Sie sind auf Seite 1von 20

FIRST DIVISION when four persons arrived and approached Darisan who was

also eating there. According to Gauang, Darisan was frisked


PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 176151 and handcuffed. Gauang herself was brought to a nearby chapel
Appellee, where a plastic sachet was allegedly shoved into her hand.
Present: Darisan corroborated Gauangs testimony.
CARPIO, J., Acting Chairperson,*
AUSTRIA- After trial on the merits, the RTC found appellants
MARTINEZ,** guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. The
CORONA,
dispositive portion of the decision read:
- v e r s u s - CARPIO MORALES** and
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, JJ. THE FOREGOING
LOURDERICO ORTIZ DARISAN CONSIDERED, the court is of the opinion
and PILAR GAYAS GAUANG, and so holds accused Lourderico Darisan y
Appellants. Promulgated: Ortiz and Pilar Gauang y Gayas guilty
January 30, 2009 beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses
charged. They are hereby sentenced to life
x------------------------------------------ imprisonment and are fined the sum of five
--------x hundred thousand pesos (Php 500,000.00)
without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
DECISION insolvency for violation of Section 5 and to a
prison term of from twelve (12) years and one
CORONA, J.: (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years
and eight (8) months as maximum for
violation of Section 11.
Before us on appeal is the decision[1] of the Court of
Appeals (CA) dated April 25, 2006 affirming the decision[2] of
the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 65, in The period of detention of both accused should be
Criminal Case Nos. 02-2125 to 02-2127 finding appellants given full credit.
Lourderico Darisan and Pilar Gauang guilty of violation of Let the dangerous drug subject
Sections 5[3] and 11[4] of RA 9165,[5] as amended. matter of these cases be disposed of in the
On July 30, 2002, the Drug Enforcement Unit of the manner provided by law.
Makati City Police received a tip from an informant that SO ORDERED.
appellants were engaged in drug-pushing activities in Rose
Street, Barangay Rizal, Makati City. A team of police officers Appellants appealed to the CA. In ruling against them,
was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. A P100 bill was the CA held that the minor inaccuracies in the testimonies of
prepared as marked money and the initials GAR were written the witnesses for the prosecution, namely Barrameda and PO2
thereon. Virginio Costa (another member of the buy-bust operation
team), did not mar their credibility. Moreover, the CA held that
Upon commencement of the buy-bust operation, PO2 the elements of the crimes of illegal sale of regulated or
Vicente Barrameda (the designated poseur-buyer) was prohibited drugs and of illegal possession of dangerous drugs
introduced by the informant to Darisan. Asked how much shabu had been firmly established.
he wanted to buy, Barrameda replied, Isang daan lang, boss.
After Barrameda handed Darisan the marked money, Gauang Appellants interposed this appeal. We affirm the
gave him (Barrameda) one transparent plastic sachet containing findings of the RTC and the CA.
shabu.
Barrameda gave the pre-arranged signal and In their brief, appellants raise as lone error the finding
introduced himself as a police officer. The members of the buy- by the RTC and the CA of their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
bust team arrested appellants. Darisan was frisked. The police They assail the RTCs heavy reliance on the testimonies of
found in his possession two sachets of shabu. Two more sachets Barrameda and Costa. Appellants allege that the testimonies (of
of shabu were found in the possession of Gauang. Barrameda and Costa) were inconsistent, an indicia of
falsehood.
The five sachets of shabu were brought to the
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory and were each
found to contain shabu of various weights.[6] Consequently,
three Informations for illegal sale and illegal possession of It is a settled rule that in cases involving violations of
dangerous drugs were filed in the RTC of Makati City against the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to
appellants.[7] prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they are
presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner,
Upon arraignment, appellants both pleaded not guilty unless there is evidence to the contrary.[8] In this case, no
to the offenses charged. They denied the charges against them evidence was adduced showing any irregularity in any material
and offered an alibi instead. Gauang averred that she was eating aspect of the conduct of the buy-bust operation. Neither was
with her daughter in a nearby carinderia along Rose Street there any proof that the prosecution witnesses who were
members of the buy-bust operation team, particularly those most prosecutions for violation of the Comprehensive
whose testimonies were in question, were impelled by any ill- Dangerous Drugs Act.[11] This case is no exception.
feeling or improper motive against appellants which would
raise a doubt about their credibility. With respect to the penalty, the RTC and the CA
correctly imposed the penalty for illegal sale of dangerous
We agree with the CAs finding that the inconsistencies drugs, punishable under Section 5 of RA 9165. This is not so
pointed to by appellants were minor ones. These inaccuracies, with respect the penalty imposed for illegal possession of
namely: (a) the composition of the buy-bust team; (b) the time dangerous drugs, punishable under Section 11 of RA 9165. The
when the informant came to the Makati Drug Enforcement RTC, as affirmed by the CA, incorrectly imposed only a penalty
Unit; (c) whether the buy-bust operation took place on Roxas of imprisonment for 12 years and one day as minimum to 14
or Rose Street and (d) the markings on the buy-bust money, years and eight months as maximum. Section 11 provides:
were not material to the case. These matters were not necessary Sec. 11. Possession of Dangerous
to establish the elements of the crimes committed. Drugs. xxx

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.

