Sison To Gayoso
Sison To Gayoso
People, 250 SCRA 58 (1995) Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by
any other competent witnesses who can testify to its exactness and
Doctrine: Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be accuracy.
identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as
to the circumstances under which they were produced. The photographer, In this case, the counsel for two of the accused used the same
however, is not the only witness who can identify the pictures he has photographs to prove that his clients were not in any of the p ictu res
taken. They can be identified by the photographer or by any other a n d th e refo re c ou ld n ot h a ve p a rti cip a t ed i n th e m a u lin g of
competent witnesses who can testify to its exactness and accuracy. th e v ict im . W h en th e p r os ec u tion u s ed th e photographs to
cross-examine all the accused, no objection was made by the defense,
Facts: On July 27, 1986, in the aftermath of the 1986 EDSA not until Atty. Lazaro interposed at the third hearing a continuing
Revolution, a rally was scheduled to be held at the Luneta by objection to their admissibility.
theMarcos loyalists. Despite being denied a permit, 3000 of them gathered
at the Rizal Monument of the Luneta andstarted an impromptu singing
contest, recited prayers and delivered speeches in between. When the The SC ruled that the use of the photographs by the atty for the appellants
authorities arrived andno permit could be produced, they were told to is an admission of the exactness and accuracy of such. That the photos were
disperse. faithful representations of the mauling inciden twas affirmed when
appellants de los santos, Pacadar and Tan identified themselves in the
One of the leaders, Atty. Oliver Lozano, turned to his group and said pictures and explained their presence in said pictures
“Gulpihin ninyo ang lahat ng mga Cory infiltrators,” and a commotion
ensued. They eventually fled, and later, some ofthem converged at the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 179710
Chinese garden of Luneta. Another commotion ensued and the loyalists Appellee,
started attacking persons inyellow, the color of the “Coryistas,” one of Present:
which was Salcedo. He was chased, boxed, kicked and mauled.
CORONA, C. J., Chairperson,
One Ranulfo Sumilang was able to tow Salcedo away from them, - versus - VELASCO, JR.,
but several accused came forward and resumed mauling LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
Salcedodespite his pleas for mercy. He died upon arrival at the Philippine DEL CASTILLO, and
General Hospital of “hemorrhage, intracranial traumatic.” PEREZ, JJ.
ALDRIN BERDADERO y
The mauling was witnessed by many and the press took pictures and a video ARMAMENTO, Promulgated:
of the event which became front-page news the following day. Cory Appellant. June 29, 2010
instructed the Western Police district to investigate on it and Brigadier x---------------------------------------------------------------------
General Alfredo Lim offered a P10,000 reward for persons who could give -----x
information which could help arrest the killers. Sumilang and Banculo
cooperated with the Police and several persons including the accused were DECIS ION
investigated. DEL CASTILLO, J.:
Informations for murder were filed and these cases were consolidated. Strict compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 regarding the custody
The prosecution presented 12 witnesses including Sumilang and Banculo. In and disposition of evidence against the accused may be excused under justifiable
support of their testimonies, the prosecution also presented documentary grounds. If the justifiable reason could no longer be determined due to the defenses
evidence consisting of newspaper accounts of the indicent and various failure to raise it in issue during trial, it is of vital importance to establish that the
photos. integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved since these
would be determinative of whether the accused is guilty or not.[1]
For their defense, the principal accused denied their participation in the
mauling. Either they were not there (since they were not in the Factual Antecedents
Photographs) or that they were there and were in the photos because they
were just watching or trying to stop the maulers. Sison however said that On March 28, 2003, an Information[2] was filed against appellant Aldrin Berdadero y
he was not there and was in fact waiting for his photos to be developed ( he Armamento (appellant) for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 which was
was a commercial photographer) and was afflicted with hernia which docketed as Criminal Case No. 12861. The accusatory allegations of the Information
impaired his mobility. read:
The RTC found Sison, Pacadar, Tan, de los Santos and Tamayo guilty as That on or about March 25, 2003, at around 2:40 oclock in
principals in the crime of murder qualified with treachery. Starlet Annie the afternoon at Arrieta Subdivision (Brgy. 20), Batangas City,
Ferrer was convicted as an accomplice. The court acquitted the others. Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable
Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by
On appeal, CA acquitted Starlet Annie Ferrer and increased the penalty law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
of the rest of the accused except Tamayo. The Ca found them guilty of sell, dispense or deliver 0.04 gram of shabu, [also] known as
murder qualified by abuse of superior strength (penalty increased to RP). methamphetamine hydrochloride a dangerous drug, which
Hence auto review before the SC (for those sentenced to RP) is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
Contrary to Law.
