CHAIN OF CUSTODY SUFFERING FROM INCOMPLETENESS BROUGHT BY NONPRESENTATION OF TESTIMONIES ABOUT EVERY LINK IN THE CHAIN CANNOT

SUSTAIN A CONVICTION
People vs. Barba
G.R. No. 182420, July 23, 2009
Velasco, Jr., J.:
FACTS:
This is an appeal from the decision of the CA affirming the RTC decision
finding Respondent Elsie Barba (Barba) guilty beyond reasonable doubt from
the crime of drug pushing under RA 9165 or The Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002
Pursuant to a surveillance operation and thereafter, a buy-bust
operation conducted by the police, apparent illegal drugs in plastic sachets
and paraphernalia were seized from respondent. After the seizure, they were
marked, brought to the police station, made the subject of a Request for
Examination and then turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory. The report of
the forensic chemist showed that the plastic sachets and the strip of
aluminum foil contained shabu. However, there was no testimony offered as
to the marking of said aluminum foil. The records also do not show what
happened after the seized items were brought to the police station and after
the same were tested at the forensic laboratory.
Barba now alleges that the trial court gravely erred in convicting the
accused-appellant and when it gave credence to the unsupported
testimonies of the prosecutions witness.
ISSUE:
Was the chain of custody presented by the prosecution suffering from
incompleteness due to the non-presentation of the witness who can attest to
an unbroken chain of evidence?
RULING:
Yes, the non-presentation of witness in this case failed to establish the
elements of the offense. The essential elements in a prosecution for sale of
illegal drugs are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for it.
The identity of the subject substance is established by showing the chain of
custody. The chain of custody requirements that must be met in proving that
the seized drugs are the same ones presented in court are: (1) testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to
the time it is offered into evidence; and (2) witnesses should describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition
of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the item.

Although the non-presentation of some of the witnesses who can attest to an

unbroken chain of evidence may in some instances be excused, there should
be a justifying factor for the prosecution to dispense with their testimonies.
Here, however, no explanation was proffered as to why key individuals who
had custody over the drugs at certain periods were not identified and/or not
presented as witnesses. Uncertainty, therefore, arises if the drugs and
paraphernalia seized during the buy-bust operation were the same
specimens presented in court. The very identity of the illegal drug is in
question because of the absence of key prosecution witnesses. Thus, given
the failure of the prosecution to identify the continuous whereabouts of such
fungible pieces of evidence, it cannot be concluded that all elements of the
crime have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant
Elsie Barba y Biazon is acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt

TESTIMONY OF A MINOR RAPE VICTIM IS GIVEN FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE

THE CREDIBILITY OF A RAPE VICTIM IS NOT DIMINISHED, LET ALONE
IMPAIRED, BY MINOR INCONSISTENCIES IN HER TESTIMONY
POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ACCUSED, WHEN CATEGORICAL AND
CONSISTENT AND WITHOUT ANY ILL MOTIVE ON THE PART OF THE
EYEWITNESSES TESTIFYING ON THE MATTER, PREVAILS OVER ALIBI AND
DENIAL.
People of the Philippines vs. Felix Wasit
G.R. No. 182454, July 23, 2009
Velasco, Jr., J.:
FACTS:
In an appeal before the Supreme Court, Felix Wasit (Wasit) challenges the
decision of the CA affirming the decision of the RTC finding him guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of rape committed against AAA, a 13-year old.
The prosecution presented as witnesses, among others AAA, the private
complainant, and Bensa Tipang (Tipang), a boardmate of AAA. AAA testified
that she was sleeping in her room on the second floor of a boarding house
and was awakened by the pain she felt between her legs. Someone whose
voice she recognized as belonging to Wasit, was on top of her and was
undressing and molesting her. Wasit then proceeded to insert his finger into
her vagina after the penile penetration. Tipang, occupying a room at the
ground floor, heard AAAs footsteps and Wasit uttered the following line:
"Stop, thats enough its my fault." Tipang was certain that the voice she
heard was that of Wasit since he was the lone male boarder on the second
floor. Wasit denied the accusation against him, claiming to have gone to bed
at midnight when the incident occurred. He presented his siblings Nieves and
Dionisio to testify for him
Wasit questions the credibility of the prosecutions witnesses and the
adequacy of its evidence arguing that it is not believable for him to insert his
finger in AAAs vagina after already succeeding in inserting his penis, that it
is illogical for AAA not to have awakened while somebody was undressing
her, and that it was incredible for Tipang, who was occupying a room at the
ground floor, to have heard footsteps sounds coming from another floor.
ISSUE: Were the issues raised against the prosecutions testimonial evidence
merit a reversal of the conviction?
RULING: No, the issues are inconsequential and with little bearing on the
finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In a prosecution for rape, an
accuseds conviction or acquittal depends on the credibility of prosecutions

