PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JORDAN RAMOS PATRICIO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BRUSELAS, JR. J.:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Jordan Ramos Patricio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged of illegal possession of shabu weighing 0.0165 gram as punishable under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is therefore sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
The subject shabu is confiscated, the same to be disposed as the law prescribes.
SO ORDERED.”[2]
After Patricio’s apprehension on 04 July 2011, he was taken to the Office of the City Prosecutor of Laoag for an inquest proceedings for an alleged illegal possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as “shabu”. Upon finding probable cause, the City Prosecutor charged Patricio in an Information dated 05 July 2011 for violation of Section 11, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165[3], as follows:
“That on or about 4 July 2011, in the City of Laoag and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as “shabu” a dangerous drug contained in one (1) small plastic sachet weighing 0.0165 grams without any license or authority, in violation of the aforecited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.”[4]
With the assistance of a counsel de oficio, Patricio pleaded not guilty to the offense with which he was charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued and the arresting officers PO2 Melecio Antonio (PO2 Antonio) and SPO4 Rovimanuel Balolong (SPO4 Balolong) took the witness stand. The written, proffered testimonies of Police Senior Inspector Roanalaine Baligod of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, SPO2 Nilo Domingo of the same office and SPO4 Loreto Ancheta, the evidence custodian of Laoag City Police Station, were admitted by the defense subject to cross-examination. The plaintiff-appellee’s version of facts are as follows:
On 04 July 2011, SPO4 Balolong received a text message from Liezl Agbayani (Agbayani) who informed him about a possible meet-up with the person whom she believed was the one who unlawfully took her cellphone on 01 July 2011. Agbayani was able to convince that person to return her SIM card in exchange of P500.00. They agreed to meet at the Laoag City Plaza (Aurora Park) that afternoon. Meanwhile, SPO4 Balolong briefed the police officers on duty at the Laoag City Police Station for the entrapment of the suspect. He assigned PO2 Antonio to post at the Heroes Hall located at the east side of the Laoag City Plaza and police officers Sugayen and Pingzon were instructed to position themselves at the western part of the Laoag City Plaza. Agbayani, who was not able to attend the briefing, was informed by SPO4 Balolong to scratch her head as the signal for them to respond. After the briefing, the policemen positioned themselves at their designated areas wearing civilian clothes. SPO4 Balolong went to the eastern part at the second floor of the Marcos Hall of Justice where he could view the Laoag City Plaza. Since he could not see Agbayani at his position, he instructed her to move further north.
After a while, PO2 Antonio noticed a man who was crossing a pedestrian lane going to the Laoag City Plaza. He suspected that he was the person subject of their operation. The suspect approached Agbayani and talked to her. Thereafter, SPO4 Balolong saw Agbayani scratching her head; he alerted PO2 Antonio and told him, “Isu dayta” (He is the one). The police officers then rushed to the where Agbayani and the suspect were located. PO1 Sugayen arrived first and apprehended the suspect. He informed him that he was being arrested for the crime of theft. At that moment, PO2 Antonio also arrived. PO1 Sugayen took a cellphone from the suspect while PO2 Antonio body searched him for any contraband. He had confiscated, among other things, a Fortune cigarette pack which he noticed had an object wrapped in a white paper and inserted inside its outer plastic cover. It had a marking “sister” which he found to be a plastic sachet of suspected shabu. The police officers then brought the suspect to the police station.
At the police station the police officers recorded the arrest in the police blotter and marked the confiscated items. The suspect was identified as Patricio. PO2 Antonio, in the presence of Patricio, had written his signature on the plastic sachet of suspected shabu. After the marking of all the items, which included a small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a suspected shabu, Fortune cigarette pack, comb, baby powder, beauty cream, paper wrapper, Motorola phone, one earring and P35.00 cash, PO2 Antonio turned them over to the evidence custodian, SPO4 Ancheta. The latter, in the presence of Patricio, likewise marked the items, including the plastic sachet of suspected shabu. He wrote the letters “LCPS”, the initials of Patricio and his signature. SPO4 Ancheta then prepared an inventory entitled “Inventory of Items Taken From Jordan Patricio”.[5] A police officer took photographs of Patricio and the confiscated items.[6] Thereafter, a letter request for laboratory examination was prepared by SPO4 Ancheta. The plastic sachet of suspected shabu was delivered to the Ilocos Norte Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for examination.