Issue: Were the photographs of the incident presented properly given
evidentiary weight despite lack of proper identification by their respective
photographers? On arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense
charged. In the trial that ensued, the prosecution and the defense presented different
Held: Yes. Photographs, when presented in evidence, must be identified by accounts of the events that transpired prior to and during the appellants arrest.
the photographer as to its production and testified as to th e
circumstances under which they were produced. The value of The Version of the Prosecution
this kind of evidence lies in its being a correct representation or
reproduction of the original, and its admissibility is determined by its The Investigation Section of the Batangas City Police Station received a report from an
accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. The informant that the appellant was selling shabu. Thus, PO3 Danilo F. Balmes (PO3
photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify the Balmes) and PO2 Edwalberto M. Villas (PO2 Villas) organized a buy-bust operation and
pictures he has taken. The correctness of the photograph as a faithful designated the informant as the poseur-buyer.
representation of the object portrayed can be proved prima facie, either
by the testimony of the person who made it or by other competent Thereafter, the two police officers and the informant went to the target area and
witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment as parked the van they were using in front of appellants house. After alighting from the
to its accuracy. vehicle, the informant talked to the appellant. A few minutes later, the appellant went
inside his house. When he returned, he handed to the informant two plastic sachets
containing white crystalline substance in exchange for the marked money. The marked money in his presence or that of his counsel, a representative from the media
informant then gave the pre-arranged signal that the sale was consummated. and the Department of Justice. The appellant likewise assails the authority of PO3
Balmes and PO2 Villas to conduct the alleged buy-bust operation for failure of the
The police officers who were observing the transaction from inside the van prosecution to prove that they were deputized by the PDEA as required under Section
apprehended the appellant and recovered the marked money from him. They 81 of RA 9165. And even assuming that there was faithful compliance with the
apprised the appellant of his constitutional rights before taking him to mandates of RA 9165, the appellant argues that the poseur-buyers testimony became
the barangay hall to record the entrapment operation and the evidence seized from material and indispensable due to his denial of having committed the prohibited act
the appellant in the blotter. The informant turned over the plastic sachets to PO3 of selling the dangerous drug. Thus, it is the appellants conclusion that the seizure and
Balmes. They then proceeded to the police station. custody over the seized drugs is void.
Upon their arrival, the buy-bust operation and the items confiscated from the Our Ruling
appellant were recorded in the police blotter. The desk officer, PO1 Arnold delos Reyes
(PO1 Delos Reyes), prepared the complaint sheet while PO3 Balmes placed markings The appeal is unmeritorious.
on the plastic sachets. The first sachet was marked DFB-1 with the date 3-25-03, while
the second sachet was marked DFB-2 with the same date. The sachets were then The elements necessary to establish a case for illegal sale of shabu are: (1) the identity
submitted for laboratory examination, which tested positive for methamphetamine of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of
hydrochloride or shabu. the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is material in a prosecution for illegal
sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place,
The Version of the Defense coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in
evidence.[7]
The appellant claimed that he was a victim of frame-up. He testified that at
around 2:40 in the afternoon of March 25, 2003, two men came to his house and The prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the essential elements of the
introduced themselves as locksmiths. His mother allowed them to enter and showed illegal sale of shabu. The appellant was positively identified by police officers who
them the defective keys. After a while, the men left, but they returned 10 minutes conducted the buy-bust operation as the seller of the shabu presented in the
later, kicked the door open and handcuffed him. He asked why he was being arrested case. PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas testified that their confidential informant acted as the
but no explanation was forthcoming. He was instead brought to the police station. buyer of the shabu from the appellant. It was likewise established that the sale actually
occurred and that two sachets of shabu were sold for the price of P500.00. The
The appellant denied that illicit drugs were recovered from him and that the two men marked money used in the buy-bust operation was duly adduced in
who arrested him were PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas. evidence. The shabu sold by the appellant was also positively and categorically
identified during trial.
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
Prosecutions involving illegal drugs depend largely on the credibility of the police
On October 10, 2005, the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 4, rendered its officers who conducted the buy-bust operation.[8] The trial court in this case, as
Decision[3] convicting the appellant. The dispositive portion reads: affirmed by the CA, held that the testimonies of PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas were
Wherefore, finding the evidence of the Prosecution unequivocal, straightforward, and consistent in material respects with each other and
satisfying that degree of moral certainty, accused Aldrin with other testimonies and physical evidence. We find no cogent reason to overturn
Berdadero y Armamento is found Guilty beyond a said findings.
reasonable doubt of having violated Section 5, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165 as set forth in the information filed in The appellants defense of frame-up must fail. We have previously ruled
this case. He is therefore sentenced to pay a fine that frame-up is a banal defense of those accused in drug-related cases that is viewed
of P500,000.00 and to undergo life imprisonment pursuant with disfavor. Like the defense of alibi, frame-up is an allegation that can easily be
to law. He is however, credited with his preventive concocted. For this claim to prosper, the defense must adduce clear and convincing
imprisonment if he is entitled to any. evidence, which the appellant failed to do.[9] There was no proof proffered to overturn
the presumption that the arresting police officers regularly performed their
The specimens subject of chemistry Report No. D-634-03 duties. The appellant also did not prove that the prosecution witnesses were
(Exhibit C) made by Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas maliciously motivated, which would put their credibility in doubt. Moreover, the
is confiscated and directed to be proceeded against pursuant failure to present the appellants mother to testify and corroborate his defense of
to law. frame-up renders the same as self-serving thus unworthy of any weight in evidence.
SO ORDERED.[4] The appellants contention that the buy-bust operation failed to comply with Section
21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules fails to impress. Paragraph 1 of Section 21,
Article II of said law outlines the procedure to be followed in the custody and handling
Ruling of the Court of Appeals of the seized drugs. Thus:
Dissatisfied, the appellant appealed before the Court of Appeals (CA). However, in its Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized
Decision[5] promulgated on July 3, 2007, the CA denied the appeal for lack of merit and and/or Surrendered Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous
affirmed in toto the ruling of the trial court. Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instrument/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. x x
Issues x
(1) The apprehending team having initial
Thus, this appeal with the following assignment of errors: custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
I photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE DEFENSE. seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and
II any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
ASSUMING, THAT THE VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION IS copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
CORRECT, THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING
THAT THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT FOR THE xxxx
CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROVEN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT.[6]
This provision is implemented by Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules
and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, viz.:
The appellant insists that no buy-bust operation ever transpired and that his arrest was
unlawful. He also contends that the prosecution failed to prove that the alleged buy- (a) The apprehending team having initial
bust operation complied with Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules since custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after
the police authorities neither inventoried nor photographed the seized drugs and seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the transferred, absorbed and integrated in the PDEA shall be
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or extended appointments to positions similar in rank, salary,
seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative and other emoluments and privileges granted to their
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and respective positions in their original mother agencies.
any elected public official who shall be required to sign the
copies of the inventory and be given a copy The transfer, absorption and integration of the different
thereof: Provided, further, that non-compliance with these offices and units provided for in this Section shall take effect
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the within eighteen (18) months from the effectivity of this
integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are Act: Provided, That personnel absorbed and on detail service
properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall shall be given until five (5) years to finally decide to join the
not render void and invalid such seizure of and custody over PDEA.
the said items.
