People v. Villarta and Armenta GR502610

PEOPLE v.
RAMONITO VILLARTA & ALLAN ARMENTA

G.R. No. 205610
July 30, 2014
TOPIC: chain of custody rule

Facts:
- Villarta was charged in 3 separate Informations, with violation of the
Comprehesive Dangerous Drugs Act Illegal sale, Illegal Possession and
Illegal Use
- Armenta, on the other hand, was charged with only the Illegal Possession,
and Illegal Use
- PROSECUTION
o PO2 Caparas was at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation
Task Force (SAID-SOTF) in Pasig, when a confidential informant arrived
with a tip that a certain Monet was selling shabu along Urbano
Velasco Ave., Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City
o A briefing ensued, where it was agreed that PO2 Caparas would act as
poseur-buyer during a buybust operation, while PO2 Cambronero as
backup
o First operation was unsuccessful due to the absence of Monet at the
target area
o The following day, the informant called tipping them of Monets
location
o There, PO2 Caparas met with Monet and successfully transacted with
him
o Subsequently, another male person arrived asking Monet if meron pa
ba?
o This second person successfully transacted with Monet
o Upon Caparas signal, the team swooped in and arrested Monet, who
was identified as Villarta
o Caparas also told the team that the other male person possessed
shabu, leading to the latters arrest; he was identified as Armenta, alias
Ambo
o From Villartas person were recovered the marked money and 1 plastic
sachet; From Armentas person was recovered the other plastic sachet
o PO2 Caparas and PO2 Cambronero marked the items they had just
seized
o At the police station, PO1 Mapula prepared the request for drug test
and laboratory examination
o Thereafter, the seized items were brought to the PNP Crime Lab, where
Forensic Chemical Officer Go conducted tests and found out that the
sachets contained ephedrine
o The urine samples of Villarta and Armenta tested positive for
methamphetamine and THC metabolites
- DEFENSE
o Villarta denied the charge, and claimed that while he was resting in the
room he was renting, 4 armed male persons entered looking for a
certain Jay Jay
When he replied that he did not know such person, he was brought and
detained; at the Pariancillo HQ he allegedly met Armenta for the first
time
o Armenta on the other hand claimed that while waiting for a tricycle in
front of a 7/11 store, 3 armed persons approached and cuffed him
o He was brought to the HQ, and was frisked for a cellphone which he
allegedly snatched
o When nothing was found, he was mauled and forced to confess where
he brought the phone
o There he met Villarta for the first time
Villarta and Armenta contends before SC the non-compliance of the police
officers with the requirements for the proper custody of seized drugs and the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized
dangerous drugs
o
Issue:
w/n chain of custody was broken
SC Ratio:
No. In People v. Ventura,34 [G.R. No. 184957, 10/27/09, 604 SCRA 543] this Court
held that: The procedure for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered dangerous drugs, among others, is provided under Section 21,
paragraph 1 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, as follows:
(1) 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.
Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act
No. 9165, which implements said provision, stipulates:
(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: x x x
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. 35
Under the same proviso, non-compliance with the stipulated procedure, under
justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers.
xxxx
The chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that
unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. To be
admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous
whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the
police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition
up to the time it was offered in evidence. 36
In this case, the chain remained unbroken based on the ff facts:
a. after PO2 Caparas seized and confiscated the one heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of ephedrine, as well as the one heatsealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of ephedrine, and the
marked money used in the buy-bust operation, the former immediately
marked the seized drugs at the place of arrest
b. he put the markings RRV/RRC 04-20-06 on the seized drug subject of the sale
and the markings RRV/RRC on the seized drug recovered from appellant
Villarta.
c. PO2 Cambronero, also recovered from appellant Armenta one-heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of ephedrine.
d. PO2 Cambronero, who was then beside PO2 Caparas, similarly marked the
seized drug from appellant Armenta at the place of arrest.
e. They then brought the appellants, together with the seized items at their
station.
f. There PO1 Mapula, the investigating officer, prepared the Request for
Laboratory Examination,37 the Request for Drug Test38 and the Affidavit of
Arrest of PO2 Caparas.39
g. Thereafter, PO2 Caparas personally brought all the seized items to the crime
laboratory for examination.
h. The seized items were examined by P/Sr. Insp. Go and they all yielded
positive results for ephedrine, a dangerous drug.
i. When the seized items were offered in court, they were all properly identified
by the prosecution witnesses.
Re: testimony of police officers pertaining to the chain of custody

It has been judicially settled that in buy-bust operations, the testimony of the
police officers who apprehended the accused is usually accorded full faith and credit
because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. This
presumption is overturned only if there is clear and convincing evidence that they
were not properly performing their duty or that they were inspired by improper
motive.40 In this case, there was none.

People v. Villarta and Armenta GR502610

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

People v. Villarta and Armenta GR502610

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEOPLE v.

RAMONITO VILLARTA & ALLAN ARMENTA

July 30, 2014

TOPIC: chain of custody rule

Re: testimony of police officers pertaining to the chain of custody

You might also like