THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSE JAMILLO QUILATAN Y DELA CRUZ, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
TOLENTINO, A.G., J.:
dated February 25, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City,
Branch 259 in consolidated Criminal Case Nos. 09-0667, for violation of
Section 5, Article II, RA 9165, and 09-0668, for violation of Section
11, Article II RA 9165, where the accused-appellant was found guilty of
both offenses. The dispositive portion of the said decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 09-0667 for Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, RA 9165, the court finds accused JOSE JAMILLO QUILATAN y DELA CRUZ, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php 500,000.00;
2. In Criminal Case No. 09-0668 for Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, RA 9165, the court finds accused JOSE JAMILLO QUILATAN y DELA CRUZ, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as maximum and to pay a fine of
Php 300,000.00.It appearing that accused JOSE JAMILLO QUILATAN y DELA CRUZ
is detained at the Parañaque City Jail and considering the penalty
imposed, the OIC-Branch Clerk of Court is directed to prepare the Mittimus for the immediate transfer of said accused from the Parañaque City Jail to the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City.The specimen are forfeited in favor of the government and the
OIC-Branch Clerk of Court is likewise directed to immediately turn over
the same to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper
disposal pursuant to Supreme Court OCA Circular No. 51-2003.SO ORDERED.”
The prosecution’s version of the facts is as follows:
On
June 15, 2009, a report about the illegal drug activities of the
accused-appellant was received by the Parañaque Police Station
Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group from a female informant /
asset. A buy-bust operation team was immediately formed composing of
PO2 Elbert Ocampo (Ocampo), who was designated as poseur-buyer, and SPO1
Luminog Lumibao (immediate back-up), P/Insp. Roque Tome, SPO4 Alberto
Sanggalang, SPO1 Ricky Macaraeg, PO3 Fernan Acbang, and PO2 Domingo
Julaton as back-ups.
After coordinating with the PDEA, the police
operatives, together with their informant, proceeded to the target area
in Tramo St., Brgy. San Dionisio, Parañaque City at around 9:15 in the
evening of the same day. At the site, Ocampo and the informant went
ahead to approach the accused-appellant, who, upon seeing the informant,
asked “iiskor ka ba?”. Instead of uttering a reply, the
informant introduced Ocampo to the accused-appellant as a taxi driver
who needed a P500.00 worth of shabu. Ocampo handed the buy bust money
to the accused-appellant, which was composed of one (1) P200.00 and
three (3) P100.00 bills, and after counting the same, the latter gave to
the former a plastic sachet containing a (0.12 grams) white crystalline
substance suspected to be shabu. The sale having been consummated,
Ocampo alerted his team and gave the pre-arranged signal by removing his
cap. Seeing Lumibao rushing to the scene, Ocampo revealed himself as a
police officer and immediately apprehend the accused-appellant.
Another sachet (containing 0.12 grams) of suspected shabu and the
buy-bust money were recovered from the person of the accused-appellant.
They then proceeded to the Barangay Hall of San Dionisio,
Parañaque City, and there, in the presence of the accused-appellant and
Brgy. Desk Officer Rodolfo Enrique, Ocampo marked and prepared an
inventory of the items recovered from the accused-appellant.
Thereafter, they went back to the police station whereby a request for
laboratory examination was made, which, together with the seized items,
was brought personally by Ocampo to the PNP Crime Laboratory of Southern
Police District in Brgy. San Antonio, Makati City, and which specimen,
when tested, turned out positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.[2]
Version of the Defense.
The accused-appellant alleged
that at around 7:30 pm on June 15, 2009, he was on board his motorcycle
on his way to the house of his in-laws in San Dionisio, Parañaque City
to fetch his wife when he was suddenly blocked by a car and then
arrested for driving without a helmet. He was invited to the police
headquarters for investigation. Before arriving at their destination,
he was able to talk to his wife, who had gone first to the police
station, and who informed her that the policemen were asking for
P10,000.00 to settle his case. Surprised of the huge amount for such a
small offense, he argued with the policemen to the latter’s
disappointment. His act angered the policemen which caused them to
accused him of selling illegal drugs. He was then detained at the
Special Investigation Commission (SID) facility. At around 4:30 am, the
following morning, he was brought to a Brgy. Hall where the policemen
presented items on the top of the table and then took pictures thereof
in his presence. He is thus crying frame-up. He also stated that the
policemen who arrested him were not the ones who testified in court. He
said that he didn’t know both sets of policemen.
Finding the
narration of the accused-appellant a mere alibi, which cannot prevail
over the presumption of regularity in the performance of official
function created in favor of the police operatives, the trial court
convicted the accused-appellant of illegal sale and illegal possession
of shabu. For the trial court, the defense of the accused-appellant
that the charges against him just came out because the policemen failed
to extort money from him crumbled because of the failure to present his
wife to corroborate his narration. The trial court opined that if his
claim is true at all, then why was there never a case filed against the
policemen. What further militates against the accused-appellant is the
fact that the accused-appellant never mentioned a thing about his
predicament to Desk Officer Rodolfo Enrique when he was brought to the
Brgy. Hall of San Dionisio, Parañaque City.
Hence, the instant appeal interposing the lone issue that:
“THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT
NOTWITHSTANDING THE APPREHENDING TEAM’S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 21
OF REPUBLIC ACT No. 9165.”[3]
The petitioner’s proposition that the prosecution failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt is anchored on his claim that the
chain of custody in the handling of prohibited drugs, which is governed
by Section 21 of RA 9165, was not sufficiently established. He states
that there were no representatives from the media, the Department of
Justice, and elected barangay official when the marking of the seized
evidence was made. There is also this allegation that the marking was
not immediately done at the scene of the crime, but they had to head to
the Brgy. Hall of San Dionisio, Parañaque City, which is a good
500-meter distance from where the buy-bust operation happened, to do the
markings, photographing, and inventory of the seized items.
