February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2010 > February 2010 Decisions >
[G.R. No. 173472 : February 26, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ELMER PERALTA Y DE GUZMAN ALIAS "MEMENG", APPELLANT. :
[G.R. No. 173472 : February 26, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ELMER PERALTA Y DE GUZMAN ALIAS "MEMENG", APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
ABAD, J.:
This case is about how the courts may be assured that the integrity of seized prohibited drugs is preserved from the time of their seizure to the time of their laboratory examination and presentation in court as evidence in the case.
The Facts and the Case
The evidence for the prosecution shows that the District Drug Enforcement Group (DDEG), Southern Police, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, Metro Manila, received reports of accused Elmer D. Peralta's drug-pushing activities at 21 Zero Block Mill Flores, Barangay Rizal, Makati City.
At about 11:30 p.m. of July 21, 2002 the DDEG staged a buy-bust operation with SPO1 Alberto Sangalang as poseur-buyer. An informant introduced Sangalang to accused Peralta as they entered his house. The informant told Peralta that Sangalang was a Dance Instructor (DI) in need of shabu for himself and for fellow DIs so they could endure long nights. Sangalang gave Peralta a marked P500.00 bill for a sachet of shabu.
At a signal, Sangalang told his informant to go out and buy cigarettes. On seeing the informant come out of the house, the police back-up team rushed in. They arrested accused Peralta, took the marked money from him, and brought him to the police station. Meanwhile, the sachet of shabu was marked "AS-1-210702" and taken to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for testing. The contents of the sachet tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The prosecution presented Sangalang. He alone testified for the government since it was thought that the testimonies of the other police officers would only be corroborative.[1] The prosecution also dispensed with the testimony of the forensic chemist after the parties stipulated on the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report D-332-02, which showed that the specimen tested positive for shabu.[2]
For his part, appellant Peralta denied having committed the offense charged. He claimed that he went to bed at 7:00 p.m. on July 21, 2002. At about 11:30 p.m. someone's knocking at the door awakened him. Shortly after, four police officers forced the door open and barged into the house. They handcuffed Peralta, searched his house, and then brought him to the Southern Police District.[3]
At the time of the arrest, Noel "Toto" Odono[4] (Toto) and the spouses Apollo[5] and Charito dela Pena were conversing near accused Peralta's house. Suddenly, they heard a commotion and saw several men forcibly enter it. Those men searched the house and arrested him.
Meanwhile, Toto related what he saw to Sgt. Eligio Peralta, Jr. (Sgt. Peralta), accused Peralta's brother. Sgt. Peralta hurried to his brother's house but found him already handcuffed. The sergeant repeatedly asked the police officers why they were arresting his brother without a warrant but he got no response. He followed the arresting team to the Southern Police District where he learned that his brother had been caught selling shabu.[6]
The Assistant City Prosecutor of Makati City charged accused Peralta before the Regional Trial Court[7] (RTC) of Makati City in Criminal Case 02-2009 with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
After trial, the RTC rendered a decision[8] dated June 20, 2003, rejecting accused Peralta's defense of denial. The trial court found him guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00. Peralta appealed to this Court but, pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Mateo,[9] his case was referred to the Court of Appeals (CA) for adjudication in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00165.[10] On April 27, 2006 the latter court affirmed the decision of the RTC.[11]
The CA gave credence to the testimony of Sangalang who, it found, did not deviate from the regular performance of his duties and was not impelled by ill motive in testifying against Peralta. Also, the appellate court pointed out that the prosecution presented and identified the sachet of shabu in court. Finally, the CA said that accused Peralta's denial is a weak defense which cannot prevail over positive identification.
Accused Peralta seeks by notice of appeal[12] this Court's review of the decision of the CA.
The Issue Presented
The key issue here is whether or not the prosecution presented ample proof that the police officers involved caught accused Peralta at his home, peddling prohibited drugs.