Appellants defense of alibi cannot stand in the face of


proof beyond reasonable doubt of the illegal sale and possession
of prohibited drugs. The defense of alibi is viewed with disfavor
for it can easily be concocted and is a common defense ploy in
2. Six big plastic sachets containing white
crystalline granules believed to be shabu,
weighing 4.4 grams;
3. One roll/stick of dried Indian hemp
(marijuana) leaves weighing 0.2 gram; and
4. One small plastic sachet containing white
crystalline granules believed to be shabu,
THIRD DIVISION weighing 0.05 grams.[4]

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:

That on October 6, 1999 at


10:30, more or less at
DECISION corner Quezon Avenue
and Mabini Streets, Barra,
CARPIO, J.: Dipolog City, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction
The Case of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused,
This petition for review on certiorari[1] seeks to reverse the knowing fully well that
Decision[2] promulgated on 19 June 2001 of the Court of unauthorized possession
Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 59269. The Court of Appeals and control of regulated
affirmed the Resolution and Order of drug is punishable by law,
Judge Marcial G. Empleo (Judge Empleo) of the Regional did then and there
Trial Court of Dipolog City, Branch 9 (trial court), directing the willfully, unlawfully and
prosecutor to amend the two Informations filed by filing only a feloniously have in his
single Information. possession and control
Thirty Two (32) pieces
The Facts small plastic sachets and
six (6) pieces big plastic
sachet containing
On 6 October 1999, a search warrant[3] was issued for the search Methamphetamine
and seizure of shabu and paraphernalia at the room rented by Hydrochloride, more
private respondent Dante Mah (private respondent) at the LS popularly known as shabu,
Lodge located at the corner weighing a total of 6.4
of Quezon Avenue and Mabini Street in Dipolog City. grams, without any legal
authority to possess the
During the search, the police officers seized the following from same, in gross Violation of
private respondents room: Section 16, Article III, of
R.A. 6425, as amended.
1. Thirty-two small plastic sachets containing
white crystalline granules believed to CONTRARY TO LAW.[6]
be shabu, weighing 2 grams;
the search and seizure was done at one
Criminal Case No. 9279 time, the same place and at one
occasion. Hence, there could be no two
crimes committed, regardless of the two
INFORMATION kinds of prohibited/regulated drugs that were
confiscated from the accused. There is in this
The undersigned State Prosecutor of Region case a clear case of splitting one single
9 accuses DANTE MAH criminal act into two separate crimes.
y Cabilin alias Dodoy Mah of the crime of Considering, however, that the penalty of
Violation of Section 8, Article II of Republic this kind of offenses are based on the number
Act No. 6425, as amended, committed as of grams of the regulated/prohibited drugs,
follows: instead of having these cases dismissed,
the Office of the City Prosecutor
That on October 6, 1999 at of Dipolog City is hereby directed to amend
10:30 in the morning, more its information by filing one single
or less, at information.[11]
corner Quezon Avenue The prosecution filed a motion for reconsideration,[12] arguing
and Mabini Streets, Barra, that violation of any of the provisions of RA 6425 constitutes a
Dipolog City, Philippines, separate and distinct offense. The prosecution maintained that
and within the jurisdiction private respondent cannot be charged with violating Articles II
of this Honorable Court, and III of RA 6425 in one Information because that would be
the above-named accused, tantamount to charging him with more than one offense in a
knowing fully well that single Information. The trial court denied the motion in an
possession and use of Order[13] dated 2 May 2000.
prohibited drugs is
punishable by law, did then Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of
and there willfully, Appeals, which dismissed the petition. Hence this petition.
unlawfully and feloniously
have in his possession and Meanwhile, in an Order[14] dated 12 May 2000, the trial court
control One (1) roll/stick suspended further proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 9272 and
dried marijuana leaves, 9279 pending resolution of the petition. However, in a
without legal authority to Resolution[15] dated 27 April 2004, the trial court, upon private
possess the same, in gross respondents motion, dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 9272 and
Violation of Section 8, 9279 for unreasonable delay in the prosecution of the cases
Article II of Republic Act which is violative of the right of the accused to speedy
No. 6425, as amended. trial.[16] Upon the prosecutions motion for reconsideration, the
trial court issued an Order[17]
CONTRARY TO LAW.[7] dated 17 June 2004, setting aside its Resolution dated 27 April
Upon his arraignment on 28 October 1999, private 2004 and reinstating Criminal Case Nos. 9272 and 9279, with
respondent pleaded not guilty to the two charges. the proceedings still suspended pending outcome of the appeal
in the Supreme Court.
On 17 February 2000, private respondent filed a motion[8] to
dismiss Criminal Case No. 9279. Private respondent alleged
that the single act of possession of drugs committed at the same
time and at the same place cannot be the subject of two
separate Informations. Since the prosecution already filed
Criminal Case No. 9272, then the filing of Criminal Case No. The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
9279 is tantamount to splitting a single cause of action into two In a Decision promulgated on 19 June 2001, the Court of
separate cases. Appeals affirmed the Order and Resolution of the trial court.
The Court of Appeals held that the filing of only one
The prosecution opposed the motion, claiming that Information is proper because only one violation was
unauthorized possession of marijuana and shabu are committed possession of dangerous drugs as penalized by RA
punishable under Section 8, Article II and Section 16, Article 6425. The Court of Appeals ruled that:
III of RA 6425. Hence, these acts constitute two separate and
distinct offenses with separate penalties.[9] In the case at bar, such intent to possess is the
possession of a dangerous drug, however,
In a Resolution[10] dated 3 April 2000, Judge Empleo directed without regard to the kind of substance
the prosecutor to file only a single Information. The Resolution involve[d], since both pertain to dangerous
reads in part: drugs, provided it will be duly established
It is to be noted that the stuffs, SHABU and during trial, it shall make the accused liable
Marijuana Leaves are all prohibited and for a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