Nothing in this Act shall mean a diminution of the
investigative powers of the NBI and the PNP on all other
The failure of the prosecution to show that the police officers conducted crimes as provided for in their respective organic
the required physical inventory and photograph of the evidence confiscated pursuant laws: Provided, however, That when the investigation being
to said guidelines, is not fatal. Indeed, the implementing rules that non-compliance conducted by the NBI, PNP or any ad hoc anti-drug task force
with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the is found to be a violation of any of the provisions of this Act,
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending the PDEA shall be the lead agency. The NBI, PNP or any of the
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizure of and custody over said task force shall immediately transfer the same to the
items. PDEA: Provided, further, That the NBI, PNP and the Bureau of
Customs shall maintain close coordination with the PDEA on
Notably, the defense did not raise this issue during trial. Be that as it may, we explained all drug related matters.
in People v. Del Monte[10] that what is of vital importance is the preservation of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the
determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The existence of the A perusal of the foregoing provision shows that it is silent as to the consequences of
dangerous drug is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale of failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority of the PDEA prior to
dangerous drugs. The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the conducting a buy-bust operation, in the same way that the IRR is likewise silent on the
crime and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Thus, it is matter. However, by no stretch of imagination could this silence be interpreted as a
essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt. The legislative intent to make an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or
chain of custody requirement performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.[23]
evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary
doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed.[11] It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that where great inconvenience will
result from a particular construction, or great public interests would be endangered or
To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous sacrificed, or great mischief done, such construction must be avoided, or the court
whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the ought to presume that such construction was not intended by the makers of the law,
police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up unless required by clear and unequivocal words.[24]
to the time it was offered in evidence.[12]
As we see it, Section 86 is explicit only in saying that the PDEA shall be the lead agency
Here, the testimonies of prosecution witnesses convincingly show that the integrity in the investigations and prosecutions of drug-related cases. Therefore, other law
and the evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal substance was properly enforcement bodies still possess authority to perform similar functions as the PDEA as
preserved. PO3 Balmes marked the sachets containing shabu with his initials and the long as illegal drugs cases will eventually be transferred to the latter. Moreover, the
date of the appellants arrest.[13] PO2 Villas confirmed that PO3 Balmes marked the same provision states that PDEA, serving as the implementing arm of the Dangerous
same sachets of shabu sold by the appellant. PO1 Delos Reyes entered the arrest in Drugs Board shall be responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of all
the police blotter[14] then referred the appellant and the evidence to the Investigation the provisions on any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
Division.[15] PO3 Sergio del Mundo (PO3 Del Mundo) received the appellant and the chemical as provided in the Act. It is only appropriate that drugs cases being handled
evidence from PO1 Delos Reyes and prepared the request for laboratory tests on the by other law enforcement authorities be transferred or referred to the PDEA as the
specimens.[16] PO2 Villas brought the specimens and said letter request to the crime lead agency in the campaign against the menace of dangerous drugs. Section 86 is
laboratory[17]and waited for the results.[18] Insp. Donna Villa P. Huelgas conducted the more of an administrative provision. By having a centralized law enforcement
laboratory examination on the same specimens still bearing the markings of PO3 body, i.e., the PDEA, the Dangerous Drugs Board can enhance the efficacy of the law
Balmes,[19] and which examination yielded positive for the presence of against dangerous drugs. To be sure, Section 86(a) of the IRR emphasizes this point by
methamphetamine hydrochloride.[20] The results were given to PO2 Villas, who turned providing:
over the same to PO3 Del Mundo.[21]
Section 86. x x x
It is thus evident that the identity of the corpus delicti has been properly preserved and (a) Relationship/Coordination between PDEA and Other
established by the prosecution. The appellant in this case has the burden to show that Agencies The PDEA shall be the lead agency in the
the evidence was tampered or meddled with to overcome a presumption of regularity enforcement of the Act, while the PNP, the NBI and other
in the handling of exhibits of public officers and a presumption that public officers law enforcement agencies shall continue to conduct anti-
properly discharge their duties.[22] The appellant was unable to discharge such burden. drug operations in support of the PDEA x x x. Provided,
finally, that nothing in the IRR shall deprive the PNP, the NBI,
The appellants next argument that the evidence against him was obtained in violation other law enforcement personnel and the personnel of the
of Section 86 of RA 9165 because the buy-bust operation was made without any Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) from effecting lawful
involvement of the PDEA also fails to impress. This provision reads: arrests and seizures in consonance with the provisions of
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
SEC. 86. Transfer, Absorption, and Integration of All
Operating Units on Illegal Drugs into the PDEA and Transitory
Provisions. The Narcotics Group of the PNP, the Narcotics It is therefore clear that PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas possessed and acted with authority
Division of the NBI and the Customs Narcotics Interdiction to conduct the buy-bust operation, making the same valid.
