial $on%a$% 6as ma-e %e sai- asse%9in&orman% , o6 %e o&&er %o )/r$ase %e alle2e- sa/ 6as ma-e an( %e $onse;/en% -eli*er o& sai- i%em %ro/2 %e sai- asse%9in&orman% are lie3ise thro3n into serious UNCERTAINT! & Taing the argu/ent a step further, %e i-en%i% o& %e )ose/r#/er an( %e )amen% o& %e $onsi-era%ion for the allege( shabu are lie3ise OUBTFUL& Practically, therefore, all the ele/ents for the cri/e of illegal sale of prohibite( (rugs are none)istent in the instant case& NO
MATERIAL
PROOF
BEEN
PRESENTED
THAT
THE
TO
HAS SHOW
TRANSACTION
OR
G.R. No. 151!05, J%e /, !00, 31 (R 516, +)-%2 )eople v. 5oria, 361 P$)l. 5/5, 6!1 41///.
5
SALE
OF
‘SHABU’
ACTUALLY
TOOK PLACE.
Both P># $/pong an( P> erohi=os lie3ise gave conflicting an( contra(icting state/ents as to the position of herein $ccuse(, the asset an( P> erohi=os insi(e the Vi(eoe Bar (uring the actual (rug-transaction& $ccor(ing to P> erohi=os, he 3as seate( opposite * across * infront of the $ccuse( fro/ the table, to 3it: !y. !leck /rancis T. 3im cross&e4amines PO3 ero$)o' [N, 17!013, pp. !8930]: 444 ;:
: 1acing me, Sir. ;: Fa+)%2 yo> : : : CD Dar. ;: ?)' @a+A =old +learly '$o=% al'o to ot$er people =$o =ere al'o )%')de t$e CD Dar> : : : ?e d)d %ot ope% )mmed)ately. ;: OAay. ?o= d)d $e d)d )t> : ?e 'at do=% in %ron o% me t$e% $e '$o=ed t$e t=o 4! 'a+$et' at $)' ')de. ;: t $)' ')de. "B yo '$o= )% $)' ')de yo =old %ot a@le to 'ee @e+a'e a++ord)%2 to yo, yo 'eat )% Bro%t oB $)m> : $e t=o 4! ta@le' are 'o 'mall l)Ae t$)' o%e. ;: "B " =a' t$e a++'ed )% t$e'e +a'e', " =old 'eat $ere, yo t$ere a%d t$e ot$er male a''et )' $ere, " =old '$o= to t$e ')de yo are %ot at t$)' ')de> : Near. ;: OAay, A%o=)%2 t$at t$e ta@le )' 't l)Ae a' t$)' @)2... 4)%terrpted (OER: $e ta@le )' 'are> <. "H: are,
6
$e ta@le )' %ot re+ta%2lar %ot 'are. <. "H: #a)t )t&' 'are, <. "H: Oppo')te ea+$ ot$er.I [*mp$a')' or'] 444
.o3ever, a setch /a(e by P># $/pong @please see E8ii% <=> , for the $ccuse( 5change( fro/ )hibit A#B to )hibit A;B 6 3hich he /a(e (uring his cross-e)a/ination, P> erohi=os 3as D>T seate( in front or across fro/ herein $ccuse( but at his right si(e& These inconsistencies an( contra(ictions on i/portant an( /aterial points in the testi/onies of the Prosecution8s 3itnesses seriously cast (oubts on the Prosecution8s clai/ that a buy-bust 3as con(ucte( against herein $ccuse(& $s hel( in People v. Jubilag,! to 3it: 6The credibility of the prosecuon witnesses is highly quesonable and crumbles in the face of the aforemenoned inconsistencies in their tesmonies and the suspicious circumstances surrounding appellant7s arrest. "ow the trial court could have overloo8ed these connues to pu55le us. )n upholding the prosecuon the trial court erroneously relied 9rst on the general rule that inconsistencies in the tesmonies of prosecuon witnesses with respect to minor details and collateral ma:ers do not a!ect either the substance of their declaraon their veracity or the weight of their tesmony and second on the presumpon of regularity in the performance of o;cial dues by the police o;cers. "owever entrenched these rules may be they do not 9nd applicaon in the case at bar. Thus in 2eople v. Remorosa where the tesmony of the police o;cer was tainted with material contradicons we held that 6irreconcilable and une
7
incident. 1inally it is a se:led rule in our jurisprudence that> )f the inculpatory facts and circumstances are capable of two or more e
0oreover, in Peo)le *. !/%/$ ,' the upre/e Court lie3ise hel( that: 2nder he circumsances, here is meri in de%ense counsel;s conenton ha hese *rosecuton winesses who are sworn o *roec he cit>). 6erily, he *resum*ton ha o7cial duy has =een regularly *er%ormed canno, =y isel%, *revail agains he constutonal *resum*ton o% innocence accorded an accused *erson. #ven more caegorically, he /our saed ha he common modus o*erandi o% narcotc agens o% utli
Clearly, the prosecution an( the police officers involve( faile( to present a realistic an( convincing narrative of their suppose( entrap/ent involving herein $ccuse(& %t /ust be e/phasi?e( that for the successful prosecution of the offense un(er Se$%ion 5, Ar%i$le II o& RA '1(5 , %ere m/s% e ma%erial )roo& %a% %e %ransa$%ion or sale o& %e $on%raan- a$%/all %oo: )la$e , $o/)le- 6i% %e )resen%a%ion in $o/r% o& %e )roii%e- or re2/la%e- -r/2 . Te -eli*er o& %e ille2al 6 G.R. No. 8!5/0, Jly !6, 1//0.
8
-r/2 ?sa/@ %o %e )ose/r#/er an- %e re$ei)% o& %e mar:e- mone $ons/mma%e %e /#/s% %ransa$%ion e%6een %e en%ra))in2 o&&i$ers an- %e A$$/se-. Eorth citing is the high court8s ruling in Peo)le *. Sal$ena , to 3it: 6?)@t is pernent to menon the ruling in the case of 2eople v. %ngelito Tan that courts are mandated to 2/T T"# 2R,#*/T),& #3)#&*# T"R,/0" T"# *R/*)'+# ,1 % #3#R# T#T)&0 and that the presumpon of innocence requires them to ta8e a more than casual consideraon of every circumstance or doubt favoring the innocence of the accused. )n the case at bench the prosecuon evidence when placed under severe tesng does not prove with moral certainty that a legimate buy-bust operaon was conducted against alcena.= [*mp$a'e' added, +)ta-o% om)Ked]
%n these instant cases, since it re/ains uncertain 3hether the civilian asset 3ho assiste( the police*poseur-buyer is /ale or fe/ale, the other (etails of the operation are also (oubtful, particularly 3ith regar(s the i(entity of the $or)/s -eli$%i of the cri/es charge(, as (iscusse( in (etail, hereun(er: II.
THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTIONS POLICE#4ITNESSES TO COPL! 4ITH THE STRICTURES UNER SEC. =1 OF R.A. '1(5, IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTO! OF SEIE RUGS, IS ENOUGH TO ENGENER REASONABLE OUBT ON THE GUILT OF ACCUSE.
Fore/ost, t3o upre/e Court pronounce/ents are 3orth citing, fro/ 3hich the above argu/ent is pre/ise(, to 3it: 6The inconsistency in the evidence and the wea8 presentaon of the prosecuon leaves % 0%2)&0 ",+# )& T"# *"%)& ,1 */T,( which *R#%T# % R#%,&%'+# ,/'T ,& T"# 0/)+T ,1 T"# %**/#. )n view of the prosecuonAs failure to adduce jus9able grounds on their procedural lapses and the une
7 )eople v. 5e la Cru6, G.R. No. 177!!!, O+to@er !/, !008, 570 (R !73, !83. 8 G.R. No. 1/!!61, Novem@er 16, !011.
9
inconsistencies in the evidence presented we are constrained to reverse the 9nding of the court a quo.= C D+%W #&1,R*#R ",/+ &,T TR)1+# W)T" T"# +#0%+ R#E/)R#$#&T T, #&/R# )&T#0R)T( )& T"# *"%)& ,1 */T,( ,1 #)F# %&0#R,/ R/0 and drug paraphernalia. G<<.D HI
%n the instant cases, the Prosecution8s o3n police-3itnesses faile( to establish the integrity in the han(ling of the %6o ?=@ me-i/m $ello)ane sa$e%s $on%ainin2 sa/ through an unbroen chain of custo(y after their purporte( consu//ation of a buy-bust an( a subse
THE IENTIT! OF THE CORPUS ELICTI CANNOT BE ESTABLISHE
BASE
ON
THE
POLICE#4ITNESSES TESTIONIES OCUENTS
AN OFFERE
THE IN
E"IENCE B! THE PROSECUTION.
P> Ben Gurion erohi=os, the police operative 3ho allege(ly acte( as poseur-buyer an( as sei?ing officer , faile( to /ar the shabu 3hich he clai/e( to have )/r$ase- fro/ the $ccuse( 1 1 after the purporte( buy-bust& The allege( sachet containing shabu that 3as sub=ect of the sale 3as ne*er mar:e-, / People v. alo%2a, G. R. No. 1//8, eptem@er !, !013. 10People v. Lela (rz, G.R. No. !058!1, O+to@er 1, !01 +)-%2 People v. ?ol2ado, G.R. No. !07//!, 2't 11, !01. 11Or)2)%ate' Brom r)'prde%+e, =$)+$ e''e%-ally 'tate', t$at: HarA)%2 aMer 'e)zre )' t$e 'tar-%2 po)%t )% t$e +'tod)al l)%A, t$' )t )' v)tal t$at t$e 'e)zed +o%tra@a%d' are )mmed)atelyI marAed @e+a'e '++eed)%2 $a%dler' oB t$e 'pe+)me%' =)ll 'e t$e marA)%2' a' reBere%+e. $)' pro+edre $a' @ee% )%+orporated )% t$e (ompre$e%')ve La%2ero' Lr2' +t oB !00! 4R /165 a%d )t' )mpleme%-%2 rle', )%+ld)%2 t$e PNP Ha%al o% %-9"lle2al Lr2' Opera-o% a%d "%ve'-2a-o%.
10
laele-, nor 2i*en an i-en%i% 3hen it ca/e into the possession of P> erohi=os, a22ra*a%e- %e &a$% %a% sai- o&&i$er 6o/le8)ose %e sai- i%em %o s6i%$in2 , 6e%er ina-*er%en%l or no%, as e 6o/l- la%er on sei+e ano%er sa$e% o& sa/ o& %e same ;/an%i% 6i% i-en%i$al )a$:a2in2, again 3ithout /aring the secon( ite/ an( apparently getting the t3o sachets /i)e(-up in the process, as establishe( in the court testi/onies of P> erohi=os, as follo3s: 5irec&e4aminaton of )*7 8erohi9os by )rosecuor +efereri Crisobal [N, !!/!01!, pp. 1091]: ;: :
;: : ;: :
;: : ;: : ;: :
;: : ;: : ;: :
;: :
444 444 %d t$e% aMer t$at e+$a%2ed oB 'a+$et oB '$a@ a%d t$e P500.00 @)ll =$at $appe%ed %et )B a%y> " +a'ally 'ta%d a%d =e%t to t$e door a%d l)t t$e +)2areKe to 2)ve t$e pre9arra%2ed ')2%al Bor t$e team mem@er t$at t$e tra%'a+-o% =a' already +o%'mmated. #$ere d)d yo 'ta%d> t t$e door Ha&am oB t$e )deoAe Dar. o =$at $appe%ed %et> Mer " 2ave t$em a ')2%al PO1 mpo%2 =a' t$e o%e =$o r't arr)ved to ' a%d =$e% " 'a= t$at PO1 mpo%2 )' already t$ere " told t$e ''pe+t t$at $e )' %der arre't Bor 'ell)%2 )lle2al dr2'. t t$e -me t$at yo 'tood p a%d l)t a +)2areKe at t$e door, =$ere =a' t$e ''pe+t t$e%> )%2 at t$e ta@le Ha&am. -ll ')%2 at t$e ta@le> ?e 'tood p a%d tr)ed to re')'t @t $e =a' already re'tra)%ed @y PO1 mpo%2 a%d my'elB a%d at t$at -me t$e ot$er team mem@er' =ere already t$ere. So wha else i% any ha**ened during ha tme? I searched his *ockes and recovered he CC *eso =ill marked money a his righ *ocke. &0A #"S# I1 ANY 3I3 Y+2 1IN3? A"S+ 0# +0#$ SA/0#. o aMer t$e ot$er 'a+$et oB '$a@ a%d al'o t$e marAed mo%ey =$at $appe%ed %et> #e )%Bormed $)m, t$e a++'ed, t$at $e )' %der arre't Bor v)ola-o% oB R.. /165 t$e da%2ero' dr2' a+t !000 a%d t$at $e $a' t$e r)2$t to rema)% ')le%t a%d t$at a%yt$)%2 $e =old 'ay +a% @e 'ed a2a)%'t $)m )% +ort, $e $a' t$e r)2$t to looA Bor a +o%'el )B $e +a%%ot aQord o%e t$e 2over%me%t =)ll @e appo)%ted )% $)' o=% +$o)+e. So a@er ha wha ha**ened ne? +ur eam leader /hie% Ins*. +laivar decided ha we will *roceed o our o7ce o conduc he invenory herea =ecause he *lace a he videoke =ar here were cusomers and may=e he owner would no agree =ecause he would loss some wages i% we would use his *remises ha was he 8udgmen call o% our eam leader.