regulated drugs. But what is important is that As the possession of the dangerous drugs
happened at the same time, same occasion, that it is a prohibited or a regulated
same place, it cannot be denied that only one drug.[18] (Emphasis in the original)
violation [was] committed under the
Dangerous Drugs Act, which is the
possession of dangerous drugs. It is The Issue
not controverted that at the time of the
apprehension, what was found in his The main issue in this case is whether the prosecution should
possession were file only one Information for illegal possession of shabu and
[a] marijuana and shabu. We shall not marijuana.
discount the fact that the circumstances
surrounding the search and seizure point to
none other but a single intent to possess a The Ruling of the Court
dangerous drug; not to mention that there is
only one occasion, as compared to other The petition is meritorious.
cases wherein the alleged offense happened
on different occasions, that with respect to The Court of Appeals affirmed the Order and Resolution of the
the latter situation clearly it may not be said trial court that the prosecution should file only one Information.
[that] there is only one intent. It can be The Court of Appeals held that where possession of both
inferred from the action of the accused and prohibited and regulated drugs occurs at the same time, on the
the surrounding circumstances that there was same occasion, and in the same place, only one offense is
clearly one act intended by the former to committed under RA 6425, which is possession of dangerous
perpetrate; it is apparent, that the accused drugs.
seems to have a single intention, which is his
intention to possess the said dangerous drugs. We cannot subscribe to the appellate courts ruling. Such
Thus, not just because it involves two interpretation dilutes the severity of the crimes committed. RA
different kinds of dangerous drugs make the 6425 does not prescribe a single punishment for the various
said act to constitute two offenses. As has offenses enumerated in the law. On the contrary, RA 6425
been repeatedly said by this Court, dangerous enumerates the punishable acts and its corresponding penalty.
drugs refer to both prohibited and regulated RA 6425 also specifies the particular drugs and the
drug. corresponding quantity in the imposition of penalty. For
instance, under Section 20 of RA 6425, as amended, the
xxxx minimum quantity of marijuana and shabu for purposes of
imposing the maximum penalties are not the same. For
Petitioner contends that since there are two marijuana, the quantity must be 750 grams or more while
acts of possession, one is possession of a for shabu, it is 200 grams or more.
prohibited drug and the other is possession of
a regulated drug, for that reason, there are two The prosecution was correct in filing two
separate offenses that the accused may be separate Informations for the crimes of illegal possession
held liable for. Petitioner puts forward the of shabu and illegal possession of marijuana. Clearly, the
argument that it is immaterial that Legislature did not intend to lump these two separate crimes
the marijuana and shabu were seized in the into just one crime of possession of dangerous drugs.
same place and on the same occasion. Otherwise, there would be no need to specify the different kinds
Petitioner further asserts that since two of drugs and the corresponding quantity in the application of
separate provisions of the Dangerous Drugs the appropriate penalty. Multiple offenses can be committed
Act were violated, concomitantly, herein under RA 6425 even if the crimes are committed in the same
private respondent may be held liable for two place, at the same time, and by the same person. Thus, this
distinct crimes under the said law. We hold Court has upheld rulings of the lower courts convicting an
otherwise. A careful look into the Dangerous accused charged with two separate crimes of illegal possession
Drugs Act would show that it specified the of shabu and illegal possession of marijuana, even if the crimes
manner of commission of the particular acts were committed at the same time and in the same place.[19]
that would amount to a violation of the said
law, and one of which is the possession or Besides, in People v. Tira, we have already ruled that illegal
use of a prohibited or regulated drug. possession of shabu and marijuana constitutes two separate
Although the law has provided for two crimes and therefore, two Informations should be filed. We
separate articles covering the possession or held:
use of a prohibited and a regulated drug, it
does not mean that there are two separate The trial court convicted the appellants of
offenses that it speaks of. What violating Section 16, in relation to Section 20,
the Dangerous Drugs Act penalizes is the of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended. The
specific act of possession or use of dangerous Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserts
drugs, among others, regardless of the fact that the appellants should be convicted of
violating Section 8 of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
amended. We do not agree with the trial court
and the OSG. We find and so hold that the
The Information is defective because it
appellants are guilty of two separate
charges two crimes. The appellants should
crimes: (a) possession of regulated drugs
have filed a motion to quash the Information
under Section 16, in relation to Section 20,
under Section 3, Rule 117 of the Revised
of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended, for
Rules of Court before their
their possession of methamphetamine
arraignment. They failed to do so. Hence,
hydrochloride, a regulated drug; and, (b)
under Rule 120, Section 3 of the said rule, the
violation of Section 8, in relation to Section
appellants may be convicted of the crimes
20 of the law, for their possession
charged.[20]
of marijuana, a prohibited drug. Although
only one Information was filed against the
appellants, nevertheless, they could be tried
Just like Tira, this case involves illegal possession of
and convicted for the crimes alleged therein
both shabu and marijuana. Hence, it was only proper for the
and proved by the prosecution. In this case,
the appellants were charged for violation prosecution to file two separate Informations since there were
of possession of marijuana and shabu in one two distinct and separate crimes involved. This is in accordance
with the rule that a complaint or information must charge only
Information which reads:
one offense, except when the law prescribes a single
punishment for various offenses.[21]
That on or about March 9, 1998, in the WHEREFORE, we SET ASIDE the Decision promulgated
