People vs Belocura

G.R. No. 173474 August 29, 2012 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. REYNALDO BELO!RA " PERE#, Accused-Appellant. PERE#, Accused-Appellant. DECISION BERSA$IN, J.: The credibility f the evidence f the crpus delicti in a prsecutin fr ille!al pssessin f "ari#$$ana "ari#$$ana under %epublic Act N. &'(), as a"ended, depends n the inte!rity f the chain f custdy f the marijuana fr" marijuana fr" the ti"e f its sei*ure until the ti"e f its presentatin as evidence in curt. Shrt f that, the accused is entitled t an ac+uittal because the State fails t establish the !uilt f the accused beynd reasnable dubt. T%& 's& %eynald elcura y Pere*, a plice fficer char!ed ith ille!al pssessin f $,/0./(1 !ra"s f marijuana in marijuana in vilatin f %epublic Act N. &'() 2Dan!erus Dru!s Act f $0(3, as a"ended by %epublic Act N. &)0, as fund !uilty f the cri"e char!ed n April ((, (441 by the %e!inal Trial Curt 2%TC3 in 5anila, and sentenced t suffer reclusin perpetua and t pay a fine f P )44,444.44. 1 On appeal, the Curt f Appeals 2CA3 affir"ed the cnvictin n 6anuary (1, (44&. 2 7ence, this final appeal fr his ac+uittal. A(t&)&*&(ts elcura as char!ed n April $1, $000 by the Office f the City Prsecutr f 5anila ith a vilatin f Sectin / f %epublic Act N. &'(), as a"ended by %epublic Act N. &)0, in the 5anila %TC thru!h the infr"atin8 That n r abut 5arch ((, $000, in the City f 5anila, Philippines, the said accused did then and there illfully, unlafully and 9nin!ly have in his pssessin and under his custdy and cntrl ne 2$3 plastic ba! clred red and hite, ith label :S7IN TON ;ON:, cntainin! the fllin!8 One 2$3 nespaper leaf used t rap ne 2$3 bric9 f dried marijuana fruitin! marijuana fruitin! tps ei!hin! /14.)1( !ra"s< One 2$3 nespaper leaf used t rap ne 2$3 bric9 f dried marijuana fruitin! marijuana fruitin! tps ei!hin! 0)0.(0$ !ra"s. =ith a ttal ei!ht f $,/0./(1 !ra"s, a prhibited dru!. Cntrary t la. la.3  After elcura pleaded not guilty ,4 the State presented three itnesses, na"ely8 Insp. Arlene >alde* Crnel, Chief Insp. ?erdinand Ortales Divina, and SPO$ @re!ri P. %#as. On the ther hand, the Defense presented elcura as its sle itness. I T%& St't&+s E-*&()& On 5arch ((, $000, at $$ clc9 in the "rnin!, Chief Insp. Divina as in his ffice in the head+uarters f the =estern Plice District 2=PD3 n Bnited Natins Avenue in 5anila hen he received a call fr" a "ale persn h refused t identify hi"self fr fear f  reprisal. The caller tipped hi" ff abut a rbbery t be sta!ed aln! pe* Street, Tnd, 5anila. After relayin! the tip t his superir  fficer, fficer, he as i""ediately rdered t fr" a tea" c"psed f peratives f the District Intelli!ence @rup and t crdinate ith the Special =eapns and Attac9 Tea" 2S=AT3 and the 5bile Patrl f the =PD.  After a briefin!, Chief Insp. Divina and the ther peratives prceeded t pe* Street, reachin! the site befre $844 p". Chief Insp. Divina and PO( Erald Sants psitined the"selves aln! >itas Street. At At arund (844 p", Chief Insp. Divina sptted an ner-type  #eep bearin! a spurius !vern"ent plate 2S5-)$43 cruisin! aln! >itas Street and tld the rest f the tea" abut it. The nu"bers f  the car plate ere painted painted hite. The driver as later identified identified as elcura. elcura. Chief Insp. Divina si!naled si!naled fr elcura elcura t stp fr  verificatin but the latter i!nred the si!nal and sped ff tards alut, Tnd. Tnd. The tea" pursued elcuras #eep until they blc9ed its path ith their Ta"ara Ta"ara ? vehicle, frcin! elcura t stp. At this pint, Chief Insp. Divina Divina and the rest f the tea" apprached the  #eep and intrduced the"selves t elcura as plice"en. Chief Insp. Divina +ueried elcura n the !vern"ent plate. SPO$ %#as cnfiscated elcuras erreta 0 "". pistl 2Serial Nu"ber 5$14/&3 that as tuc9ed in his aist and its fully laded "a!a*ine hen he culd nt prduce the apprpriate dcu"ents fr the pistl and the !vern"ent plate. They arrested hi". PO( Sants searched elcuras #eep, and recvered a red plastic ba! under the drivers seat. Chief Insp. Divina directed PO( Sants t inspect the cntents f the red plastic ba!, hich turned ut t be t bric9s f marijuanarapped marijuanarapped in nespaper.  Afterards, the tea" returned ith elcura t the =PD 7ead+uarters n bard the Ta"ara ?. The tea" turned ver the #eep and the red plastic ba! ith its cntents t the @eneral Assi!n"ent Sectin fr prper dispsitin .5 Chief Insp. Divina said that the caller did nt "entin anythin! abut any vehicle< that he and his "en ere in civilian clthes at the ti"e< that it as PO( Sants h recvered the red plastic ba! cntainin! the marijuanabric9s< marijuanabric9s< and that SPO$ %#as eFa"ined the 6 cntents f the ba! in his presence. SPO$ %#as cnfir"ed his part in the peratin. 7 7e cnceded that he as nt present hen the red plastic ba! cntainin! the bric9s f marijuana as marijuana as sei*ed, and sa the marijuana bric9s marijuana bric9s fr the first ti"e nly at the plice statin .8 ?rensic Che"ist Insp. Crnel attested that her ffice received fr" the @eneral Assi!n"ent Sectin f the = PD ne red plastic ba! labeled :S7IN TON ;ON: cntainin! t bric9s f dried suspected marijuana fruitin! marijuana fruitin! tps individually rapped in nespaper at abut $(814 p" f 5arch (1, $000. The first bric9 bre the "ar9in! :%-$: and ei!hed /14.)1( !ra"s hile the ther bre the "ar9in! :%-(: and ei!hed 0)0.(0$ !ra"s, fr a ttal ei!ht f $,/0./(1 !ra"s. She cnducted a che"ical eFa"inatin f the marijuana bric9s marijuana bric9s pursuant t the re+uest re+uest fr labratry labratry eFa"inati eFa"inatin n fr" Chief Insp. Nelsn ;abut ;abut f the =PD< and cncluded cncluded as the result result f three +ualitativ +ualitative e 9 eFa"inatins that the sub"itted speci"en tested psitive fr marijuana, marijuana, a prhibited dru!. dru!.

II E-*&()& o t%& D&&(s& elcura denied the char!e. 7is versin, hich differed fr" that f the Prsecutin, as as flls. On 5arch ((, $000, elcura as a plice fficer assi!ned in Plice Statin & f the =PD ith a tur f duty fr" 1844 p" t $$844 p".  At (844 p" f that day, he as n his ay t r9 n bard his ner-type #eep hen abut thirty plice fficers blc9ed his path . 7e intrduced hi"self t the" as a plice fficer, but they i!nred hi". Instead, they disar"ed and handcuffed hi", and cnfiscated the "e"randu" receipt cverin! his firear", his "ney and his plice ID card. 7e rec!ni*ed s"e f his arrestrs as fr"er "e"bers f the CIS. They frced hi" int their #eep, and bru!ht hi" t the =PD head+uarters, here they lc9ed hi" up in a r" that l9ed li9e a bde!a. They sub#ected hi" t interr!atin n his alle!ed invlve"ent in a rbbery hld-up. They infr"ed hi" f the dru!related char!e t be filed a!ainst hi" nly three da ys later. elcura denied nin! r pssessin! the bric9s f marijuana, sayin! that he sa the bric9s f marijuana fr the first ti"e nly in curt. 7e insisted that it as physically i"pssible fr the bric9s f marijuana t be fund under the drivers seat f his #eep n accunt f the clearance fr" the flrin! bein! nly abut three inches. At the ti"e f his arrest, he as in Type- unifr" 2i.e., blue pants ith hite side pipin! and blue T-shirt3 because he as reprtin! t r9 that afternn. elcura said that his arrest as effected pssibly because he had incurred the ire f a superir< that it as nt unusual fr a plice"an li9e hi" t incur the ire f a superir fficer r a fell plice"an< that he had arrested a suspect fr dru! pushin! and had detained hi" in Plice Precinct (, but the suspect turned ut t be the nephe f Captain Su9ila f Precinct ( h ad"itted t hi" that Captain Su9ila ned the dru!s< that n the day fllin! the arrest f the suspect, Captain Su9ila called elcura t re+uest the release f the suspect 2ina-arbr an! huli 93< that he tld Captain Su9ila that they shuld "eet the neFt day s that he culd turn ver the suspect< and that n the neFt day, he as surprised t learn that the suspect had already been released.10 elcura did nt persnally 9n Chief Insp. Divina prir t his arrest, 11 r the ther arrestin! plice"en. 7e "entined that his nertype #eep had been asse"bled in $00), and that he had attached the plate nu"ber assi!ned t his ld vehicle pendin! the re!istratin f the #eep despite 9nin! that din! s as a vilatin f la< and that the incident invlvin! the arrest f the nephe f Captain Su9ila as the nly reasn he culd thin9 f hy char!es ere filed a!ainst hi".12 On re-direct eFa"inatin, elcura replied that he did nt see the bric9s f marijuana hether at the ti"e f his arrest, r at the plice precinct, r durin! the in+uest prceedin!s. On re-crss, he clarified that hile the drivers seat ere fiFed t the #eep, the bric9s f marijuana culd nevertheless be placed under the drivers seat nly if pressed hard enu!h, but in that case the rappin!s uld !et trn because the irin!s f the car underneath the seat ere eFpsed. 7e recalled that the rappin!s f the bric9s f marijuana ere intact.13 On April ((, (441, the %TC cnvicted elcura f the cri"e char!ed and sentenced hi" t suffer reclusin perpetua and t pay the fine f P )44,444.44.14  As already stated, the CA affir"ed the cnvictin.15 Issu&s elcura n sub"its that8 16 I. T7E T%IA COB%T @%A>E; E%%ED IN CON>ICTIN@ T7E ACCBSED-APPEANT O? T7E C%I5E C7A%@ED NOT=IT7STANDIN@ T7E P7;SICIA I5POSSIIIT; ?O% T7E D%IED %ICGS O? 5A%I6BANA PACED BNDE% T7E D%I>E%S SEAT 2sic3. II. T7E T%IA COB%T E%%ED IN CON>ICTIN@ T7E ACCBSED-APPEANT O? T7E C%I5E C7A%@ED ASED ON T7E INCONSISTENT AND CONT%ADICTO%; STATE5ENTS O? T7E P%OSECBTION =ITNESS. III. T7E T%IA COB%T E%%ED IN AD5ITTIN@ IN E>IDENCE T7E 5A%I6BANA DESPITE T7E IE@AIT; O? ITS SEIB%E DBE TO T7E ASENSE 2sic3 O? A >AID SEA%C7 =A%%ANT. I>. T7E T%IA COB%T E%%ED IN CON>ICTIN@ T7E ACCBSED-APPEANT O? T7E C%I5E C7A%@ED =7EN 7IS @BIT =AS NOT P%O>EN E;OND %EASONAE DOBT. elcura ar!ues that the Prsecutin did nt establish his !uilt fr the cri"e char!ed beynd reasnable dubt< that his arrantless arrest as unlaful cnsiderin! that his nly vilatin as nly a breach f traffic rules and re!ulatins invlvin! the ille!al use f a !vern"ent plate n his nely-asse"bled #eep< that the arrantless search f his #eep as cntrary t la fr vilatin! his ri!ht a!ainst ille!al search and sei*ure prtected under Sectin $, Article III (Bill of Rights) f the $0/ Cnstitutinalde*, the recrds did nt sh if Chief Insp. ;abut as the fficer h had received the marijuana bric9s fr" the arrestin! tea". The re+uest fr labratry eFa"inatin as dated 5arch (1, $000, r the day fllin! elcuras arrest and the sei*ure f the marijuana bric9s fr" his #eep< hever, the Prsecutin did nt identify the persn fr" h" Chief Insp. ;abut had received themarijuana bric9s. Sadly, the Prsecutin did nt establish the lin9s in the chain f custdy. This "eant that the crpus delicti as nt credibly prved. This further "eant that the sei*ure and cnfiscatin f the marijuana bric9s "i!ht easily be pen t dubt and suspicin, and thus the incri"inatry evidence uld nt stand #udicial scrutiny. Thirdly, elcuras denial assu"ed stren!th in the face f the Prsecutins ea9 incri"inatin! evidence. In that re!ard, elcura denied pssessin f the marijuana bric9s and 9nled!e f the" as ell, t it8 + =ere yu able t vie the alle!ed marijuana that ere cnfiscated fr" yuH a8 I sa it fr the first ti"e hen it as presented in Curt, Sir. +8 N, accrdin! t Inspectr Divina, it as plice fficer Sants h as able t recver fr" yur vehicle these t bric9s f marijuana. =hat can yu say abut thisH a8 At first, I did nt see this marijuana, Sir, that they are sayin! because they i""ediately handcuffed "e and disar"ed "e even befre I culd bard "y ner type #eepney. 47 The Curt hlds that the !uilt f elcura fr the cri"e char!ed as nt prved beynd reasnable dubt. 5ere suspicin f his !uilt, n "atter h strn!, shuld nt say #ud!"ent a!ainst hi". Every evidence favrin! hi" "ust be duly cnsidered. Indeed, the presu"ptin f inncence in his favr as nt verc"e. 7ence, his ac+uittal shuld fll, fr, as the Curt fittin!ly said in Patula v. People:48 FFF in all cri"inal prsecutins, the Prsecutin bears the burden t establish the !uilt f the accused beynd reasnable dubt. In dischar!in! this burden, the Prsecutins duty is t prve each and every ele"ent f the cri"e char!ed in the infr"atin t arrant a findin! f !uilt fr that cri"e r fr any ther cri"e necessarily included therein. The Prsecutin "ust further prve the participatin f  the accused in the c""issin f the ffense. In din! all these, the Prsecutin "ust rely n the stren!th f its n evidence, and nt anchr its success upn the ea9ness f the evidence f the accused. The burden f prf placed n the Prsecutin arises fr" the presu"ptin f inncence in favr f the accused that n less than the Cnstitutin has !uaranteed. Cnversely, as t his inncence, the accused has n burden f prf, that he "ust then be ac+uitted and set free shuld the Prsecutin nt verc"e the presu"ptin f inncence in his favr. In ther rds, the ea9ness f the defense put up by the accused is incnse+uential in the prceedin!s fr  as ln! as the Prsecutin has nt dischar!ed its burden f prf in establishin! the c""issin f the cri"e char!ed and in identifyin! the accused as the "alefactr respnsible fr it. 49 6HEREFORE, e REERSE and SET ASIDE the decisin pr"ul!ated n 6anuary (1, (44&< A8!IT accusedREYNALDO BELO!RA " PERE# fr failure f the Prsecutin t prve his !uilt beynd reasnable dubt< DIRET the i""ediate release fr" detentin f REYNALDO BELO!RA " PERE#, unless he is als detained fr s"e ther laful cause< and O%DE% the Directr f  the ureau f Crrectins t frthith i"ple"ent this decisin upn receipt and t reprt his actin heren t this Curt ithin $4 days fr" receipt. N prnunce"ent n csts f suit. SO O%DE%ED.