November 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > November 2009 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 181454 : November 18, 2009] GILBERT SANCHEZ V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES :
[G.R. No. 181454 : November 18, 2009]
GILBERT SANCHEZ V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 18 November 2009:
G.R. No. 181454 (Gilbert Sanchez v. People of the Philippines).
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 20, 2007 and its Resolution dated January 23, 2008, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 7th Judicial Region, Branch 59, Toledo City, dated January 19, 2004, that found accused Gilbert Sanchez guilty of violating Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) as amended.
The Facts and the Case
The prosecution evidence shows that at around 2:30 p.m. on February 2, 2000, PO3 Esteban Albuera and PO2 Revelito Tadique were on routine patrol on board their motorcycles in Toledo City when they spotted the accused Gilbert Sanchez standing by the roadside near Polayapoy and Hinulawan streets. He was looking down at a plastic sachet of shabu and two unrolled tinfoil on his palm. The police officers stopped in front of Sanchez to query him but the latter immediately dropped the sachet of shabu and the tinfoil.
After PO2 Tadique picked up the dropped items, the officers asked Sanchez to come to the police station with them. But, as PO3 Albuera was about to mount his motorcycle, Sanchez pushed him and then ran in the direction of the slaughter house. The officers followed Sanchez even as he succeeded in taking a tricycle that speeded him towards Lawis, Poblacion, Toledo City. At Lawis, Sanchez went down the tricycle and ran towards the slum area. The officers continued to follow. He entered a house where they cornered and arrested him for violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425, as amended.[1]
The police officers said that they arrested Sanchez because they caught him in flagrante delicto. They added that they knew him because they had previously arrested him in 1996 for the same offense.[2]
The officers turned over the recovered tinfoil to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Toledo City and the plastic sachet to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory of Cebu City for examination.[3] Police Senior Inspector Mutchit Salinas of the PNP Crime Laboratory testified that the plastic sachet contained 0.025 grams of white crystalline substance tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu".[4] Meantime, the trial court ordered the release of Sanchez on bail.
Accused Sanchez testified, on the other hand, that the police officers approached him for no apparent reason and demanded to see what he was holding in his hands. But he struggled and ran away. He rode a tricycle for home but the police officers followed and eventually arrested him. He added that the officers wanted him to own another crime that had been filed against him but he refused so they charged him with the present offense [5] before the RTC of Toledo City, Branch 59, in Criminal Case TCS-3523.
Sanchez further testified that the police officers had no ground to arrest him.[6] He pointed out that no one testified regarding the quantity of drug seized from him.[7] He questioned the procedure followed for authenticating the drug and the paraphernalia subject of the case. He pointed out that the prosecution failed to show that the pieces of evidence presented during the trial were the same ones that the police seized from him.[8]
On January 19, 2004 the RTC rendered a decision, finding Sanchez guilty of the offense charged and sentenced him to imprisonment of two years, four months and one day to four years and two months.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. It found that the police officers caught Sanchez in flagrante delicto, having observed him looking down at what appeared to be a sachet of shabu and tinfoil on the palm of his hand.[9] They arrested Sanchez based on probable cause. The records of the case, said the Court of Appeals, do not show that the officers were ill motivated in their actions and that, consequently, they may be presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.[10]
Issues Presented
The issues presented in this case are:
The Court's Rulings
In all prosecutions for the violation of The Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of the prohibited drug has to be proved.[11] To this end, the prosecution must ensure that the substance presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused. Failing in this, the guilt of the accused will be in serious doubt.[12]
The Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979 amending Board Regulation No. 7, Series of 1974,[13] which was the governing rule at the time of the seizure of the sachet of drug from Sanchez, required the police officer responsible for the seizure of the same to place his marking on the drug's packet for the purpose of maintaining its integrity.
While the record does not show that the arresting police officers in this case placed a marking on the sachet of drug they seized from, neither does it show that they did not place such marking. The prosecutor contented himself with securing testimony that the officer observed the proper procedure for bringing the sachet of drug in this case directly to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was weighed, examined, and evaluated.[14] The police chemist then made a written note of the quantity of the drug the police officer brought for testing and it weighed 0.025 grams.[15]
PO3 Albuera and PO2 Tadique testified that they personally prepared the written request for examination of the drug and brought the plastic sachet of shabu to the crime laboratory. When shown the plastic sachet and tinfoil in court, they identified the same as the plastic sachet of shabu and tinfoil that they seized from Sanchez. Since counsel for the accused did not ask questions nor raise an issue during the trial respecting the required marking, it may be assumed that it had been complied with, given the presumption of regularity that attaches to official conduct.[16]
With nothing to substantiate Sanchez's claim raised for the first time on appeal that the police authorities did not properly preserve the evidence seized from him, the Court will take it that such evidence had not been tampered with. At any rate, since the chain of custody in this case has been proved and since petitioner has failed to present any plausible reason or ill motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely charge him with the offense, the Court must give credence to the charge.18
Besides, Sanchez actually got away when the officers were about to arrest him.. He admits this and corroborates their testimony that they went after him. Surely such officers would not go to such length as to give him a chase and follow him if they had nothing on him at all.