Municipality of Urdaneta, province on 19 June 2001 of the Court of Appeals. We ANNUL the
of Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of Resolution and the Order, dated 3 April 2000 and 2 May 2000,
this Honorable Court, the above-named respectively, of the Regional Trial Court of Dipolog City,
accused, conspiring together, did then and Branch 9. We ORDER Judge Marcial G. Empleo to continue
there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously with the proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 9272 and 9279.
have in their possession, control and custody
the following: SO ORDERED.
- Three (3) pieces (sic)
sachets of shabu
- Six (6) pieces opened
sachets
of shabu residue
- One (1) brick of
dried marijuana
leaves weighing
721 grams
- Twenty-four (24) tea
bags of
dried marijuana
leaves weighing
86.3 grams
- Six [6] disposable
lighter EN BANC
- One (1) roll
Aluminum foil
- Several empty
plastics (tea bag) [G.R. No. 139615. May 28, 2004]
- Cash money
amounting
to P12,536.00 in
different PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, vs. AMADEO
denominations TIRA and CONNIE TIRA, appellants.
believed to be
proceeds of the DECISION
contraband.
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
without first securing the necessary
permit/license to posses[s] the same.
This is an appeal of the Decision[1] of the Regional Trial
CONTRARY to Sec. 8, in relation to Sec. 20 Court of Pangasinan, Branch 46, finding appellants Amadeo
of R.A. 6425, as amended. Tira and Connie Tira guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violating Section 16, in relation to Section 20, Article III of continued observing the place. Convinced that illegal activities
Republic Act No. 6425, known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of were going on in the house, the policemen returned to the
1972, as amended by Rep. Act No. 7659, sentencing each of station and reported to P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio. After
them to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and ordering hearing their report, P/Supt. Victorio instructed his men to make
each of them to pay a fine of P1,000.000.[2] an affidavit of surveillance preliminary to an application for a
search warrant.[5]
On March 6, 1998, SPO3 Asidelio Manibog, PO3 Efren
The Indictment Abad de Vera, SPO1 Renato Cresencia and PO2 Reynaldo
Soliven Javonilla, Jr. executed an Affidavit of Surveillance,
alleging, inter alia, that they were members of the Drug
The appellants Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira were Enforcement Unit of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and that in the
charged in an Information which reads: evening of February 24, 1998, they confirmed reports of illegal
drug-related activities in the house of the spouses Amadeo and
That on or about March 9, 1998, in the Municipality of Connie Tira.[6] On March 6, 1998[7] Police Chief Inspector
Urdaneta, province of Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction Danilo Bumatay Datu filed an Application for a Search Warrant
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring in the Municipal Trial Court of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, attaching
together, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and thereto the affidavit of surveillance executed by his men and a
feloniously have in their possession, control and custody the sketch of the place to be searched.[8]
following:
Satisfied with the testimonies of SPO3 Manibog, PO3 de
Vera, SPO1 Cresencia and PO2 Javonilla, Jr., Judge Aurora A.
- Three (3) (sic) sachets of shabu
Gayapa issued a search warrant commanding the applicants to
- Six (6) pieces opened sachets of shabu residue make an immediate search of the Tira residence at anytime of
- One (1) brick of dried marijuana leaves the day or night, particularly the first room on the right side, and
weighing 721 grams
the two rooms located at Perez south, and forthwith seize and
- Six disposable lighter
take possession of the following items:
- One (1) roll Aluminum Foil
- Several empty plastics (tea bag)
- Cash money amounting to P12,536.00 in 1. Poor Mans Cocaine known as Shabu;
different denominations believed to be 2. Drug-Usage Paraphernalia; and
proceeds 3. Weighing scale.[9]
of the contraband.
P/Sr. Inspector Ludivico Bravo, and as head of the team,
without first securing the necessary permit/license to possess with SPO3 Cariaga, PO3 Concepcion, Cario, Galima,
the same. Villaroya, Andaya, SPO1 Mario Tajon, SPO1 Asterio Dismaya,
SPO1 Renato Cresencia, and PO3 Reynaldo Javonillo were
directed to implement the search warrant.[10] They responded
CONTRARY to SEC. 8 in relation to Sec. 20 of RA 6425, as
and brought Barangay Kagawad Mario Conwi to witness the
amended.[3] search.[11]At 2:35 p.m. on March 9, 1998, the team proceeded
to the Tira residence. The men found Ernesto Tira, the father of
Amadeo, at the porch of the house. They introduced themselves
The Case for the Prosecution[4] and told Ernesto that they had a warrant authorizing them to
search the premises. Ernesto led them inside. The policemen
found the newly awakened Amadeo inside the first room[12] of
In the evening of February 24, 1998, SPO3 Asidelio the house.[13] With Barangay Kagawad Conwi and Amadeo
Manibog received a verbal instruction from the Chief of Police Tira, the policemen proceeded to search the first room to the
Superintendent Wilson R. Victorio to conduct surveillance right (an inner room) and found the following under the bed
operations on the house of Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira where Amadeo slept:[14]
at Perez Extension Street because of reported rampant drug
activities in the said area. Manibog formed a team composed of 1. 9 pcs. suspected methamphetamine
SPO1 Renato Cresencia, PO3 Reynaldo Javonilla, Jr. and PO3 hydrochloride placed in heat-sealed
Efren Abad de Vera to conduct the ordered surveillance. transparent plastic sachets
2. roll aluminum foil
At around 8:00 p.m., the group, clad in civilian clothes, 3. several empty plastic transparent
arrived at Perez Extension Street. As they stationed themselves 4. used and unused aluminum foil[15]
in the periphery of a store, they observed that more than twenty 5. disposable lighters
persons had gone in and out of the Tira residence. They 6. 1 sachet of shabu confiscated from Nelson
confronted one of them, and asked what was going on inside the Tira[16]
house. The person revealed that Amadeo Tira sold shabu, and
that he was a regular customer. The group went closer to the They also found cash money amounting to P12,536 inside
house and started planning their next move. They wanted to a shoulder bag placed on top of the television, in the following
pose as buyers, but hesitated, for fear of being identified as PNP denominations:
members. Instead, they stayed there up to 12:00 midnight and
1 pc. -P1,000.00 bill A. Moreno filed an Information against the Tira Spouses for
4 pcs. - 500.00 bill illegal possession of shabu and marijuana, in violation of
52 pcs. - 100.00 bill Section 8, in relation to Section 20 of Rep. Act No. 6425. [25] A
36 pcs. - 50.00 bill warrant of arrest was issued against Connie Tira on May 13,
100 pcs. - 20.00 bill 1998. However, when the policemen tried to serve the said
53 pcs. - 10.00 bill warrant, she could not be found in the given address.[26] She was
1 pc. - 5.00 bill arrested only on October 6, 1998.[27]
1 pc. - 1.00 coin[17]
During the trial, the court conducted an ocular inspection
of the Tira residence.[28]
The policemen listed the foregoing items they found in the
house. Amadeos picture was taken while he was signing the
said certification.[18] Ernesto (Amadeos father), also witnessed
the certification. The Case for Accused Amadeo Tira[29]
A joint affidavit of arrest was, thereafter, executed by
SPO3 Asidelio Manibog, SPO1 Mario C. Tajon, SPO1 Asterio Amadeo Tira denied the charge. He testified that he was a
T. Dismaya, SPO1 Renato M. Cresencia and PO3 Reynaldo S. furniture delivery boy[30] who owned a one-storey bungalow
Javonilla, Jr. for the apprehension of Amadeo Tira and Nelson house with two bedrooms and one masters bedroom. There was
Tira who were brought to the police station for custodial also another room which was divided into an outer and inner
investigation. The articles seized were turned over to the PNP room; the latter room had no windows or ventilation. The house
Crime Laboratory, Urdaneta Sub-Office, for examination.[19] In stood twenty meters away from Perez Extension Street in
turn, a laboratory examination request was made to the Chief of Urdaneta, Pangasinan, and could be reached only by foot.[31] He
the Philippine National Police Service-1, Sub-Office, Urdaneta, leased the room located at the western portion to his nephew
Pangasinan for the following: Chris Tira[32] and the latters live-in-partner Gemma Lim for
four hundred pesos a month.[33] Chris and Gemma were
a. Three (3) sachets of suspected
engaged in the buying and selling of bananas. He denied that
methamphetamine hydrochloride
there were young men coming in and out of his house. [34]
approximately 0.5 grams;
b. Six (6) opened sachets of suspected In the afternoon of March 6, 1998, he was in his house
methamphetamine hydrochloride sleeping when the policemen barged into his house. He heard a
(SHABU) residue; commotion and went out of the room to see what it was all
c. Twenty-four (4) pieces of dried marijuana about, and saw police officers Cresencia, Javonilla and
leaves sachet; and Bergonia, searching the room of his nephew, Chris Tira. He told
d. One (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet of them to stop searching so that he could contact his father,
suspected methamphetamine Ernesto, who in turn, would call the barangay captain. The
hydrochloride confiscated from the policemen continued with their search. He was then pulled
possession of Nelson Tira.[20] inside the room and the policemen showed him the items they
allegedly found.[35]
On March 10, 1998, P/Supt. Wilson R. Victorio executed
a Compliance/Return of Search Warrant.[21] Barangay Kagawad Mario Conwi testified that on March
9, 1998, while he was at Calle Perez, Urdaneta, Pangasinan,
On March 17, 1998, the PNP Crime Laboratory Group in
Capt. Ludivico Bravo asked to be accompanied to the Tira
Physical Science Report No. DT-057-98 reported that the test
residence. Capt. Bravo was with at least ten other
conducted by Police Superintendent/Chemist Theresa Ann
policemen. As they parked the car at Calle Perez, the policemen
Bugayong-Cid,[22] yielded positive for methamphetamine
saw a man running towards the direction of the ricefields.
hydrochloride (shabu) and marijuana. The report contained the
Kagawad Conwi and some of the policemen chased the man,
following findings:
who turned out to be Nelson Tira. One of the policemen pointed
to a sachet of shabu which fell to the ground near Nelson. The
A1 to A3, B1 to B6, E POSITIVE to the test for policemen arrested him and proceeded to the house of Amadeo
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a regulated drug. Tira to serve the warrant.[36] When they reached the house, the
other policemen were waiting. He saw Amadeo and Connie
C and D1 to D4 POSITIVE to the test for marijuana, a Tira sitting by the door of the house in the sala. Thereafter, he
prohibited drug. and the policemen started the search.[37] They searched the first
room located at the right side (if facing south), [38] and found
CONCLUSION: marijuana, shabu, money and some paraphernalia.[39] An
Specimens A1 to A3, B1 to B6 and E contain inventory of the items seized was made afterwards, which was
methamphetamine hydrochloride (Shabu) and specimens C signed by Capt. Bravo and Ernesto Tira.[40]
and D1 to D24 contain marijuana.[23]
Alfonso Gallardo, Amadeos neighbor, testified that he
was the one who constructed the Tira residence and that the
A criminal complaint was filed by P/Supt. Wilson R. house initially had two rooms. The first room was rented out,
Victorio against Amadeo Tira and Connie Tira on March 10, while the second room was occupied by the Spouses Amadeo
1998 for violation of Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended. [24] After and Connie Tira.[41] Subsequently, a divider was placed inside
finding probable cause, Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Rufino
the first room.[42] He also testified that his house was only three was in the nature of a general warrant, to justify the fishing
(3) meters away from that of the Tiras, and that only a toilet expedition conducted on the premises.
separated their houses.[43] He denied that there were many
people going in and out of the Tira residence.[44] On October 26, 1998, the presiding judge ordered Judge
Aurora A. Gayapa to forward the stenographic notes of the
applicant and the witnesses.[49] Connie was arraigned
on November 9, 1998, pending the resolution of the
The Ruling of the Trial Court motion. She pleaded not guilty to the charge of illegal
possession of shabu and marijuana.[50] The trial court thereafter
issued an Order on November 11, 1998, denying the motion to
The trial court rendered judgment on September 24, 1998, quash.[51] It did not give credence to the allegations of Connie
finding Amadeo Tira guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal Tira, and found that Judge Gayapa issued the search warrant
possession of 807.3 grams of marijuana and 1.001 gram of after conducting searching questions, and in consideration of
shabu. The decretal portion of its decision is herein quoted: the affidavit of witness Enrique Milad.