Sec.
21 of R.A. 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002, set out the mandatory procedure that law enforcers must observe
following the seizure of prohibited drugs:
“(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;”
Also, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides the following:
“(a) The apprehending officer/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;”
The first link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure of
the plastic sachet containing shabu during the buy-bust operation.
Ocampo testified that he was in custody of the seized substances from
the time they were confiscated from the accused-appellant, while they
proceeded to the Brgy Hall of San Dionisio, Parañaque City where he was
initially brought, when they travelled back to the police headquarters,
and up until the same were brought to the PNP crime laboratory for
qualitative examination.
The accused-appellant would argue that
since the marking of the confiscated evidence was not done immediately
after his arrest, the preservation of the integrity of the seized items
is questionable. This argument is misplaced. Quite the contrary, it has
been held that the failure to mark the seized items at the place of
arrest does not of itself impair the integrity of the chain of custody
and render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. Indeed, the
law does not specify a time frame for “immediate marking”, or where said
marking should be done.
“What Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its implementing rule do not
expressly specify is the matter of ‘marking’ of the seized items in
warrantless seizures to ensure that the evidence seized upon
apprehension is the same evidence subjected to inventory and photography
when these activities are undertaken at the police station rather than
at the place of arrest. Consistency with the ‘chain of custody’ rule
requires that the ‘marking’ of the seized items — to truly ensure that
they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones
offered in evidence — should be done (1) in the presence of the
apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.To be able to create a first link in the chain of custody, then,
what is required is that the marking be made in the presence of the
accused and upon immediate confiscation. ‘Immediate Confiscation’ has no
exact definition. Thus, in People v. Gum-Oyen, testimony that
included the marking of the seized items at the police station and in
the presence of the accused was sufficient in showing compliance with
the rules on chain of custody. Marking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team.”[4]
Accordingly, marking of the seized items at the police station and
in the presence of the accused was held sufficient compliance with the
rules on chain of custody.[5]
In this case, Ocampo marked the evidence immediately upon reaching the
Brgy. Hall of San Dionisio, Parañaque City with his initials “EO” and in
the presence of the accused-appellants and the Brgy. Desk Officer
Rodolfo Enrique.
The second link is the turn-over of the illegal drug seized by
the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. In this case,
the confiscated drugs remained in the possession of Ocampo from the time
they were confiscated from the accused until the police operatives
returned to the police station.
The third link constitutes the turn-over by the investigating
officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory
examination. Here, the request for laboratory examination of the
confiscated drugs was prepared by their team leader P/Insp Roque P.
Tome, but it was still Ocampo who personally delivered the same to the
PNP Crime Laboratory of Southern Police District Office. Before finally
turning over the specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Ocampo placed
the two sachets of suspected shabu to a small plastic bag.[6]
The fourth link is the turn-over and submission of the marked
illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. Ocampo
identified the evidence presented in court as the same specimen
confiscated from the accused-appellant. Furthermore, it was already
stipulated during the pre-trial[7] that the forensic chemist, Abraham Verde Tecson, had examined the illegal drugs delivered to him by Ocampo.
Under the foregoing circumstance, this Court is convinced that
the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt an
unbroken link in the chain of custody and that the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items has been preserved. The
prosecution established that Ocampo recovered the white plastic sachets,
later on confirmed positive for traces of shabu, who himself made
markings on the seized items and prepared an inventory of the same at
the Brgy. Hall of San Dionisio, Parañaque City. Ocampo then brought the
seized illegal drugs to the police station before he finally personally
delivered the same to the PNP Crime Laboratory pursuant to the request
for laboratory examination prepared by P/Insp Roque P. Tome. Clearly
therefore, the recovery and handling of the seized illegal drugs were
more than satisfactorily established in this case.
The fact that a representative from neither the media nor the
DOJ was not present to witness the marking and inventory of the
specimen in no way affects the integrity or evidentiary value of the
said items. It has been held that the absence of a member of media or
the DOJ, pursuant to Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is
not fatal and will not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.[8]
We likewise concur with the trial court that the
accused-appellant’s defense of frame-up, like alibi, is viewed with
disfavor since it can easily be concocted and is a common ploy in most
prosecutions for violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law. To substantiate
this defense, the evidence must be clear and convincing and should show
that the buy-bust team was inspired by improper motive or was not
properly performing its duty. Here, there is no evidence that there was
ill motive on the part of the buy-bust team. In fact, appellant
himself admitted that he did not know the police officers prior to his
arrest. There could therefore be no bad blood between him and the said
police officers. Moreover, there was no proof that the arresting
officers improperly performed their duty in arresting the
accused-appellant.[9]
All told, this Court sees no reason to depart from the ruling of
the trial court in finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu, as
defined and penalized under Section 5 and Section 11 of Article II of RA
9165.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 259 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Rosario and Bueser,[*] JJ., concur.
[*] Vice Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba, per Office Order No. 244-14-ABR dated May 26, 2014.
[1] Rollo, pp. 39-46.
[2] Original Records, p. 13.
[3] Rollo, p. 28-29.
[4] Imson vs. People, G. R. No. 193003, July 13, 2011 citing People vs. Resurreccion, G. R. No. 186380,
October 12, 2009.
[5] People vs. Angkob, G. R. No. 191062, September 19, 2012.
[6] Original Records, p. 71.
[7] Original Records, p. 29-30.
[8] Valleno vs. People, G. R. No. 192050, January 9, 2013.
[9] People vs. Salvador, G. R. No. 190621, February 10, 2014.