The Court also finds that the lower court committed no error in imposing the proper penalty. Sanchez has been found in possession of 0.025 grams of shabu. He is, therefore, liable for violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425 under which the imposable penalty for possession of illegal drugs weighing less than 200 grams ranges from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity involved. Here, since Sanchez was found in possession of only 0.025 grams of shabu, the penalty of prision correccional in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances is the medium period from two years, four months and one day to four years and two months.[19]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 28545 dated March 20, 2007.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 18th day of November, 2009.
G.R. No. 181454 (Gilbert Sanchez v. People of the Philippines).
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated March 20, 2007 and its Resolution dated January 23, 2008, which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 7th Judicial Region, Branch 59, Toledo City, dated January 19, 2004, that found accused Gilbert Sanchez guilty of violating Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) as amended.
The Facts and the Case
The prosecution evidence shows that at around 2:30 p.m. on February 2, 2000, PO3 Esteban Albuera and PO2 Revelito Tadique were on routine patrol on board their motorcycles in Toledo City when they spotted the accused Gilbert Sanchez standing by the roadside near Polayapoy and Hinulawan streets. He was looking down at a plastic sachet of shabu and two unrolled tinfoil on his palm. The police officers stopped in front of Sanchez to query him but the latter immediately dropped the sachet of shabu and the tinfoil.
After PO2 Tadique picked up the dropped items, the officers asked Sanchez to come to the police station with them. But, as PO3 Albuera was about to mount his motorcycle, Sanchez pushed him and then ran in the direction of the slaughter house. The officers followed Sanchez even as he succeeded in taking a tricycle that speeded him towards Lawis, Poblacion, Toledo City. At Lawis, Sanchez went down the tricycle and ran towards the slum area. The officers continued to follow. He entered a house where they cornered and arrested him for violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425, as amended.[1]
The police officers said that they arrested Sanchez because they caught him in flagrante delicto. They added that they knew him because they had previously arrested him in 1996 for the same offense.[2]
The officers turned over the recovered tinfoil to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Toledo City and the plastic sachet to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory of Cebu City for examination.[3] Police Senior Inspector Mutchit Salinas of the PNP Crime Laboratory testified that the plastic sachet contained 0.025 grams of white crystalline substance tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu".[4] Meantime, the trial court ordered the release of Sanchez on bail.
Accused Sanchez testified, on the other hand, that the police officers approached him for no apparent reason and demanded to see what he was holding in his hands. But he struggled and ran away. He rode a tricycle for home but the police officers followed and eventually arrested him. He added that the officers wanted him to own another crime that had been filed against him but he refused so they charged him with the present offense [5] before the RTC of Toledo City, Branch 59, in Criminal Case TCS-3523.
Sanchez further testified that the police officers had no ground to arrest him.[6] He pointed out that no one testified regarding the quantity of drug seized from him.[7] He questioned the procedure followed for authenticating the drug and the paraphernalia subject of the case. He pointed out that the prosecution failed to show that the pieces of evidence presented during the trial were the same ones that the police seized from him.[8]
On January 19, 2004 the RTC rendered a decision, finding Sanchez guilty of the offense charged and sentenced him to imprisonment of two years, four months and one day to four years and two months.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. It found that the police officers caught Sanchez in flagrante delicto, having observed him looking down at what appeared to be a sachet of shabu and tinfoil on the palm of his hand.[9] They arrested Sanchez based on probable cause. The records of the case, said the Court of Appeals, do not show that the officers were ill motivated in their actions and that, consequently, they may be presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner.[10]
Issues Presented
The issues presented in this case are:
1. Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed error in affirming the judgment of conviction of Sanchez by the RTC for the crime charged.