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]

The trial court upheld the validity of Search Warrant No.


3 issued by Judge Aurora Gayapa. It found Amadeos defense,
The Ruling of the Trial Court
that the room where the items were seized was rented out to the
couple Cris Tira and Gemma Lim, unsubstantiated. It held that
Amadeo, as owner of the house, had control over the room as The trial court found Connie Tira guilty beyond
well as the things found therein and that the inner room was a reasonable doubt of illegal possession of 807.3 grams of
secret and practical place to keep marijuana, shabu and related marijuana and 1.001 gram of shabu. The dispositive portion of
paraphernalia.[46] the decision reads:
Amadeo appealed the decision.[47]
WHEREFORE, JUDGMENT is hereby rendered
CONVICTING beyond reasonable doubt accused CONNIE
TIRA for Illegal Possession of Marijuana weighing 807.3
The Case Against Connie Tira
grams and shabu weighing 1.001 gram penalized under Article
III, Section 16 and 20, of Republic Act 6425, known as [the]
After her arrest, Connie filed a motion to quash search Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by Republic Act
warrant,[48] alleging that the police officers who applied for the 7659, the Court sentences Connie Tira to suffer the penalty of
said warrant did not have any personal knowledge of the Reclusion Perpetua and a fine of P1,000,000.00.
reported illegal activities. She contended that the same was
issued in violation of Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, The amount of P12,536.00 is hereby forfeited in favor of the
as the judge issued the search warrant without conducting government which forms part of the fine; the marijuana
searching questions and answers, and without attaching the weighing 807.3 grams and shabu weighing 1.001 gram are
records of the proceedings. Moreover, the search warrant issued hereby forfeited in favor of the government; the disposable
lighter and the aluminum foil are, likewise, forfeited in favor lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the
of the government. absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
The Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology
(BJMP) is hereby ordered to transmit the person of Connie The appellants posit that the articles and substances found
Tira to the National Bilibid Prisons with proper escort within by the policemen in their house are inadmissible in evidence,
fifteen (15) days upon receipt of his Order. [53] being the fruits of a poisonous tree. Hence, they contend, they
should have been acquitted of the crime charged. The
The trial court did not believe that Connie Tira had no appellants further assert that the prosecution failed to prove that
knowledge, control and possession of the shabu and marijuana they owned the prohibited drugs, and that the same were in their
found in the first or inner room of their house. It stressed that possession and control when found by the policemen. They
Connie and Amadeo Tira jointly controlled and possessed the insist that it cannot be presumed that they were in control and
shabu and marijuana that the policemen found therein. It possession of the said substances/articles simply because they
ratiocinated that it was unusual for a wife not to know the owned the house where the same were found, considering that
existence of prohibited drugs in the conjugal abode. Thus, as the room was occupied by Chris Tira and his live-in partner,
husband and wife, the accused conspired and confederated with Gemma Lim.
each other in keeping custody of the said prohibited The appellant Connie Tira avers that she never fled from
articles.[54] The court also held that Connie Tiras flight from their house after the policemen had conducted the
their house after the search was an indication of her search. Neither was she arrested by the policemen when they
guilt. Connie, likewise, appealed the decision.[55] arrested her husband.
The appeals have no merit.
The Present Appeal Contrary to the appellants claim, appellant Amadeo Tira
was present when the policemen searched the inner room of the
house. The articles and substances were found under the bed on
In their brief, the appellants Amadeo and Connie Tira which the appellant Amadeo Tira slept. The policemen did not
assigned the following errors committed by the trial court: find the said articles and substances in any other room in the
I house:
Q So when you reached the house of Amadeo Tira at
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING the Tiras compound, you saw the father and
ACCUSED-APPELLANTS DESPITE FAILURE ON THE you told him you are implementing the Search
PART OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THEIR GUILT Warrant and your group was allowed to enter
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. and you are allowed to search in the presence
of Amadeo Tira?
II
A Yes, Sir.

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT PROS. DUMLAO


THE SEARCH WAS ILLEGALLY MADE.
Q In the course of your search, what did you find?
III WITNESS:
A We found out suspected marijuana leaves, Sir.
ASSUMING THAT ACCUSED-APPELLANT AMADEO
TIRA IS GUILTY AS CHARGED, THE TRIAL COURT Q Where, in what particular place did you find?
ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS A
CONSPIRACY BETWEEN HIM AND HIS WIFE CONNIE A Under the bed inside the room of Amadeo Tira,
TIRA.[56] Sir
Q What else did you find aside from marijuana
The Court shall resolve the assigned errors simultaneously leaves?
as they are interrelated.
A We also find suspected sachet of shabu, Sir.
The appellants contend that the search conducted by the
policemen in the room occupied by Chris and Gemma Lim, Q What else?
where the articles and substances were found by the policemen, A Lighter, Sir.
was made in their absence. Thus, the search was made in
violation of Section 7, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal COURT:
Procedure, which provides:
Q If that shabu will be shown to you, could you
identify the same?
SEC. 7. Search of house, room, or premise, to be made in
presence of two witnesses. No search of house, room, or any WITNESS:
other premise shall be made except in the presence of the
A Yes, Sir. Q What did you find out?
Q About the marijuana leaves, if shown to you could A Shabu and Marijuana and paraphernalia, Sir.
you identify the same?
Q Are you one of those who entered the house?
A Yes, Sir.
A Yes, Sir.
PROS. DUMLAO:
Q Can you mention to the Honorable Court those
Q What else did you find out aside from the items that you searched in the house of Connie
marijuana leaves, shabu and lighter? Tira and Amadeo Tira?
A I have here the list, Sir. A As per in (sic) our records, we found three (3)
One (1) brick of marijuana sachets containing suspected
24 pcs. tea bag of marijuana Methamphetamine Hydrochloride Shabu
9 pcs. sachets of suspected shabu residue; one (1) brick of suspected dried
6 disposable lighters marijuana leaves weighing more or less 750
1 roll of aluminum foil grams; twenty-four (24) tea bags containing
several empty plastic; several used dried marijuana leaves; six (6) disposable
and unused aluminum foil lighter; one (1) roll aluminum foil; several
one (1) sachet of shabu confiscated from empty plastics (tea bag); several used and
Nelson Tira; and unused aluminum foil; and cash money
P12,536.00 cash in different denominations amounting to P12,536.00 in different
proceeds of the contrand (sic). denominations believe[d] to be proceeds of the
contraband, Sir.
COURT:
Q You said you recovered one (1) brick of marijuana
Q Where did you find the money? leaves, showing to you a (sic) one (1) brick
A Near the marijuana at the bag, Sir. suspected to be marijuana leaves, is this the one
you are referring to?
Q About the money, could you still identify if shown
to you? A Yes, Sir, this is the one.[58]

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.