The Court's Ruling
The elements of the sale of illegal drugs are a) the identities of the buyer and seller, b) the transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and c) the existence of the corpus delicti. With respect to the third element, the prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. This is crucial in drugs cases because the evidence involved--the seized chemical--is not readily identifiable by sight or touch and can easily be tampered with or substituted.[13]
In Malillin v. People[14] the Court held that the prosecution must establish the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs. It must present testimony about every link in the chain of custody of such drugs, from the moment they were seized from the accused to the moment they are offered in evidence.
But here the prosecution failed to show the chain of custody or that they followed the procedure that has been prescribed in connection with the seizure and custody of drugs. To begin with, the prosecution did not adduce evidence of when the sachet of shabu was marked. Consequently, it could have been marked long after its seizure or even after it had been tested in the laboratory. While the records show that the sachet bore the markings "AS-1-210702," indicating that Sangalang probably made the marking, the prosecutor did not bother to ask him if such marking was his. Sangalang identified the seized drugs in a manner that glossed over the need to establish their integrity. Thus:[15]
Although the Court has repeatedly reminded the prosecutors concerned to present evidence which would show that the integrity of the seized drugs has been preserved from the time of their seizure to the time they are presented in court, such reminder seems not to have made an impact on some of them. Public prosecutors need to ask the right questions to the witnesses.
The Court of course trusts the competence of most public prosecutors. Still, it would probably help to remind the others to ask the following questions or substantially similar ones that will aid the court in determining the innocence or guilt of the accused:
Since the seizing officer usually has to turn over the seized drugs to the desk officer or some superior officer, who would then send a courier to the police crime laboratory with a request that the same be examined to identify the contents, it is imperative for the officer who placed his marking on the plastic container to seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that usually cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. If the drugs were not in a plastic container, the police officer should put it in one and seal the same. In this way the drugs would assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused.
Further, after the laboratory technician has tested and verified the nature of the powder in the container, he should seal it again with a new seal since the police officer's seal had been broken. In this way, if the accused wants to contest the test made, the Court would be assured that what is retested is the same powder seized from the accused.
The prosecutor could then ask questions of the officer who placed his marking on the plastic container to prove that the suspected drugs had not been tampered with or substituted when they left that officer's hands. The prosecutor could ask the following or substantially similar questions:
And once the crime laboratory technician is presented, the prosecutor could ask him the following or substantially similar questions:
If the sealing of the seized article had not been made, the prosecution would have to present the desk officer or superior officer to whom the seizing officer turned over such article. That desk officer or superior officer needs to testify that he had taken care that the drugs were not tampered with or substituted. And if someone else brought the unsealed sachet of drugs to the police crime laboratory, he, too, should give similar testimony, and so on up to the receiving custodian at the crime laboratory until the drugs reach the laboratory technician who examined and resealed it.
Here, the police arrested Peralta and seized the sachet of shabu from him on July 21, 2002 and made the request for testing on July 22, 2002. Since the prosecution did not present evidence that the sachet had been marked shortly after seizure and that its integrity had been preserved by proper sealing, the prosecution failed to prove the third element of the crime: the existence of the corpus delicti.
The fact that the parties stipulated on the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report D-332-02 has no bearing on the question of chain of custody of the seized drugs. The stipulation only proves the authenticity of the request for laboratory examination of the drugs submitted to the laboratory (not that it was the same drugs seized from accused Peralta) and the results of the examination made of the same, nothing more.[16]
Under the circumstances, reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties is not enough for a conviction. Once challenged by evidence of flawed chain of custody, as in this case, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence.[17] Likewise, while the defense of denial on its own is inherently weak, the conviction of an accused must rely on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness of his defense.[18]
In sum, the Court finds the evidence in this case insufficient to sustain the conviction of accused Peralta of the crime of which he was charged.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated April 27, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00165 and ACQUITS accused-appellant Elmer Peralta y de Guzman alias "Memeng" for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report the action he has taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Brion, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concur.
The evidence for the prosecution shows that the District Drug Enforcement Group (DDEG), Southern Police, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig, Metro Manila, received reports of accused Elmer D. Peralta's drug-pushing activities at 21 Zero Block Mill Flores, Barangay Rizal, Makati City.