witnesses. The credibility of a rape victim is not diminished, let alone

impaired, by minor inconsistencies in her testimony. Such inconsistencies are
inconsequential when they refer to minor details that have nothing to do with
the essential fact of the commission of the crimecarnal knowledge through
force and intimidation.
AAAs testimony as to being at the receiving end of Wasits beastly act of
molestation was positive and credible. The testimony of a minor rape victim
is given full weight and credence as no young woman would plausibly
concoct a story of defloration, allow an examination of her private parts, and
thereafter pervert herself by being subject to a public trial, if she was not
motivated solely by the desire to obtain justice for the wrong committed
against her. Youth and immaturity are badges of truth. Also, the alleged
inconsistencies refer to minor details and are evidently beyond the essential
fact of the commission of rape because they do not pertain to the actual
sexual assault itselfthat very moment when Wasit was forcing himself on
AAA.
Lastly, positive identification of the accused, when categorical and consistent
and without any ill motive on the part of the eyewitnesses testifying on the
matter, prevails over alibi and denial. In the instant case, considering that
alibis are easy to fabricate with the aid of immediate family members or
relatives, they assume no importance in the face of positive identification by
the victim herself.
Hence, appeal is denied. The decision finding Felix Wasit guilty of the crime
of rape is affirmed.

MENTAL RETARDATION DOES NOT DISQUALIFY A PERSON FROM TESTIFYING

POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF AN EYEWITNESS PREVAILS OVER THE DEFENSE
OF ALIBI
People vs. Warlito Martinez
G.R. No. 182687, July 23, 2009
FACTS:
This is an appeal from the decision of the CA affirming the decision of the
RTC holding accused-appellant Warlito Martinez (Martinez) guilty of qualified
rape.
Martinez was charged with three counts of qualified rape by private
complainant AAA, Martinezs 14-year old daughter who is suffering from
mental retardation, the intelligent quotient of whom is equivalent to that of a
4-year old child.
Martinez raised denial and alibi claiming that it was impossible for him to
rape his daughter because he was at the river about 50 meters away from
their house during the times that the alleged rape took place, likewise
asserting that AAAs mental retardation affects her ability to convey her
experience, thus, making her testimony unreliable, specifically to the
inability of AAA to state with certainty the dates when the alleged acts of
rape happened and claiming that it was against human experience to forget
such a harrowing experience. Moreover, he maintains that AAAs teachers
coached her in fabricating the charge against him.
Warlito also insists that AAAs testimony is not supported by physical
evidence. He maintains that the lacerations on AAAs hymen are not
conclusive proof of the crime attributed to him because such injuries could
result from AAAs own activities.
ISSUE: Does AAAs mental retardation disqualify her from testifying?
RULING: No, anyone who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known
such perception to others, may be a witness. Thus, by itself, mental
retardation does not disqualify a person from testifying. What is essential is
the quality of perception, and the manner in which this perception is made
known to the court.
In this case, AAA testified in a straightforward and categorical manner that
her father had raped her. She even demonstrated before the court their
relative positions during the molestations. And even during grueling crossexamination, she remained consistent with her statement that her father had

raped her. Thus, her conduct before the court does not indicate that she had
been coached.
AAAs healed lacerations on her hymen support her testimony rather than
destroy it. True, a physicians finding that the hymen of the alleged victim
was lacerated does not establish rape. Such result, however, is not presented
to prove the fact of rape; rather, it is presented to show the loss of virginity.
And when, as in this case, the victims forthright testimony is consistent with
the physical finding of penetration, there is then, sufficient basis for
concluding that sexual intercourse did take place.
As regards Martinezs defense of alibi, the accused admitted that it would not
take five minutes to reach his house by normal walking at an average speed.
Thus, it was not physically impossible for accused to be at the crime scene.
Moreover, positive identification of an eyewitness prevails over the defense
of alibi. Hence, accuseds attempt to exculpate himself through alibi must
fail.