The Crimes Committed by the Appellants


The Proper Penalties On the Appellants

The trial court convicted the appellants of violating


Section 16, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. 6425, as The crime of violation of Section 8, Article II of Rep. Act
amended. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) asserts No. 6425, as amended, for illegal possession of 807.3 grams of
that the appellants should be convicted of violating Section 8 of marijuana, a prohibited drug, is punishable by reclusion
Rep. Act No. 6425, as amended. We do not agree with the trial perpetua to death. Considering that there are no qualifying
court and the OSG. We find and so hold that the appellants are circumstances, the appellants are sentenced to suffer the penalty
guilty of two separate crimes: (a) possession of regulated drugs of reclusion perpetua, conformably to Article 63 of the Revised
under Section 16, in relation to Section 20, of Rep. Act No. Penal Code and are ordered to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
6425, as amended, for their possession of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a regulated drug; and, (b) violation of Section 8, Under Section 16, Article III of Rep. Act No. 6425, as
in relation to Section 20 of the law, for their possession of amended, the imposable penalty of possession of a regulated
marijuana, a prohibited drug. Although only one Information drug, less than 200 grams, in this case, shabu, is prision
was filed against the appellants, nevertheless, they could be correccional to reclusion perpetua. Based on the quantity of
tried and convicted for the crimes alleged therein and proved by the regulated drug subject of the offense, the imposable penalty
the prosecution. In this case, the appellants were charged for shall be as follows:
violation of possession of marijuana and shabu in one
Information which reads: QUANTITY IMPOSABLE PENALTY

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 accused-appellant pleaded not guilty on


arraignment. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued.
SECOND DIVISION
The prosecutions version of events is summarized
below.

On October 16, 2002, the Philippine National Police


(PNP) Drug Enforcement Unit of the Southern Police
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 174198
District, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig (Taguig police) received
Plaintiff-Appellee,
information from an asset that a certain Zaida was engaged in
Present:
the illegal sale of shabu at Purok IV, Silverio Compound
CARPIO, J., Chairperson,
* in Paraaque City. The Taguig police formed a buy-bust team
CORONA,
composed of P/Insp. Antonio Parillas,[7] PO3 Christopher
BRION,
Maulit[8] (PO3 Maulit), PO1 Manfoste,[9] SPO2 Arthur
- versus - ABAD, and
Velasco, and SPO2 Ernesto Sanchez[10] (SPO2 Sanchez), as
PEREZ, JJ.
members. SPO2 Sanchez acted as poseur-buyer and received
three (3) one hundred peso bills for use as marked money.
Promulgated:
January 19, 2010
After surveillance of the area, the buy-bust team and
ZAIDA KAMAD y AMBING,
their asset proceeded at around 10:00 p.m. of October 16,
Accused-Appellant.
2002 to the target area where they immediately saw the
accused-appellant and Leo. The asset and SPO2 Sanchez
approached the two while the rest of the buy-bust team watched
from a distance. The asset introduced SPO2 Sanchez as a buyer
of shabu and the accused-appellant asked him how much he
would buy. SPO2 Sanchez asked for P300.00 worth
of shabu and gave the marked money; the accused-appellant
thereafter handed him a plastic sachet containing a substance
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
suspected to be shabu. SPO2 Sanchez lighted a cigarette to give
DECISION the pre-arranged signal for the buy-bust team to
approach. SPO2 Sanchez arrested the accused-appellant and
BRION, J.: recovered from her the P300.00 marked money. The buy-bust
team arrested Leo who was found in possession of one (1)
We review the decision[1] of the Court of plastic sachet also suspected to contain shabu.
Appeals[2] (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 00505 which
affirmed in toto the decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court The buy-bust team took the accused-appellant and Leo
(RTC), Branch 259, Paraaque City[4] in Criminal Case Nos. 02- and the recovered plastic sachets to their office for
[5]
1236-7 finding Zaida Kamad y Ambing (accused-appellant) investigation. The recovered plastic sachets, marked as ES-1-
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabuunder 161009 and ES-2-161002, were then brought to the PNP Crime
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) or Laboratory for qualitative examination; the tests yielded
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride.[11]
Along with her boyfriend Leo Ramirez y Acosta (Leo) The defense expectedly presented a different version
who was charged for illegal possession of shabu, the accused- of events.
appellant was charged under an Information[6] that reads:
The accused-appellant[12] denied the charge and
The above-named accused, not being claimed that she and Leo were framed-up. At around 2:30
lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise p.m. of October 16, 2002, the accused-appellant and Leo went
use any dangerous drug and without the to Leos cousins house. Since Leos cousin was not yet at home,
corresponding license or prescription, did she and Leo waited. After waiting for an hour, four (4) men
then and there willfully, unlawfully and wearing civilian clothes and carrying firearms entered the house
feloniously give away, distribute and sell to a and introduced themselves as police officers. The accused-
customer for P300.00 pesos one (1) small appellant and Leo were frisked, but nothing was found in their
heat sealed transparent plastic sachet possession. The police officers asked the accused-appellant
containing crystalline substance (shabu) where she kept the shabu; she replied that she was not
selling shabu. Afterwards, she and Leo were taken to the police been judicially recognized. The CA found that while the asset
headquarters where they were again frisked and asked the same brokered the shabu transaction, he had no role in the
question to which they gave the same response. The police apprehension of the accused-appellant and in the search and
detained Leo and the accused-appellant for about a day and later seizure of the shabu from the accused-appellant.
brought them to the Prosecutors Office for inquest without
showing them any shabu. THE ISSUE

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.

