Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The following are the elements of illegal sale and (3) Imprisonment of twelve (12)
illegal possession of dangerous drugs: years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years
In a prosecution for illegal sale of and a fine ranging from Three hundred
dangerous drugs, the following elements thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four
must first be established: (1) proof that the hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if
transaction or sale took place and (2) the the quantities of dangerous drugs are less
presentation in court of the corpus delicti or than five (5) grams of opium, morphine,
the illicit drug as evidence. In a prosecution heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride,
for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, it marijuana resin or marijuana resin
must be shown that (1) the accused was in oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or
possession of an item or an object identified shabu, or other dangerous drugs xxx.
to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such (emphasis supplied)
possession is not authorized by law, and (3)
the accused was freely and consciously aware The penalty of fine must therefore also be imposed
of being in possession of the drug.[9] upon appellants, in addition to the penalty of imprisonment for
illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
The prosecution was able to prove the existence of all WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The
the essential elements of the illegal sale and illegal possession April 25, 2006 decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED
of shabu. Appellants were positively identified by the with MODIFICATION. Lourderico Darisan y Ortiz and Pilar
prosecution witnesses as the persons who possessed and sold Gauang y Gayas are hereby found guilty beyond reasonable
the shabu presented in court. Barrameda testified that he bought doubt of illegal sale of shabu punishable under Section 5 of
the shabu from appellants. It was duly established that the sale Republic Act No. 9165. They are both hereby sentenced to life
actually took place and that four more sachets were validly imprisonment and fined P500,000 without subsidiary
discovered in appellants possession pursuant to a lawful imprisonment in case of insolvency.
warrantless arrest. The marked money used in the buy-bust
operation was duly presented. The shabu seized from appellants Lourderico Darisan y Ortiz and Pilar Gauang y Gayas
was likewise positively and categorically identified in open are likewise both found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
court. violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. They are
hereby sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 12 years and
The RTC, as upheld by the CA, found that the one day as minimum to 14 years and eight months as maximum
testimonies of Barrameda and Costa were unequivocal, definite and are fined P300,000 without subsidiary imprisonment in
and straightforward. More importantly, their testimonies were case of insolvency.
consistent in material respects with each other and with other
testimonies and physical evidence. The period of detention of both appellants should be
given full credit.
Trial courts have the distinct advantage of observing
the demeanor and conduct of witnesses during trial. Hence, Let the shabu subject matter of these cases be disposed
their factual findings are accorded great weight, absent any of in the manner provided by law.
showing that certain facts of relevance and substance bearing
on the elements of the crime have been overlooked, SO ORDERED.
misapprehended or misapplied.[10] No cogent reason exists for
us to deviate from this rule.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 148547 Police Superintendent Virgilio T. Ranes, Dipolog City Chief of
Petitioner, Police, filed two criminal complaints for violation of Section 8,
Present: Article II and Section 16, Article III of Republic Act No.
6425[5] (RA 6425), as amended, against private
QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, respondent. After preliminary investigation, State Prosecutor
- versus - CARPIO, Rodrigo T. Eguia filed two Informations before the Regional
CARPIO MORALES, Trial Court in Dipolog City:
TINGA,
and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
HON. MARCIAL G. EMPLEO,
in his capacity as Presiding Judge Criminal Case No. 9272
of Branch 9, Regional Trial Court, Promulgated:
Dipolog City and DANTE MAH INFORMATION
y CABILIN, The undersigned Prosecutor of Region 9
Respondents. September 27, 2006 accuses DANTE MAH y Cabilin of the crime
of VIOLATION OF SECTION 16,
x------------------------------------------ ARTICLE III of R.A. 6425, as amended,
--------x committed as follows:
WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered Connie testified that she was engaged in the business of
CONVICTING beyond reasonable doubt accused AMADEO buying and selling of fruits, while her husband was employed
TIRA for Illegal Possession of Marijuana weighing 807.3 at the Glasshouse Trading. One of the rooms in their house was
grams and shabu weighing 1.001 gram penalized under Article occupied by their three boarders, two male persons and one
III, Sections 16 and 20, of Republic Act 6425, known as [the] female.
