THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JEROME ARCIBAL Y ALBITOS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
GAERLAN, S.H., J.:
of Branch 13 of the Regional Trial Court of Lipa City for Criminal Case
No. 0208-2008, wherein the accused-appellant was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The accusatory portion of the Information[2] charging Jerome Arcibal y Albitos reads:
“That on or about the 15th day of March, 2008 at
about 4:45 o’clock in the afternoon at Villa Rosa Subdivision, Brgy.
Antipolo del Norte, Lipa City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused without authority of
law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in
his custody, control and possession 0.04 gram of methamphetamine
hydrochloride locally known as shabu, a dangerous drug.Contrary to law.”
During the arraignment on 22 September 2008, accused-appellant, assisted by counsel de parte, entered a plea of not guilty to the charge.[3] On 11 November 2008, the pre-trial was conducted and also terminated.[4] Thereafter, trial begun on 12 January 2009.[5] The prosecution offered the testimonies of PO3 Andrew Llanes[6]; SPO1 Manolo Leyesa[7]; and PO1 Danzon Librea[8]. In its Formal Offer of Evidence[9], the prosecution offered and submitted the following: 1) Sinumpaang Salaysay of SPO1 Manolo Leyesa[10]; 2) Photocopy of the Order of Arrest[11]; 3) Request for Laboratory Examination[12]; 4) Chemistry Report No. BD-040-08[13]; 5) Inventory of Confiscated/Seized Items; 6) Shabu contained
in a small rectangular transparent plastic sachet with marking AML “P”
JAA; and 7) Certified xerox copy of Police Blotter[14].
On the other hand, the defense presented its lone witness
herein accused-appellant Jerome Arcibal y Albitos. No other evidence of
any kind was offered by the defense.
THE FACTS
The Version of the Prosecution[15]
Around 4:45 in the afternoon of 15 March 2008, PO3 Andrew
Llanes (PO3 Llanes), together with Police Inspector Joel Laraya (P/Insp.
Laraya), SPO1 Manolo Leyesa (SPO1 Leyesa) and SPO1 Gerry Mendoza (SPO1
Mendoza), was conducting a routine patrol in Villarosa Subdivision, Lipa
City when he saw herein accused-appellant with his live-in partner,
Carissa Myka Viola walking at the corner of the same subdivision. Upon
seeing herein accused-appellant, PO3 Llanes’ attention was caught
because he was previously informed by SPO2 Alex Yema (SPO2 Yema) that
accused-appellant has a pending warrant of arrest for the crime of
theft. PO3 Llanes knew accused-appellant because the latter’s mother is a
resident of Villarosa Subdivision and he had previously seen
accused-appellant in the subdivision.
After recognizing
accused-appellant, PO3 Llanes immediately alighted from a patrol car and
approached him. P/Insp. Laraya and SPO1 Leyesa followed him. PO3 Llanes
arrested accused-appellant and informed him of his constitutional
rights. As part of the standard operating procedure for police officers,
he also handcuffed and searched accused-appellant. As a result, PO3
Llanes recovered from accused-appellant’s right pocket a small
heat-sealed rectangular transparent plastic believed to contain “shabu”.
The police officers brought accused-appellant to the police
station on board the patrol vehicle and entered the incident in the
blotter. Thereafter, the police officers proceeded to the Anti-Illegal
Drugs Special Operations Task Force (AIDSOTF) Office for the preparation
of the request for laboratory examination of the seized item and other
necessary documents for the filing of the case. PO3 Llanes also marked
the seized item with AML “P” JAA.
Thereafter, PO1 Danzon Librea
delivered the seized plastic sachet to the Batangas Provincial Crime
Laboratory for forensic examination which was received by SPO2 Lito
Vargas. The specimen was turned over to Jupri Delantar for examination.
The qualitative examination conducted on the specimen showed that the
seized item contains methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as “shabu”.