11
;: : ;: : ;: : ;: : ;: :
;:
: ;:
: ;:
: ;:
:
S+ &0+ ++- /2S+3Y +1 0# SAI3 I#!S 0A Y+2 1+2N3 1$+! 0# B+3Y +1 0# A//2S#3? I ++- /2S+3Y. And hen when you *roceeded a he /am* 1rancisco 3agohoy wha ha**ened here i% any? &hen we arrived herea we immediaely conaced he =arangay o7cial o% he *lace and he re*resenatve o% he 43#A and he media. And hen a@er conactng hem wha ha**ened ne i% any? &hen he said *ersons arrived we =egan he invenory o% he sei $e e)zre(o%'+a-o% Re+e)pt =a' lled p, (ompl)a%+e oB "%ve%tory =a' al'o lled p a%d p)+tre' =ere taAe%. 444 444 "% t$e e)zre(o%'+a-o% Re+e)pt )t appear' t$at t$e %ame oB PO3 De% Gr)o% ero$)o' )' t$e e)z)%2 O+er a%d a@ove t$ereo% )' a ')2%atre, do yo A%o= =$o'e ')2%atre )' )t a@ove t$e %ame> $)' )' my ')2%atre, Ha&am. !entoned in his Sei, (CC and he oher sache he marking in =lue ink wih he initals #B/ C( +co=er (>, (CC and here is also a signaure a**earing =elow said markings in =lue ink, 3+ Y+2 -N+& &0+ !A3# 0IS !A$-IN5? 4+( !A/2A, !A’A!. Y+2 !#NI+N#3 #A$"I#$ 0A 0# +N# ') SA/0# +1 S0AB2 &AS 5I6#N + Y+2 32$IN5 0# $ANSA/I+N &0#$#IN Y+2 B+250 A SA/0# +1 S0AB2 1$+! 0# S2S4#/, /AN Y+2 I3#NI1Y &0I/0 A!+N5 0#S# SA/0#S &0I/0 IS 0# +BG#/ +1 SA"#? I /ANN+ I3#NI1Y B#/A2S# 0#Y "++- 0# SA!# AN3 I 1+$5+ B2 I &AS $#1"#/#3 IN +2$ $#/#I4, B2 40YSI/A" I /ANN+ I3#NI1Y B#/A2S# 0# &+ "++- 0# SA!#, !A’A!. [*mp$a'e' added] 444 444
Crystal clear fro/ the =ust- erohi=os is the fact that he (i( not /ar the shabu sub=ect of the sale, for its i(entification purposes, i//e(iately right after the buy-bust& $s a /atter of fact, P>; erohi=os categorically a(/itte( in the prece(ing testi/ony that e $o/l- no% -is%in2/is nor )i$: o/%, e%6een %e %6o ?=@
12
sa$e%s o& sa/ , %e one 6i$ e )/r$ase- &rom %e A$$/se- ?s/e$% o& %e sale@, an- 6i$ sa$e% 6as %e one e sei+e- a&%er $on-/$%in2 a o- sear$ on %e A$$/se-. The high tribunal8s ruling in Peo)le *. Usman 1 = re
$lso 3orth revisiting is the high court8s ruling in Peo)le *. Hol2a-o an- isare+ ,# to 3it: he elemens ha mus =e esa=lished o susain convictons %or illegal sale o% dangerous drugs are seled. In 2eople v. $orales, his cour saed In actons involving he illegal sale o% dangerous drugs, he %ollowing elemens mus :rs =e esa=lished ') *roo% ha he ransacton or sale ook *lace and '() he *resenaton in cour o% he cor*us delict or he illici drug as evidence. [*mp$a')' added +)ta-o%' om)Ked]
nsuing /istaes 3oul( aggravate the serious breach alrea(y co//itte( by P> erohi=os as he 3oul( also fail to /ar the shabu that he 3oul( sei?e in a subse erohi=os foun( the secon( sachet of shabu an( then too custo(y of the %6o ?=@ i-en%i$al sa$e%s 3ithout any labels or (istinguishing /ars on either of the t3o ite/s, this create( a gaping hole in the chain of custo(y of each of the t3o 5;6 sachets of shabu , one of 3hich 3as the evi(ence of the instant charge for illegal sale an( the other as evi(ence for the illegal possession charge& Eorse, the circu/stances surroun(ing the se
13
for their arrival before an inventory an( /aring actually co//ence(& P> erohi=os 3oul( eventually turn-over the t3o 5;6 i(entical sachets to P>; 0a)i/o 0acua 3ho (i( the actual /arings on the t3o ite/s& $pparently, P> erohi=os han(e( the t3o 5;6 (rug ite/s all at the sa/e ti/e 3ithout a clear (istinction as to 3hich ite/ is sub=ect of the sale, an( 3hich ite/ 3as sei?e( as a result of the subse
$lso, in Peo)le *. Beran ,#! the high court sai(: EIndeed, he very identy o% he su=8ec shabu canno =e esa=lished wih cerainy =y he estmony alone o% 4C9 Sia since 0# $2"#S INSIS 24+N IN3#4#N3#N 4$++1 +1 IS I3#NIY, such as he
1G.R. No. 18!18, Hay 8, !00/. 15 G.R. No. !030!8, Ja%ary 15, !01 .