The non-compliance with the


Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is chain of custody rule
required because of the illegal drugs unique characteristic
rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open Separately from Section 21 violations, we also find the
to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or prosecution fatally remiss in establishing an unbroken link in
otherwise.[20] Hence, the rules on the measures to be observed the chain of custody of the seized shabu; its evidence is simply
during and after the seizure, during the custody and transfer of incomplete in establishing the necessary links in the handling
the drugs for examination, and at all times up to their of the seized prohibited drug from the time of its seizure until
presentation in court. its presentation in court.
In this case, SPO2 Sanchez testified on the seizure and In Mallillin v. People,[25] we explained the chain of
the handling of the seized shabu. The records show that his custody rule and what constitutes sufficient compliance with
testimony and the identification he made in court constitute the this rule:
totality of the prosecutions evidence on how the police handled
dated October 17, 2002.[31] Thus, a big gap exists on who had
As a method of authenticating custody and possession of the shabu prior to, during and
evidence, the chain of custody rule requires immediately after the police investigation, and how
that the admission of an exhibit be preceded the shabuwas stored, preserved, labeled and recorded from the
by evidence sufficient to support a finding that time of its seizure up to its receipt by the forensic laboratory.
the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be. It would include testimony (c) The third link in the chain of custody
about every link in the chain, from the
moment the item was picked up to the time The third link in the chain is represented by two (2)
it is offered into evidence, in such a way pieces of documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution
that every person who touched the exhibit consisting of the letter-request dated October 17, 2002[32]of
would describe how and from whom it was Police Superintendent Mariano F. Fegarido as Chief of the
received, where it was and what happened Southern Police District Drug Enforcement Group and the
to it while in the witnesses' possession, the Physical Science Report No. D-1502-02 prepared by Engr.
condition in which it was received and the Richard Allan B. Mangalip as the forensic chemist.[33]
condition in which it was delivered to the
next link in the chain. These witnesses These documents reveal that the recovered plastic
would then describe the precautions taken sachets of shabu bearing the markings ES-1-161002 and ES-2-
to ensure that there had been no change in 161002 were sent to the forensic laboratory sealed in one (1)
the condition of the item and no small brown envelope bearing unidentified signatures. On the
opportunity for someone not in the chain to same day, the PNP Crime Laboratory received this letter-
have possession of the same. [emphasis request along with the submitted specimens. The specimens
supplied][26] were then subjected to qualitative examination which yielded
positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

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?

xxxx A Yes, sir.

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.

Second, there was a different sealed brown envelope The Conclusion


used where a printed name and signature of one PO1 Edwin
Plopino and the date 12 October 2002 were written; [36] Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police
committed in handling the seized shabu and the obvious
Third, the examination of the shabu by the PNP Crime evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody, a presumption of
Laboratory was made pursuant to a different letter-request for regularity in the performance of duties cannot be made in this
examination dated October 12, 2002 written by one case. A presumption of regularity in the performance of official
P/Insp. Wilfredo Calderon;[37] and duty is made in the context of an existing rule of law or statute
authorizing the performance of an act or duty or prescribing a
Fourth, the results of the shabu testified to by the procedure in the performance thereof. The presumption applies
forensic chemist in court was contained in a different forensic when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers
laboratory report known as Physical Science Report No. D- deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by
1487-2.[38] law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the
presumption cannot arise.[45] In light of the flagrant lapses we
We highlight these characteristics because they are noted, the lower courts were obviously wrong when they relied
different from the documentary evidence the prosecution on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
formally offered[39] consisting of the letter-request duty.
dated October 17, 2002[40] and the Physical Science Report No.
D-1502-02.[41] The testimonies of SPO2 Sanchez and PO3 We rule, too, that the discrepancy in the prosecution
Maulit as well as the submitted documentary evidence referred evidence on the identity of the seized and examined shabu and
to the plastic sachets of shabu through their markings of ES-1- that formally offered in court cannot but lead to serious doubts
161002 and ES-2-161002.[42] regarding the origins of the shabu presented in court. This
discrepancy and the gap in the chain of custody immediately
From all these, we find it obvious that some mistake affect proof of the corpus delicti without which the accused
must have been made in the presentation of the prosecutions must be acquitted.
evidence. The prosecution, however, left the discrepancies fully
unexplained. To reiterate, the forensic chemist testified to a From the constitutional law point of view, the
specimen dated October 12, 2002, or one secured way before prosecutions failure to establish with moral certainty all the
the buy-bust of October 16, 2002, but marked as evidence elements of the crime and to identify the accused as the
documents relating to the specimen of October 16, perpetrator signify that it failed to overturn the constitutional
2002. Strangely, even the defense disregarded the presumption of innocence that every accused enjoys in a
discrepancies. In his comment on the offer of evidence, the criminal prosecution. When this happens, as in this case, the
defense simply stated, among others, by way of stipulation, that courts need not even consider the case for the defense in
the forensic chemical officer only conducted a qualitative deciding the case; a ruling for acquittal must forthwith issue.
examination of the specimen he examined and not the
quantitative examination.[43] Coming immediately after the WHEREFORE, premises considered, we
offer of evidence that mentioned the plastic sachets containing hereby REVERSE and SET ASIDE the March 28, 2006
white crystalline substances with markings ES-1 16/10/02 and decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
ES-2 16/10/02, and the Physical Science Report No. D-1502- 00505 affirming the decision of conviction dated October 27,
02,[44] the defense was clearly sleeping on its feet when it 2004 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 259, Paraaque City in
reacted to the prosecutions offer of evidence. Criminal Case Nos. 02-1236-7 for illegal sale of shabu under
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Accused-
But the defense was not alone in glossing over the appellant ZAIDA KAMAD y AMBING is hereby
discrepancies between the testimony for the prosecution and the declared ACQUITTED and ordered
offered evidence, as both the RTC and CA also failed to notice immediately RELEASEDfrom detention, unless she is
the glaring flaws in the prosecutions evidence. Apparently, confined for any other lawful cause.
because the parties did not point out these discrepancies while
the appellate court did not closely review the records of the
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections
is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Decision and to report
to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from
receipt.

SO ORDERED.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen