PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. TEOH CHEE KEONG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
BUESER, J.:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused TEOH CHEE KEONG guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of Violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act 9165 in Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02461-CR and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and is hereby ordered to pay a fine of one million pesos (Php1,000,000.00), with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The Officer-in-Charge is hereby directed to transmit the sample of the Methamphetamine Hydrochloride taken from the seven kilograms confiscated from the accused to the PDEA for its proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.”
THE ANTECEDENT FACTS
As culled from the records of this case, the facts are as follows:
Appellant is a Malaysian national, who was charged with Violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act 9165 (“R.A. No. 9165”) for allegedly transporting seven (7) kilograms of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.
During trial, the prosecution presented the testimony of COO Elizabeth Pableo (“Pableo”), who testified that she was assigned at the arrival area, Operations Division, Bureau of Customs, NAIA, Pasay. On August 18, 2010, she was conducting the routine examination of the arriving passengers’ baggage when PAL flight 733 arrived from Bangkok around 4:05am and one passenger handed her his customs baggage declaration. She then requested the passenger to place his baggage on top of the examination table. In the course of the examination, she touched the bottom of the luggage and noticed that it was still shallow and the bottom was hard and thick. Thereafter, she asked the passenger as to its contents but the latter denied knowledge of the same. She later found a black cover and saw a hole at the corner of the luggage and when she dipped her finger in the hole and felt some granules. A co-examiner helped her to take out the black cover and they discovered seven (7) packs containing white crystalline substance. She then called the attention of the Customs Police. She testified further that she placed her marking on the seven (7) packs. The PDEA arrived at the airport and took some samples from the seven (7) packs for qualitative sampling and the latter tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Another witness for the prosecution was SA1 Edmond James Mozo (“Mozo”) who likewise testified that he placed his initials “EJV” on the plastic bags and requested that samples be examined. The examination followed and the same yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Thereafter, they called a representative from the barangay, a Malaysian interpreter and member of the media. That, in open court, the accused was identified as Teoh Chee Keong.
For the defense, it merely presented the lone testimony of appellant, who denied the charge against him. According to him, he and his wife went to Bangkok and Chang Mai and because he still had two remaining days of leave from his office, he decided to go to the Philippines and arrived on August 17, 2010. That, when he came to pick up his luggage, he noticed that his luggage was heavy and that the lock of his luggage was already missing. When he opened his bag, a customs officer asked him what he was doing and he said that he wanted to check his luggage for it was heavy and the lock was missing. Thereafter, he found some clothes and shoes which do not belong to him. He then pulled a plastic from his luggage and asked the customs officer if he knew what it was. After a while, he was already handcuffed and arrested. Appellant further testified that about 80% of the contents of his luggage were not his. Then, a representative from his embassy arrived and told him that he violated the illegal drugs law for carrying methamphetamine hydrochloride.
After trial, the lower court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 in its assailed Decision dated September 17, 2013, ruling in this wise:
“With the integrity and evidentiary value of the specimen subject of this case preserved and the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by law enforcement agents upheld as against the inherently weak defense of the accused which is denial, the court finds that evidence for the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt which has overcome the presumption of accused’s innocence.”
Hence, this present appeal.
THE ISSUES
Posed for resolution is whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and, of similar importance, in convicting the appellant despite the prosecution’s failure to establish the identity of the allegedly seized illegal drugs due to the broken chain of custody of evidence.
THE RULING OF THE COURT
Appellant questioned his conviction on the basis of what he claimed as non-compliance with the rule on chain of custody of seized illegal drugs; and the failure of the prosecution to establish the identity of the same means failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
This Court denies the appellant’s appeal for lack of merit.
Appellant’s counsel herself debunked appellant’s defense of prosecution’s failure to establish identity of the seized illegal drugs when she admitted the identity and integrity of the specimens in open court. As regards the illegal drugs subject of Criminal Case No. R-PSY-10-02461-CR, the following is instructive:
“THE COURT: ORDER. When this case was called for continuation of prosecution’s presentation of evidence, the testimony of SAI Edmond James Mozo was presented and the same in its entirety was terminated.
Thereafter, the testimony of Forensic Chemist Maria Theresa Anne Domingo was dispensed with considering the following stipulations which were admitted by both parties:
That the specimen was turned over to her by IA1 Ronaldo Delas Alas;
That she does not have any personal knowledge whether IA1 Delas Alas put his markings on the specimen before turning it over to her;
That upon turn-over, she put her markings and gathered representative samples which has been turned over to this court; and,
That she put her markings on the representative samples and turned over the same to the evidence custodian;
xxx xxx xxx.”[2]
Thus, through appellant’s counsel, appellant admitted that the seized illegal drugs were turned over by IA1 Ronaldo Delas Alas and properly marked and identified in open court by Forensic Chemist Maria Theresa Anne Domingo; the representative samples were subsequently turned over to the court and then to the evidence custodian. Hence, this admission is sufficient to defeat the claims of appellant.
Moreover, on the alleged non-compliance with the chain of custody this Court is not persuaded by this argument.