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act In the afternoon of March 9, 1998, she and her husband
7659. The Court sentences Amadeo Tira to suffer the penalty Amadeo were in their house, while their boarders were in their
of Reclusion Perpetua and a fine of P1,000,000.00. respective rooms. At 2:30 p.m., she was in the kitchen taking
care of her one-year-old child. She had other three children,
The amount of P12,536.00 is hereby forfeited in favor of the aged eight, four, and three, respectively, who were watching
government which forms part of the fine; the marijuana television. Her husband Amadeo was sleeping in one of the
weighing 807.3 grams and shabu weighing 1.001 gram are rooms.Suddenly, five policemen barged into their house and
hereby forfeited in favor of the government; the disposable searched all the rooms. The policemen found and seized articles
lighter and the aluminum foil are likewise forfeited in favor of in the room occupied by one of their boarders. They arrested
the government. Amadeo, and her brother-in-law, Nelson Tira, and brought them
to the police station. The boarders, however, were not arrested.
The Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is hereby ordered to
Joy Fernandez, a neighbor of the Tiras, lived
prepare the mittimus.
approximately ten meters away from the latter. Since they had
no television, she frequently went to her neighbors house to
The Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology watch certain programs. In the afternoon of March 9, 1998, she
(BJMP) is hereby ordered to transmit the person of Amadeo was at the Tira residence watching Mirasol, while Connie was
Tira to the National Bilibid Prison with proper escort within in the kitchen nursing her baby. Suddenly, about five or ten
fifteen (15) days upon receipt of this Order. [45] persons ran inside the house and handcuffed Amadeo Tira. [52]
A Yes, Sir. Appellant Amadeo Tira was not the only witness to the
search; Kagawad Mario Conwi and Ernesto Tira, Amadeos
Q When you found shabu, lighter, marijuana, and father, were also present. Ernesto Tira even led the policemen
money, what did you do? inside the house. This is evidenced not only by the testimony
of Kagawad Conwi, but also by the certification signed by the
A We marked them, Sir.
appellant himself, along with Kagawad Conwi and Ernesto
Q All of the items? Tira.[59]
A Only the marijuana, Sir. The trial court rejected the testimony of appellant Amadeo
Tira that the inner room searched by the policemen was
Q What mark did you place? occupied by Chris Tira and his girlfriend Gemma Lim with the
A My signature, Sir.[57] following encompassing disquisition:
PROS. TOMBOC: The defense contention that a couple from Baguio City first
Q And when you were allowed to enter the house, occupied the first room, the Court is not persuaded because
did you notice who was present? they did not present said businessmen from Baguio City who
were engaged in vegetable business. Secondly, the same room
A I noticed the presence of Connie Tira, Sir. was rented by Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. Chris Tira and
Gemma Lim, engaged in banana business, were not presented
Q When you said Connie Tira, is she the same in Court. If it were true that Chris Tira and Gemma Lim were
Connie Tira the accused in this case? the supposed lessees of the room, they should have been
A Yes, Sir, she was taking care of the baby. apprehended by the searching party on March 9, 1998, at
about 2:30 p.m. There was no proof showing that Chris Tira
Q Who else? and Gemma Lim ever occupied the room, like personal
belongings of Chris Tira and Gemma Lim. The defense did
A We also noticed the presence of Amadeo Tira, Sir.
