PEOPLE vs KIMURA G.R. No. 130805 AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.: FACTS: 1. Tomohisa mohisa Kimura and Akira Akira Kizaki Kizaki (responden (respondents) ts) seek the reversal reversal of the decision decision finding finding them guilty guilty beyond beyond reason reasonabl able e doubt doubt for viola violatio tion n of RA o. !"#$ !"#$ (%ange (%angero rous us %rugs %rugs Act Act of 1$!&) 1$!&) sentencing them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and pay ' #.. &. *n +une &! 1$$, 1$$, the t-o -ere accuse accused d to transp transport ort and delive deliverr ,!" ,!" grams grams of /ndian /ndian hemp (mari0uan (mari0uana) a) in ash 2 arry arry 3akati ity. ity. Kimura and Kizaki Kizaki entered entered separate separate pleas of *T 45/6T7. 8. The version version of prosecut prosecution ion maintain maintains s that in the mornin morning g of +une &! 1$$, 1$$, 3a0. Anso Anso head head of %elta 4roup arcotics ommand received information from a confidential informant that a certain Koichi Kishi Kishi and Rey 'lanti 'lantilla lla -ere engage engaged d in the selling selling of illega illegall drugs drugs at the ash and arry 9upermarket 3a0. Anso organized a team composed of 9'*, :aldovino +r. 9'*1 abato and '*8 adoy to conduct surveillance of the area. A buy;bust buy;bust operation -as launched. 8< in the afternoon the informant -as able to contact the targets -ho told him that they -ill be arriving at < in the evening at the parking area. After handing to him the mari0uana the operatives approached '*8 adoy held Koichi by the hand -hile Rey scampered a-ay to the direction of the 9outh 9uperhigh-ay. They learned from Koichi that his friends=suppliers -ill arrive the same evenin evening g to fetch fetch him. him. 9evera 9everall minute minutes s later later a -hite -hite issa issan n 9entra 9entra car driven driven by appellant Kimura -ith his co;appellant Kizaki seating at the passenger seat arrived at the parking area. Koichi pointed to them as the ones -ho -ill fetch him. A certain certain :oy driving driving a stainless 0eep 0eep -ithout a plate plate number arrived and parked. :oy :oy approached the 9entra car and opened its trunk. Appellant Kimura got a package -rapped in a ne-spaper and gave it to :oy -ho -alked back to his 0eep. >hile 3a0. Anso and 9'*, :aldovino +r. -ere approaching appellant Kimura ran but -as apprehended -hile :oy -as able to board his 0eep and toge togeth ther er -ith -ith a Kiza Kizaki ki -ho -ho -as -as seat seated ed at the the pass passen enge gerr seat seat sped sped off off to-a to-ard rds s 9out 9outh h 9uperh 9uperhig igh-a h-ay y. 'olice 'olice found found 8 9acks 9acks of mari0 mari0uan uana. a. They They brough broughtt Koichi Koichi and Kimur Kimura a to the head?u head?uart arters ers and turned turned over over the seized seized mari0 mari0uan uana a to the invest investiga igator tor -ho made made markin markings gs thereon. ,. Kimura@s Kimura@s testim testimony ony eplains eplains that that on +une &! 1$$, 1$$, Kimura Kimura -as in the house house of his co;appella co;appellant nt Kizaki at %ian 9treet 3akati ity together -ith Koichi Kishi 6uis arlos and a certain B9allyB and B:oyB. Kimura borro-ed the car of Kizaki in order to get his television from his house in Cvangelista to bring it to a repair shop. Koichi re?uested Kimura to pass by ash and arry 9upermarket because because he needed to meet a certain BReyB BReyB -ho -as borro-ing borro-ing money money from him. >hen they alighted from the car and Koichi handed something to Rey. 9hortly thereafter Koichi and arlos -ere grabbed by t-o men from behind. Then four men approached the car and one guy ordered him to sit at the back and together -ith Koichi and arlos they -ere all brought to amp Karingal allegedly for violating 9ec. , of Republic Act o. ",&#.8& Kimura -as asked ?uestions about the address and business of Kizaki. Kimura denied that there -as mari0uana in the car on the night of +une &! 1$$, but claims that he sa- mari0uana placed at the car trunk the follo-ing day at amp Karingal. Kizaki -as not -ith him at ash and arry on the night of +une &! 1$$,. There -as no stainless 0eep near the car on the same night. arlos -as released and -as not charged because Kimura@s girlfriend 9ally served as arlos@ guarantor. #. Kizaki testified testified that Kizaki testified testified that on the date that the alleged alleged crime -as -as committed he -as in in the company of his friends 3r. and 3rs. Takeyama Kimura and his driver :oy and maid +oan at his house in %ian 9treet 3akati ityD Kimura borro-ed his car on the night of +une &! 1$$, to pick up Kimura@s broken TE and bring it to the repair shop. Appellant Kizaki@s alibi -as corroborated by Rosario Fuintia his former housemaid and his friend Akiyoshi Takeyama -ho both testified that they -ere at Kizaki@s house on the night of +une &! 1$$, from !< to 1< in the evening and never sa- Kizaki leave the house. Kizaki -as arrested on +une &$ 1$$, t-o days after the ash and arry incident in the ippon /chiRestaurant located at 3abini 3anila. Ge -as having dinner -ith 6t. ol. Rodolfo Tan 3asami 7. ishino Anita Takeyama and Akiyoshi Takeyama. These -itnesses eecuted a 0oint affidavit and testified that -hile they -ere about to leave the restaurant a man got near Kizaki and asked for his •
•
passport -hom they thought -as from the /mmigration. 6ater they learned that Kizaki -as brought to amp Karingal. ISSUE< ISSUE< >o the -arrantless arrests of the respondents validH EL!< EL!< The settled 0urisprudence is is that alibi is inherently a -eak defense. %enial by the accused of the offense offense charged against him is also inherently inherently a -eak defense. defense. Ior alibi to prosper prosper the accused must sho- that it -as impossible for him to have been at the scene of the commission of the crime at the time of its commission. ash and arry 9upermarket is -alking distance from the house of Kizaki. /t -as not therefore impossible for accused to have been present at the scene of the crime at the time of its commission. T"# $%%#&'%$() o* +''(%#ss '#s( 'o( /#$v# ("# s('(# o* $(s $&"( (o ov$( ("# &$%() +"# '%% ("# *'(s o #o/ o$( (o ("#$ %'2$%$(). Appellants claim that although the defense of alibi and denial are -eak it is still the duty of the prosec prosecuti ution on to provet provethe he guilt guilt of the accuse accused d beyond beyond reason reasonabl able e doubt doubt to suppor supportt a 0udgm 0udgment ent of convictionD that the trial court mainly relied on the -eakness of the defense rather than on the strength of the evidence for the prosecution. They argue that appellant Kizaki@s claim that he -as not at the ash and arry 9upermarket on the night of +une &! 1$$, -as corroborated by three independent -itnesses includ includin ing g appell appellant ant Kimura Kimura -ho -ho testi testifie fied d that that he -as not -ith -ith appell appellant ant Kizaki Kizaki at ash ash and arry arry 9upermarket. Appellants further ?uestion ho- the trial court could have been certain that the mari0uana presented in court are the same articles confiscated from the appellants -hen the arresting officers did not place identify identifying ing marks on the confiscated confiscated items. Appellant Appellant Kizaki Kizaki further further contends that he -as arrested arrested t-o days after the alleged buy;bust buy;bust operation operation -ithout a valid valid -arrant -arrant of arrest. arrest. # o$(s o( ("'( '%("o&" ("# ($'% o( ##ss#/ /o2(s 's (o ("# %#&'%$() o* "$s '#s(, $( #v#("#%#ss ov$(#/ "$4 o* ("# $4# "'&#/, +"$" $s $ v$o%'($o o* ("# Cos($(($o Cos($(($o . Kizaki argues that he could not have been caught in flagrante delicto to 0ustify the -arrantless arrest -hen he -as arrested t-o days after the alleged ash and arry incident -hile he -as only having dinner -ith his friends at a restaurant. Rule 118 9ection 9ection # of the Revised Rules of riminal 'rocedure provides that a peace officer or a private person may -ithout -ithout a -arrant arrest a person only under the follo-ing circumstances< (a) >hen in his presence the person to be arrested has committed is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offenseD (b) >hen an offense has 0ust been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal kno-ledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed itD and (c) >hen the person to be arrested is a prisoner -ho has escaped from a penal establishment or place -here he is serving final 0udgment or is temporarily confined -hile his case is pending or has escaped -hile being transferred from one confinement to another.
one of the eceptions enumerated above -as present to 0ustify appellant Kizaki@s -arrantless arrest. This deviation from the standard procedure in the antinarcotics operations produces doubts as to the origins of the mari0uana. 'rosecution failed to prove the crucial first link in the chain of custody. The prosecution -itnesses '*& 9upa and 9'*& 3adlon admitted they did not -rite their initials on the brick of mari0uana immediately after allegedly seizing from accused appellant outside the grocery store but only did so in their head?uarters. The item allegedly seized from accused is the same brick of mari0uana marked by the policemen in their head?uarters and given by them to the crime laboratory for eamination. The denia deniall of appell appellant ant Kimura Kimura that that he -as caught caught in the ash ash and arry arry 9uperm 9upermark arket et deliv deliveri ering ng mari0uana on the night of +une &! 1$$, may be -eak but the evidence for the prosecution is clearly even -eaker. T"# os($(($o'% #s4($o #s4($o o* $o## "'s o( 2## ov#o4# 2) ("# os#($o. I *$#, *o *'$%# o* ("# os#($o (o #s('2%$s" ("# &$%( o* 2o(" '#%%'(s 2#)o/ #'so'2%# /o2(, ("#) 4s( #*o# 2# #o#'(#/ *o4 $4$'% %$'2$%$(). !ECISION< !ECISION < RCECR9C% and AF5/TTC%.