In the evening, SPO2 Domingo received the letter request and specimen from SPO4 Ancheta.[7] He acknowledged the letter request and placed his initials (“ND”). SPO2 Domingo submitted the item to the forensic chemist, Police Senior Inspector Baligod for the requested analysis. The contents of the plastic sachet were found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. She marked the specimen with serial number D-028-2011, her initials RBB, the letter “A” and her signature. The findings were reduced into writing and the Initial Laboratory Report[8] and confirmatory Chemistry Report D-028-2011[9] were issued.
The corresponding Joint Affidavit[10] was executed by SPO4 Balolong, PO1 Sugayen and PO2 Antonio regarding the arrest of Patricio.
After the plaintiff-appellee rested its case, the trial court directed the accused-appellant to present his evidence. For his defense, Patricio adduced his own testimony and his version of the facts are as follows:
In the evening of 30 June 2011, he was at his house in San Nicolas and slept there. It was impossible for him to be outside his house and take the cellphone of Agbayani at 2:00 o’clock in the morning the next day because he only woke up at 7:30 o’clock in that morning. Because of lack of evidence, the case against him for theft was dismissed. He never communicated with Agbayani regarding her stolen cellphone nor demanded from her an amount of P500.00 in exchange of a SIM card.
On 04 July 2011, at around 11:30 o’clock in the morning, he was at the Laoag City Plaza (Aurora Park) where he would usually go and stay when he did not have any work as a construction worker. At 3:00 o’clock in the afternoon, he was approached by four (4) police officers who arrested him. He was told to raise his hands as they poked their guns at his side. They frisked him and took his Fortune cigarette pack which contained only cigarettes. They also took from him a powder, his comb and his cellphone which he bought from Robinson’s mall.
At the police station, somebody slapped his head and SPO4 Balolong told him that they had confiscated shabu from him. He just answered, “I do not know anything about that, sir”. He had seen the plastic sachet containing powder for the first time at the office of SPO4 Balolong. Thereafter, he was brought to a place which he thought was a hospital and there he was asked to urinate in a bottle. The urine sample was subjected to a drug test which showed a negative result under Chemistry Report No. CDT-004-2011.[11] Meanwhile, the case for theft filed against him had been dismissed via the Order[12] of 24 November 2011 by the MTCC, Branch 2 of Laoag City.
On 08 March 2013, the trial court rendered a decision finding Patricio guilty of illegal possession of shabu. In giving credence to the evidence of the prosecution, the trial court ratiocinated as follows:
“In this case, the arrest of the accused falls, as an exception to the constitutional proscription against warrantless arrests and seizures, under the second instance covered by paragraph (b) cited above which requires before a warrantless arrest can be effected that an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. Consider that the theft case was just committed on July 1, 2011 and the victim of the theft case herself helped and even actually participated in the entrapment for the arrest of the culprit. The policemen thus had personal knowledge of the facts that made them to reasonably believe that the accused was the culprit in the theft case, paving the way for an entrapment for his arrest.
xxx xxx xxx
In any case, the accused had effectively waived any question as to his warrantless arrest. A warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect and any objection to it is waived when the person arrested submits to arraignment without any objection, as in this case. Otherwise put, any objection to the procedure followed in the matter of the acquisition by a court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be opportunely raised before he enters his plea, otherwise, the objection is deemed waived.
xxx xxx xxx
In this case where essentially the accused interposed the defense of denial, all the elements have been proven by the State. The prosecution has established without doubt that upon his valid arrest, the accused was searched and some things were confiscated from his possession including a Fortune cigarette pack that visibly contained in its transparent plastic cover a thing wrapped in paper which, when scrutinized by the arresting policemen, was a small plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. In this respect, the denial of the accused that there was no plastic sachet of shabu placed inside the plastic cover of the Fortune cigarette pack is simply incredulous and not persuasive.