not even show proof showing that Chris Tira reside in the first
Q What was he doing there? room, like clothings, toothbrush, soap, shoes and other
accessories which make them the residents or occupants of the
A He was newly awake, Sir. room. There were no kitchen plates, spoons, powder, or soap
Q Upon entering the house, what did you do? evidencing that the said room was occupied by Chris Tira and
Gemma Lim. Amadeo Tira contended that Chris Tira and
A We entered and searched the first room, Sir. Gemma Lim are engaged in banana business. There are no
banana stored in the room at the time of the search and both of prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law;
them were out of the room at the time of the search. And why and, (3) the accused freely or consciously possessed the said
did not Amadeo Tira supply the police officers of the personal drug.[62]
identities and address where they could find Chris Tira and
Gemma Lim at the time of the search. If they were banana The essential elements of the crime of possession of
dealers, they must be selling their banana in the market and regulated drugs are the following: (a) the accused is found in
they could have pointed them in the market.[60] possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized
by law or by duly constituted authorities; and, (c) the accused
has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug. This crime
We are in full accord with the trial court. It bears stressing is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an
that the trial court conducted an ocular inspection of the house essential element. However, the prosecution must prove that the
of the appellants, and thus, had first hand knowledge of the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the
layout of the house. Besides, the testimony of the appellant drugs. Possession, under the law, includes not only actual
Amadeo Tira, that the inner room was occupied by Chris Tira possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession
and Gemma Lim who were not there when the search was exists when the drug is in the immediate physical possession or
conducted, is belied by the testimony of the appellant Connie control of the accused.[63] On the other hand, constructive
Tira that the room was occupied by two male and one female possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and
boarders who were in the room when the policemen searched control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise
it.Thus: dominion and control over the place where it is
Q You said that while taking care of your baby, found.[64] Exclusive possession or control is not
several policemen barged [sic] your house? necessary.[65] The accused cannot avoid conviction if his right
to exercise control and dominion over the place where the
A Yes, Sir. contraband is located, is shared with another.[66]
Q And they proceeded to your room where your Thus, conviction need not be predicated upon exclusive
husband was sleeping at that time? possession, and a showing of non-exclusive possession would
not exonerate the accused.[67] Such fact of possession may be
A Yes, Sir.
proved by direct or circumstantial evidence and any reasonable
Q And it is in that room where your husband was inference drawn therefrom. However, the prosecution must
sleeping and where those articles were taken? prove that the accused had knowledge of the existence and
presence of the drug in the place under his control and dominion
A No, Sir. and the character of the drug.[68] Since knowledge by the
Q Where are (sic) those things came (sic) from? accused of the existence and character of the drugs in the place
where he exercises dominion and control is an internal act, the
A At the room where my boarders occupied, Sir. same may be presumed from the fact that the dangerous drug is
in the house or place over which the accused has control or
Q So, at that time where were those boarders? dominion, or within such premises in the absence of any
A They were inside their room, Sir. satisfactory explanation.[69]
Q How many of them? In this case, the prohibited and regulated drugs were found
under the bed in the inner room of the house of the appellants
A Two (2) male persons and one woman, Sir. where they also resided. The appellants had actual and
exclusive possession and control and dominion over the house,
Q And do you know their whereabout[s], Madam
including the room where the drugs were found by the
Witness?
policemen. The appellant Connie Tira cannot escape criminal
A No more, Sir. liability for the crime charged simply and merely on her
barefaced testimony that she was a plain housewife, had no
Q When did they leave, Madam Witness? involvement in the criminal actuations of her husband, and had
A At that time, they left the house, Sir. no knowledge of the existence of the drugs in the inner room of
the house. She had full access to the room, including the space
Q They were not investigated by the police? under the bed. She failed to adduce any credible evidence that
she was prohibited by her husband, the appellant Amadeo Tira,
A No, Sir.[61] from entering the room, cleaning it, or even sleeping on the
We agree with the finding of the trial court that the only bed. We agree with the findings and disquisition of the trial
occupants of the house when the policemen conducted their court, viz:
search were the appellants and their young children, and that
the appellants had no boarders therein. The Court is not persuaded that Connie Tira has no
knowledge, control and possession of the shabu and marijuana
Before the accused may be convicted of violating Section (Exhibits M, N, O and P) found in their room. Connie Tira and
8 of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659, Amadeo Tira jointly control and possess the shabu (Exhibits
the prosecution is burdened to prove beyond reasonable doubt M and N) and marijuana (Exhibits O and P) found in the room
the essential elements of the crime, viz: (1) the actual of their house. It is unusual for a wife not to know the
possession of an item or object which is identified to be a existence in their conjugal abode, the questioned shabu and
marijuana. The husband and wife (Amadeo and Connie) SEC. 3. Judgment for two or more offenses. - When two or
conspired and confederated with each other the keeping and more offenses are charged in a single complaint or information
custody of said prohibited articles. Both of them are deemed in but the accused fails to object to it before trial, the court may
possession of said articles in violation of R.A. 6425, Section 8, convict him of as many offenses as are charged and proved,
in relation to Section 20. and impose on him the penalty for each offense, setting out
separately the findings of fact and law in each offense.