The Version of the Defense[16]
On 15 March 2008 at around 4:00 o’clock in the afternoon,
accused-appellant Jerome Arcibal was walking inside Villarosa
Subdivision coming from a barbeque stand at the corner of Villarosa
Street with his girlfriend Carissa Myka Viola. They were on their way
home when a police patrol arrived and stopped in front of them.
Suddenly, PO3 Llanes alighted from the patrol car, grabbed his arm and
told him that he is being arrested.
Accused-appellant asked PO3
Llanes what his offense was and the latter told him that he has a
warrant for his arrest. Accused-appellant asked that the warrant be
shown to him, but instead, he was told to just come with them to the
precinct. Thereafter, he was handcuffed and was forced to ride in the
patrol car. He was seated at the rear part of the Revo together with PO3
Llanes. There were four (4) other police officers inside the patrol
car. While they were traveling towards the headquarters, he was boxed by
PO3 Llanes in his neck and was told to keep quiet as he was asking for
what offense he was arrested. PO3 Llanes also pulled down his shorts and
brief and tried to look for something. He was also bodily searched and
his handkerchief and wallet were taken. He told them that he was not
hiding anything.
Upon arrival at the headquarters, the police
officers brought him to the office of SPO2 Yema who asked him if he
knows Marco Paz, Gary Latag and a certain Omar. Accused-appellant told
them that he knew these people.
Thereafter, he saw SPO2 Pera
fixing a plastic sachet and typing something in the computer. After
typing, he was asked to sign an inventory which he refused because the
contents thereof are not true. Pera insisted for him to sign, but he
still refused. He was asked if he has a counsel and he said that his
counsel was Atty. Octavio Macatangay. Afterwhich, he was incarcerated.
On his first night in jail at around 11:00 o’clock in the evening, PO3
Llanes made him undergo unnecessary punishment. The next day, PO3
Llanes ordered the jail “mayor” to order the accused to do push-ups
because he wanted to see the latter suffer and perspire. While he was
doing push-ups, PO3 Llanes was watching him in front of the jail. He
stayed there for at least five (5) minutes watching him do push-ups.
His family visited him while he was in jail. His sister engaged the
services of Atty. Balderama who stood as his counsel. He told Atty.
Balderama what was being done to him by PO3 Llanes. Thus, it was
blottered in the same police precinct.
Prior to his arrest, the
accused-appellant knows PO3 Llanes because he is his neighbor. Their
house is just four (4) houses away from the PO3 Llanes’ house and he
sees him almost everyday.
In addition, he testified that they
filed a case against PO3 Llanes before the Office of the Ombudsman for
planting of evidence and for the unnecessary punishment he suffered in
the hands of the police officer.
Likewise, accused-appellant
denied the accusations against him. He alleged that the illegal drug was
merely planted by PO3 Llanes. He is not aware of any reason why PO3
Llanes is very mad at him.
Thereafter, the assailed 16 February 2011 Judgment was rendered by the court a quo convicting herein accused-appellant of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of which reads:
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the
Court finds the accused Jerome Arcibal y Albitos GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act
No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 and applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, hereby sentences him
to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and One (1)
day as minimum to Fourteen (14) years and One (1) day as maximum and to
pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php 300,000.00) without
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.The period which the accused has undergone
preventive imprisonment during the pendency of this case shall be
credited to him provided he agreed in writing to abide by and comply
strictly with the rules and regulations imposed upon committed
prisoners.SO ORDERED.”
Aggrieved by the decision of the court a quo, the
accused-appellant is now before this Court interposing this appeal and
assigning the following errors[17]:
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT’S TESTIMONY.
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE IMPROBABLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESS.
III.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE
ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 OF
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AND ITS IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS.IV.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY DESPITE THE BROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED SHABU.
