Spl Week 7 Case Digests

Special Penal Laws Week 7 Case Digests a.

Appellant’s claim that his warrantless arrest was invalid is similarly devoid of merit. The rule is settled that an arrest made after an entrapment does not require a warrant.

People v Cabugatan

Facts: On August 9 2002, two informations were filed against Boisan Cabugatan for violations of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. He was alleged to have (i) illegally sold and (ii) illegally possessed shabu. During his arraignment, Cabugatan pleaded not guilty to both charges. What happened was that a civilian informant advised the Baguio City police that Boisan was engaged in the illegal sale of shabu at Villacor billiard Hall. Thereafter, a buy-bust operation ensued and Boisan was arrested after he sold shabu to the poseur-buyer for P150. The shabu in his possession was confiscated and after a drug test, he was found to have used shabu. However, Boisan claims that no buy-bust operation occurred. He said he was a mere seller of sunglasses and was only playing billiards when the police arrested him and his companions. He said he was a victim of police frame-up and extortion. RTC declared Cabugatan guilty on both charges. CA affirmed. Appellant now claims that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He faults the trial court for giving credence to the [testimonies] of the prosecution witnesses even when he had categorically denied the occurrence of any buy-bust operation. He also assails his arrest by the Baguio City Police as it was carried out without a valid warrant. Issue: W/N Cabugatan is guilty beyond reasonable doubt Held: Yes. Findings of the TC which are factual in nature and which involve the credibility of witnesses are accorded respect when no glaring/gross errors can be gathered from such findings. Appelant failed to substantiate his claim that he was a victim of a ploy concocted by the police. In the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the following elements be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore. What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. In this case, all the elements of the crime have been sufficiently established. The witnesses for the prosecution were able to prove that the buy-bust operation indeed took place and the shabu subject of the sale was brought and duly identified in court. The poseur-buyer (PO2 Del-ong) positively identified appellant as the one who sold to him a packet of white crystalline substance which was later confirmed by two chemical examinations to be shabu.

b.

People v Partoza

Facts: On November 2 2002, Partoza was apprehended by the San Mateo police during a buy-bust operation. RTC found him guilty of one count of possession and another count of possession with the intent to sell of shabu. CA affirmed. On review, appellant questions the integrity of the evidence used against him on the grounds of failure to mark the items seized from him immediately and failure to observe the chain of custody as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Issue: W/N the failure of the arresting officer to immediately inventory, photograph the shabu in the presence of the accused as mandated by RA 9165 renders the evidence inadmissible to him. Held: Yes. In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the elements are: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates 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. In People v. Obmiranis, appellant was acquitted due to the flaws in the conduct of the post-seizure custody of the dangerous drug allegedly recovered from appellant, taken together with the failure of the key persons who handled the same to testify on the whereabouts of the exhibit before it was offered in evidence in court. In Bondad v. People, this Court held that the failure to comply with the requirements of the law compromised the identity of the items seized, which is the corpus delicti of each of the crimes charged against appellant, hence his acquittal is in order. And in People v. De la Cruz, the apprehending team's omission to observe the procedure outlined by R.A. No. 9165 in the custody and disposition of the seized drugs significantly impairs the prosecution's case. In the present case the apprehending officer did not make the inventory

immediately after the arrest as mandated but he only signed his initials once they brought Partoza in the precinct. While this Court recognizes that non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21 is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground therefor, and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team, yet these conditions were not met in the case at bar. No explanation was offered by PO3 Tougan for his failure to observe the rule. The failure of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody is fatal to its cause.

c.

People v Padua

Facts: Sonny Padua was alleged to be guilty of illegal sale and possession of shabu, in violation of RA 9165. A buy-bust operation was conducted by the Drug Enforcement Group of the Southern Police District of Taguig City. In their buy bust operation, one of the police officers pretended to be a delivery truck driver who had just arrived from a provincial trip and in dire need of shabu for his personal consumption. Padua testified that there was no buy-bust operation. On direct examination, accused-appellant asserted that he was awakened by the operatives who went to his house in Barangay Napindan, Taguig City. When he opened his eyes, a gun was poked at him. He was handcuffed by the police officers and was brought to DDEU at Fort Bonifacio, where he was detained. While inside the vehicle on their way to Fort Bonifacio, accused-appellant alleged that the police officers asked him to give them money otherwise a case will be filed against him. RTC declared Padua guilty. CA affirmed. Now Padua is contending that the CA erred in convicting him despite the nonpresentation as witness: (i) the forensic chemist, (ii) the alleged investigator, and (iii) the informant. Issue: W/N CA erred. Held: No. The fact that the persons who had possession or custody of the subject drugs, such as Forensic Chemist Rivera-Dagasdas and the alleged investigator, were not presented as witnesses to corroborate SPO2 Aguilars testimony is of no moment. The non-presentation as witnesses of other persons such as the investigator and the forensic chemist, is not a crucial point against the prosecution. The matter of presentation of witnesses by the prosecution is not for the court to decide. The prosecution has the discretion as to how to present its case and it has the right to choose whom it wishes to present as witnesses. Anent the failure of the prosecution to present the testimony of the informant, it is wellsettled that the testimony of an informant in drug-pushing cases is not essential for conviction and may be dispensed with if the poseur-buyer testified on the same. Informants are almost always never presented in

court because of the need to preserve their invaluable service to the police. Further, not all people who came into contact with the seized drugs are required to testify in court. There is nothing in Republic Act No. 9165 or in any rule implementing the same that imposes such requirement. As long as the chain of custody of the seized drug was clearly established not to have been broken and that the prosecution did not fail to identify properly the drugs seized, it is not indispensable that each and every person who came into possession of the drugs should take the witness stand.

d.

People v Habana

Facts: Habana was charged of violating Secs. 5 (sale) and 11 (possession), Art. II of RA 9165. In 2003, the Anti-Drug Task Force Unit of the Caloocan City police met with an informant at a Chowking restaurant in Caloocan. The latter said that Fernando “Loloy” Habana was selling shabu on Salmon Street. A buy-bust operation took place. (Alam niyo na nangyari. Basta may police officer na poseur-buyer na bumili nung shabu). Habana was arrested. However, Habana presented a different version of the story. (Alam niyo na rin ito, ulit-ulit eh.) He said he was only on his way home when men in civilian clothes frisked him, stole P200 from him, and brought him to the police station where they allegedly tried to extort P20,000 from him. This version of the story was supported by the testimony of one Amelia Sevilla. TC found him guilty of both charges. CA affirmed. Now, Habana points out that, since the police officers involved failed to adhere strictly to the requirements of Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, the evidence of the seized shabu cannot be admitted against him. Issue: W/N the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the seized substance taken from Habana along the chain of custody. Held: Yes and Habana therefore must be acquitted. The chain of custody rule requires that testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized up to the time it is offered in evidence. To this end, the prosecution must ensure that the substance presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused. While this Court recognizes substantial, not perfect, adherence to the requirements of R.A. 9165, still, police officers must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. Here, however, they failed to meet these conditions. The police officers offered no explanation for their failure to observe the chain of custody rule.

The prosecution failed to show how the seized items changed hands, from when the police officers seized them from Habana to the time they were presented in court as evidence. PO1 Paras said that he turned over the sachets of shabu to the investigator on duty. But the prosecution did not adduce evidence on what the investigator on duty did with the seized articles, how these got to the laboratory technician, and how they were kept before being adduced in evidence at the trial. Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who would then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. Since it is unavoidable that possession of the substance changes hand a number of times, it is imperative for the officer who seized the substance from the suspect to place his marking on its plastic container and seal the same, preferably with adhesive tape that cannot be removed without leaving a tear on the plastic container. At the trial, the officer can then identify the seized substance and the procedure he observed to preserve its integrity until it reaches the crime laboratory. If the substance is not in a plastic container, the officer should put it in one and seal the same. In this way the substance would assuredly reach the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused. Further, after the laboratory technician tests and verifies the nature of the substance in the container, he should put his own mark on the plastic container and seal it again with a new seal since the police officer’s seal has been broken. At the trial, the technician can then describe the sealed condition of the plastic container when it was handed to him and testify on the procedure he took afterwards to preserve its integrity. If the sealing of the seized substance has not been made, the prosecution would have to present every police officer, messenger, laboratory technician, and storage personnel, the entire chain of custody, no matter how briefly one’s possession has been. Each one has to testify that the substance, although unsealed, has not been tampered with or substituted while in his care.

e.

People v Santiago

Facts: Roselle “Tisay” Santiago was charged of violating Secs. 5 (sale) and 15 (use) of RA 9165. The police said that they received information regarding the selling of shabu by Santiago at her house in Brgy. Rizal, Makati City. After a test-buy, the police (PO1 Esguerra) proceeded with the buy-bust operation. In her defense, Santiago said that the case was a product of a mistaken identity, as she was not known as Tisay in the area but Roselle. She narrated how she was forcibly taken from her house and into custody. RTC said she was guilty of the two charges. CA affirmed.

Issue: W/N CA erred in affirming the RTCs finding that the prosecution evidence established her guilt of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt. Held: Yes and therefore Santiago should be acquitted (for her violation of Section 5; for her Section 15 violation, she has already undergone rehab). Although the prosecution established through Esguerra the acts constituting the crime charged in the drug-pushing case (Section 5), it failed to provide proper identity of the allegedly prohibited substance that the police seized from Roselle. Esguerra testified that he seized a heat-sealed sachet of white substance from Roselle and marked the sachet with RPS right in her presence. He claimed that he then immediately submitted the specimen to the police crime laboratory for examination. But the request for laboratory exam reveals that it was not Esguerra who delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory. It appears that Esguerra gave it to a certain SPO3 Puno who in turn forwarded it to a certain PO2 Santos. No testimony covers the movement of the specimen among these other persons. Consequently, the prosecution was unable to establish the chain of custody of the seized item and its preservation from possible tampering. Since the seized substance was heat-sealed in plastic sachet and properly marked by the officer who seized the same, it would have also been sufficient, despite intervening changes in its custody and possession, if the prosecution had presented the forensic chemist to attest to the fact a) that the sachet of substance was handed to him for examination in the same condition that Esguerra last held it: still heat-sealed, marked, and not tampered with; b) that he (the chemist) opened the sachet and examined its content; c) that he afterwards resealed the sachet and what is left of its content and placed his own marking on the cover; and d) that the specimen remained in the same condition when it is being presented in court. In this way, the court would have been assured of the integrity of the specimen as presented before it. If the finding of the chemist is challenged, there may be opportunity for the court to require a retest so long as sufficient remnants of the same are left. What is more, the prosecution failed to account for the whereabouts of the seized specimen after the crime laboratory conducted its tests. This omission is fatal since the chain of custody should be established from the time the seized drugs were confiscated and eventually marked until the same is presented during trial.

f.

People v Watamama

Facts: On Sept. 25, 2005, an informant reported to QC police that Alex Watamama (watta name) was selling drugs in Brgy. Payatas. On the same day, the buy-bust operation transpired with PO1 Vargas as the poseurbuyer buying P200 worth of shabu. Watamama was arrested. Expectedly, Watamama said that this did not happen and the police barged in his house and told the appellant that if he wanted to be released, he must reveal the identity of a big-time shabu supplier. RTC convicted Watamama of illegal sale of shabu. CA affirmed and rejected appllant’s contention that appellant 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 his presence, or the presence of his representative or counsel, or a representative from the media and the DOJ, or any elected official. Issue: W/N the chain of custody was established by the prosecution. Held: No and therefore Watamama should be acquitted. In all prosecutions for the violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the existence of the prohibited drug has to be proved. The chain of custody rule requires that testimony be presented about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized up to the time it is offered in evidence. To this end, the prosecution must ensure that the substance presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused. While substantial, not perfect, adherence to the requirements of RA 9165 is okay, police officers must still show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. Here, however, they failed to meet these conditions. The prosecution failed to show how the seized evidence changed hands from the time PO1 Vargas turned it over to the investigator up to the time they were presented in court as evidence. The prosecution did not adduce evidence on how the evidence was handled or stored before its presentation at the trial. It is not enough to rely merely on the testimony of PO1 Vargas who stated that she turned the seized item over to the investigator who then prepared the letter of request for examination. There was no evidence on how PO2 Ortiz came into possession of the shabu and how he delivered the seized item for examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory. Neither was there any evidence how it was secured from tampering. Instructive is the case of People v. Kamad, where the Court enumerated the different links that the prosecution must endeavor to establish with respect to the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turn over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;

(3) the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turn over and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. We are aware that there is no rule which requires the prosecution to present as witness in a drugs case every person who had something to do with the arrest of the accused and the seizure of prohibited drugs from him. The discretion on which witness to present in every case belongs to the prosecutor. Nonetheless, as a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. In context, this would ideally include testimony about every link in the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received, and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. In this case, the overreliance on POl Vargas' testimony and the failure to present the investigator and P02 Ortiz are fatal to the prosecution's case.

MQT