That on or about March 9, 1998, in the Municipality of Less than one (1) gram to 49.25 grams prision correccional
Urdaneta, province of Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction 49.26 grams to 98.50 grams prision mayor
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring 98.51 grams to 147.75 grams reclusion temporal
together, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and 147.76 grams to 199 grams reclusion perpetua
feloniously have in their possession, control and custody the
following: Considering that the regulated drug found in the
possession of the appellants is only 1.001 grams, the imposable
- Three (3) pieces (sic) sachets of shabu penalty for the crime is prision correccional. Applying the
- Six (6) pieces opened sachets of shabu residue Indeterminate Sentence Law, the appellants are sentenced to
- One (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves weighing suffer an indeterminate penalty of from four (4) months and one
721 grams (1) day of arresto mayor in its medium period as minimum, to
- Twenty-four (24) tea bags of dried marijuana three (3) years of prision correccional in its medium period as
leaves weighing 86.3 grams maximum, for violation of Section 16 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
- Six [6] disposable lighter amended.
- One (1) roll Aluminum foil
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, appellants
- Several empty plastics (tea bag)
Amadeo and Connie Tira are found GUILTY beyond
- Cash money amounting to P12,536.00 in
reasonable doubt of violating Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act
different denominations believed to be
No. 6425, as amended, and are hereby sentenced to suffer the
proceeds of the contraband.
penalty of reclusion perpetua, and ORDERED to pay a fine
of P1,000,000.00. The said appellants are, likewise, found
without first securing the necessary permit/license to posses[s] GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 16,
the same. Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, and are sentenced
to suffer an indeterminate penalty of from Four (4) Months and
CONTRARY TO SEC. 8, in relation to Sec. 20 of R.A. 6425, One (1) Day of arresto mayor in its medium period as
as amended.[70] minimum, to Three (3) years of prision correccional, in its
medium period, as maximum.
The Information is defective because it charges two
No costs.
crimes. The appellants should have filed a motion to quash the
Information under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of SO ORDERED.
Court before their arraignment. They failed to do so. Hence,
under Rule 120, Section 3 of the said rule, the appellants may
be convicted of the crimes charged. The said Rule provides:
weighing 0.20 gram, which when examined
were found positive for Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in
violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
THE RTC RULING The only issue in this case is whether the accused-appellant is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5,
After consideration of the evidence, the RTC decreed: Article II of RA 9165 for
the illegal sale of 0.20 gram of shabu.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES
CONSIDERED, finding both accused THE COURTS RULING
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt, this
Court hereby sentences Zaida Kamad to life
imprisonment and to pay a fine We draw attention at the outset to the unique nature of an appeal
of P500,000.00 for Violation of Section 5, in a criminal case; the appeal throws the whole case open for
Art. II, RA 9165 review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite
and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are
xxxx assigned or unassigned.[15] We find the present appeal
meritorious on the basis of such review.