At about 11:30 p.m. of July 21, 2002 the DDEG staged a buy-bust operation with SPO1 Alberto Sangalang as poseur-buyer. An informant introduced Sangalang to accused Peralta as they entered his house. The informant told Peralta that Sangalang was a Dance Instructor (DI) in need of shabu for himself and for fellow DIs so they could endure long nights. Sangalang gave Peralta a marked P500.00 bill for a sachet of shabu.
At a signal, Sangalang told his informant to go out and buy cigarettes. On seeing the informant come out of the house, the police back-up team rushed in. They arrested accused Peralta, took the marked money from him, and brought him to the police station. Meanwhile, the sachet of shabu was marked "AS-1-210702" and taken to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for testing. The contents of the sachet tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The prosecution presented Sangalang. He alone testified for the government since it was thought that the testimonies of the other police officers would only be corroborative.[1] The prosecution also dispensed with the testimony of the forensic chemist after the parties stipulated on the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report D-332-02, which showed that the specimen tested positive for shabu.[2]
For his part, appellant Peralta denied having committed the offense charged. He claimed that he went to bed at 7:00 p.m. on July 21, 2002. At about 11:30 p.m. someone's knocking at the door awakened him. Shortly after, four police officers forced the door open and barged into the house. They handcuffed Peralta, searched his house, and then brought him to the Southern Police District.[3]
At the time of the arrest, Noel "Toto" Odono[4] (Toto) and the spouses Apollo[5] and Charito dela Pena were conversing near accused Peralta's house. Suddenly, they heard a commotion and saw several men forcibly enter it. Those men searched the house and arrested him.
Meanwhile, Toto related what he saw to Sgt. Eligio Peralta, Jr. (Sgt. Peralta), accused Peralta's brother. Sgt. Peralta hurried to his brother's house but found him already handcuffed. The sergeant repeatedly asked the police officers why they were arresting his brother without a warrant but he got no response. He followed the arresting team to the Southern Police District where he learned that his brother had been caught selling shabu.[6]
The Assistant City Prosecutor of Makati City charged accused Peralta before the Regional Trial Court[7] (RTC) of Makati City in Criminal Case 02-2009 with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
After trial, the RTC rendered a decision[8] dated June 20, 2003, rejecting accused Peralta's defense of denial. The trial court found him guilty of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00. Peralta appealed to this Court but, pursuant to the Court's ruling in People v. Mateo,[9] his case was referred to the Court of Appeals (CA) for adjudication in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00165.[10] On April 27, 2006 the latter court affirmed the decision of the RTC.[11]
The CA gave credence to the testimony of Sangalang who, it found, did not deviate from the regular performance of his duties and was not impelled by ill motive in testifying against Peralta. Also, the appellate court pointed out that the prosecution presented and identified the sachet of shabu in court. Finally, the CA said that accused Peralta's denial is a weak defense which cannot prevail over positive identification.
Accused Peralta seeks by notice of appeal[12] this Court's review of the decision of the CA.
The key issue here is whether or not the prosecution presented ample proof that the police officers involved caught accused Peralta at his home, peddling prohibited drugs.
The elements of the sale of illegal drugs are a) the identities of the buyer and seller, b) the transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and c) the existence of the corpus delicti. With respect to the third element, the prosecution must show that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved. This is crucial in drugs cases because the evidence involved--the seized chemical--is not readily identifiable by sight or touch and can easily be tampered with or substituted.[13]
In Malillin v. People[14] the Court held that the prosecution must establish the chain of custody of the seized prohibited drugs. It must present testimony about every link in the chain of custody of such drugs, from the moment they were seized from the accused to the moment they are offered in evidence.
But here the prosecution failed to show the chain of custody or that they followed the procedure that has been prescribed in connection with the seizure and custody of drugs. To begin with, the prosecution did not adduce evidence of when the sachet of shabu was marked. Consequently, it could have been marked long after its seizure or even after it had been tested in the laboratory. While the records show that the sachet bore the markings "AS-1-210702," indicating that Sangalang probably made the marking, the prosecutor did not bother to ask him if such marking was his. Sangalang identified the seized drugs in a manner that glossed over the need to establish their integrity. Thus:[15]
Fiscal Lalin:
Although the Court has repeatedly reminded the prosecutors concerned to present evidence which would show that the integrity of the seized drugs has been preserved from the time of their seizure to the time they are presented in court, such reminder seems not to have made an impact on some of them. Public prosecutors need to ask the right questions to the witnesses.
