PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ELMER LIWANAG Y TUAZON ALIAS “KUTIL”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Liwanag

The Case

This is People versus Liwanag, a criminal appeal in which the People of the Philippines prosecuted Elmer Liwanag y Tuazon, known by the alias Kutil, for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The accused was charged in two separate criminal cases: illegal sale of shabu under Section 5, and illegal possession of shabu under Section 11. The case matters for the Bar candidate because it is a clean illustration of the chain of custody rule and of the corpus delicti requirement in drug prosecutions. It shows that even a valid warrantless arrest from a buy-bust operation cannot save a conviction where the prosecution fails to establish every link in the custody of the seized drug. It also reminds us that the evidence of the prosecution must stand on its own weight and cannot borrow strength from the weakness of the defense.

Procedural History

The accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Angeles City, Pampanga, in two criminal cases. At arraignment he pleaded not guilty, and after pre-trial the cases went to trial on the merits. On December 13, 2012, the trial court rendered its decision finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of both offenses. It sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos for illegal sale, and to imprisonment of twelve years and one day as minimum to fourteen years as maximum, plus a fine of 300,000 pesos, for illegal possession. Aggrieved, the accused appealed directly to the Supreme Court, assigning three errors: the illegality of his arrest and the inadmissibility of the seized sachets, the failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs, and the non-compliance of the police officers with Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165.

Facts

On August 23, 2004, the chief of police ordered a buy-bust operation based on reports from a civilian asset about a certain Kutil who was allegedly engaged in illegal drug trading. PO2 Victorino Chua was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given two 100-peso bills, which he marked in front of the other operatives. PO1 Allan Tongol, together with PO2 Chua, another officer, the civilian asset, and a media representative, proceeded to the place. The civilian asset pointed out the accused in front of his residence. PO2 Chua and the asset approached the accused while PO1 Tongol stayed in the vehicle, about 40 to 50 meters away. The back-up operatives saw an exchange, then saw PO2 Chua reverse his bullcap, the pre-arranged signal. They rushed to the scene, but the accused ran into his house and was chased and caught there. PO1 Tongol recovered the marked money and five disposable lighters inside the house, and four plastic sachets allegedly containing shabu from the pocket of the accused.

The prosecution originally intended to present two witnesses. However, the entire testimony of PO2 Chua, the poseur-buyer, was ordered stricken off the record because of his repeated failure to appear for cross-examination. The sole remaining prosecution witness was PO1 Tongol. The parties also stipulated on the testimony of the forensic chemist, but both admitted that she did not know from whom and from where the substance examined had been taken.

For the defense, the accused alone testified. He claimed that on that afternoon he was sleeping at his house when two police officers suddenly entered, looking for his uncle Rudy Liwanag, who did not reside there. They searched the house, found nothing, and brought him to a safe house at the Drug Enforcement Unit. He learned of the charges only at the inquest. On cross-examination he said the officers introduced themselves as police, and he admitted that he never filed any case against them for his alleged illegal arrest.

Issues

• Whether or not the accused waived his right to question the validity of his warrantless arrest by failing to object before arraignment, and whether the seized drug is admissible.
• Whether or not the prosecution established the identity and integrity of the prohibited drugs, that is, the corpus delicti.
• Whether or not the police officers substantially complied with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165 on the custody of the seized drugs.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:

Section 5. Arrest without a warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

This provision governs the validity of the warrantless arrest made in the buy-bust operation, which in turn determines the admissibility of the drug seized as a result of that arrest.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the accused is deemed to have voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the trial court and to have waived his right to question the validity of his arrest, because he never objected to any irregularity before his arraignment. Nevertheless, the Court examined the arrest because its validity bears on the admissibility of the seized drug. The arrest falls under Section 5(a) of Rule 113, since it was a product of a buy-bust operation where the accused was allegedly caught in the act of selling shabu. Thus the arrest was valid, and the confiscated drug, being the result of a search subsequent or simultaneous to that arrest, is admissible in court.

On the second and third issues, which the Court treated together, it found merit in the appeal. The Court stressed that in illegal drug cases the prosecution must sufficiently establish the chain of custody of the seized drug from the time of seizure up to its presentation in court, in order to prove the continued identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The Court quoted its own ruling in Lopez versus People:

In the prosecution of drug cases, it is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt. To successfully prosecute a case involving illegal drugs, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved.

The Court then identified four links that must be established in a buy-bust situation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. The Court held that a substantial gap in the chain of custody renders the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti dubious.

Applying these links, the Court found several gaps. First, PO1 Tongol never testified on the marking of the seized sachets and lighters after seizure, much less on who marked them and when, or whether the marking was done in the presence of the accused or his representative. The Court quoted Valencia versus People on the importance of marking:

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused.

Second, the prosecution failed to establish the turnover of the seized items from the apprehending officer or poseur-buyer to the investigating officer. It was PO2 Chua who first had custody of the sachet sold to him, yet PO1 Tongol claimed he kept all the seized items without explaining how they were transferred to him. Third, the prosecution failed to establish the turnover of the seized drugs to the forensic chemist, since neither the officer who signed the request for laboratory examination nor PO1 Tongol testified on how the drugs passed from the latter to the former. Fourth, the prosecution failed to establish the condition and continued integrity of the seized drugs while in the custody of the crime laboratory, because the stipulations did not include the fact that the specimens examined were the same ones seized from the accused. The Court also held that non-compliance with Section 21 is not necessarily fatal, but the prosecution must prove a justifiable ground for non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, and the State's agents themselves must justify the non-compliance.

Finally, the Court held that while the defense of the accused consisted mainly of denials, the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fail on its own weight and cannot draw strength from the weakness of the defense. The substantial gaps in the chain of custody created reasonable doubt.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. In every prosecution for illegal sale or illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself, must be established beyond doubt, and its identity and integrity must be shown to have been preserved. The prosecution must establish the chain of custody through the four links: seizure and marking by the apprehending officer, turnover to the investigating officer, turnover to the forensic chemist, and turnover to the court. The marking of the seized items immediately upon confiscation, in the presence of the apprehended violator, is indispensable to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. Non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165 is not necessarily fatal, but the prosecution must prove a justifiable ground for the non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved, and the apprehending officers themselves must justify the non-compliance. A substantial gap in the chain of custody renders the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti dubious. And the evidence of the prosecution must stand or fail on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense.

Disposition

The appeal was granted, the decision of the trial court was reversed and set aside, and the accused was acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and ordered immediately released unless detained for some other lawful cause.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a substantial gap in the chain of custody renders the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti dubious, and the prosecution's evidence must stand or fail on its own weight. Examiners like to use this case to test the four links of the chain of custody, the indispensability of marking, and the rule that non-compliance with Section 21 must be justified by the State's agents themselves.