SO ORDERED.[13]
As a general rule, the trial court's findings of fact,
The accused-appellant appealed the RTC decision to especially when affirmed by the CA, are entitled to great weight
the CA, attacking the RTCs reliance on the presumption of and will not be disturbed on appeal. This rule, however, admits
regularity that the RTC found to have attended the conduct of of exceptions and does not apply where facts of weight and
the buy-bust operation by the police. She argued that no substance with direct and material bearing on the final outcome
presumption of regularity could arise considering that the police of the case have been overlooked, misapprehended or
violated NAPOLCOM rules by using an asset; the rules prohibit misapplied.[16] After due consideration of the records of this
the deputation of private persons as PNP civilian agents.[14] The case, the evidence adduced, and the applicable law and
accused-appellant also pointed out the material inconsistencies jurisprudence, we hold that a deviation from the general rule is
in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses that cast doubt on warranted.
their credibility, namely: (a) the uncertainty of SPO2 Sanchez
regarding the time the buy-bust team was dispatched to the In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the
target area; (b) the confusion of PO3 Maulit on the identity of following elements must be duly established: (1) proof that the
the team leader of the buy-bust team; (c) the admitted mistake transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court
of PO3 Maulit that only the recovered plastic sachet was of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.[17] Proof of
marked ES (standing for the initials of SPO2 Sanchez), while the corpus delicti in a buy-bust situation requires evidence, not
the marked money was marked MF (standing for the initials of only that the transacted drugs actually exist, but evidence as
P/Insp. Mariano F. Fegarido as commanding officer); and (d) well that the drugs seized and examined are the same drugs
the contradictory statements of PO3 Maulit who testified that it presented in court. This is a condition sine qua non for
was Leo who sold the shabu and that of SPO2 Sanchez who conviction as the drugs are the main subject of the illegal sale
testified that it was the accused-appellant who sold him constituting the crime and their existence and identification
the shabu. must be proven for the crime to exist. As we discuss below, the
special characteristics of prohibited drugs necessitate their strict
THE CA RULING identification by the prosecution.[18]
The CA rejected the defense arguments and Our examination of the records shows that while the
affirmed in toto the RTC findings. The CA ruled that the prosecution established through the testimony of SPO2 Sanchez
prosecution satisfactorily established the accused-appellants that the sale of the prohibited drug by the accused-appellant
guilt based on the positive testimony of SPO2 Sanchez on the took place, we find that both the RTC and the CA failed to
conduct of the buy-bust operation; his testimony bore badges of consider the following infirmities in the prosecutions case: (1)
truth. Accordingly, the CA found the accused-appellants the serious lapses in the RA 9165 procedure committed by the
uncorroborated denial undeserving of any weight. The CA buy-bust team in handling the seized shabu; and (2) the failure
brushed aside as a minor inconsistency the uncertainty in the of the police to comply with the chain of custody rule in
testimony of SPO2 Sanchez on the time the buy-bust operation handling the seized shabu, resulting in the prosecutions failure
took place. The CA also brushed aside the violation of the to properly identify the shabu offered in court as the
NAPOLCOM rules on the ground that the accused-appellant same shabu seized from the accused-appellant on October 16,
was arrested in flagrante delicto for illegal sale 2002.
of shabu committed in the presence of the prosecution
witnesses who were police officers. Moreover, the CA held that Non-compliance with the prescribed procedure
the use of assets to aid police officers in buy-bust operations has under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165
and preserved the integrity of the seized shabu. Significantly,
In People v. Garcia,[19] we emphasized the SPO2 Sanchez merely stated in his testimony that:
prosecutions duty to adduce evidence proving compliance by
the buy-bust team with the prescribed procedure laid down Q: What else transpired when Zaida gave
under paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. This something to you and you, being the
provision reads: poseur buyer, gave the money to
Zaida?
1) The apprehending team having initial
custody and control of the drugs shall, A: We brought them to our office.
immediately after seizure and
confiscation, physically inventory and xxxx
photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom Q: What did you do with those plastic sachets
such items were confiscated and/or containing white crystalline
seized, or his/her representative or substance?
counsel, a representative from the
media and the Department of Justice A: We brought them to the SPD Crime Lab
(DOJ), and any elected public official for examination.[21]
who shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy Thus, he failed to provide specific details on how the
thereof. [emphasis supplied] seized shabu was marked although the evidence shows that
the shabu was marked as ES-1-161009 before it was sent to a
forensic laboratory. His testimony also failed to state whether
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 under its the marking of the shabu was done immediately after its seizure
Section 21(a) provides further details on how RA 9165 is to be (as Section 21 of RA 9165 requires) or during the investigation.