The Court of course trusts the competence of most public prosecutors. Still, it would probably help to remind the others to ask the following questions or substantially similar ones that will aid the court in determining the innocence or guilt of the accused:
Since the seizing officer usually has to turn over the seized drugs to the desk officer or some superior officer, who would then send a courier to the police crime laboratory with a request that the same be examined to identify the contents, it is imperative for the officer who placed his marking on the plastic container to seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that usually cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. If the drugs were not in a plastic container, the police officer should put it in one and seal the same. In this way the drugs would assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused.
Further, after the laboratory technician has tested and verified the nature of the powder in the container, he should seal it again with a new seal since the police officer's seal had been broken. In this way, if the accused wants to contest the test made, the Court would be assured that what is retested is the same powder seized from the accused.
The prosecutor could then ask questions of the officer who placed his marking on the plastic container to prove that the suspected drugs had not been tampered with or substituted when they left that officer's hands. The prosecutor could ask the following or substantially similar questions:
And once the crime laboratory technician is presented, the prosecutor could ask him the following or substantially similar questions:
If the sealing of the seized article had not been made, the prosecution would have to present the desk officer or superior officer to whom the seizing officer turned over such article. That desk officer or superior officer needs to testify that he had taken care that the drugs were not tampered with or substituted. And if someone else brought the unsealed sachet of drugs to the police crime laboratory, he, too, should give similar testimony, and so on up to the receiving custodian at the crime laboratory until the drugs reach the laboratory technician who examined and resealed it.
Here, the police arrested Peralta and seized the sachet of shabu from him on July 21, 2002 and made the request for testing on July 22, 2002. Since the prosecution did not present evidence that the sachet had been marked shortly after seizure and that its integrity had been preserved by proper sealing, the prosecution failed to prove the third element of the crime: the existence of the corpus delicti.
The fact that the parties stipulated on the existence and due execution of Chemistry Report D-332-02 has no bearing on the question of chain of custody of the seized drugs. The stipulation only proves the authenticity of the request for laboratory examination of the drugs submitted to the laboratory (not that it was the same drugs seized from accused Peralta) and the results of the examination made of the same, nothing more.[16]
Under the circumstances, reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties is not enough for a conviction. Once challenged by evidence of flawed chain of custody, as in this case, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence.[17] Likewise, while the defense of denial on its own is inherently weak, the conviction of an accused must rely on the strength of the prosecution's evidence and not on the weakness of his defense.[18]
In sum, the Court finds the evidence in this case insufficient to sustain the conviction of accused Peralta of the crime of which he was charged.
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision dated April 27, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 00165 and ACQUITS accused-appellant Elmer Peralta y de Guzman alias "Memeng" for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report the action he has taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Brion, Del Castillo, and Perez, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
[1] Records, p. 38.
[2] Id. at 32.
[3] TSN, February 21, 2003, pp. 3-5.
[4] TSN, February 14, 2003, pp. 3-10.
[5] TSN, March 14, 2003, pp. 1-7.
[6] TSN, March 21, 2003, pp. 2-7.
[7] Branch 135.
[8] Records, pp. 61-64. Penned by Judge Francisco B. Ibay.
[9] G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004, 433 SCRA 640.
[10] CA rollo, p. 74.
[11] Rollo, pp. 3-17. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. (now Supreme Court Justice) and Japar B. Dimaampao.
[12] CA rollo, p. 97.
[13] Malilin v. People, G.R. No. 179253, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632-633.
[14] Id. at 632.
[15] TSN, December 4, 2002, p. 7.
[16] People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 173742, March 17, 2009.
[17] Dolera v. People, G.R. No. 180693, September 4, 2009.
[18] People v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492, December 16, 2008, 574 SCRA 140, 158.