Unit are hereby abolished; however they shall continue with
the performance of their task as detail service with the PDEA, The appellants final contention that the failure to present the poseur-buyer is fatal and
subject to screening, until such time that the organizational entitles him to an acquittal, again fails to impress. The non-presentation of the poseur-
structure of the Agency is fully operational and the number buyer is fatal only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction.[25] The
of graduates of the PDEA Academy is sufficient to do the task testimonies of PO3 Balmes and PO2 Villas sufficiently established that the appellant is
themselves: Provided, That such personnel who are affected guilty of selling a dangerous drug. Their referral to the shabu handed by the appellant
shall have the option of either being integrated into the PDEA to the poseur-buyer as something merely indicates that at the time of the sale, they
or remain with their original mother agencies and shall, could only presume that the specimen sold by the appellant was shabu since they
thereafter, be immediately reassigned to other units therein were conducting a buy-bust operation. They still had to submit the specimen to the
by the head of such agencies. Such personnel who are crime laboratory for testing which later tested positive for shabu. Thus, the fact that
the poseur-buyer was not presented does not weaken the evidence for the drug cases, we then repeatedly emphasize that "what is essential is ‘the
prosecution. preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items,
as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence
For the illegal sale of shabu, and there being no modifying circumstance alleged in the of the accused.’"23
Information, the trial court, as sustained by the CA, correctly imposed the penalty of
life imprisonment in accordance with Article 63(2) of the Revised Penal Code and a fine On the issue of the subject drugs’ marking as part of the chain of custody
of P500,000.00. requirement, the accused-appellants point out that SI Tumalon and SI
Saavedra both named SI Saavedra as the one who marked the seized drugs,
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. but witnesses SA Minguez and Atty. Magno each testified that it was SI
CR-HC No. 01774 sustaining in all respects the Decision of
Tumalon and the forensic chemist, respectively, who effected such marking.
the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City, Branch 4, convicting appellant Aldrin
The Court, however, agrees with the CA’s observation that although there
Berdadero y Armamento for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine were conflicting accounts by the prosecution witnesses as to the person
of P500,000.00 is AFFIRMED. who actually marked the seized drugs, the failure of SA Minguez and Atty.