applied, and provides too for a saving mechanism in case no His testimony likewise failed to disclose if a physical inventory
strict compliance with the requirements took place. Section and photography of the seized items had taken place, or if they
21(a) states: had, whether these were undertaken in the presence of the
accused or his counsel, or a representative from the media and
(a) The apprehending office/team having the Department of Justice, and of an elective official.
initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, In sum, his testimony failed to show how the
physically inventory and photograph the same integrity and evidentiary value of the item seized had been
in the presence of the accused or the person/s preserved; no explanation was ever given by SPO2 Sanchez
from whom such items were confiscated to justify the non-compliance by the buy-bust team with the
and/or seized, or his/her representative or prescribed procedures. In fact, the records clearly reveal
counsel, a representative from the media and that the prosecution did not even acknowledge the
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team in the
elected public official who shall be required to handling of the seized shabu.
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a
copy thereof: Provided, further that non- The consequences of the above omissions must
compliance with these requirements under necessarily be grave for the prosecution under the rule that penal
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity laws, such as RA 9165, are strictly construed against the
and the evidentiary value of the seized items government and liberally in favor of the accused.[22] One
are properly preserved by the consequence is to produce doubts on the origins of the illegal
apprehending officer/team, shall not render drug presented in court,[23] thus leading to the prosecutions
void and invalid such seizures of and failure to establish the corpus delicti.[24] Unless excused by the
custody over said items.[Emphasis supplied.] saving mechanism, the acquittal of the accused must follow.
We applied this ruling in People v. Garcia,[27] People These pieces of evidence notably fail to identify the
v. Gum-Oyen,[28] People v. Denoman[29] and People v. person who personally brought the seized shabu to the PNP
Coreche[30] where we recognized the following links that must Crime Laboratory. They also fail to clearly identify the person
be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust who received the shabu at the forensic laboratory pursuant to
situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the the letter-request dated October 17, 2002, and who exercised
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending custody and possession of the shabu after it was examined and
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the before it was presented in court. Neither was there any evidence
apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the adduced showing how the seized shabu was handled, stored
turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the and safeguarded pending its presentation in court.
forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the (d) The fourth link in the chain of custody
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from
the forensic chemist to the court. The fourth link presents a very strange and unusual
(a) The first link in the chain of custody twist in the prosecutions evidence in this case. Although the
We observe that SPO2 Sanchez testimony lacks forensic chemist was presented in court, we find that his offered
specifics on how the seized shabu was handled immediately testimony related to a shabu specimen other than that seized in
after the accused-appellants arrest. Although the records show the buy-bust operation of October 16, 2002. Specifically, his
that SPO2 Sanchez testified that he actually seized testimony pertained to shabu seized by the police on October
the shabu when he arrested the accused-appellant, he never 12, 2002. This is borne by the following exchanges:
disclosed the identity of the person/s who had custody and
possession of the shabu after its seizure, nor that he retained FISCAL UY: The testimony of the witness
possession of the shabu from the place of the arrest until they is being offered to prove . . . that he is the
reached the police station. one who cause [sic] the examination of the
physical evidence subject of this case
SPO2 Sanchez also failed to state the time and place containing with white crystalline
as well as the identity of the person/s who made the markings substance placed inside the plastic sachet
on the two (2) plastic sachets containing the weighing 0.20 grams and 0.30 grams with
recovered shabu seized from the accused-appellant and Leo markings of EBC and EBC-1 that I
on October 16, 2002. reduced findings after the examination
conducted.
