Professional Documents
Culture Documents
People Vs Lintag
People Vs Lintag
FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE
OF
THE
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
- versus -
ROMEO
LAUREOLA,
LINTAG
Accused-Appellant.
SEP 0 6 2016
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1'----------------------x
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
On official leave.
See Notice of Appeal dated December2, 2014; rollo, pp. 13-15.
Id. at 2-12. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with Associate Justices Vicente
S.E. Veloso and Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan concurring.
CA rollo, pp. 50-53. Penned by Judge Reynaldo A. Alhambra.
Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPUBLIC ACT No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN As THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, As
AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
Decision
"'....
:-: f.i
..
r .'
.L
'
'J'.
',..,
The Facts
,,
_,
6
7
8
9
10
CA rollo, p. 9.
Id.
Erroneously mentioned by the CA as "POI Garcia." See rollo, p. 3.
"Onie" in some parts of the records.
See rollo, p. 3.
Id. at 4.
Decision
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Decision
clear and convincing evidence that the buy-bust team improperly performed
their duties, their testimonies deserve full faith and credit. 19
Dissatisfied, Lintag elevated his conviction before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In a Decision20 dated November 12, 2014, the CA affirmed Lintag's
conviction. It agreed with the RTC's finding that the prosecution was able to
establish the presence of all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
The CA likewise held that Lintag failed to substantiate his claim that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs were compromised
as the policemen had substantially complied with the chain of custody rule. 21
Undaunted, Lintag filed the instant appeal. 22
The Issue Before the Court
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Lintag's
conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs defined and penalized under
Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 should be upheld.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
Sections, Article II of RA 9165 reads in part:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment
to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (Pl 0,000,000.00) shall be imposed
upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade,
administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in
transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of
opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as
a broker in any of such transactions. x x x.
xx xx
19
20
21
22
Decision
24
25
People ofthe Philippines (People) v. Sumili, G.R. No. 212160, February 4, 2015, 750 SCRA 143, 149.
Id. at 149-150, citing People v. Viterbo, G.R. No. 203434, July 23, 2014, 730 SCRA 672, 680.
The pertinent portions of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 read:
xx xx
Supra note 23.
Decision
inventory and take photographs of the same in the presence of the accused
or the person from whom such items were seized, or of the accused's or
the person's representative or counsel, a representative from the media, the
Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall then sign
the copies of the inventory; and (b) the seized drugs be turned over to the
PNP Crime Laboratory within 24 hours from its confiscation for
examination purposes. While the "chain of custody rule" demands
utmost compliance from the aforesaid officers, Section 21 of the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 as well as
jurisprudence nevertheless provide that non-compliance with the
requirements of this rule will not automatically render the seizure and
custody of the items void and invalid, so long as: (a) there is a
justifiable ground for such non-compliance; and (b) the evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved. Hence, any
divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and
should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated
27
items. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
After a judicious review of the records, the Court finds that the
prosecution failed to establish the identity of the substance allegedly
confiscated from Lintag due to unjustified gaps in the chain of custody, thus,
militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
As may be gleaned from the established facts, the buy-bust operation
conducted on October 25, 2005 resulted in Lintag's arrest, as well as in P03
Dimacali's seizure of two (2) plastic sachets each containing white
crystalline substance from Lintag. It is, thus, clear that P03 Dimacali had
custody of the seized items from the time of seizure until their arrival at the
police station. Thereupon, P03 Dimacali marked the seized items and,
subsequently, turned them over to SP02 Gonzales. The items were then
delivered to the PNP Crime Laboratory for a confirmatory test on their
contents. The foregoing findings are amply supported by the following
excerpts from P03 Dimacali' s testimony:
Q [Fiscal Exequiel Sison, Jr.]: Now Mr. Witness, what about the items
which you said you brought [sic] from a certain Miong, what did you do
with him?
A [P03 Dimacali]: I put it in my pocket.
Q: What side, right or left pocket?
A: Left.
Q: And what are the contents of your left pocket at that time, other than
the two (2) plastic sachets which contained shabu?
A: Only the two (2) small plastic sachets which I bought from the person.
xx xx
27
Decision
Q: And before you proceeded to your office, what did you do with the
accused?
29
Decision
constitute the corpus delicti of the crime calls for the necessity of proving
with moral certainty that they are the same seized items. Failing in which,
the acquittal of the accused on the ground of reasonable doubt becomes a
matter of right, 30 as in this case.
In sum, since the identity of the prohibited drugs had not been
established by proof beyond reasonable doubt, Lintag's conviction must be
immediately set aside.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated
November 12, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR. HC No. 05933
is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant
Romeo Lintag y Laureola is ACQUITTED of the crime of violation of
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The Director of the Bureau
of Corrections is ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being
lawfully held for any other reason.
SO ORDERED.
,,a.~
ESTELA ivf.JtERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
~tk ~
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
lWAi1i
Associate Justice
On official leave
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice
S. CAGUIOA
30
Decision
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that
the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.