Magno to identify the said person could be readily explained by the fact that
SO ORDERED. they had no actual participation in the evidence’s marking. As against their
24. People v. Prajes and Mala, G.R. No. 206770, April 2, 2014 conflicting statements, what were significant were the testimonies of SI
Tumalon and SI Saavedra, being the persons who actually seized, endorsed
FACTS: and marked the evidence. Both agreed that following the accused-
appellants’ arrest, the seized packs of shabu were handed by SI Tumalon to
-Prajes and Mala, the accused-appellants were accused of violating Section SI Saavedra, who was the one who placed the markings on the evidence,24
5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. before the same were brought to the laboratory for examination. As aptly
explained by the appellate court:
-According to the prosecution, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
in Cebu City received reports that theaccused-appellants were engaged in SA Minguez may have incorrectly assumed that it was SI Tumalon, their
the sale of illegal drugs. Following surveillance operations conducted poseur-buyer, who made the markings on the packs of shabu that were
during the last week of August 2002, a buy-bust operation was organized confiscated in the ensuing confusion. However, SI Tumalon himself testified
by the NBI for September 4, 2002.5 that he turned-over the drugs to SA Saavedra. Atty. Magno’s statement that
it was "maybe our Forensic Chemist" who made the markings on the three
-The accused-appellants denied the charge against them. Prajes claimed
packs is inconsequential when considered with the positive testimonies of
that at about 4:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002, he was sleeping at his
SI Tumalon and SA Saavedra. SA Minguez and Atty. Magno assumed
house in Kinasang-an when a neighbor, Renante Paradero (Paradero),
supporting roles. It was SI Tumalon who was in the thick of things so to
woke him up to informhim that some persons were looking for him.
speak, as he was the poseur-buyer and he was the one who took the shabu
-For Mala’s defense, witness Magdalena Abarquez claimed that at around from accused-appellants and handed it to SA Saavedra for marking.
4:00 p.m. on September 4, 2002, she saw Mala enter the house of Prajes. Moreover, SA Saavedra’s identification of his own handwriting puts any
When he tried to leave the house, he was prevented by someone who was doubt to rest.25 (Citations omitted)
inside the house. Sabayton was called on the witness stand by the defense
The fact that the marking was performed by SA Saavedra only upon the buy-
as a hostile witness.
bust team’s arrival at the NBI office did not adversely affect the
-The RTC Ruling On June 29, 2004, the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 15, prosecution’s case against the accused-appellants. Given the situation at
rendered a Decision16 finding the accused-appellants guilty for violation of the house where the accused-appellants were caught in flagrante delicto
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and sentencing them to each suffer and then arrested by the buy-bust team, the failure of SA Saavedra to mark
the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay fine of P500,000.00.17 the seized drugs at the said site was justified. In his testimony before the
Dissatisfied with the trial court’s ruling, the accused-appellants appealed trial court, SA Minguez described that after the accused-appellants’ arrest,
tothe CA. their neighbors interfered and rallied for the accused-appellants, even
compelling members of the buy-bust team inside the house to seek the
-The CA Ruling In a Decision18 dated May 30, 2012, the CA affirmed in toto immediate aid of their peers so that they could leave the premises.26
the decision of the RTC. The appellate court found no credence in the
denials that were posed by the accused-appellants. Instead, it found Even the failure of the prosecution to present a physical inventory and
credible the evidence presented by the prosecution to prove the elements photograph of the seized drugs did not render inadmissible the packs of
of the crime of illegal sale of drugs, as well as its showing that there was shabu that were seized from the accused-appellants, especially as we
sufficient compliance by the NBI operatives with the rule on chain of consider that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs did not appear
custody. to have been compromised. This was similar with the Court's ruling in
People v. Torres27 and Ambre v. People,28 wherein we affirmed the
Issue: Whether or not there is proof beyond reasonable doubt? conviction of the accused notwithstanding some deviations from the
required procedure on physical inventory and photographs of the seized
Ruling: items.
On the issue of chain of custody, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that As against the accused-appellants' denial, an inherently weak defense, the
"[t]he apprehending team having initial custody and control of the [seized] evidence presented by the prosecution deserves credence. The following
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory elements of illegal sale of shabu were sufficiently established during the
and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s trial: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the for the thing.
