PP V Samin Zakaria GR No. 181042 PDF
PP V Samin Zakaria GR No. 181042 PDF
~uprente QCourt
;iflll ani Ia
FIRST DIVISION
Present:
- versus -
SERENO, C.J.,
LEONARDO-DE CASCI'l{O,
SAMIN ZAKARIA y BERSAMIN,
MAKASULA Y AND JOANA VILLARAMA, JR., and
ZAKARIAy SILUNGAN, *PEREZ, JJ
Accused.
Promulgated:
SAMIN ZAKARIAy
MAKASULAY, NOV 2 6 2012 '~-- /
Accused -Appellant. ta__~/-
x---------------------------------------------------------------------~------------A
DECISION
BERSAMIN, J.:
Vice Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, who is on Wellness Leave, per Special Order No 1356
dated November 13, 2012.
1
People\'. Rela10, G.R. No. 173794, January 18,2012,663 SCRA 260,262.
Rollo. pp. 2-24; penned by Associate Justice Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa Uetired) and concurred in by
Associate Justice Portia Alino-IIormachuelos (retired) and Associate Justice Edgardo F Sundiam
(deceased).
)
Entitled l'euple v. SLllnin 'Lukaria _)' Mukasulay ami Joana 'Lukuria )' Silungun
I
l---./
Decision 2 G.R. No. 181042
Antecedents
with a total weight of thirty four point twenty three (34.23 grams) of white
crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for
methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation
of the said law.
Contrary to Law.5
At the trial, the State presented only two witnesses, namely: PO2
Luisito Aninias and PO3 Ronald Valdez; while the Defense had only the
accused themselves as its witnesses.
4
Original Records, pp. 91-100.
5
Id. at 1-2.
6
Id. at 24-26
7
Id. at 29.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 181042
At about 3:00 p.m. of January 6, 2005, PO2 Aninias, PO3 Valdez and
the confidential informant surveyed the target area in order to confirm if
drug activities were taking place there. PO2 Aninias observed there about
ten persons going in and out of the target area. The persons were thin and
looked haggard, and had deep set eyes and protruding cheeks. About 30
minutes later, PO2 Aninias and his companions left the target area and
returned to the Regional Office to report their observations.12
8
TSN of March 3, 2005, pp. 2-3.
9
Id. at 4.
10
Id. at 4-5.
11
Id. at 4.
12
Id. at 6-7.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 181042
deal at the target area.13 Insp. Ablang prepared a pre-operation report,14 and
coordinated with the PDEA National Office.15
gun at Danny and Joana. The rest of the team, who had meanwhile rushed
towards the Revo as soon as PO3 Valdez received PO2 Aninias’ missed call,
quickly arrested the two suspects.
SPECIMEN SUBMITTED:
xxxx
17
Id. at 14-16.
18
Id. at 17.
19
Original Records, p. 13.
20
Id. at 14.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 181042
FINDINGS:
xxxx
Joana said that at about 12:00 noon on January 7, 2005, she left to
fetch her five-year old child, Jornea, from school on board a tricycle;25 that
on her return home with her child at around 1:00 p.m., she immediately
noticed that the door to their house had been detached and that at least eight
men in civilian clothes were inside their house;26 that she saw Samin, her
husband, lying face down on the floor of their bedroom, and one of the men
was stepping on her husband’s head;27 that Samin’s cousins, Benson Pam
and Saudi, were in the sala, also lying face down on the floor about three
21
Id.
22
Id. at 17.
23
TSN of June 20, 2005, p. 6.
24
Id. at 7.
25
TSN of June 27, 2005, pp. 3, 8.
26
Id. at 11-12, 14.
27
Id. at 13-14.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 181042
meters from where her husband was;28 that the men brought the couple to
Camp Vicente Lim; that on the way to Camp Vicente Lim on board a white
Revo driven by PO2 Aninias, PO3 Valdez demanded P100,000.00 in
exchange for their release;29 and that she answered that they could not give
P100,000.00 because they did not have money due to her husband being
only a tricycle driver.30
Joana recalled that she and her husband were detained for a while in a
small room in Camp Vicente Lim before being shown by PO2 Aninias
plastic sachets containing shabu that had been supposedly recovered from
them; and that she protested and argued that they were not selling shabu.31
Samin asserted that he saw the sachets of shabu for the first time only
when PO2 Aninias showed them to him in Camp Vicente Lim;35 and that
one of the men whom he could no longer identify demanded P100,000.00 as
settlement of the case against them.36
On August 26, 2005, the RTC convicted both accused, disposing thus:
28
Id. at 12.
