February 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > February 2010 Resolutions >
[G.R. No. 180509 : February 15, 2010] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. BERNARDO MEDILLIN Y ORPIANO :
[G.R. No. 180509 : February 15, 2010]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. BERNARDO MEDILLIN Y ORPIANO
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 15 February 2010:
G.R. No. 180509 (People of the Philippines v. Bernardo Medillin y Orpiano).-
This case is about the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and the sufficiency of the lone testimony of the police officer involved in the buy-bust operation.
The Facts and the Case
The accused-appellant Bernardo Medillin was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal Case Q-03-118181 with the violation of Republic Act 9165 for selling 0.05 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu.[1]
At the trial, the prosecution presented PO1 Bernard Centeno of the Philippine National Police assigned to the Baler Police Station 2 in Quezon City. Centeno testified that on June 12, 2003, while he was at the station, an informant came and told Chief Police Inspector Joseph De Vera that a certain alias "Pinat" (later identified as accused-appellant Medillin) was selling shabu at 34-B Road 7, Brgy. Pag-Asa, Quezon City.
De Vera held a briefing for a buy-bust operation and he designated Centeno to act as poseur-buyer, with SPO4 Demetrio Manalo and PO1 Allan Fortea as back-up. De Vera gave Centeno a one hundred peso bill for use as buy-bust money. The latter marked the bill with his initials and the date: "BC-06-12-03."[2]
The informant brought Centeno to the address earlier indicated and introduced him to accused Medillin as his "kumpare." Centeno told Medillin that he wanted to buy shabu and Medillin agreed to sell him some.
Centeno handed over the marked one hundred peso bill he had with him and, in turn, Medillin gave him a small transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance believed to be shabu. Centeno then executed a pre-arranged signal, summoning the back-up police officers to move in. Centeno then introduced himself to Medillin as a police officer and arrested him. Centeno recovered the marked one hundred peso bill from Medillin's right hand. The officers then brought Medillin to the police station.
Centeno marked with his initials the plastic sachet that Medillin sold him before handing this over to the desk officer, PO2 Enc Rano. The police station then forwarded the substance to the crime laboratory for examination.
During the trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated that on June 12, 2003 PO2 Rano of the Baler Police Station 2 sent a request to the Central Police District Crime Laboratory for a laboratory examination of the specimen he received. Engr. Leonard M. Jabonillo performed a qualitative examination of the specimen, then contained in a plastic sachet marked as "BC-6-12-03-1," which tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Because of the stipulations, the trial court dispensed with the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Jabonillo and Rano.[3] The parties also dispensed with the testimony of Fortea by agreement since his testimony would have only been corroborative, Fortea being a back-up member of the buy-bust team.[4]
Accused Medillin denied meeting with and selling shabu to Centeno. He testified that on June 12, 2003, he was fixing his tricycle in front of his house when two police officers arrived. They searched him and asked if he was "Pinat" When he asked them why the query, they accused him of selling shabu. Despite his denials, they brought him to the police station. There, he heard one of the arresting officers say that, if he wanted to be released, "makipag-areglo ka na long."
On cross-examination, accused Medillin testified that Centeno was not among the officers who arrested him. Nor was Centeno the officer who asked for "areglo" from him. Medillin could not think of any reason why Centeno would testify against him.
The RTC rendered judgment dated September 19, 2005 that found accused Medillin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay a fine of P500,000.00. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment of the RTC,[5] hence this appeal.
The Issues Presented
Accused Medillin presents the following issues:
1. Whether or not the prosecution sufficiently established the identity of the substance that the police seized from Medillin; and
2. Whether or not Centeno's testimony was sufficient to support the judgment of conviction against Medillin.
The Court's Rulings
First. Accused Medillin claims that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the substance taken from him, which is the corpus delicti of the offense. Specifically, he points out that Centeno should have placed his markings on the sachet immediately upon confiscation and not when he was already at the police station. This supposed deviation from procedure, he says, leads to a failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody.