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[.]" 25. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, V., SONNY SABDULA y AMANDA,
In a line of cases, the Court has nonetheless explained that "while the chain FACTS: The respondent here was charged with violation of Section 5, Article
of custody should ideally be perfect, in reality itis not, ‘as it is almost always II of R.A. No. 9165 Allegedly, a confidential informant told the Central Police
impossible to obtain an unbroken chain.’" The limitation on chain of custody District with respect to the illegal drug activities of one alias "Moneb" at a
is also recognized in the afore-quoted Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165’s IRR, as squatter’s area in San Roque II, Quezon City. Due to this, they formed a buy
it states that non-compliance with the rules’ requirements under justifiable bust team composed of PO2 Centeno (the designated poseur-buyer), PO1
grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items Fortea, PO2 Rolando Daduya, PO1 Victor Porte, PO1 Louise Escarlan and
are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render PO1 Noel de Guzman. Around 7 of theevening on february 1, 2004, the
void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. In resolving
informant intoduced PO2 Ceteno as his kumapre and ask if he can sell to While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the
them a drugs for200 pesos. performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the
constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot
The respondent was able to produce a 0.10 gram of white crystalline by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The
substance containing MethylamphetamineHydrochloride, a dangerous presumption of regularity is merely just that - a mere presumption
drug. Thereafter he was arrested. The seized plastic sachet was given to disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by evidence
SPO2 Salinel who, in turn, handed it to PO3 Chantengco who made a request cannot be regarded as binding truth.
for laboratory examination that PO3 Centeno brought, together with the
seized item to the Central Police District Crime Laboratory for analysis.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Per Chemistry Report No. D-140-2004 of Engr. Leonard Jabonillo (the vs.
forensic chemist), the submitted specimen tested positive for the presence NENITA GAMATA y VALDEZ, Accused-Appellant.
of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
RESOLUTION
On the side of the respondent, he alleged that while he was riding a taxi, a
group of five men suddenly pointed a gun to him and he was forcibly taken
REYES, J.:
to the police. A certain person ask the sister of respondent to give 200,000
php for ransom. However, unable to produce, the respondent was
prosecuted. This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated May 11, 2012 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04839 which affirmed the
RTC RULING: found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal Decision2 dated September 15, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
sale of shabu, and sentenced him to suffer thepenalty of life imprisonment. Makati City, Branch 64 in Criminal Case Nos. 06-1344 to 1345 finding Nenita
Gamata y Valdez (accused-appellant) guilty in Criminal Case 'No. 06-1344
CA RULING: the CA affirmed the RTC decision.The CA held that the for violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise
prosecution successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of shabu: known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentencing
PO2 Centeno, the poseur-buyer, positively identified the appellant as the her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
person who gave him shabu weighing 0.10 gram in exchange for P200.00. ₱500,000.00.
The CA also ruled that the buy-bust team were presumed to have The Information in Criminal Case No. 06-1344 to which the accused-
performed their duties regularly. It added that the appellant failed to appellant pleaded "Not Guilty" contained the following accusations:
impute improper motive on the part of the arresting officers. The CA further
held that the chain of custody over the seized plastic sachet were properly
That on or about the 25TH day of July 2006, in the City of Makati, Philippines
established, even if the time of the actual marking of the seized item had and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
not been shown. accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and deliver to another,
ISSUE: WON, the sachet drugs obtain by the police was properly marked, zero point zero three [0.03] gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride
thus making it admissible? which is a dangerous drug, in exchange of Php.500.00 pesos.3 [sic]
RULING: NO. A successful prosecution for the sale of illegal drugs requires
more than the perfunctory presentation of evidence establishing each Meanwhile, the information in Criminal Case No. 06-1345 indicted the
element of the crime, namely: the identities of the buyer and seller, the accused-appellant for illegal possession of 0.14 gram of
transaction or sale of the illegal drug and the existence of the corpus delicti. methylamphetamine hydrochloride, an act punishable under Section 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165.4Considering, however, that the accused-appellant
These exchanges further show that the apprehending team never was acquitted by the RTC of such criminal charge, the present discussion
conducted an inventory nor did they photograph the confiscated item in the shall concern only Criminal Case No. 06-1344.
