PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ORLANDO PURIFICACION Y BANDELARIA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Purificacion

The Case

This is People of the Philippines versus Orlando Purificacion y Bandelaria, a criminal appeal from a conviction for two drug offenses under Republic Act Number 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The accused was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under Section 12 of Article II. The case matters because it gathers, in one decision, the rules a bar candidate must know on the elements of illegal possession, the effect of a belated objection to an illegal arrest, the weight of the presumption of regularity in police duty against the presumption of innocence, and the chain of custody requirement — including the rule that marking at the nearest police station is substantial compliance.

Procedural History

Two separate Informations were filed against the accused by the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Quezon, both dated August 25, 2005. The accused pleaded not guilty to both. After trial, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55 of Lucena City, rendered its Decision on August 7, 2009, finding him guilty in both cases. The accused then filed an appeal, praying that the decision be reversed and set aside and that he be acquitted. The appeal went directly to the Supreme Court, which reviewed the whole case, including the penalties imposed.

Facts

On December 15, 2004, the Intelligence Section of the Tayabas Municipal Police Station received a report of suspected shabu selling near a bakery in Barangay San Roque, Zone 2, Tayabas, Quezon. Acting on that report, a police team conducted a surveillance operation at around 9:45 in the evening. According to the prosecution, when the team arrived, the accused was talking to a man; when the officers approached, the other man ran away and was not caught, but the accused stayed.

The police officers introduced themselves as such. According to PO2 Esmiller, PO1 Mago recovered from the accused two plastic sachets suspected to contain shabu, while PO2 Esmiller himself recovered six tea bags of suspected marijuana, a plastic drinking glass containing marijuana, and one improvised tooter. The accused admitted to SPO1 Aguilar that he owned the items. He was brought to the police station, where PO1 Ebina placed the marking on the items in the presence of SPO1 Aguilar. The next day, the marked items were brought to the crime laboratory, where the chemical examination tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride and marijuana.

The defense told a different story. The accused testified that at about seven or seven thirty-five in the evening, he was buying tasty bread in a bakery when he saw police officers running after a man with a bag. The man dropped the bag at the corner of the bakery and escaped; he later turned out to be Dondon Flores. The police took the bag and then approached the accused, suspecting him to be the companion of the fleeing man. Despite his insistence that the bag was not his, he was arrested and forcibly brought to the police station. His version was corroborated by his barangay mate, Arnel Sumilang.

Issues

• Whether or not the prosecution proved the commission of the offenses charged beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the presumption of regular performance of official duty may be upheld over the constitutional presumption of innocence.
• Whether or not the accused was validly arrested, and whether the alleged illegality of his arrest may reverse his conviction.
• Whether or not the prosecution established the chain of custody of the illegal drugs and paraphernalia allegedly found in his possession.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, on possession of dangerous drugs, provides:

Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. xxx 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), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or 'shabu', or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or 'ecstasy', PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.

This is the provision under which the trial court imposed the penalty of imprisonment and a fine of 300,000 pesos, which the Supreme Court sustained.

Section 12 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, on possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs, provides:

Section 12. Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs. – The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess or have under his/her control any equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body: Provided, That in the case of medical practitioners and various professionals who are required to carry such equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia in the practice of their profession, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines thereof.

The Court applied this provision to correct the trial court's failure to impose the mandatory fine for the paraphernalia offense.

Section 9 of Rule 117 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, on failure to move to quash, provides:

Sec. 9. Failure to move to quash or to allege any ground therefor. — The failure of the accused to assert any ground of a motion to quash before he pleads to the complaint or information, either because he did not file a motion to quash or failed to allege the same in said motion, shall be deemed a waiver of any objections except those based on the grounds provided for in paragraphs (a), (b), (g) and (i) of Section 3 of this Rule.

This provision defeated the accused's belated objection to the legality of his arrest.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the elements of both offenses were proven. For illegal possession of drugs, the elements are that the accused is in possession of an item identified to be a prohibited drug, that such possession is not authorized by law, and that the accused freely and consciously possesses the drug. For illegal possession of paraphernalia, the elements are possession or control of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for introducing any dangerous drug into the body, and that such possession is not authorized by law. The positive identification by the prosecution witnesses prevailed over the accused's defense of denial, which the Court described as a common defense ploy that can be easily feigned and fabricated.

On the second issue, the Court held that in the absence of evidence of any ill motive on the part of the apprehending officers, the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty prevails. The alleged inconsistencies between the Joint Affidavit and the testimonies of the witnesses were not material, because they did not pertain to any of the elements of the crime and would not necessarily destroy credibility. The trial court's appreciation of the facts and evaluation of the credibility of witnesses deserves much weight and respect.

On the third issue, the Court held that the accused was validly arrested, and in any event, he failed to object to the legality of his arrest before entering his plea during arraignment. That failure was a waiver under Section 9 of Rule 117. The Court also held that the illegal arrest of an accused is not a sufficient ground to reverse a conviction arrived at upon a complaint duly filed and a trial conducted without error.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that the police officers substantially complied with the requirements of Republic Act Number 9165. The failure to immediately mark the items at the place of arrest does not automatically impair the integrity of the chain of custody, because marking upon immediate confiscation contemplates even marking at the nearest police station. The Court traced every link in the custody of the items, from recovery, to the police station, to the crime laboratory, and to the trial. Absent any evidence of tampering, the presumption that the integrity of the evidence was preserved was upheld.

Finally, the Court held that an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review, including the penalty, which may be increased. The penalty for the drugs offense was correct, but the trial court failed to impose the fine required for the paraphernalia offense.

Doctrine

• Illegal possession of dangerous drugs requires possession of an identified prohibited drug, lack of legal authority, and free and conscious possession; illegal possession of paraphernalia requires possession or control of an item fit or intended for introducing a dangerous drug into the body, without legal authority.
• Positive identification by police witnesses prevails over denial, which is easily feigned and fabricated.
• Absent proof of ill motive, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty prevails; inconsistencies on minor details not touching the elements of the crime do not destroy credibility.
• Any objection to the arrest must be made before the plea; otherwise it is waived under Section 9 of Rule 117, and an illegal arrest is not a ground to reverse a conviction after a valid trial.
• Failure to mark the seized items immediately at the place of arrest does not automatically impair the chain of custody; marking at the nearest police station is substantial compliance, and absent proof of tampering, the integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved.
• An appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review, and the appellate court may increase the penalty, including imposing a fine omitted by the trial court.

Disposition

The appeal was denied; the conviction of Orlando Purificacion y Bandelaria for both offenses was affirmed, with the additional penalty of a fine of 10,000 pesos for the illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the failure to mark seized drugs immediately does not impair the chain of custody, because marking at the nearest police station is substantial compliance. Examiners use this case to test the waiver of objections to an illegal arrest and the rule that an appeal opens the whole case, allowing the appellate court to increase the penalty.