But, while it is true that Centeno did not mark the sachet containing the drugs immediately after accused Medillin's arrest, there is no showing that he parted with it meantime on the way to the police station. When Centeno, therefore, marked the sachet before turning it over to the desk officer, no real break in the chain of custody after the arrest and before the marking had occurred.
Upon a qualitative examination, the Central Police District Crime Laboratory Office found the contents of the sachet positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.[6] In open court, Centeno identified the sachet as the sachet which he got from Medillin and he identified the marking as the same marking he placed on it.[7] Thus this Court finds that the prohibited drugs, the corpus delicti, presented in open court was the same dings Medillin sold to Centeno.
Second. Medillin argues that Centeno's testimony was insufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, it being uncorroborated. Furthermore, lack of coordination of the police with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) as required by Republic Act 9165 renders suspect the operation conducted by the police on June 12, 2003.
But Centeno's testimony sufficiently established the material details of the buy-bust operation, from his contact with Medillin, to the actual sale of the shabu, to the payment of marked money, and to the delivery of the shabu to the poseur-buyer.
There is no reason for the Court to question and doubt the testimony of Centeno. It cannot be said to be entirely uncorroborated. Fortea's testimony had been dispensed with, although he witnessed what happened, by agreement of the prosecution and the defense, his testimony being merely corroborative. Although Centeno alone testified, he had in his favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties. Indeed, Medillin admitted that he knew no reason for Centeno to testify falsely against him. Finally, the alleged failure to coordinate with the PDEA is irrelevant to the offense of which Medillin was charged.
With regard to the penalty, however, considering the inapplicability of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[8] the penalty, Medillin should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01585 dated March 30, 2007 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the appellant Bernardo Orpiano Medillin is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 15th day of February, 2010.
G.R. No. 180509 (People of the Philippines v. Bernardo Medillin y Orpiano).-
This case is about the chain of custody of seized dangerous drugs and the sufficiency of the lone testimony of the police officer involved in the buy-bust operation.
The Facts and the Case
The accused-appellant Bernardo Medillin was charged before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal Case Q-03-118181 with the violation of Republic Act 9165 for selling 0.05 grams of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu.[1]
At the trial, the prosecution presented PO1 Bernard Centeno of the Philippine National Police assigned to the Baler Police Station 2 in Quezon City. Centeno testified that on June 12, 2003, while he was at the station, an informant came and told Chief Police Inspector Joseph De Vera that a certain alias "Pinat" (later identified as accused-appellant Medillin) was selling shabu at 34-B Road 7, Brgy. Pag-Asa, Quezon City.
De Vera held a briefing for a buy-bust operation and he designated Centeno to act as poseur-buyer, with SPO4 Demetrio Manalo and PO1 Allan Fortea as back-up. De Vera gave Centeno a one hundred peso bill for use as buy-bust money. The latter marked the bill with his initials and the date: "BC-06-12-03."[2]
The informant brought Centeno to the address earlier indicated and introduced him to accused Medillin as his "kumpare." Centeno told Medillin that he wanted to buy shabu and Medillin agreed to sell him some.
Centeno handed over the marked one hundred peso bill he had with him and, in turn, Medillin gave him a small transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance believed to be shabu. Centeno then executed a pre-arranged signal, summoning the back-up police officers to move in. Centeno then introduced himself to Medillin as a police officer and arrested him. Centeno recovered the marked one hundred peso bill from Medillin's right hand. The officers then brought Medillin to the police station.
Centeno marked with his initials the plastic sachet that Medillin sold him before handing this over to the desk officer, PO2 Enc Rano. The police station then forwarded the substance to the crime laboratory for examination.