xxx xxx xxx
In this case, the chain established by the prosecution is perfect. To repeat as summarized in the prosecution case above, the first link was from the accused to PO2 Antonio who, upon taking the shabu from the possession of the accused, was in custody thereof until, as the second link, he submitted them to the police evidence custodian, SPO4 Ancheta. The third link was from SPO4 Ancheta when he submitted the shabu at the crime lab to SPO2 Domingo. And finally, the fourth link, from SPO2 Domingo upon his turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist, Police Inspector Baligod who upon examination, found the specimen to be shabu. Further than that, the prosecution also established that the forensic chemist later submitted the specimen to court. Thus, with this unbroken chain in the custody of the illicit drug, the Court has no doubt that the shabu submitted in evidence is the same as that found in the possession, control and custody of accused Jordan Patricio.”[13]
In his appeal, Patricio assigned the following errors allegedly committed by the trial court, to wit:
“I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE WAS A VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST TO JUSTIFY THE EVENTUAL SEARCH AGAINST THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION’S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
III.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS’ NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AND ITS IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS.”
Patricio contends that, the plaintiff-appellee failed to establish that there was sufficient probable cause for the arresting officers to believe that he was committing a crime at the time of his arrest. He therefore claimed that his arrest was invalid and the subsequent search on him was consequently illegal.
The contention is devoid of merit.
Firstly, the claim of Patricio that his warrantless arrest was illegal lacks merit. The High Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. It has also ruled that an accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information against him before his arraignment. And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of the accused may be deemed cured when he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court.[14]
Here, we note that nowhere in the records did we find any objection by Patricio to the irregularity of his arrest prior to his arraignment. He went into arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, he actively participated in the trial. He is, therefore, deemed to have waived such alleged defect by submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court by pleading during his arraignment; by actively participating in the trial and by not raising the objection before the arraignment.
As held in People vs. Santos,[15] it is much too late in the day to complain about the warrantless arrest after a valid information has been filed, the accused arraigned, trial commenced and completed, and a judgment of conviction rendered against him.[16] Besides, it has been pronounced in a number of cases that the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient cause for setting aside a valid judgment rendered upon a sufficient complaint after a trial free from error; such arrest does not negate the validity of the conviction of the accused.[17]
Furthermore, it must be remembered that Patricio was a subject of an entrapment operation, a circumstance where warrantless arrest is justified[18] under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which provides that:
“SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
xxx
(b) When an offense has in fact been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and,”
Secondly, the issue of whether or not there was indeed an entrapment operation pertains to one of credibility. In a prosecution for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law, the case becomes a contest of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies. When it comes to credibility, the trial court’s assessment deserves great weight, and is even conclusive and binding, if not tainted with arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and influence.[19] After examining the records on hand, we found no reason to overrule the findings of the trial court.
The warrantless arrest and the incidental search on the person of Patricio were both valid. Patricio was frisked by the police officers as a standard procedure to look for any concealed contraband or weapon that may endanger the lives of the police officers who arrested him. Consequently, the plastic sachet of shabu which weighed 0.0165 grams is admissible in evidence against Patricio.
In illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must show the chain of custody over the dangerous drug in order to establish the corpus delicti, which is the possession of the dangerous drug itself. Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti – the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug.[20] Thus, every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established.
To be able to identify the dangerous drug and effectively prove the corpus delicti, Section 21 of RA No. 9165 and Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA No. 9165 define the procedures to be followed by the apprehending officers in the seizure and custody of the dangerous drugs.