14
I!!#3IA# !A$-IN5 hereo% u*on sei
uring cross-e)a/ination, P> erohi=os 3as ase( to clarify this stage of the operation, testifying that: Cross&e4aminaton of )*7 8erohi9os by !y. !leck /rancis T. 3im [N, 17!013, pp. 33935]: N+&, /AN Y+2 0+"3 0IS. Y+2 /+N1I$!#3 + !# 0A IN 0IS 4A$I/2"A$ 3+/2!#N S#I2$#D/+N1IS/AI+N $#/#I4 &0I/0 Y+2 !A$-#3 AS, I’S SI"" N+ !A$-IN5 Y+2$ 0+N+$. B2 0#$# IS AA/0#3 + 0# $#/+$3 +1 0IS /AS# Y+2 &I"" /+N1I$! + !# 0A 0# &+ '() !#3I2! SI# /#""+40AN# SA/0#S 3+#S N+ B#A$ ANY !A$-IN5S +$ INIIA"? : N+, SI$. ;: N+ !A$-IN5 +$ N+ INIIA", /+$$#/? : Y#S, SI$. ;: You will also likewise con:rm ha in he oher documen /+!4"IAN/# +N 40YSI/A" IN6#N+$Y A1#$ S#A$/0 AN3 S#I2$# in 0# &+ '() !#3I2! SI# SA/0# &I0 &0I# /$YSA""IN# 4+&3#$ Y+2 &+2"3 "I-#&IS# /+N1I$! 0A 0#$# IS N+ !A$-IN5 +$ INIIA"? Y#S, SI$. : ;: !r. &iness according o you, you have =een involved o% many drug o*eratons, is i no ha a Sandard +*eratng 4rocedure *ursuan Secton (, Artcle ( o% $e*u=lic Ac LM ha here mus =e immediae marking on he drugs which was allegedly sei
15
;:
: ;: : ;: :
0#$# !2S B# I!!#3IA# !A$-IN5 +N 0# 3$25 +$ SA/0# $#/+6#$#3 A1#$ 0A 0#$# B# A "ISIN5 +1 A"" 0+S# I#!S 0A &#$# $#/+6#$#3, /+$$#/? Y#S. And ha you also aware o% Secton ( a, Artcle ( o% $e*u=lic Ac LM? Yes, Sir. And in ha law i’s very clear here was immediae invenory on he iems sei
The prece(ing testi/onies of the poseur-buyer 3ho also assu/e( the role of a sei?ing officer 5P> erohi=os6 is a $lear $on&ession that the shabu sub=ect of the sale, an( the shabu confiscate( in a conse; 0acua by P> erohi=os, the officer 3ho ha( initial custo(y of sai( ite/s& vi(ently, the /arings on sai( ite/s 3ere only (one (uring the inventory at Ca/p agohoy together 3ith all the other ite/s that 3ere allege(ly confiscate( fro/ $ccuse( in a subse
The upre/e Court specifically establishe( =urispru(ence that has been a(opte( in police /anuals on anti-illegal (rug operations that re
16
sei5ures such as a buy-bust operaon the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police staon or o;ce of the apprehending o;cerMteam whichever is praccable consistent with the 6chain of custody= rule. )T &## &, #+%',R%T),& T"%T T"# )$$#)%T# $%RN)&0 ,1 T"# )T#$ #)F# )& % '/(-'/T ,2#R%T),& )& T"# 2R##&*# ,1 T"# %**/# ) )&)2#&%'+# T, #T%'+)" )T )#&T)T( )& *,/RT . "ere none of the buy-bust team a:ested that they saw 2IO ia ta8e custody of the con9scated sha=u, and later mar8 the sachet at the %)-W2 o;ce. #3#& 0R%&T)&0 T"%T 2IO )% ) $%RN T"# %$# %*"#T %T T"# 2R#*)&*T 'R#%N )& T"# *"%)& ,1 */T,( "% %+R#%( T%N#& 2+%*# 1)RT W"#& "# *,&1)*%T# )T 1R,$ '#R%& W)T",/T %&(,&# ,'#R3)&0 ")$ , , %& W)T",/T $%RN)&0 T"# /'4#*T %*"#T %T T"# 2+%*# ,1 %22R#"#&),& %& T"#& % "# W% TR%&2,RT)&0 )T T, T"# 2R#*)&*T T"/ *%T)&0 #R),/ ,/'T /2,& T"# 3%+/# ,1 T"# %) +)&N T, 2R,3# T"# /+$42S 3#"I/I. $oreover the records also show that 2IO ia submi:ed the sachet to the laboratory only on the ne
%n fact, all three 56 (ocu/entary evi(ences pertaining to the han(ling of the t3o 5;6 sachets of shabu , na/ely: 5#6Sei+/re an- Con&is$a%ion Re$ei)%, 5;6Com)lian$e on Psi$al In*en%or A&%er Sear$ an- Sei+/re, an( 56PNP Crime Laora%or Re)or% No. #151#=010 , all bear /aterial (efects 3hich further cast a (ar clou( of (oubt on the i(entity of the t3o sachets of shabu presente( as evi(ence by the Prosecution, 3hich further proves the fact that the operatives faile( to preserve its integrity an( evi(entiary value, as /ore specifically (iscusse( hereun(er: ?1@ The (ocu/ent labele( is no% a %r/%&/l, reliale an- a$$/ra%e 17
re$or- o& %e $/s%o-ial mo*emen%s o& %e i%ems sei+e-. The sachet of shabu suppose(ly purchase( fro/ $ccuse( an( sub=ect of the buy-bust 5inclu(ing the /are(-/oney6 shoul( have been recor(e( in a se)ara%e $/s%o-ial see% or re$ei)% as this ite/ re no% , an( /ore i/portantly, it ca/e into possession of the officer (esignate( as poseurbuyer before the rest of the ite/s that 3ere sei?e( in a subse erohi=os faile( to /ar either of the t3o 5;6 sachets& >n close inspection of the assaile( (ocu/ent, it is clear that %e %6o ?=@ sa$e%s o& sa/ 6ere e*en RECORE AS ONE ?1@ SINGLE ENTR!, $learl in-i$a%in2 %a% no -is%in$%ion nor -is%in2/isin2 mar:s 6ere e*er ma-e on %ese %6o ?=@ i%ems. Te )ossiili% %a% %e %6o ?=@ sa$e%s o& sa/ sei+e- ma a*e een mi8e-#/), 6ron2l a%%ri/%e- ei%er as e*i-en$e o& %e /#/s% or o& %e ille2al )ossession $ar2e, or e*en s/s%i%/%e-, al%ere-, or %am)ere-, ei%er a$$i-en% or o%er6ise, $anno% e r/le- o/%, notably because %e %6o ?=@ i%ems a*e a similar -es$ri)%ion, %e same si+e, %e same ;/an%i% 6i% %e same )a$:a2in2. As a res/l% o& 6i$, %e )ose/r#/er9sei+in2 o&&i$er ?PO3 Seroios@ $o/l- no% i-en%i& in o)en $o/r% <6i$ is 6i$> 6en as:e- Prose$/%or Cris%oal %o )i$:#o/% 6i$ amon2 %e %6o ?=@ sa$e%s 6as %e one %a% A$$/se- alle2e-l sol- %o im. 0oreover, the na/e of the recor(ing officer, P>; 0acua, is no3here in sai( (ocu/ent, 3hich is signe( instea( by P> erohi=os 3hen in truth an( in fact, it 3as P>; 0acua 3ho /a(e the /arings on the ite/s an( he 3as also the one 3ho /a(e its entry into the sei?ure receipt& 0ore i/portantly, the (ocu/ent 3oul( not prove that there 3as a proper turn-over by the sei?ing officer 5P> erohi=os6 to the recor(er*custo(ian 5P>; 0acua6& In &a$%, %is -o$/men% @ei?ure an( Confiscation Receipt 6o/l- es%alis %e &a$% %a% %ere 6as onl one in*en%or an- mar:in2 $on-/$%e- , an- i% is $lear 18
%a% %is in*en%or an- mar:in2 6as in$l/si*e o& 6a%e*er i%ems 6ere sei+e- -/rin2 %e /#/s% an- %e s/se;/en% o-#sear$. Re2ar-less, %is in*en%or so/l- e -is$re-i%e- as i% is /nreliale. Tis alone so/l- 6arran% %e -ismissal o& %e ins%an% $ar2es a2ains% %e A$$/se-. ?=@ i/ilarly, the (ocu/ent title( is no% a %r/%&/l, a$$/ra%e an- reliale re$or- o& %e $/s%o-ial mo*emen%s o& %e %6o ?=@ sa$e%s o& sa/ sim)l e$a/se o% i%ems 6ere re$or-e- as one ?1@ sin2le en%r in %is -o$/men% -es)i%e %e &a$% %a% ea$ i%em $ame in%o %e $/s%o-ial $ain a% -i&&eren% )oin%s in %ime. The shabu fro/ the buy-bust 5an( the /are(-/oney6 shoul( have been recor(e( in a separate turn-over sheet as this ite/ entere( the chain of custo(y /uch ahea( of the rest of the ite/s& >n close scrutiny of this (ocu/ent, it is clear that, again, the possibility that the t3o 5;6 sachets of shabu sei?e( /ay have been /i)e(-up, 3rongly attribute( either as evi(ence of the buy-bust or of the illegal possession charge, or even substitute(, altere(, or ta/pere(, either by ina(vertence or other3ise, cannot be rule( out, notably because %e %6o ?=@ i%ems a*e a similar -es$ri)%ion, %e same si+e, %e same ;/an%i% an- %e same )a$:a2in2& 0oreover, the na/e of the recor(ing officer, P>; 0acua, is no3here in sai( (ocu/ent, 3hich further proves no proper recor(ing 3as /a(e as to the han(lers of the ite/s sei?e(& The (ocu/ent 3oul( not prove that there 3as a proper turn-over by the sei?ing officer 5P> erohi=os6 to the recor(er*custo(ian 5P>; 0acua6& %n fact, this (ocu/ent @Co/pliance on Physical %nventory $fter earch an( ei?ure 3oul( establish the fact that there 3as only one inventory an( /aring con(ucte(, an( it is clear that this inventory 3as inclusive of 3hatever ite/s 3ere sei?e( (uring the buy-bust an( the subse 3oul( further (iscre(it the Prosecution8s case as it further uncovers BR>ID 2%DI in the chain of custo(y of the allege( sei?e( ite/s& %n sai( cri/e laboratory report, it is clear that
19
%e %6o ?=@ sa$e%s o& sa/ 6ere a2ain s/mi%%eal%o2e%er &or analsis 6i%o/% an $lear -is%in$%ion as %o i%s i-en%i% an( that these 3ere e8amine- a% %e same %ime an- i%s res/l%s en%ere- in one ?1@ sin2le $emis%r re)or%. For all in%en%s an- )/r)oses, %e sai- -o$/men% so/l- e -is$re-i%e- &or ein2 /nreliale as i% is ina$$/ra%e as %o %e i-en%i% o& %e %6o ?=@ sa$e%s9s)e$imen e8amine- , an( later on presente( as evi(ence by the Prosecution& Te %6o ?=@ sa$e%s o& sa/ a/%oma%i$all e$ame s/s$e)%ile %o s6i%$in2 an- s/s%i%/%ion, 6e%er in%en%ionall or no%, on$e i% o% $ame in%o $/s%o- o& %e same )oli$e o&&i$er 6o -i- no% a-ere %o %e r/le on mar:in2 o& sei+e- -r/2s imme-ia%el /)on i%s sei+/re. Te ine*i%ale $on$l/sion 6o/l- e %a% %e in%e2ri% ane*i-en%iar *al/e o& %e sei+e- i%ems a*e een serio/sl $om)romise-. $t this =uncture, it is 3orth citing the upre/e Court8s (iscussion in Peo)le *. Hol2a-o an- isare+ ,# to 3it: 6G<<. %s this court stated in 2eople v. +oren5o> In =oh illegal sale and illegal *ossession o% *rohi=ied drugs, convicon cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identy of the drug. he identy o% he *rohi=ied drug mus =e esa=lished wih moral cerainy. A*ar %rom showing ha he elemens o% *ossession or sale are *resen, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the 9rst place is the same substance o!ered in court as e
20
he inadeHuacy o% merely marking he iems su**osedly sei
21
ha 4+ Aure su**osedly marked i E$04AF a he scene o% he =uy=us o*eraton. E&hile he =uy=us o*eraton eam allegedly conduced an invenory o% he sei
%n a long line of cases, the upre/e Court has reiterate( that A3hile a perfect chain of custo(y is al/ost al3ays i/possible to achieve, an unbroen chain beco/es in(ispensable an( essential in the prosecution of (rug cases o3ing to its susceptibility to alteration, ta/pering, conta/ination an( even substitution an( e)change& $ case in point is the upre/e Court8s ruling in Peo)le *. Leonar- Bernar-ino ,#9 as follo3s: W# *%&&,T ,3#R+,,N T") #3)#&T)%R( 0%2 % )T )&3,+3# T"# )#&T)1)*%T),& ,1 T"# "%'/ %++#0#+( ,+ % )T)&0/)"# 1R,$ T"# "%'/ 1,/& )& T"# %**/#-%22#++%&T 2,#),&. The lac8 of segregaon between these pieces of evidence for the two di!erent crimes charged is also very evident from an e
22
sold at the buy-bust e
%n these instant cases, se*eral $ain lin:s 6ere ro:en in %e $/s%o- o& %e %6o ?=@ sa$e%s o& sa/ as establishe( through the o/%ri2% $on&ession &rom %e )ose/r#/er ansei+in2 o&&i$er 5P> erohi=os6 6en e %es%i&ie- -/rin2 %rial as %o is &ail/re %o mar: ei%er o& %e %6o ?=@ sa$e%s o& sa/ . ven the Prosecution8s (ocu/entary evi(ence support this i/plicit a(/ission of serious breaches in the han(ling of the (rug ite/s sei?e(, as threshe( out in the prece(ing (iscussions @ 5#6ei?ure an( Confiscation Receipt, 5;6Co/pliance on Physical %nventory $fter earch an( ei?ure, an( 56PDP Cri/e 2aboratory Report Do& -#!#- ;J#J & 0oreover, no other testi/ony fro/ the other police-3itnesses or (ocu/entary evi(ences 3oul( overturn such a(/itte( breaches that 3oul( attest to the integrity in the han(ling of sub=ect shabu & Eith the i(entity of the corpus (elicti not establishe( by the Prosecution, $ccuse( therefore (eserves an ac
23
dutes, he docrinal %all=ack o% every drugrelaed *rosecuton. hus, in 2eople v. +a
CONTRAR! TO THE SECTION =1, R.A.
RULE
CONFISCATE SACHETS 4ERE
NOT
IN"ENTORIE
UNER
'1(5 THE OF SHABU
IEIATEL! AN9
OR
PHOTOGRAPHE UPON ITS SEIURE.
+n(er Se$%ion =1, Ar%i$le II o& R.A. '1(5 , it is i/perative that the police operatives /ae a physical inventory an( photograph the sei?e( articles A imme-ia%el /)on i%s -is$o*er B, sei?ure an( confiscation, in the presence of the accuse( or his representative or counsel, a representative fro/ the /e(ia an( the >K, an( any electe( public official, a/ong others& %n the instant case, there is a categorical a(/ission fro/ the police-3itnesses (uring trial that they (i( not co/ply 3ith the inventory an( photograph re erohi=os, the (esignate( poseur-buyer, testifie( as follo3s:
24
Cross&e4aminaton of )*7 8erohi9os by !y. !leck /rancis 3im [N, 17!013, pp. 3193!]: R A R A R
A R A R A ;: : ;: : ;: :
444 444 Now, you will also con:rm he %ac ha he no invenory was conduced a he *lace where he alleged iems were recovered? Yes. No invenory was conduced? Yes, Sir. You were also con:rm ha %ac ha he lady or he manager or he owner o% he -B =ar did no *reven you %rom holding he Invenory a he *lace were he accused was arresed, correc? Yes, Sir did no *reven me. Bu no one *revened you %rom conductng an Invenory a he *lace where he iems was allegedly sei
i/ilarly, P># $/pong also testifie( that: Cross&e4aminaton of 8)*# !mpong by !y. !leck /rancis 3im [N, 6!5!013, p. 18]: ;:
: ;: : ;: : ;:
444 444 Now, you would also con:rm ha no invenory whasoever was conduced a he *lace where he alleged =uy =us o*eraton was conduced, correc? I was made only in our o7ce when he invenory was conduced. In %ac no one *revened you %rom conductng any invenory a he *lace where he alleged =uy =us o*eraton was conduced, correc? No one. Yes, no one *revened you, correc? Yes, no one *revened us. Now you said ha he invenory was conduced a you o7ce a /am* 3agohoy, correc? Yes.F 444 444 [*mp$a')' added] 444 444
0ost i/portantly, there are no /arings of the ite/s in(icate( in the ei?ure*Confiscation Receipt an( Co/pliance in Physical %nventory after ei?ure*earch& To recall P> erohi=os8 testi/ony, thus:
25
Cross&e4aminaton of )*7 8erohi9os by !y. !leck /rancis 3im [N, 17!013, pp. 33935]: 444 444 ;: No=, +a% yo $old t$)'. : No, )r. ;: No marA)%2 or %o )%)-al, +orre+t> : : : #"N*: t t$at -me, )r> <. "H: : : No. ;: No do+me%tary prooB> : <. "H: No do+me%tary prooB. ;: De+a'e =$e% =e talAed a@ot t$e )%ve%tory t$ere are t=o 4! )mporta%t a'pe+t' )% t$e )%ve%tory, +orre+t> : : : :
26
: ;:
:
' m+$ a' po'')@le, ')r.I 444 444
$s pointe( out in the prece(ing (iscussions, %e &ail/re o& %e )ose/r#/er an- sei+in2 o&&i$er ?PO3 Seroios@ %o mar: %e %6o ?=@ similar9i-en%i$al sa$e%s o& sa/ , one o& 6i$ 6as %e s/e$% o& %e sale an- %e o%er $on&is$a%e- in a $onse;/en% o-#sear$ o& %e A$$/se-, e&ore %/rnin2 i% o*er %o %e re$or-in2 o&&i$er9$/s%o-ian ?PO= a$/a@, alrea- $rea%e- a $lo/- o& -o/% as %o 6e%er %e saii-en%i$al9similar %6o ?=@ sa$e%s o& sa/ %a% en%ere- in%o %e $ain 6ere a$%/all %e ones s/mi%%e- &or laora%or analsis an- $onse;/en%l %en-ere- in e*i-en$e %e Prose$/%ion. Briefly state(, the Prosecution8s police-3itnesses faile( to ensure or preserve the authenticity an( the evi(entiary value of the ite/s sei?e(& >n filing these instant cases, therefore, the officers /erely /a(e an insinuation 3ith regar(s the sachets of shabu use( in evi(ence of the cri/es charge( as aptly state( in e La Cr/+ ,;# a case si/ilarly involving a buy-bust, 3herein the upre/e Court rule(: I is essental ha he prohibied drug con:scaed or recovered from he suspec is he very same substance o"ered in cour as e4hibi0 and ha the identy of said drug be established with the same unwavering e
$s establishe( in the above-
27
have cusody of all dangerous drugs, plan sources of dangerous drugs, conrolled precursors and essental chemicals, as well as insrumens#? The apprehending team having inial custody and control of the dangerous drugs controlled precursors and essenal chemicals instrumentsM paraphernalia andMor laboratory equipment shall immediately aer sei5ure and con9scaon conduct a physical inventory of the sei5ed items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the personMs from whom such items were con9scated andMor sei5ed or hisMher representave or counsel with an elected public o;cial and a representave of the &aonal 2rosecuon ervice or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof> 2rovided That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served Q or at the nearest police staon or at the nearest o;ce of the apprehending o;cerMteam whichever is praccable in case of warrantless sei5ures> 2rovided 9nally That noncompliance of these requirements under jus9able grounds as long as the integrity and the evidenary value of the sei5ed items are properly preserved by the apprehending o;cerMteam shall not render void and invalid such sei5ures and custody over said items. $4 4 4 $>7? ! cert:caton of he forensic laboraory e4aminaton resuls, which shall be done by he forensic laboraory e4aminer, shall be issued immediaely upon he receip of he sub9ec iem
Fro/ the =ust-
un(er ection ;# of R&$& 9#'! an( its %RR, inclu(ing their very o3n PDP 0anual on $nti-%llegal rug >perations an( %nvestigation, ;; 3hich (e/an(s strict a(herence to the rules on the han(ling an( custo(y of sei?e( illegal (rug an( other non-(rug evi(ence: $2.7@ 2hotographs of pieces of evidence must be ta8en immediately upon discovery of such without moving or altering its original posion including the process of recording the inventory and the weighing of illegal drugs in the presence of required witnesses as spulated in econ JH %rt )) R% CHKL as amended by R% HIKPI. $2.7A The ei5ing ,;cer must mar8 the evidence with his inials indicang therein the date me and place where the evidence was foundMrecovered or sei5ed. 1 444 444 444 $2.7B In every negaton operaton, a 6ei5ing ,;cer= shall be designated who would be responsible for the inventory and inial custody of all drug and non-drug evidence con9scated during the an-illegal drugs operaons. !ll hese would laer be urned over o he Investgaton *%cer or any member of he apprehending eam, and submied o he )5! 3aboraory 8ervice or Crime 3aboraory for furher e4aminaton and proper dispositon. $2.7 444. $ a. rug #vidence. $#? (pon sei6ure or con:scaton of illegal drugs or C)Cs, laboraory equipmen, apparaus and paraphernalia, the operang /nitAs ei5ing ,;cerM)nventory ,;cer must conduct the physical inventory mar8ings and photograph the same in the place of operaonin the presence of> $>a? The suspecb? 'ih an eleced )ublic *%cial0 and $>c? !ny represenatves from he 5eparmen of Dustce or Eedia who shall a%4 heir signaures and who shall be given copies of he invenory.1 [*mp$a'e' 'ppl)ed]
0oreover, un(er the sa/e PDP 0anual,; strict observance to the Chain of Custo(y rule is lie3ise /an(ate(, as follo3s:
22 !010 *d)-o%, p@l)'$ed @y t$e PNP %-9"lle2al Lr2' pe+)al Opera-o%' a'A For+e.
!3 "d. !010 "LOF.
29
$ c. *hain of *ustody. $#? The ei5ing ,;cer must preserve the integrity and evidenary value of all evidences. $2? 2ersons handling drug evidence from the me of its sei5ureMcon9scaon should be limited to the ei5ing , he Investgaor&*n&Case and )5! ,;cer 3aboraory 8ervice or )+) 3aboraory personnel. %ll non-drug evidence shall be turned-over to the evidence custodian. $7? %n ac8nowledgement receipt shall be issued by the person receiving the evidence. uch receipt shall form part of the case folder of the transming /nit. 6 @? The ei5ing ,;cer shall accomplish the *hain of *ustody 1orm and with it submits the evidence to the 2&2 *rime +aboratory for e
As $an e 2leane- &rom %e $o/r% %es%imonies o& %e )oli$e#6i%nesses an- %e -o$/men%ar e*i-en$es o&&ere- %e Prose$/%ion, %ere is no /s%i&i$a%ion in 6ri%in2 &rom an memer o& %e )oli$e %eam &or %e non#oser*an$e o& %e r/le in or-er %o )ro*e %a% %e in%e2ri% an- e*i-en%iar *al/e o& %e sei+e- i%ems are no% %ain%e-. Tis -e*ia%ion &rom %e r/le alone alrea- $rea%es a 2a) in %e -e%ermina%ion o& 6e%er or no% %e alle2e- sa/ %a% en%ere- in%o %e $ain 6ere a$%/all %e ones e8amine- %e $rime laora%or ano&&ere- in e*i-en$e.
$ll tol(, the i(entities of the corpus (elicti in these instant cases 3ere not proven beyon( reasonable (oubt by the Prosecution& III.
THE POLICE#OFFICERS NON#COPLIANCE 4ITH THE RULES IN THE SEIURE AN CUSTO! OF PROHIBITE RUGS ADES THE PRESUPTION OF REGULARIT! IN THE PERFORANCE OF UTIES UNA"AILABLE.
The (isputable presu/ption that official (uty has been regularly perfor/e( shoul( not hol( in favor of the police officers involve( since they have clearly violate( the e)actitu(es /an(ate( un(er
30
Se$%ion =1 o& R.A. '1(5&;4 $s the high tribunal pronounce( in Peo)le *. G/+on ,;! 3hereby it hel( that flagrant lapses or serious breaches against the /an(ate( re %n the case of Peo)le *. Go ,;' the upre/e Court hel(: 6ince no presumpon of regularity may be invo8ed by an o;cer to jusfy an encroachment of rights secured by the *onstuon <<< a strict interpretaon of the constuonal statutory and procedural rules authori5ing search and sei5ure is required and strict compliance therewith is demanded.= [*mp$a')' or']
%t is 3orth stressing that eviation fro/ the stan(ar( proce(ures in anti-narcotics operation ren(ers the testi/ony of the arresting officers INCREIBLE for IPROPER PERFORANCE of (uty&;H %t /aes the (rug operation NOT UICIALL! SANCTIONE for being violative of legal safeguar(s against illegal arrest& 2astly, the ANATOR! PROCEURES IN RUG OPERATION shoul( be STRICTL! co/plie( 3ith7 other3ise, the accuse( is entitle( to ISISSAL or ACUITTAL&; The RATIONALE is state( by the EHORTATION of the upre/e Court, thus: Lr2 add)+-o% )' o%e oB t$e mo't per%)+)o' ev)l' t$at $ave ever +rept )%to or 'o+)ety #Hually re*rehensi=le )' t$e *olice *ractce oB ')%2 t$e la= a' a tool )% eortng money Brom $aple'' v)+-m'.I 4People v'. # a% <a%, !! (R 18!
Ehe /our is no unaware ha in some insances law en%orcers resor o he *ractce o% *lantng evidence to etra+t )%Borma-o%' or eve% to $ara'' +)v)l)a%'9t$e +ort ! 8upra %ote !1, G.R. No. 185717. !5 G.R. No. 1///01, O+t. /, !013 al'o People v. Pol)zo%, G.R. No. 8/17, ept. 18, 1//!, !1 (R 56. !6 G.R. No. 163/, eptem@er 1!, !003. !7 People v'. Llay, !3 (R 65!. !8 People v'. O%2, et al., 8 (R 70, 8986 G.R. No. 13738, J%e !1, !00 People v'. C)mra, et al. !8 (R 51, G. R. No. 130805, pr)l !7, !00 Sarra2a v'. People, 8 (R 67, 650, Har+$ 1, !006 People v'. r'e%)o er2ara aldez, G.R. No. 170180, Novem@er !3, !007 People v'. alvador a%to', Jr. < alvador, G.R. No. 1755/3, O+to@er 17, !007 People v'. lla% Nazare%o < (a@rata%, G.R. No. 17771, eptem@er 11, !007 People v'. Gerardo Orteza , G.R. No. 173051, Jly 31, !007 People v'. Omar Amad, *t al., (9G.R. (R No. 0!73!, pr)l 1, !008 People v'. Ra%dy (a@al% < )%e' %d olomo% a2le < larde, (9G.R. (R No. 3030!, Ja%ary !!, !008 a%d People v'. )%2 ?ad)rl < Hda$, ( G.R. (R No. 0!!66, Ja%ary 16, !008.
31
m't t$e% @e etra v)2)la%t )% try)%2 dr2 +a'e' le't a% )%%o+e%t per'o% )' made to 'Qer t$e %'ally 'evere pe%alty Bor dr2 oQe%+e'.I 4People v'. ev)lla, 33/ (R 6!5 For t$e +ort' +old %ot merely rely o% @t m't apply =)t$ 'td)ed re'tra)%t t$e pre'mp-o% oB re2lar)ty )% t$e perBorma%+e oB o+)al dty @y la= e%Bor+eme%t a2e%t'. his *resum*ton should no =y isel% *revail over he *resum*ton o% innocence a%d t$e +o%'-t-o%ally prote+ted r)2$t' oB t$e )%d)v)dal. I is he duy o% he cours o *reserve he *uriy o% heir own em*le %rom he *rostuton o% he criminal law hrough lawless en%orcemen. /ours could no allow hemselves o =e used as insrumens o% a=use and in8ustce les innocen *ersons are made o suKer he unusually severe *enaltes %or drug oKenses.F 4People v'. O%2, *t al., G.R. No. 13738, J%e !1, !00 . $e 2over%me%t&' dr)ve a2a)%'t )lle2al dr2' de'erve' every@ody&' 'pport. Dt )t )' pre+)'ely =$e% t$e 2over%me%t&' prpo'e' are @e%e+e%t t$at =e '$old @e mos on our guard o *roec hese righs . ' J'-+e Dra%de)' =ar%ed lo%2 a2o, Tt$e 2reate't da%2er' to l)@erty lrA )% t$e )%')d)o' e%+roa+$me%t @y me% oB zeal, =ell mea%)%2 @t =)t$ot %der'ta%d)%2,& +ur desire o sam* ou criminaliy canno =e achieved a he e*ense o% /onstutonal righs, .F '4eo*le vs. 4edronan, PCP S/$A >9, L()
.ence, the $0>D%T%>D of the upre/e Court, to 3it: Erial cours are admonished o always reHuire *recise and convincing estmony in cases involving =uy =us o*eratons.F 4People v. (rz, !15 (R 33/ E/ours mus =e eravigilan in rying drugs cases les an innocen *erson is made o suKer he unsually severe *enaltes %or drug oKensesF. 4People v. #)ll)am, !0/ (R 8084oza%o, L*F*N* a%d *(?N";E*, ! %d *d)-o%, pp. !53 to !5
IV.
LASTL!, ALL THE FOREGOING CLEARL! SHO4 THAT THE PROSECUTION ISERABL!
32
FAILE TO PRO"E THE GUILT OF HEREIN ACCUSE BE!ON REASONABLE OUBT.
Do less than the #9H Constitution guarantees the right of every $ccuse( to be presu/e( innocent until the contrary is prove(& ;9 To overco/e this Constitutional presu/ption, no%in2 /% )roo& eon- reasonale -o/% m/s% e es%alise- %e )rose$/%ion& $n( unless the prosecution successfully (ischarges this bur(en, the $ccuse( nee( not even offer evi(ence in his behalf& $s hel( by the upre/e Court in Peo)le *. Comesario :J E1irs. An accused en8oys he *resum*ton o% innocence. 0e need no *rove wha is legally *resumed. I% he so desires he may *resen evidence on his =ehal%, =u no maer how weak i is, he stll deserves an acHuial. his is =ecause he *rosecuton mus no rely on he weakness o% he evidence %or he de%ense =u on he srengh o% is own evidence. 2nless he *rosecuton has success%ully overurned he *resum*ton o% innocence, acHuial is inevia=le. Second. he guil o% he accused mus =e *roved =eyond reasona=le dou=. here mus =e moral cerainy in our un*re8udiced mind ha i was accuseda**ellan who commied he crime. A=sen his reHuired Huanum o% evidence would mean eoneraton %or accused a**ellan. he convicton o% accuseda**ellan having =een =ased on very enuous grounds, our 8udicial conscience canno res easy i% we should susain his convicton =y he cour =elow. hird. !ere *roo% o% motve, no maer how srong, is no su7cien o su**or a convicton, mos es*ecially i% here is no oher relia=le evidence %rom which i may reasona=ly =e deduced ha he accused was he male%acor. he elemens constutng he crime mus =e shown. <<< <<< <<< "as. &e are no im*lying ha accuseda**ellan did no commi he crime. All we are saying is ha when measured agains he reHuired Huanum o% evidence in criminal cases, he case %or he *rosecuton has misera=ly %ailed in all as*ecs. Sim*ly *u, i% we are o =e guided =y he esa=lished rules o% evidence, we can sa%ely say ha he guil o% accuseda**ellan was no *roved =eyond !/ U14!, r-+le """, (ON"E"ON. 30 G.R. No. 1!7811, pr)l !/, 1///.
33
reasona=le dou=. &e :nd occasion hen o reierae wha we have said in 4eo*le v. !asalihi Be%ore we condemn . . . he crime mus :rs =e *ositvely esa=lished and ha he accused is guily sans any scintlla o% dou=. his is elemenary and %undamenal in our criminal 8ustce sysem. Any sus*icion or =elie% ha ha accused is guily no maer how srong canno su=stue %or he Huanum o% evidence ha is reHuired o *rove his guil =eyond reasona=le dou=. Accuseda**ellan should no =e *unished %or he %ailure o% he *rosecuton o dis*ose o% is =urden o overcome he constutonal *resum*ton o% innocence and o esa=lish his guil o% he accused =eyond reasona=le dou=. his /our has always sood =y he rule ha i is =eer o acHui a guily *erson han o convic an innocen one.I [E%der'+or)%2 added]
i/ilarly, in the case of Peo)le *. Ba/li%e ,# it 3as hel( that: 6)n our criminal jusce the overriding consideraon is not whether the court doubts the innocence of the accused but whether it entertains a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Where there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused he must be acqui:ed even though his innocence may be doubted since the constuonal right to be presumed innocent unl proven guilty can only be overthrown by proof beyond reasonable doubt. )n conclusion because of reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused-appellant they must be acqui:ed. D#very accused is presumed innocent unl the contrary is provedQ that presumpon is solemnly guaranteed by the 'ill of Rights. The contrary requires proof beyond reasonable doubt or that degree of proof that produces convicon in an unprejudiced mind. hort of this it is not only the right of the accused to be freedQ it is even the constuonal duty of the court to acquit them.= [*mp$a'e' added]
Further/ore, in Ar$e *. Peo)le an- CA,; the upre/e Court stresse( that: 6*onvicon based merely on speculaon and conjecture cannot sasfy the queson of evidence 31 G.R. No. 1375//, O+to@er 8, !001. 3! G.R. No. 1!5857, Har+$ !0, !00!.
34
required for a pronouncement of guilt i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt of his complicity in the crime. )t is incumbent upon the prosecuon to establish its case with that degree of proof which produces convicon in an unprejudiced mind with evidence which stands or falls on its merits and which cannot be allowed to draw strength from the wea8ness of the evidence for the defense. /nless it discharges the burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt the la:er need not even o!er evidence in his behalf. Thus when the guilt of the accused has not been proven with moral certainty such as the case at bar it is a policy of long standing that the presumpon of innocence of the accused must be favored and his e
%n closing, the failure of the Prosecution an( its police3itnesses to portray a believable picture of a buy-bust operation, through its failure to establish the e)istence an(*or the i(entity of the asset 3ho assiste( the poseur-buyer, the failure to present /aterial proof that a (rug-transaction ha( actually transpire(, an( the failure to establish the i(entities of the corpus (elicti of the cri/es charge(7 an( the failure of the officers to co/ply 3ith the /an(atory reperation an( %nvestigation L all sho3 that in(ee(, the Prosecution /iserably faile( to prove the guilt of herein $ccuse( beyon( reasonable (oubt& Conse