(b) The second link in the chain of custody xxxx
We also observe that SPO2 Sanchez testimony Q And with the cause of the performance of
regarding the post-arrest police investigation failed to provide your duties, were you able to receive
particulars on whether the shabu was turned over to the a letter request relevant to this case
investigator. The records only identify the name of the specifically a drug test request,
investigator as one SPO1 Nuestro before whom SPO2 Sanchez dated October 12, 2002 from
and PO3 Maulit executed a Joint Affidavit of Arrest
PS/Insp. Wilfredo Calderon. Do you Q At this juncture your Honor, this
have the letter request with you? representation proceeded to open the
brown envelope. May I respectfully
A Yes, sir. request that this brown envelope be
marked in evidence as Exhibit B.
Q The witness presented to this And inside this brown envelope are
representation the letter request three pieces of plastic sachets inside
dated October 12, 2002 for purposes which are white crystalline substance
of identification, respectfully request with markings EPC 12 October 02
that it be marked in evidence as and EPC-1 12 October 02. May I
Exhibit A. In this Exhibit A Mr. respectfully request that these plastic
Officer, were you able to receive the sachets with white substance inside
evidence submitted specifically a be marked in evidence as Exhibit B-
small brown stapled wire envelope 1 and B-2. And in these plastic
with signature containing with sachets with white crystalline inside
white crystalline substance inside is a masking tape with the signature
and with markings EBC- 12/10/02 and letters are RAM, do you know
and EBC-1 12/10/02. After you who placed those letters?
received this specimen what action
did you take or do? A I am the one who placed that markings sir.
A Upon receiving, I read and understand the Q And what RAM stands for?
content of the letter request after
which, I stamped and marked the A That stands for my name Richard Allan
letter request and then record it on the Mangalip sir.
logbook and after recording it on the
logbook, I performed the test for Q You mentioned that you reduced your
determination of the presence of findings in writing, do you have the
dangerous drug on the specimen. official finding with you?
Q Now, after those tests conducted what was Q At this juncture the witness handed to this
the result of the examination? representation the physical science
report no. D-1487-2 for purposes of
A It gives positive result for identification respectfully request
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or that this specimen be marked in
otherwise known as shabu, a evidence as Exhibit C. And in this
dangerous drug. Exhibit C, there is a signature above
the typewritten name Engineer
xxxx Richard Allan B. Mangalip, do you
whose signature is this Mr.
Q At this juncture your Honor, the witness Witness? [34][Emphasis supplied]
handed with this representation a
brown envelope with markings D- A That is my signature sir.
1487-02, and the signature and the
date 12 October 02, now Mr. Witness Q Respectfully request that the signature
tell us who placed these markings on appearing in Exhibit C be marked in
this brown envelope? evidence as Exhibit C-1. You stated
earlier that you cause the weight of
A I am the one who personally made the the white crystalline substance in this
markings, sir. plastic sachet, what the weights of
this white crystalline substance?
Q And in the face of this brown envelope
there is a printed name PO1 Edwin A For the specimen A, it is .20 grams and the
Plopinio and the signature and the specimen B, it is .30 gram.
date 12 October 2002. Do you know
who placed who placed those Q May I respectfully request that this weight
markings? indicated in this physical science
report now mark in evidence as
A I have no idea. Exhibit C-2. I have no further
questions to the witness your Honor.
proceedings, the discrepancies were not taken into account in
xxxx the decision now under review.
Aside from the different dates of seizure, we note that These observations bring us full circle to our opening
the shabu identified and presented in court as evidence through statement under the Courts ruling on the kind and extent of
the testimony of the forensic chemist, showed characteristics review that an appellate court undertakes in a criminal case; the
distinct from the shabu from the buy-bust sale of October 16, appeal opens the whole case for review, with the appellate court
2002: charged with the duty to cite and appreciate the errors it may
First, there were different markings made on the find in the appealed judgment, whether these errors are assigned
plastic sachets of the shabu recovered on October 12, 2002. As or unassigned. This is one such instance where we are duty
testified to, one plastic sachet of shabu was marked, EBC 12 bound to rectify errors that, although unnoticed below and
October 02, while the other plastic sachet of shabu was marked, unassigned by the parties, are clearly reflected in the records of
EBC-1 12 October 02;[35] the case.
SO ORDERED.