People of the Philippines Vs. Ariel EscasuraG.R. No. 255947. March 28, 2022
FACTS:
At around 6:45 p.m. on July 20, 2016, PO1 Bayangan of the
Philippine National Police, Bay, Laguna, received a report from a confidential
informant that accused-appellant was engaged in illegal drug activities. Upon confirmation of the information, PSI
Calonge organized a buy-bust team, with PO1 Bayangan as the poseur buyer, and
PO3 Hernandez and his team, as perimeter security.
After arranging a transaction with accused-appellant, the
buy-bust team, together with the CI, proceeded to the target area. Upon arrival
thereat, the CI introduced PO1 Bayangan to accused-appellant as the buyer of
shabu. Upon receipt of the money, accused-appellant gave a small plastic sachet
to PO1 Bayangan. Having ascertained that the plastic sachet contained suspected
shabu, PO1 Bayangan touched accused-appellant's arm to signal the rest of the
team that the sale had been consummated.
PO1 Bayangan conducted a body search and recovered from the
possession of accused-appellant three more plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substances suspected to be shabu, as well as the marked money and
two P100.00 bills.
At the place of seizure, PO1 Bayangan marked the plastic
sachet sold to him with "AE-BB," and those recovered in
accused-appellant's possession with "AE- 1," "AE-2," and
"AE-3." A physical inventory of the seized items was conducted in the
presence of accused-appellant, Barangay Captain Lopez of Barangay San Isidro,
Bay, Laguna, and media representative Levy Tatad of the Tribune Post. Both
witnesses signed the Receipt/Inventory of Evidence Seized and were given copies
thereof. After the inventory, PO1 Bayangan placed the seized evidence inside an
evidence bag or stapled transparent plastic marked with BAY MPS, 07-20-2016. Photographs
of both accused-appellant and the seized items, together with the witnesses,
were also taken during the inventory.
At the police station, PO1 Bayangan presented the seized
evidence to the duty investigator. A Request for Laboratory Examination of the
drug specimens, as well as a Request for Drug Test Examination on the urine
sample of accused-appellant, were prepared by PO1 Bayangan, which he personally
delivered to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 4-A.2 1 Police Officer Sibal
received the specimens, and turned them over FC Bombasi, whose examination
revealed positive results for shabu.
Accused-appellant denied the charges against him and
interposed the defenses of denial and frame-up. At around 5:30 p.m. of July 20,
2016, he was on his way home from the market when four police officers suddenly
blocked his way for no reason. The said persons allegedly brought him to the
Municipal Hall where he was detained. He had no prior encounter with the police
officers who arrested him.
The RTC handed a guilty verdict against accused-appellant. It
gave credence to the testimony of PO 1 Bayangan who positively identified
accused-appellant as the person who sold him a plastic sachet which contained
shabu. The defense failed to prove any ill motive on the part of PO1 Bayangan
to falsely testify against accused-appellant. In fine, the prosecution was able
to establish all the elements of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous
Drugs.
The CA affirmed the RTC Judgment. The appellate court
concurred with the trial court's assessment that the prosecution, through the
testimony of PO 1 Bayangan, had successfully established the elements of the
crimes of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs. It was also convinced
that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug seized from
accused-appellant were preserved by the prosecution.
ISSUE:
Whether or not accused is guilty of violating Sec. 5 and 11,
Art. II of RA 9165
RULING:
To successfully prosecute the offense of Sale of Illegal
Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be present:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale,
and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor.
In this case, PO1 Bayangan, the poseur buyer, positively
identified accused-appellant as the person who sold him a sachet of shabu for
P300.00. Thus, the prosecution sufficiently established that the Illegal Sale
of Dangerous Drugs was consummated.
On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case of
Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be
established: ( 1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such
possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and
consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.
Here, after accused-appellant's arrest in fiagrante delicto,
PO1 Bayangan conducted a body search on accused-appellant which yielded more
sachets of shabu. Accused-appellant was not authorized to possess the dangerous
drugs and possession of which constitutes a prima facie evidence of knowledge
or animus possidendi, which is sufficient to convict an accused in the absence
of a satisfactory explanation of such possession.
To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral
certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain
of custody, from the moment the drugs are seized, up to their presentation in
court, as evidence of the offense. First, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
and, fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from
the forensic chemist to the court.
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires,
inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized
items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the seized
drugs. What is more, the inventory and photography must be done in the presence
of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his
representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a)
if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the
media and the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the
amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution
Service or the media. The law requires the presence of these witnesses
primarily to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any
suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence.
In the instant case, the Court holds that the police
operatives strictly complied with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as well as
its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
On the first link, immediately after seizure and
confiscation of the illegal drugs from accused-appellant, PO 1 Bayangan marked,
inventoried and photographed the seized items at the place of arrest and in the
presence of accused-appellant and the required witnesses -Captain Lopez and
media representative Tatad.
The Court explained that the presence of the said witnesses
is needed only during the actual conduct of inventory and photography of the
seized items, and not during the seizure thereof. A careful reading of Section
21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, shows that only the conduct
of inventory and photography should be done in the presence of the required
witnesses and not during the actual seizure of the dangerous drugs. The
aforementioned law clearly requires that the inventory and photography of the
seized items should be done immediately after seizure and confiscation and not
during seizure or confiscation of the contraband.
The 2nd link in the chain of custody is the turnover
of the seized items to the investigating officer. The Court ruled that the
presentation of the seized drugs to the duty investigator was sufficient
compliance with the second link as he had actual view of the same during the
conduct of the investigation and the preparation of the necessary documents for
the developing criminal case. According to PO1 Bayangan, he, together with the
investigator, prepared the request for laboratory examination of the seized
drugs. Thus, it was justified that PO1 Bayangan remained in possession thereof
during the preparation of the required documents as he participated in the
process. What is important is that the investigator was shown the illicit
drugs. Accordingly, there was no break in the second link.
The third link in the chain of custody is the transfer of
the seized drugs from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist in the
crime laboratory. In this case, it was also PO1
Bayangan who personally brought the specimens to the crime laboratory
together with the Requests for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test. The
samples were received by Police Officer Sibal, the officer on duty at the crime
laboratory, as evidenced by his signature appearing on the requests. Police
Officer Sibal in turn submitted them to FC Bombasi, who performed the necessary
tests thereon. After the examination, FC Bombasi turned over the specimens to
the evidence custodian prior to their presentation to the court where they were
duly presented, identified, and admitted as evidence.
The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by
the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal
case. Records show that the specimens subject of this case were transmitted to
the trial court by FC Bombasi herself. In particular, the defense admitted the
ability of FC Bombasi to identify the specimen which she examined and the steps
she took to preserve the integrity of the specimen from the time of her
examination to the turn-over of the specimen to the evidence custodian. It was
also admitted by the defense that FC Bombasi retrieved the specimen in the same
condition as when she turned-over the same to the evidence custodian after she
conducted the forensic examination.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the stipulations
required for the proper and effective dispensation of the testimony of the
forensic chemist were duly satisfied.
Comments
Post a Comment