People v Pavia

G.R. No. 202687

January 14, 2015

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,  Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JERIC P!I " PLI# $ %JERIC% N& J'N ('EN&I " &ELOS RE"ES$ %J'NE%,  Accused Appellants. RESOLUTION PERE#, J.: For resolution of te !ourt is te appeal filed "# $eric Pavia and $uan %uendia &appellants' fro( te )ecision  of te !ourt of Appeals &!A' dated + Fe"ruar# * in !A-.R. !R-/.!. No. 0. Te !A affir(ed te $ud1(ent  of te Re1ional Trial !ourt &RT!', %ranc 2*, San Pedro, La1una 3ic found appellants 1uilt# "e#ond reasona"le dou"t of te offense of ille1al possession of dan1erous dru1s punisa"le under Section *2, Article II of Repu"lic Act &R.A.' No. 4*56. Appellants 3ere sentenced to suffer te penalt# of life i(prison(ent and to pa# a fine of P6,.. *



Te Antecedents On 4 7arc 6, at around 58 in te evenin1, a confidential infor(ant reported to SPO2 7elcor delaPe9a &SPO2 )ela Pe9a' of te San Pedro 7unicipal Police Station, San Pedro, La1una, tat a pot session 3as ta:in1 place at te ouse of a certain ;O"et; located at %aran1a# !u#a", San Pedro, La1una. Upon receipt of te infor(ation, SPO2 )ela Pe9a for(ed a tea( to conduct police operations a1ainst te suspect. Te tea( 3as co(posed of te confidential infor(ant, PO Ro((el %autista &PO %autista', PO2 $a# Parun11ao &PO2 Parun11ao', PO* $ifford Si1nap and SPO2 )ela Pe9a as tea( leader. 2

 At around 48 in te evenin1 of te sa(e date, te tea( proceeded to te tar1et area. area. <en te tea( arrived, te (e("ers sa3 tat O"et=s ouse 3as closed. Since te ouse 3as not surrounded "# a fence, PO %autista approaced te ouse and peeped trou1 a s(all openin1 in a 3indo3 3ere e sa3 four persons in a circle avin1 a pot session in te livin1 roo(. PO2 Parun11ao ten tried to find a 3a# to enter te ouse and found an unloc:ed door. /e entered te ouse,follo3ed "# PO %autista and te# cau1t te four persons en1a1ed in a pot session "# surprise. After te# introduced te(selves as police officers, te# arrested te four suspects and sei>ed te dru1 parapernalia found at te scene.  A(on1 tose arrested 3ere erein appell ants, fro( eac of 3o( a plastic sacet containin1 3ite cr#stalline su"stance 3ere confiscated "# PO2 Parun11ao after e conducted a "od# searc on teir persons. PO2 Parun11ao (ar:ed te plastic sacet e sei>ed fro( appellant Pavia 3it ;$P,; ;$P,; representin1 te initials of $eric Pavia 3ile tat ta:en fro( appellant %uendia 3as (ar:ed, also "# PO2 Parun11ao, 3it ;$%,; representin1 te initials of $uan %uendia..  Tese plastic sacets 3ere trans(itted tote cri(e la"orator# for ?ua litative e@a(ination %uendia 3ere te# tested positive for ;sa"u.; 0

6

5

+

!onse?uentl#, appellants 3ere car1ed 3it violation of Section *2, Article II of R.A. No. 4*56 in t3o !onse?uentl#, separate "ut identicall# 3orded infor(ations 3ic read8 Tat on or a"out 4 7arc 6, in te 7unicipalit# of San Pedro, Province of La1una, Pilippines, and 3itin te urisdiction of tis /onora"le !ourt accused 3itout autorit# of te la3, did ten and tere 3illfull#, 3illfull#, unla3full# and feloniousl# ave in is possession, control and custod# BofC 7ET/A7P/ETA7INE 7ET/A7P/ET A7INE /D)RO!/LORI)E, co((onl# :no3n as sa"u, a dan1erous dru1,

3ei1in1 >ero point >ero t3o &.' 1ra(, in te co(pan# of t3o persons. <en arrai1ned, "ot appellants pleaded not 1uilt# to te offense. 

4

 A oint trial of te cases ensued. In defense, appellants provided a different version of te inci dent. Accordin1 to te(, on te ?uestioned date and ti(e, te# 3ere roa(in1 te streets of %aran11a# !u#a", sellin1 star apples. A prospective "u#er of te fruits called te( over to is ouse and re?uested te( to 1o inside, to 3ic te# acceded. <ente# 3ere a"out to leave te ouse, several persons 3o introduced te(selves as police(en arrived and invited appellants to 1o 3it te( to te precinct. Tere, te# 3ere incarcerated and falsel# car1ed 3it violation of te !o(preensive )ru1s Act of . *

Te Rulin1 of te RT! Te trial court found tat te prosecution 3as a"le to prove te offense car1ed trou1 te spontaneous, positive and credi"le testi(on# of its 3itness. Te trial court noted tat te police officers carried out a la3ful arrest "efore te# proceeded 3it te "odil# searc of appellants. 7oreover, tere 3as no clear and convincin1 evidence tat te tea( of PO2 Parun11ao 3as inspired "# an# i(proper (otive 3ente# carried out teir operation. Tus, te testi(on# of PO %autista on te 3itness stand, narratin1 te events leadin1 to te appreension of appellants, deserves full fait and credit. **

Te Rulin1 of te !ourt of Appeals On appeal, te !A affir(ed te decision of te RT!, upon a findin1 tat te evidence on record support te trial court=s conclusion tat a la3ful arrest, searc and sei>ure too: place, and tat te prosecution full# discar1ed its "urden of esta"lisin1, "e#ond reasona"le dou"t, all te ele(ents necessar# for te conviction of te offense car1ed. *

On te contention of appellants tat teir 3arrantless arrest 3as ille1al and, terefore, te ite(s sei>ed fro( te( as a result of tat arrest 3ere inad(issi"le in evidence a1ainst te(, te !A eld tat tis ar1u(ent totall# lac:s (erit. Accordin1 to te !A8
 After a careful evaluation of te evidence in its totalit#, 3e old tat te prosecution successfull# esta"lised tat te petitioner 3as arrested in fla1rante delicto. e tat te series of events tat led te police to te ouse 3ere te pot session 3as conducted and to teir arrest 3ere tri11ered "# a ;tip; fro( a concerned citi>en tat a ;pot session; 3as in pro1ress at te ouse of a certain ;O"et; at %aran11a# !u#a", San Pedro, La1una. Under te circu(stances, te police did not ave enou1 ti(e to secure a searc 3arrant considerin1 te ;ti(e ele(ent; involved in te process &i.e., a pot session (a# not "ean e@tended period of ti(e and it 3as ten 48 p.(.'. In vie3 of te ur1enc#, SPO2 7elcor dela Pe9a i((ediatel# d ispatced is (en to proceed to te identified place to verif# te report. At te place, te respondin1 police officers verified trou1 a s(all openin1 in te 3indo3 and sa3 te accused-appellants and teir oter t3o &' co(panions sniffin1 ;sa"u; to use te 3ords of PO %autista. Tere 3as terefore sufficient pro"a"le cause for te police officers to "elieve tat te accused-appellants 3ere ten and tere co((ittin1 a cri(e. As it turned out, te accused-appellants indeed possessed and 3ere even usin1 a proi"ited dru1, contrar# to la3. <en an accused is cau1t in fla1rante delicto, te police officers are not onl# autori>ed "ut are dut#-"ound to arrest i( even 3itout a 3arrant. In te course of te arrest and in accordance 3it police procedures, te BappellantsC 3ere fris:ed, 3ic searc #ielded te proi"ited dru1 in teir possession. Tese circu(stances 3ere sufficient to  ustif# te 3arrantless searc @ @ @ tat#ielded t3o &' eat-sealed plastic sacets of ;sa"u.; @ @ @ @@@@  All te @ @ @ re?uire(ents for a la3ful searc and sei>ure are present in tis case. Te police officers ad prior ustification to "e at a certain ;O"et=s; place as te# 3ere dispatced "# teir des: officer te# arrested te BappellantsC as te# ad reason to "elieve tat te# 3ere ille1all# usin1 and possessin1 a proi"ited dru1 and dru1 parapernalia. Te searc of te BappellantsC incident to teir arrest #ielded te confiscated cr#stalline su"stance 3ic later proved to "e ;sa"u;. In te course of teir la3ful intrusion, te# inadvertentl# sa3 te various dru1 parapernalia scattered in te livin1 roo(. As tese ite(s 3ere plainl# visi"le, te police officers 3ere ustified in sei>in1 te(. @@@@  As correctl# found "# te trial court, te BappellantsGC stor# is un3ort# of "elief. Teir denial (ustfail in te li1t of te positive identification and declarations (ade "# te prosecution 3itness. As stated earlier, PO %autista testified in a strai1tfor3ard and cate1orical (anner re1ardin1 te identities of te (alefactors. /e did not 3aver despite te defense counselGs ri1id ?uestionin1. !ourts 1enerall# vie3 te defense of denial 3it disfavor due to te facilit# 3it 3ic anaccused can concoct it to suit is or er defense. As evidence tat is "ot ne1ative and self-servin1, tis defense cannot attain (ore credi"ilit# tan te testi(on# of te prosecution 3itness 3o testified clearl#, providin1 tere"# positive evidence on te various aspects of te cri(e co((itted. One suc positive evidence is te result of te la"orator# e@a(ination conducted "# te PNP cri(e La"orator# on te dru1s recovered fro( te BappellantsC 3ic revealed tat te confiscated plastic sacets tested positive for te presence of ;sa"u;8 t3o &' eated transparent plastic sacet 3it (ar:in1s ;$%; and ;$P; containin1 . 1ra( of 3ite cr#stalline su"stance eac "ot #ielded positive results. *2


Te cain of custod# rule re?uires tat te ad(ission of an e@i"it "e preceded "# evidence sufficient to support a findin1 tat te (atter in ?uestion is 3at te proponent clai(s it to "e. !ontrar# to 3at te BappellantsC 3ant to portra#, te cain of custod# of te sei>ed proi"ited dru1 3as so3n not to ave "een "ro:en. After te sei>ure of te plastic sacets containin1 3ite cr#stalline su"stance fro( te BappellantsGC possession and of te various dru1 parapernalia in te livin1 roo(, te police i((ediatel# "rou1t te BappellantsC to te police station, to1eter 3it te sei>ed ite(s. PO2 Parun11ao i(self "rou1t tese ite(s to te police station and (ar:ed te(. Te plastic sacets containin1 3ite cr#stalline su"stance 3as (ar:ed ;$%; and ;$P;. Tese confiscated ite(s 3ere i((ediatel# turned over "# PO %autista to te PNP Re1ional !ri(e La"orator# Office !ala"ar>on, !a(p Hicente Li(, !ala("a !it# for e@a(ination to deter(ine te presence of dan1erous dru1s. After a ?ualitative e@a(ination conducted on te speci(ens, Forensic !e(ist Lorna Ravelas Tria concluded tat te plastic sacets recovered fro( te accusedappellants tested positive for (et#la(peta(ine #drocloride, a proi"ited dru1, per !e(istr# Report Nos. )-2*-6 and )-2-6. <en te prosecution presented tese (ar:ed speci(ens in court, PO %austista positivel# identified te( to "e te sa(e ite(s te# sei>ed fro( te BappellantsC and 3ic PO2 Parun11ao later (ar:ed at te police station, fro( 3ere te sei>ed ite(s 3ere turned over to te la"orator# for e@a(ination "ased on a dul# prepared re?uest. Tus, te prosecution esta"lised te crucial lin: in te cain of custod# of te sei>ed ite(s fro( te ti(e te# 3ere first discovered until te# 3ere "rou1t for e@a(ination. %esides, as earlier stated, te BappellantsC did not contest te ad(issi"ilit# of te sei>ed ite(s durin1 te tria*. Te inte1rit# and te evidentiar# value of te dru1s sei>ed fro( te accused-appellants 3ere terefore dul# proven not to ave "een co(pro(ised. $urisprudence tee(s 3it pronounce(ents tat failure to strictl# co(pl#, 3it Section l &*', Article II of R.A. No. 4*56 does not necessaril# render an accusedGs arrestille1al or te ite(s sei>ed or confiscated fro( i( inad(issi"le. <at is of ut(ost i(portance is te preservation of te inte1rit# and te evidentiar# value of te sei>ed ite(s, as tese 3ould "e utili>ed in te deter(ination of te 1uilt or innocence of te accused. In te present case, 3e see su"stantial co(pliance "# te police 3it te re?uired procedure on te custod# and control of te confiscated ite(s, tus so3in1 tat te inte1rit# of te sei>ed evidence 3as not co(pro(ised. ed ite(s "# specified individuals, to te test results o"tained, under a situation 3ere no o"ection to ad(issi"ilit# 3as ever raised "# te defense. All tese, to te unpreudiced (ind, so3 tat te evidence sei>ed 3ere te sa(e evidence tested and su"se?uentl# identified and testified to in court.  @ @ @ *0

Our Rulin1
or o"ect identified to "e a proi"ited or dan1erous dru1 &' suc possession is not autori>ed "# la3 &2' te free and conscious possession of te dru1 "# te accused,  3it te additional ele(ent tat &0' te accused possessed te proi"ited or dan1erous dru1 durin1 a social 1aterin1 or (eetin1, or in te co(pan# of at least t3o persons. *6

 As correctl# found "# te !A, te evidence for te prosecution so3ed te presence of all tese ele(ents. Te testi(on# of PO %autista on tis point is deter(inative8 ?. <en #ou said PO2 Parun11ao sa3 tat te door of te ouse 3as not loc:ed, 3at did #ou doJ a. /e entered te ouse and 3e follo3ed i(, (aa( BsicC. @@@@ ?. In 3at part of te ouse 3ere BsicC tis BsicC people en1a1ed i n a pot sessionJ a. At te sala, (aa( BsicC. ?. And 3at 3as teir reaction 3en PO2 Parun11ao and te rest of te tea( "ar1ed inJ a. Te# 3ere surprised, (aa( BsicC. @@@@ ?. And 3at did #ou do after tatJ a. PO2 Parun11ao introduced ourselves as police officers, (aa( BsicC. ?. <at appened after tatJ a.
?. If tis $eric Pavia is in court ri1t no3, 3ill #ou "e a"le to point to i(J a. Des, (aa( BsicC. ?. Please point to i(J a. Tat (an in te first ro3 3earin1 #ello3 sirt, (aa( BsicC &pointed to a person inside te courtroo( 3o, 3en as:ed ans3ered "# te na(e of $eric Pavia'. ?. Dou said tat #ou sa3 PO2 Parun11ao confiscated plastic sacet containin1 sa"u fro( $eric Pavia,fro( 3at part of is "od# 3as e a"le to confiscate te sa(eJ a. Fro( te poc:et of $eric Pavia, (aa( BsicC. @@@@ ?. Dou said tat PO2 Parun11ao confiscated plastic sacet 3it 3ite cr#stalline su"stance fro( t3o person BsicC, one 3as identified as $eric Pavia, 3o 3as te oter oneJ a. It 3as $uan %uendia, (aa( BsicC ?. Please identif# i( if e is in courtJ a. Tat (an also in te first ro3, at te ri1t portion, 3earin1 #ello3 sirt &pointed to a person 3o, 3en as:ed ans3ered "# te na(e of $uan %uendia'. ?. <ere 3ere #ou 3en PO2 Parun11ao confiscated fro( $uan %uendia te plastic sacet of sa"uJ a. I 3as "eind i(, (aa( BsicC. @@@@ ?. On BsicC 3at part of te "od# of $uan %uendia 3as te ite( ta:en "# Officer Parun11aoJ a. Also in BsicC is poc:et, (aa( BsicC.

*5

Te sa(e testi(on# of PO %autista also esta"lised te cain of custod# of te proi"ited dru1s ta:en fro( appellants. Tus8 ?. Dou said tat #ou sa3 PO2 Parun11ao confiscated BsicC plastic sacet containin1 sa"u fro( $eric Pavia, fro( 3at part of is "o d# 3as e a"le to confiscate te sa(eJ a. Fro( te poc:et of $eric Pavia, (aa( BsicC. ?. And do #ou :no3 3at PO2 Parun11ao do 3it te ite(J a. /e placed (ar:in1 on it, (aa( BsicC. ?. In 3at place did e put te (ar:in1J

a. At te police station (aa( BsicC. ?. <at (ar:in1s did e placeJ a. It 3as (ar:ed $P representin1 te initials of accused $eric Pavia, (aa( BsicC. ?. <ere 3ere #ou 3en Officer Parun11ao placed tat (ar:in1 on te ite(J a. I 3as "eside i(, (aa( BsicC. ?. !an #ou descri"e te plastic sacetJ a. It is a s(all transparent plastic sacet 3ic contains 3ite cr#stalline su"stance oter3ise :no3n as sa"u, (aa( BsicC. ?. <o 3as in possession of te plastic sacet fro( te ti(e PO2 Parun11ao too: it fro( te possession of $eric Pavia up to te police stationJ a. It 3as P2 Parun11ao, (aa( BsicC. ?. I a( so3in1 to #ou a plastic sacet 3it 3ite cr#stalline su"stance 3it (ar:in1s $P, please identif# te sa(eJ a. Tis is te sa(e ite( confiscated fro( $eric Pavia, (aa( BsicC. @@@@ ?. )id #ou co(e to :no3 3at Officer Parun11ao do 3it te plastic sacet confiscated fro( $uan %uendiaJ a. /e "rou1t it to te police station, (aa( BsicC. ?. And 3at did e do 3it itJ a. /e placed te (ar:in1s $%, (aa( BsicC. ?. <o 3as in possession of te plastic sacet 3it (ar:in1s $% fro( Apla#a B3ere te pot session too: placeC to te police stationJ a. It 3as PO2 Parun11ao, (aa(. ?. I a( so3in1 to #ou a plastic sacet 3it 3ite cr#stalline su"stance 3it (ar:in1s $%, please identif# te sa(eJ a. Tis is te sa(e ite( confiscated fro( $uan %uendia "# PO2 Parun11ao, (aa( BsicC.

*+

It is li:e3ise i(portant to note tat it 3as PO %autista i(self 3o "rou1t te re?uest  for la"orator# e@a(ination of te su"stance ta:en fro( appellants fro( te San Pedro Police Station to te PNP !ri(e La"orator# in !ala("a !it#, tere"# ensurin1 tat te inte1rit# of te confiscated ite(s are preserved. Tus, te fact tat te appreendin1 tea( did not strictl# co(pl# 3it te *

procedural re?uire(ents of Section *&*', Article II of R.A. No. 4*56 does not necessaril# render appellants= arrest ille1al or te ite(s sei>ed fro( te( inad(issi"le in evidence.  As eld "# tis !ourt in te case of People v. Llanita8

*4

RA 4*56 and its su"se?uent I(ple(entin1 Rules and Re1ulations &IRR' do not re?uire strict co(pliance as to te cain of custod# rule. @ @ @. ed tat 3at is essential is ;te preservation of te inte1rit# and te evidentiar# value of te sei>ed ite(s, as te sa(e 3o uld "e utili>ed in te deter(ination of te 1uilt or innocence of te accused.; %riefl# stated, non-co(pliance 3itte procedural re?uire(ents under RA 4*56 and its IRR relative to te custod#, poto1rapin1, and dru1-testin1 of te appreended persons, is not a serious fla3 tat can render void te sei>ures and custod# of dru1s in a "u#-"ust operation. @@@@ @ @ @. e tat te strict co(pliance 3it te re?uire(ents of Section * (a# not al3a#s "e possi"le under field conditions te police operates under varied conditions, and cannot at all ti(es attend to all te niceties of te procedures in te andlin1 of confiscated evidence. Finall#, "ot te trial court and te !A reected appellantsG defense of denial and fra(e-up for failure to su"stantiate te sa(e. Indeed, te defenses of denial and fra(e-up ave "een invaria"l# vie3ed "# tis !ourt 3it disfavor for it can easil# "e concocted and is a co((on and standard defense plo# in prosecutions for violations of te )an1erous )ru1s Act. In order to prosper, te defenses of denial and fra(e-up (ust "e proved 3it stron1 and convincin1 evidence. In te case "efore us, appellants failed to present sufficient evidence in support of teir clai(s. Aside fro( teir self-servin1 assertions, no plausi"le proof 3as presented to "olster teir alle1ations. !onse?uentl#, in te a"sence of clear and convincin1 evidence tat te police officers 3ere inspired "# an# i(proper (otive, tis !ourt 3ill not appreciate te defense of denial or fra(e-up and instead appl# te presu(ption of re1ularit# in te perfor(ance of official dut# "# la3 enforce(ent a1ents. 

*

In vie3 of te fore1oin1, 3e see no reason to deviate fro( te 3ell discussed decision of te !A, its findin1s and conclusions avin1 "een supported "# "ot la3 and applica"le urisprudence.