THIS COURT’S RULING
Credibility of witnesses
The well-known rule, though subject to certain recognized
exceptions, is that findings of facts and assessment of credibility of
witnesses are matters best left to the trial court.[18]
The investigating judge is in a better position to pass judgment on the
credibility of witnesses, having personally heard them when they
testified and observed their deportment and manner of testifying.[19]
Hence, “[u]nless certain facts of substance and value were overlooked
which, if considered, might affect the result of the case, the trial
court’s assessment must be respected.”[20]
In the present case, the trial court believed the prosecution witnesses. This Court concurs with the court a quo
particularly in its finding that there is nothing on the record, after a
review thereof, which indicates that the prosecution witnesses,
particularly the police officers who arrested the accused-appellant
harbored ill-motives against the latter. And it bears stressing at this
juncture that in the absence of proof to the contrary, law enforcers are
presumed to have regularly performed their duty.
Moreover, the
defense averred that the alleged acts of PO3 Llanes manifest his desire
to make accused-appellant suffer no matter what it takes, even to the
point of inventing criminal offenses against the latter.[21]
This claim, however, is negated by accused-appellant’s own statement
that he is not aware of any reason why PO3 Llanes made him suffer
unnecessary punishment.[22]
Non-compliance Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165
and its implementing rules and regulations.
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of
Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources
of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA
shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources
of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as
well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so
confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:(1) 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;
x x x x x x x x x
Clearly, Section 21 of RA
9165 provides for the procedure in handling of illegal drugs during and
after the arrest of accused. However, this Court cannot consider in
favor of the accused-appellant the fact that there was no representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and any elected
public official who should have signed the copies of the inventory.[23]
It cannot also be questioned why no photographs were taken immediately
after the apprehension of the accused-appellant and the confiscation of
the sachet of shabu.[24]
It bears emphasis at this point that the accused-appellant was not
entrapped when he was arrested. Noteworthy is the fact that the
apprehending team was only patrolling the area when they saw herein
accused-appellant who has been at large for the crime of theft. He was,
at the outset, apprehended not because of the illegal drugs which was
found in his pocket when the apprehending team bodily searched him but
because of the warrant of arrest against him for the crime of theft.
Moreover, the apprehending team will definitely not coordinate with
the DOJ, media, or any elected public official or bring a camera for
that matter because their intention was only to patrol the area and not
to entrap or arrest accused-appellant. Thus, compliance to these
provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No 9165 is not expected from the
apprehending team.
The Supreme Court has consistently enunciated
that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with Section 21
is not fatal as long as there is justifiable ground therefor, and as
long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
confiscated/seized items, are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team.[25] Its
non-compliance will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance
is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the
guilt or innocence of the accused.
Chain of Custody
In the case of People vs. Zakaria[26]
the Supreme Court ruled that – to discharge its overall duty of proving
the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the State bears the
burden of proving the corpus delicti, or the body of the crime. The
Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable requirement of
proving the corpus delicti either when the dangerous drugs are
missing, or when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of
the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts on the authenticity of the
evidence ultimately presented in court. That proof of the corpus delicti depends on a gapless showing of the chain of custody. As the Court has pointed out in People v. Belocura:
xxx. The chain-of-custody requirement applied xxx by virtue of
the universal need to competently and sufficiently establish the corpus delicti. It is basic under the Rules of Court,
indeed, that evidence, to be relevant, must throw light upon, or have a
logical relation to, the facts in issue to be established by one party
or disproved by the other. The test of relevancy is whether an item of
evidence will have any value, as determined by logic and experience, in
proving the proposition for which it is offered, or whether it would
reasonably and actually tend to prove or disprove any matter of fact in
issue, or corroborate other relevant evidence. The test is satisfied if
there is some logical connection either directly or by inference between
the fact offered and the fact to be proved.
Accordingly, the court a quo correctly ruled that:
x x x x x x x x x
It is an established fact that herein accused was lawfully
arrested by the members of the PNP Lipa City, by virtue of a Warrant of
Arrest (Exhibit “B”) dated June 25, 2005, issued by Honorable Judge
Jaime M. Borja of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Lipa City,
against the accused for the crime of Theft. Incident to such lawful
arrest, accused was found to be in possession of a small plastic sachet
containing 0.04 grams of shabu, as confirmed by Chemistry Report No. BD-040-08 (Exhibit “D”). Said specimen shabu
(Exhibit “F”) was presented in Court and identified by PO3 Andrew
Llanes and SPO1 Manolo Leyesa to be the same illegal drugs recovered
from herein accused as a result of a lawful search. Incidentally, it
cannot be denied that the search on the body of the accused after he was
lawfully arrested is legal and in accordance with the law, as the same
is recognized under Rule 126, Section 13 of the Revised Rules on
Criminal Procedure.