2. Whether or not, assuming Sanchez was guilty, the trial court imposed the proper penalty on him for that crime.
The Court's Rulings
In all prosecutions for the violation of The Dangerous Drugs Act, the existence of the prohibited drug has to be proved.[11] To this end, the prosecution must ensure that the substance presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused. Failing in this, the guilt of the accused will be in serious doubt.[12]
The Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 3, Series of 1979 amending Board Regulation No. 7, Series of 1974,[13] which was the governing rule at the time of the seizure of the sachet of drug from Sanchez, required the police officer responsible for the seizure of the same to place his marking on the drug's packet for the purpose of maintaining its integrity.
While the record does not show that the arresting police officers in this case placed a marking on the sachet of drug they seized from, neither does it show that they did not place such marking. The prosecutor contented himself with securing testimony that the officer observed the proper procedure for bringing the sachet of drug in this case directly to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was weighed, examined, and evaluated.[14] The police chemist then made a written note of the quantity of the drug the police officer brought for testing and it weighed 0.025 grams.[15]
PO3 Albuera and PO2 Tadique testified that they personally prepared the written request for examination of the drug and brought the plastic sachet of shabu to the crime laboratory. When shown the plastic sachet and tinfoil in court, they identified the same as the plastic sachet of shabu and tinfoil that they seized from Sanchez. Since counsel for the accused did not ask questions nor raise an issue during the trial respecting the required marking, it may be assumed that it had been complied with, given the presumption of regularity that attaches to official conduct.[16]
With nothing to substantiate Sanchez's claim raised for the first time on appeal that the police authorities did not properly preserve the evidence seized from him, the Court will take it that such evidence had not been tampered with. At any rate, since the chain of custody in this case has been proved and since petitioner has failed to present any plausible reason or ill motive on the part of the arresting officers to falsely charge him with the offense, the Court must give credence to the charge.18
Besides, Sanchez actually got away when the officers were about to arrest him.. He admits this and corroborates their testimony that they went after him. Surely such officers would not go to such length as to give him a chase and follow him if they had nothing on him at all.
The Court also finds that the lower court committed no error in imposing the proper penalty. Sanchez has been found in possession of 0.025 grams of shabu. He is, therefore, liable for violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. 6425 under which the imposable penalty for possession of illegal drugs weighing less than 200 grams ranges from prision correccional to reclusion perpetua depending upon the quantity involved. Here, since Sanchez was found in possession of only 0.025 grams of shabu, the penalty of prision correccional in the absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstances is the medium period from two years, four months and one day to four years and two months.[19]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR 28545 dated March 20, 2007.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per S.O. No. 776), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 18th day of November, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] TSN, August 22, 2000, pp. 3-5.
[2] Id. at 5-6.
[3] Id. at 6.
[4] TSN, September 5, 2000, p. 6.
[5] TSN, August 26, 2002, pp. 4-5.
[6] Rollo,p. 13.
[7] Id. at 15.
[8] Id. at 16.
[9] Id. at 46.
[10] Id. at 49.
[11] People v. Mendiola, G.R. No. 1107.78, August 4, 1994, 235 SCRA 116, 120.
[12] People v. Simbahon, 449 Phil. 74, 83 (2003).
[13] Board Regulation No. 3, S. 1979 as amended by Board Regulation No. 2, S. 1990.
SECTION 1. All prohibited and regulated drugs, instruments, apparatuses and articles specially designed for the use thereof when unlawfully used or found in the possession of any person not authorized to have control and disposition of the same, or when found secreted or abandoned, shall be seized or confiscated by any national, provincial or local law enforcement agency. Any apprehending team having initial custody and control of said drugs and or/paraphernalia, should immediately after seizure or confiscation, have the same physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the accused, if there be any, and/or his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Thereafter the seized drugs and paraphernalia shall be immediately brought to a properly equipped government laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination.
The apprehending team shall: (a) within forty-eight (48) hours from the seizure inform the Dangerous Drugs Board by telegram of said seizure, the nature and quantity thereof, and who has present custody of the same, and (b) submit to the Board a copy of the mission investigation report within fifteen (15) days from completion of the investigation. (Board Regulation No. 2, S.1990).
[14] TSN, September 5, 2000, p. 11.
[15] See Physical Science Report No. D-267-2000, marked as Exhibit C-3, records, p. 111.
[16] 29 Am Jur 2d, �947.
[17] Mallari v. Court of Appeals, 333 Phil. 289, 298 (1996).
[18] People v, Julian-Fernandez, 423 Phil. 895, 911 (2001); People v. Caparas, 391 Phil. 271, 281 (2000).
[19] Article 76, Revised Penal Code.
