PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RANDY DE GUZMAN Y SALES @ MATA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

De Guzman versus People

The Case

This is De Guzman versus People, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Randy de Guzman, also known as Mata, for illegal possession of a dangerous drug. The accused was charged with keeping in his custody a single heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a very small quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly called shabu, without any authority of law. The case matters for two reasons a reviewee should hold onto: it shows how the Supreme Court treats the testimony of a single, credible arresting officer as sufficient to convict, and it shows how the Court applies the custody and handling requirements of the dangerous drugs law when strict compliance was not observed but the integrity of the seized item was preserved.

Procedural History

The accused was arraigned in the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, assisted by counsel, and entered a plea of not guilty. After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of shabu and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day as minimum to seventeen years and four months as maximum, with a fine of 300,000 pesos, without subsidiary imprisonment, and with costs. The accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning a single error: that the trial court gravely erred in convicting him despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal was resolved by the Supreme Court, which affirmed the conviction.

Facts

On the afternoon of March 5, 2009, along Zobel Roxas Street in San Andres Bukid, Manila, Police Officer 1 Julius Enderio and Police Officer 2 Daniel Miriam were on foot patrol and surveillance, not in uniform. From a distance of about five to eight meters, Enderio saw a female person hand a small, heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet to a male person later identified as the accused. When the officers approached, the woman noticed them and immediately ran away, so only the accused was accosted.

Enderio searched the accused and recovered from him one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. He marked the sachet with the initials of the accused, RDGS, at the place of arrest and in the presence of the accused. The specimen was turned over to the investigator, who prepared the request for laboratory examination, the booking sheet, the arrest report, and the inventory. The forensic chemist examined the specimen and it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

The defense told a different story. The accused claimed that late in the evening of March 5, 2009, he was at his brother's house having a drinking session, and that police officers who were arresting a woman entered the houses in their place; he was taken from the comfort room, handcuffed, and boarded into a minicab together with the woman. His brother Ramil testified for the defense, but on cross-examination admitted that they never filed any case against the arresting officers despite claiming the arrest was illegal. The trial court found the lone prosecution witness positive and credible, rejected the defenses of denial, alibi, and frame-up, and convicted the accused.

Issues

• Whether or not the testimony of a single prosecution witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction for illegal possession of a dangerous drug.
• Whether or not the warrantless arrest of the accused and the search that yielded the sachet of shabu were lawful, and the seized item admissible in evidence.
• Whether or not the prosecution established the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drug despite non-strict compliance with the required inventory and photograph procedure.
• Whether or not the penalty imposed by the trial court was within the range fixed by law.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of Republic Act Number 9165 provides:

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 Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

This is the custody and handling procedure the Court measured the police conduct against, and it is the provision around which the chain of custody issue turns.

Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act Number 9165 provides:

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 Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

This is the saving clause the Court relied on: non-compliance does not invalidate the seizure so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in part:

A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

This is the rule on arrest in flagrante delicto, meaning an arrest made while the offense is being committed in the officer's presence, which the Court applied to uphold the warrantless arrest and the ensuing search.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the conviction may rest on the testimony of a single witness. Credibility is best left to the trial court because of its unique opportunity to observe the witness on the stand, and the Court found no significant circumstance overlooked that would alter the outcome. It stressed that a conviction on the testimony of one witness is possible so long as that testimony is positive and credible, especially where the sole witness actually saw the commission of the crime and positively identified the accused. Enderio had observed the accused receive the sachet and place it in his pocket, marked it at the scene, and identified it in open court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the warrantless arrest was lawful because the accused was committing the offense in the presence of the arresting officers. The Court quoted the rule that a peace officer may arrest without a warrant when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. Consequently, the results of the ensuing search and seizure were admissible in evidence. The Court also noted that any objection to the arrest must be raised before the plea, otherwise it is deemed waived, and that the accused never moved to quash the information.

On the third issue, the Court acknowledged that there was no strict compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements, but held that this did not invalidate the seizure. It quoted the saving clause of the Implementing Rules and concluded that the prosecution proved, by documentary and testimonial evidence, that the shabu confiscated and marked at the crime scene was the same shabu identified and admitted in court. The Court traced the movement of the specimen from the marking at the scene, to the inventory, to the investigator, to the laboratory request, and to the chemist who completed the examination the same day.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the penalty was within the range allowed by law, since illegal possession under the provision carries imprisonment of twelve years and one day to twenty years and a fine of 300,000 pesos to 400,000 pesos. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the Court found the trial court's penalty proper, and held that no subsidiary imprisonment may be imposed because the principal penalty is higher than prision correccional, which means a correctional penalty.

Doctrine

A conviction for illegal possession of a dangerous drug may rest on the testimony of a single witness, provided it is positive and credible and the witness actually saw the commission of the crime and identified the accused. Mere possession of a regulated drug is prima facie evidence of knowledge or intent to possess, and the burden shifts to the accused to explain the absence of such knowledge. A warrantless arrest is lawful when the accused is caught in the act of committing the offense in the presence of the arresting officer, and the search incidental to that arrest yields admissible evidence. Non-compliance with the inventory and photograph requirements of Section 21 does not render the seizure void, so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved, as the Implementing Rules expressly provide.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court convicting Randy de Guzman of illegal possession of shabu, with costs against him.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: non-compliance with the inventory and photograph rule does not invalidate the seizure so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved. Examiners use this case to test the saving clause of Section 21, the sufficiency of a lone credible witness, and the validity of a warrantless arrest in flagrante delicto.