During the trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated that on June 12, 2003 PO2 Rano of the Baler Police Station 2 sent a request to the Central Police District Crime Laboratory for a laboratory examination of the specimen he received. Engr. Leonard M. Jabonillo performed a qualitative examination of the specimen, then contained in a plastic sachet marked as "BC-6-12-03-1," which tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Because of the stipulations, the trial court dispensed with the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Jabonillo and Rano.[3] The parties also dispensed with the testimony of Fortea by agreement since his testimony would have only been corroborative, Fortea being a back-up member of the buy-bust team.[4]
Accused Medillin denied meeting with and selling shabu to Centeno. He testified that on June 12, 2003, he was fixing his tricycle in front of his house when two police officers arrived. They searched him and asked if he was "Pinat" When he asked them why the query, they accused him of selling shabu. Despite his denials, they brought him to the police station. There, he heard one of the arresting officers say that, if he wanted to be released, "makipag-areglo ka na long."
On cross-examination, accused Medillin testified that Centeno was not among the officers who arrested him. Nor was Centeno the officer who asked for "areglo" from him. Medillin could not think of any reason why Centeno would testify against him.
The RTC rendered judgment dated September 19, 2005 that found accused Medillin guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay a fine of P500,000.00. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment of the RTC,[5] hence this appeal.
The Issues Presented
Accused Medillin presents the following issues:
1. Whether or not the prosecution sufficiently established the identity of the substance that the police seized from Medillin; and
2. Whether or not Centeno's testimony was sufficient to support the judgment of conviction against Medillin.
The Court's Rulings
First. Accused Medillin claims that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the substance taken from him, which is the corpus delicti of the offense. Specifically, he points out that Centeno should have placed his markings on the sachet immediately upon confiscation and not when he was already at the police station. This supposed deviation from procedure, he says, leads to a failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody.
But, while it is true that Centeno did not mark the sachet containing the drugs immediately after accused Medillin's arrest, there is no showing that he parted with it meantime on the way to the police station. When Centeno, therefore, marked the sachet before turning it over to the desk officer, no real break in the chain of custody after the arrest and before the marking had occurred.
Upon a qualitative examination, the Central Police District Crime Laboratory Office found the contents of the sachet positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.[6] In open court, Centeno identified the sachet as the sachet which he got from Medillin and he identified the marking as the same marking he placed on it.[7] Thus this Court finds that the prohibited drugs, the corpus delicti, presented in open court was the same dings Medillin sold to Centeno.
Second. Medillin argues that Centeno's testimony was insufficient to overcome the constitutional presumption of innocence, it being uncorroborated. Furthermore, lack of coordination of the police with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) as required by Republic Act 9165 renders suspect the operation conducted by the police on June 12, 2003.
But Centeno's testimony sufficiently established the material details of the buy-bust operation, from his contact with Medillin, to the actual sale of the shabu, to the payment of marked money, and to the delivery of the shabu to the poseur-buyer.
There is no reason for the Court to question and doubt the testimony of Centeno. It cannot be said to be entirely uncorroborated. Fortea's testimony had been dispensed with, although he witnessed what happened, by agreement of the prosecution and the defense, his testimony being merely corroborative. Although Centeno alone testified, he had in his favor the presumption of regularity in the performance of his duties. Indeed, Medillin admitted that he knew no reason for Centeno to testify falsely against him. Finally, the alleged failure to coordinate with the PDEA is irrelevant to the offense of which Medillin was charged.
With regard to the penalty, however, considering the inapplicability of the Indeterminate Sentence Law,[8] the penalty, Medillin should be sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01585 dated March 30, 2007 is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the appellant Bernardo Orpiano Medillin is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo, Roberto A. Abad and Jose P. Perez, Members, Second Division, this 15th day of February, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Raffled to Branch 95.
[2] Exhibit "H" and "H-l" for the prosecution, records, p. 82.
[3] Id. at 21-22 and 54-55.
[4] Id. at 47.
[5] Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. 01585 dated March 30, 2007. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Rebecca de Guia-Salvador and Ricardo R. Rosario.
[6] Records, p. 21.
[7] TSN, June 17, 2004, p. 9.
[8] See Republic Act 4103, Sec. 2.