29
Id. at 18-20.
30
Id. at 21.
31
Id. at 6-7.
32
TSN of July 4, 2005, pp. 3, 7-8.
33
Id. at 11-16.
34
Id. at 18.
35
Id. at 7.
36
Id. at 26.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 181042
SO ORDERED.37
II. The trial court gravely erred in disregarding the fact that police
officers merely informed the accused of their constitutional rights only
without elaborating what are their constitutional rights.
III. The trial court gravely erred in not considering that minor
inconsistencies of accused do not affect their credibility.38
SO ORDERED.39
37
Original Records, p. 100.
38
CA rollo, pp. 45-46.
39
Id. at 136.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 181042
Issues
Samin insists that the members of the buy-bust team did not fully
explain to him his constitutional rights; that the State did not establish the
origin of the seized dangerous drugs and did not prove that the chain of
custody had been observed; and that his guilt was not established beyond
reasonable doubt.
The State, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), counters
that Samin was properly convicted because his guilt for the crime charged
was sufficiently established; that the State proved the identities of the sellers
and the buyer, the object and the consideration; that the State further proved
the delivery of the shabu and the payment for the shabu; that there was no
doubt that the sachets of shabu came from Samin and Joana, considering that
PO2 Aninias proved that the shabu had not been planted but had been in the
possession of the accused at the time of the buy-bust operation; that PO2
Aninias marked the confiscated items, prepared the certificate of inventory,
and personally brought the shabu to the Regional Crime Laboratory with the
request for examination; that the chain of custody was not broken; that the
supposed failure to inform the accused of their constitutional rights was
immaterial considering that no admission or confession had been taken from
them; and that the credibility of the Defense witnesses was best addressed by
the RTC as the trial court, which found that their inconsistencies affected
their credibility because they concerned material points.
40
Id. at 146.
41
Id. at 147.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 181042
Ruling
42
People v. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999, 301 SCRA 668, 718.
43
Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632.
44
People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 350, 356-357.
45
G.R. No. 173474, August 29, 2012.
46
Id., citing Section 3 and Section 4, Rule 128, Rules of Court.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 181042
xxxx
xxxx
xxxx
47
Id., citing 31A CJS, Evidence, §199.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 181042
The records show that the buy-bust team did not observe the
mandatory procedures under Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR. Although
PO2 Aninias supposedly marked the confiscated shabu with his initials
immediately upon seizure, he did not do so in the presence of the accused or
of their representatives and any representative from the media and
Department of Justice (DOJ), or any elected public official. If he had, he
would have readily stated so in court. In fact, both PO2 Aninias and PO3
Valdez themselves revealed that no media or DOJ representative, or elected
public official was present during the buy-bust operation and at the time of
the recovery of the evidence at the target area. Instead, the media were only
around in the PDEA regional headquarters.49
48
People v. Coreche, supra note 43, at 357.
49
TSN of May 30, 2005, p.11.
50
Original Records, p. 17.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 181042
Another serious lapse committed was that the buy-bust team did not
take any photographs of the sachets of shabu upon their seizure. The
photographs were intended by the law as another means to confirm the chain
of custody of the dangerous drugs.
51
People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 270.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 181042
custody was crucial in establishing the link between the shabu confiscated
from the accused and the evidence presented to the court for its appreciation.
The Court has pointed out in Malillin v. People:52
Under the circumstances, the corpus delicti was not credibly proved
because the Prosecution did not establish an unbroken chain of custody,
resulting in rendering the seizure and confiscation of the shabu open to
doubt and suspicion. Hence, the incriminatory evidence should not pass
judicial scrutiny.53
52
Supra, note 42, pp. 632-633.
53
People v. Belocura, supra, note 44.
Decision 15 G. R. N u. I ~ I U4 2
also detained for some other lawtl.d cause; and ORDERS the Director ur the
Bureau of Corrections to implement this decision and to report his action
hereon to this Cout1 within ten days from receipt hereof. No
pronouncements on costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
L,_:/;., ~ r.'
,rn;~SJTA J. LEONARDt.;E~R<~iLLARX~, m.
Associate Justice Associate Just~ .. )
JOS
CERTIFICATI(lN