Further, the prosecution has established by sufficient evidence that the sachet of shabu found in the pocket of the accused-appellant was confiscated by PO3 Llanes[27] which he marked with AML “P” for possession and JAA in the office of the AIDSOTF, Police Headquarters.[28] Thereafter, the said sachet was brought by prosecution witness PO1 Danson Librea to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory.[29] While SPO2 Vargas received the said specimen when it was delivered by PO1 Librea.[30] While the testimony of Jupri Caballegan Delantar[31]
who conducted the forensic examination on the specimen was dispensed
with considering that the defense admitted the due execution and
genuineness of the Chemistry Report he wrote.[32]
Verily, the prosecution has shown that there has been no gap in the
chain of custody of the illegal drugs from the time it was confiscated
until the same was presented in court and identified by the apprehending
police officers during the trial of the case.
Elements of the Violation Charged
For the successful prosecution of an illegal drug case
punished by Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following
elements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt; (1) the accused
is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a
prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by
law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.[33]
After a careful examination of the records of this case, this Court concurs with the court a quo
and commend its ruling that all the aforesaid elements of the violation
charged were proven by the prosecution. The records of this case
supports the finding of the court a quo when it stated in the challenged decision that –
x x x Records of the case are bereft of any evidence to show
that herein accused had the legal authority to possess the small plastic
sachet of shabu recovered from him. Finally and as to the last
element of the crime, it has been jurisprudentially settled that
possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient
to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of
such possession (People v. Noque, G.R. No. 175319, January 15, 2010,
citing People v. Tee, 443 Phil. 521, 551 (2003)). The burden of evidence
is thus shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi
(People v. Pendatun, 478 Phil. 201, 212 (2004)), but in this case, the
accused did not even offer any evidence to show his absence of knowledge
or animus possidendi of the shabu recovered from him.
x x x x x x x x x
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision is hereby AFFIRMED.
Bruselas, Jr.,[*] (Acting Chairperson) and Macalino,[**] JJ., concur.
[*] Acting Chairperson, per Office Order No. 156-14-AGT, dated April 23, 2014
[**] Acting Senior Member, per Office Order No. 156-14-AGT, dated April 23, 2014
[1] Rollo, pp. 50-54.
[2] Records, p. 1.
[3] Records, p. 45.
[4] Records, pp. 66-69.
[5] Records, p. 80.
[6] TSN, January 12 and 27, 2009
[7] TSN, August 25 and September 29, 2009.
[8] TSN, November 17, 2009.
[9] Records, p. 158.
[10] Records, pp. 159-160.
[11] Records, p. 161.
[12] Records, p. 162.
[13] Records, p. 163.
[14] Records, p. 164.
[15] Rollo, pp. 72-73.
[16] Rollo, pp. 48-50.
[17] Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[18] People vs. Mamaruncas, G.R. No. 179497, January 25, 2012.
[19] Melecio vs. Tan, A.M. NO. MTJ-04-1566, August 22, 2005.
[20] People vs. Mamaruncas, G.R. No. 179497, January 25, 2012.
[21] Rollo, p. 53.
[22] Rollo, p. 50.
[23] Rollo, p. 57.
[24]
[25] People vs. Mateo, G.R. No. 179478, July 28, 2008.
[26] G.R. No. 181042, November 26, 2012.
[27] TSN, January 12, 2009, p. 10.
[28] TSN, January 27, 2009, p. 3.
[29] Records, p. 20; TSN, November 17, 2009.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Records, p. 19; TSN, September 29, 2009, p. 9.
[32] TSN, January 27, 2009, p. 5.
[33] People vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 198794, February 06, 2013