June 2012 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[G.R. No. 195427 : June 13, 2012]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF APPELLEE, VERSUS REMEDIOS CAPULE Y MADAYAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
"G.R. No. 195427 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff appellee, versus REMEDIOS CAPULE y MADAYAG, accused-appellant.
On appeal is the July 30, 2010 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City convicting appellant Remedios Capule y Madayag of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
At the trial, prosecution witness PO1 Ronald Allan Mateo testified that on March 18, 2005, P/Supt. Napoleon Cuaton formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation upon information given by a confidential informant that appellant was engaged in illegal drug trade. As the designated poseur-buyer, PO1 Mateo was given the buy-bust money which he marked with the initials "RAM." Then, they coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and proceeded to San Vicente, Camarin, Caloocan City. Upon reaching Macopa Street, the confidential informant pointed to the suspect's house and described her. PO1 Mateo went to the house, knocked at the door, and a woman who fitted the informant's description opened the door. PO1 Mateo told her, "Sis, pa-iskor naman." The suspect asked how much, to which he replied "dalawang piso lang." He handed her the marked money and was told to wait outside. When the suspect entered the house, PO1 Mateo saw two men and a woman using shabu. One was holding an aluminum foil and the other one was holding a tooter. Another person was holding an aluminum foil and a lighter.[3]
When the suspect returned, she already had with her three plastic sachets and asked PO1 Mateo to pick one. He took one from her hand and knew that it contained shabu. He then made the pre-arranged signal to the other officers by spitting. The suspect tried to close the door, but PO1 Mateo arrested her. He also confiscated the plastic sachets and the buy-bust money from the suspect, who was later identified as appellant Remedios Capule. The appellant and the confiscated plastic sachets were turned over to the investigator who marked the sachets in PO1 Mateo's presence.[4] Police officers Jose Martirez and Remegio Valderama, Jr. corroborated PO1 Mateo's testimony.[5] A forensic laboratory examination conducted by the Forensic Chemical Officer Albert S. Arturo of the PNP-NPD Crime Laboratory Office revealed that the contents of the plastic sachets confiscated from appellant yielded positive result for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.[6]
In her defense, appellant testified that on March 18, 2005, between 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. she was at their house putting her child to sleep when three men in civilian clothes knocked at the door and entered the house. They searched the house and told her to keep quiet. When she asked who they were looking for, the men did not respond. They continued to search the house but found nothing. She was then ordered to go outside on the pretext that their chief will ask her something. But once outside, they boarded a passenger jeep with other persons whom she did not know and roamed around the area for several hours still looking for someone. At around 2:00 a.m., they were brought to the police headquarters. At the Caloocan City Jail, she learned that the charges against her were related to illegal drugs and that the same is non-bailable.[7]
On January 6, 2009, the RTC rendered a decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The trial court imposed on her the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000 in Criminal Case No. C-72801, and the penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 14 years and a fine of P300,000 in Criminal Case No. C-72802.
The RTC gave credence to PO1 Mateo's detailed account of how the sale took place from the initial negotiation to the delivery of the dangerous drugs. It also held that what is material in the prosecution of an accused for an illegal sale or possession of dangerous drugs is the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. In this case, the plastic sachet containing shabu was positively identified by PO1 Mateo as the very same shabu appellant sold and delivered to him. Likewise, PO1 Mateo positively identified the plastic sachets he recovered from appellant.
Appellant appealed to the CA arguing that the arresting police officers failed to comply strictly with Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, since there was no proof that they conducted an inventory of the confiscated items or even marked the same in her presence or the presence of her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) or any elected official.
In a decision dated July 30, 2010, the CA dismissed the appeal. It held that the failure of the police officers to comply strictly with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not fatal as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. Their noncompliance will not render an accused's arrest illegal nor result in the items seized from him becoming inadmissible. In this case, the CA found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
Appellant is now before this Court raising the main issue of whether the prosecution's evidence sufficiently established appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Our thorough review of the records and the parties' submissions lead us to conclude that the prosecution succeeded in that task.
Adherence to the guidelines under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 relating to custody and disposition of confiscated or seized dangerous drugs accounts for a crucial link in the chain-of-custody rule. Section 21 provides that the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
However, it is further provided under Section 21 (a), Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Rules of 2002, the implementing rules and regulations of R.A. No. 9165, that noncompliance with the prescribed procedures does not necessarily result in the conclusion that the identity of the seized drugs has been compromised so that an acquittal should follow as long as the prosecution can demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved.
This Court has, in many cases, held that while the chain of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[8] The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused.[9] Slight infractions or nominal deviations by the police from the prescribed method of handling the corpus delicti should not exculpate an otherwise guilty defendant.[10]
In the present case, there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized from appellant was preserved. The chain of custody of the seized drugs subject was shown not to have been broken. The facts reveal that PO1 Mateo confiscated the dangerous drugs, as well as the marked money. Appellant was immediately arrested and brought to the police station for investigation where the sachets of suspected shabu were marked RCM-1, RCM-2 and RCM-3. From the time of appellant's arrest, the drugs and the marked money were in the possession of PO1 Mateo until he turned them over to the investigator, PO2 Randulfo S. Hipolito.[11] Immediately thereafter, the confiscated substance, with a letter of request for examination, was submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination to determine the presence of any dangerous drug.[12] Per Physical Science Report No. D-108-05, the specimen submitted was found positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.[13] In other words, the prosecution presented an unbroken chain of custody for the seized illegal drugs.cralaw
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Court hereby AFFIRMS the July 30, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03821 affirming the trial court's judgment which found appellant Remedios Capule y Madayag guilty of the offenses charged.
With costs against the accused-appellant.
SO ORDERED." PERLAS-BERNABE, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1227 dated 30 May 2012.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Division Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo, pp. 2-21. Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S.E. Veloso and concurred in by Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Samuel H. Gaerlan. The Decision was rendered in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03821.
[2] CA rollo, pp. 17-29. Penned by Judge Aurelio R. Ralar, Jr.
[3] TSN, October 6, 2006, pp. 5-15.
[4] Id. at 16-21.
[5] TSN, November 17, 2006, pp. 3-19; TSN, March 16, 2007, pp. 4-16.
[6] Records, p. 13.
[7] TSN, January 28, 2008, pp. 3-14.
[8] Asiatico v. People, G.R. No. 195005, September 12, 2011, 657 SCRA 443, 451- 452.
[9] People v. Campomanes, G.R. No. 187741, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 507.
[10] People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 187737, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 542, 552.
[11] Records, p. 6.
[12] Id. at 4.
[13] Id. at 5.