July 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 189813 : July 27, 2011]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. PAGAL B. SAMBUTUAN ALIAS "PAGS " AND SALIPLA M. PILAS
G.R. No. 189813 (People of the Philippines v. Pagal B. Sambutuan alias "Pags" and Salipla M. Pilas).
RESOLUTION
On August 12, 2002, on hearing of drug trafficking at the house of a certain alias "Ne," the Taguig Police Station-Drug Enforcement Unit formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation with PO3 Edgar V. Orias[1] as poseur-buyer. Orias marked two P100 bills with "EO" as buy-bust money.[2]
On arrival at 122-F M. L. Quezon Street in Barangay Hagonoy, Taguig, Orias and a police informant knocked at Ne's house. As accused-appellant Pagal "Pags" B. Sambutuan came out, Orias and the police informant told him that they wanted to "score" P200 worth of shabu. Orias gave the money to Sambutuan and in turn the latter reached into a pocket and gave Orias a plastic sachet of shabu. Orias wiped his face with a small towel, the pre-arranged signal to his back-up team and they arrested Sambutuan.
Orias recovered the buy-bust money from one of Sambutuan's pockets and marked the plastic sachet with "PBS." When PO2 Santiago G. Cordova[3] and PO1 Alexander A. Saez[4] entered the house, they saw Manuel A. Gonzaga[5] and Marilyn U. Santos using shabu. Cordova confiscated an improvised tooter from Gonzaga, and two strips of aluminum foil and a disposable lighter from Santos. Meanwhile, Saez arrested accused-appellant Salipla M. Pilas and recovered a plastic sachet of shabu which he marked with "SMP."
At the police headquarters, Orias, Cordova and Saez executed their affidavits of arrest.[6] Cordova also turned over the confiscated drug paraphernalia to the investigator who marked the improvised tooter with "MAG," and the aluminum foil and disposable lighter with "MUS." Thereafter, the Chief of Police requested P/Insp. Lourdeliza M. Gural to conduct a chemical analysis on the confiscated plastic sachets and drug paraphernalia.[7] The two plastic sachets tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu with 0.23 gram and 0.09 gram, respectively.[8]
The public prosecutor charged Sambutuan, Santos and Pilas before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 164. Sambutuan was charged with violating Section 5, Paragraph 2(3), Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 while Pilas was charged with violating Section 11, Paragraph 2(3), Article II of R.A. 9165, in Criminal Cases 11582-D and 11583-D, respectively.
Sambutuan,[9] Santos[10] and Gonzaga[11] denied the charges against them. Sambutuan testified that he was in Brgy. Hagonoy because Pilas invited him to a birthday party. Santos claimed that she was there to collect "Nek Nek's" debt amounting to P100. Gonzaga testified that he was in the place because he was going to fetch water. Jeynard S. Olmedo[12] also testified that he went to the house of "Nek Nek" to fetch his mother, Santos. When he arrived there, he saw the police officers arresting his mother along with three other male persons.
On October 8, 2004 the RTC rendered judgment, finding the three accused guilty as charged.[13] It sentenced Sambutuan to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000 while it sentenced Pilas to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 20 years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.
Only Sambutuan and Pilas appealed to the Court of Appeals which affirmed their conviction on July 31, 2009.[14] They now point out before this Court that the police officers failed to physically inventory and photograph the drugs in their presence immediately after its seizure and confiscation. They also claimed that no evidence on how these were handled from the time Gural examined the seized drugs and the paraphernalia to the time they were presented in court.
The records are silent on whether the police officers made a physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated drugs and drug paraphernalia, or whether any representative from the media, the DOJ, and any elected public official had been present, required to sign and given copies of the inventory.[15] But the Court finds these lapses insufficient to stain the integrity of the corpus delicti. The police officers confirmed the buy-bust operation and the fact that Orias and Saez confiscated and marked the plastic sachets seized from the accused immediately after their arrests.
The Request for Laboratory Examination enumerated the items recovered from the accused: (1) two plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu; (2) an improvised tooter; (3) two strips of aluminum foil; and (4) a disposable lighter. After the chemical analysis, Gural executed Physical Science Report D-1221-2002 stating that the seized items enumerated in the Request were the same items subjected to chemical analysis and that the two plastic sachets tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The Court also notes that in the hearing dated October 24, 2002, the parties dispensed with Gural's testimony after stipulating that should she testify, she would be testifying to the fact that Exhibits "F-1" to "F-5" (two plastic sachets containing shabu; an improvised tooter; two strips of aluminum foil; and a disposable lighter) are the same specimens mentioned in Exhibits �;C-1" (Request for Laboratory Examination) and "D-l" (Physical Science Report D-1221-2002) and that she regularly examined said specimens.[16] This stipulation is, in effect, an admission that the seized drugs and drug paraphernalia contained in the Request for Laboratory Examination which Gural examined were the same items offered in court as evidence. The police officers identified these items as the ones they retrieved from the accused during the buy-bust operation.
Further, the stipulation not only proved that the seized items tested positive for shabu, it also established the very identity of the seized drugs and drug paraphernalia. Indeed, the law does not exact a perfect link since it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.[17]
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the Decision dated July 31, 2009 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. HC 03145, which affirmed the Decision dated October 8, 2004 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 164 in Criminal Cases 11582-D and 11583-D.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] TSN, November 7, 2002, pp. 2-12.[2] Records, Vol. I, p. 59.
[3] TSN, December 12, 2002, pp. 2-14.
[4] TSN, July 3, 2003, pp. 2-23.
[5] Passed away in February 2004; records, Vol. I, p. 81.
[6] Id. at 53-54.
[7] Id. at 55.
[8] Id. at 57.
[9] TSN, January 8, 2004, pp. 3-14.
[10] TSN, February 5, 2004, pp. 2-10.
[11] TSN, September 4, 2003, pp. 3-10.
[12] TSN, September 27, 2004, pp. 2-11.
[13] Records, Vol. I, pp. 104-111.
[14] Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, with Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Mario V. Lopez concurring.
[15] People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259, 269.
[16] Records, Vol. I, p. 23.
[17] People of the Philippines v. Nene M. Quiamanlon, G.R. No. 191198, January 26, 2011.