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 relevantly provides:
“Section 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;”
Similarly, Section 21(a), IRR of Republic Act No. 9165 pertinently states:
“(a) The apprehending office/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, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; 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;”
“Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs, controlled chemicals, plant sources of dangerous drugs or paraphernalia at each stage, from the time of seizure or confiscation to receipt by the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfers of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.[21]
The chain of custody rule comes into play as a mode of authenticating the seized illegal drug as evidence. It includes testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the object seized was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched it 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. The same witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. It is from the testimony of every witness who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused.[22]
What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized item as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. In this case, we find the integrity of the sachet of shabu seized from Patricio to have been preserved and that the chain of custody of the subject illegal drug was shown to have been continuous and unbroken. It can be gleaned from the evidence presented by the prosecution that PO2 Antonio seized from Patricio a pack of cigarette wherein a plastic sachet containing a substance of suspected shabu was wrapped in a paper and inserted in its outer plastic cover. He also testified that the paper had a marking “sister” on it. They brought the confiscated sachet of suspected shabu, together with the other items, to the police station where they were assigned. At the said station, PO2 Antonio wrote his signature on the plastic sachet of suspected shabu and turned it over, together with the other marked items, to the evidence custodian of Laoag City Police Station. SPO4 Ancheta received the said items and as the evidence custodian, placed the acronym “LCPS”, Patricio’s initials and his own signature. His written proffered testimony was admitted by the defense. SPO4 Ancheta then prepared the inventory of the items and letter-request for the examination of the specimen of suspected shabu. The very same item was received and examined by SPO2 Domingo of the Ilocos Norte Provincial Crime Laboratory. He also marked his initials “ND” on the specimen. He then submitted it to the forensic chemist for examination. Police Senior Inspector Baligod confirmed that the said specimen was positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. She resealed the plastic sachet and put markings on the tape including her initials “RBB”. She placed the specimen, together with the laboratory reports and the letter-request for examination, inside her evidence locker and later retrieved the same for submission to the court.
From the foregoing, it can be reasonably concluded that the chain of custody of the seized item was unbroken and its evidentiary value was well preserved by the prosecution. We note that PO2 Antonio and SPO4 Balolong, the arresting officers herein, testified in court about the circumstances of the arrest and the first stage of the custody including the marking at the police station in the presence of Patricio. SPO4 Ancheta, the evidence custodian, also testified as to the turnover and the corresponding marking and took a picture of the seized items. SPO2 Domingo also compared the markings on the specimen and the letter-request from SPO4 Ancheta. He testified that after he found the markings and the letter-request to be proper and to be the same item, he placed a marking thereon. He then documented the evidence that he received in the case logbook and submitted the same to Police Senior Inspector Baligod.
In the prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be duly established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object that 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.[23]
Against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, Patricio’s plain denial of the offense charged, unsubstantiated by any credible and convincing evidence, must simply fail. Moreover, there is no showing that the prosecution witnesses were impelled by ill-motives to testify falsely against him.
Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165 provides that, the penalty for the possession of dangerous drugs, like shabu, of less than five (5) grams, shall be imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00). Hence, the court a quo correctly imposed the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and a fine of P300,000.00 against accused-appellant Jordan Patricio.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the appeal. The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Reyes, Jr., and Gaerlan, JJ., concur.
[1] Written by Presiding Judge Philip G. Salvador, RTC, Branch 13, Laoag City, Record, p. 83.
[2] Record, p. 92.
[3] Entitled as “An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, repealing Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, providing funds therefor, and for other purposes.”
[4] Record, p. 1.
[5] Exhibit “I”, Record, p. 9.
[6] Exhibit “K”, Record, pp. 43-45.
[7] Exhibit “E”, Record, p. 18.
[8] Exhibit “F”, Record, p. 8.
[9] Exhibit “G”, Record, p. 19.
[10] Exhibit “A”, Record, p. 3.
[11] Exhibit “2”, Record, p. 75.
[12] Exhibit “1”, Record, p. 74.
[13] Record, pp. 88-91.
[14] People vs. Alunday, GR No. 181546, 03 September 2008, 564 SCRA 135.
[15] GR No. 176735, 26 June 2008, 555 SCRA 578.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] People vs. Bohol, GR No. 171729, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 232.
[19] People vs. Naquita, G.R. No. 180511, 28 July 2008, 560 SCRA 430.
[20] People vs. Beran, GR No. 203028, January 15, 2014.
[21] Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A. No. 9165.
[22] Lopez vs. People, GR No. 188653, 29 January 2014; People vs. Capuno, GR No. 185715, 19 January 2011, 640 SCRA 233.
[23] Valencia vs. People, GR No. 198804, 22 January 2014; People vs. Secreto, GR No. 198115, 27 February 2013, 692 SCRA 298; People vs. Enriquez, GR No. 197550, 25 September 2013, 706 SCRA 337; People vs. Ng Yik Bun, GR No. 180452, 10 January 2011, 639 SCRA 88.