Time and again, the Supreme Court has spoken on the chain of custody rule[3] as a method of authenticating evidence which 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. This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person 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. These 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.[4]
However, as often as there are occasion to apply the chain of custody rule, the Supreme Court has pronounced that the requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR are not inflexible. What is essential 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.”[5]
In the case at bench, as correctly ruled by the lower court, despite the failure of witness Pableo to see her initials she placed on the specimen, there was only one incident of violation of illegal drugs that she handled at that time. Thus, she could not have mistaken the specimen subject of this case with any other specimen. Also, she was able to identify the markings made by the customs police that sufficiently established the identity of the corpus delicti. Pableo testified as follows:
PROS. MARCOS TO THE WITNESS:
Q: if those seven (7) packs be shown to you again, would you be able to identify the same?
A: I believed so, sir.
Q: Go over the items again, Madam Witness. (The representative from PDEA opened the bag.)
THE COURT: Were you able to weigh the items or contents per pack?
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. (The witness went over the seven (7) packs with crystalline granules, after which she commented.)
A: I could not find my signature here, sir. I believed there was (sic) this changed. The sample testing they used.
THE COURT: How will you know that?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I really saw the specimen and I really signed there.
THE COURT: But unfortunately now you cannot identify. So, you cannot see your….Could you see?
WITNESS: I could not find it here. As far as I can remember, Your Honor…….(The witness answered in a soft voice and seems wondering while looking at the items on the table.)
THE COURT: Did you bring that?
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. It is already here.
THE COURT: Proceed. Did you mark it?
PROS. MARCOS: During the inventory, Your Honor.
THE COURT: But do you recall having seen the markings?
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, very much.
THE COURT: Let us start from there. Even without your markings, you can say with certainty that (sic)
WITNESS ANSWERED AT ONCE: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Why? Why can you say with certainty?
WITNESS: Because there is a PDEA here and the initials of our Customs Police, the enforcement are here, Your Honor.
THE COURT: When was (sic) this happened?
WITNESS: August 18, 2010, Your Honor.
THE COURT: How many drug incidents have you come across in 2010?
WITNESS: As far as I could remember, there was one (1) who happened earlier.
THE COURT: Which involves you as inspector?
WITNESS: Only this one, Your Honor. This is my first time.
THE COURT: Since this is the only incident which you were able to search and see, you can say with certainty that that (sic) is the specimen.
WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.”[6]
Moreover, when witness Mozo testified he was able to establish the corpus delicti when he positively identified the seized illegal drugs and his markings on the same in open court.[7] Also, he was able to identify the accused in open court.[8] Thus, all these circumstances lead the lower court to believe that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence had been preserved to sufficiently establish the corpus delicti of the case.
The law recognizes that although ideally the prosecution should offer a perfect chain of custody in the handling of evidence, ‘substantial compliance with the legal requirements on the handling of the seized item’ is sufficient. Behind this is an acknowledgment that the chain of custody rule is difficult to comply with.[9] Likewise, the Supreme Court in one case ruled that while a testimony about a perfect and unbroken chain is ideal, such is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.[10]
The totality of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, both testimonial and documentary, clearly shows an unbroken chain of custody with respect to the seized illegal drugs. This Court finds that there is proper documented account of the marking, transfer, and submission to chemistry examination. Hence, there is no reason to rule otherwise that the identity and integrity of the subject drugs have been compromised.
The appellant interposed as a defense that the drugs which were subject of this case were not his as when he saw his luggage, the lock was already missing and that 80% of the contents of the luggage were not his.
This Court rules that the defense of denial of appellant must necessarily fail as such has been invariably viewed by the Supreme Court with disfavor for this can be easily concocted and is common and standard defense ploys in most cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act.[11] As held in one case, denial cannot prevail against the positive testimony of a prosecution witness.[12] A defense of denial which is unsupported and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence becomes negative and self-serving, deserving no weight in law, and cannot be given greater evidentiary value over convincing, straightforward and probable testimony on affirmative matters.[13]
However, the court a quo erred when it imposed subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. Under Section 98 of RA 9165, the Revised Penal Code shall not apply to the provisions of the said law except in the case of minor offenders, which is not present in the instant case.[14]
All told, this Court finds that the evidence for the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated September 17, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 231, Pasay City, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION that there be no subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Bruselas, JR., A. D., Chairman, and [*]Paredes, V. I. A., JJ., concur.
[*] Acting Junior Member for 15 working days only from February 24, 2015-March 16, 2015 per Office Order No. 55-15-ABR dated February 23, 2015.
[1] Rollo, p. 54.
[2] TSN, June 8, 2011, pp. 23-24.
[3] Section 1(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which implements R.A No. 9165 defines “Chain of Custody” as follows:
”Chain of Custody” means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in 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 transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
[4] People vs. Freddie R. Ladip, G.R. No. 196146, March 3, 2014 citing Mallillin vs. People 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
[5] Supra. Citing People vs. Le, G.R. No. 188976, June 29, 2010.
[6] TSN, May 11, 2011, pp. 21-24.
[7] TSN, June 8, 2011, pp. 6-9.
[8] Supra.
[9] People vs. Rusiana, G.R. No. 186139, October 5, 2009.
[10] People vs. Aguilar, G.R. No. 191396, April 17, 2013.
[11] People vs. Aplat, et al., G.R. No. 191727, March 3, 2014 citing People vs. Honrado, G.R. No. 182197, February 27, 2012.
[12] People vs. Salvador, et al., G.R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014.
[13] Supra. citing People vs. Alberto, G.R. No. 179717, February 5, 2010.
[14] Section 98. Limited Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. – Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the provisions of the Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3814), as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to death.