presence of the appellant or his counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice, or an elective official either at the place of During trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Police Officer 2
seizure, or at the police station. The Joint Affidavit of the police did not also Renie Aseboque (PO2 Aseboque), Noel Pulido (Pulido) and Juan Siborboro,
mention any inventory conducted of any photograph taken. Corollarily, Jr., both operatives of the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC), and
there was no certificate of inventory or inventory receipt and photographs Police Inspector May Andrea Bonifacio (P/Insp. Bonifacio), Forensic Chemist
of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. Their declarations
of the seized drugs attached to the records.
depicted the following events:
In People v. Gonzales,23 the police failed to conduct an inventory and to
photograph the seized plastic sachet. In acquitting the accused based on On July 25, 2006, an information was received by Senior Inspector Joefel
reasonable doubt, we explained that [t]he omission of the inventory and Felongco Siason (S/Insp. Siason) of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special
photographing exposed another weakness of the evidence of guilt, Operations Task Force (SAIDSOTF), Makati City, from a confidential asset of
considering that the inventory and photographing — to be made in the the MADAC that rampant illegal drug peddling in Laperal Compound,
presence of the accused or his representative, or within the presence of any Barangay Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City was being carried out by the
representative from the media, Department of Justice or any elected accused-appellant, Jun Gamata (Jun), Toto Madera and Totoy Pajayjay.
Apparently, their names are also included in the watch list of the MADAC.
official, who must sign the inventory, or be given a copy of the inventory —
were really significant stages of the procedures outlined by the law and its
IRR.24 Forthwith, a team composed of SAIDSOTF police officers and MADAC
operatives was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation against the said
In the present case, the lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drugs subjects. During the briefing,PO2 Aseboque was designated as the poseur-
allegedly seized from petitioner due to the failure of the police to mark, buyer while the rest of the team members were assigned to be his back-up.
inventory and photograph the seized plastic sachet effectively negated the The operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
presumption of regularity. The procedural lapses by the police put in doubt Agency (PDEA) under Pre-Coordination Sheet Control Number MMRO-
the identity and evidentiary value of the seized plastic sachet. Our ruling in 072506-0212 duly acknowledged to have been received by PO1 Nemencio
V. Domingo of the PDEA.5 One piece of a 500.00 bill was also marked for use
People v. Cantalejo28 on this point is particularly instructive:
in the operation.6
As a general rule, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the
accused is usually accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption At around 4:30 p.m., the team, together with the confidential informant,
that they have performed their duties regularly. However, when the proceeded to the subject area.1âwphi1 The team members positioned
performance of their duties is tainted with irregularities, such presumption themselves in spots where they can monitor the possible transaction.
is effectively destroyed. Meanwhile, PO2 Aseboque and the informant walked towards Laperal
Compound and thereupon noticed a woman clad in white t-shirt and maong
pants. The informant identified her to PO2 Aseboque as the accused- of the accused-appellant as the person from whom he was able to purchase
appellant. ₱500.00 worth of shabu.
The two of them then approached the accused-appellant whom PO2 The accused-appellant’s denial and alibi were rejected for being
Aseboque queried as to the whereabouts of Jun. In response, the accused- unsubstantiated. Her imputations of frame-up to the police officers were
appellant said that Jun was not around and that "kami nandito lang, bakit likewise found uncorroborated by convincing proof and thus overthrown by
kukuha ba kayo?" PO2 Aseboque comprehended her response as the street the presumption of regularity attached to the performance of the police
language used in the dealing ofdangerous drugs and that she actually meant officers’ official duties.
that she was selling shabu if they wanted to buy one. PO2 Aseboque
repeated his query to which the accused-appellant replied, "Wag niyo ng
The RTC disposed thus:
hintayin si Jun, ako meron." PO2 Aseboque took her response as a
confirmation that she was indeed selling shabu. He then asked her if she
had 500.00 worth of shabu. The accused-appellant took out one plastic WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, [judgment] is hereby rendered as
sachet from her right pocket and handed it over to PO2 Aseboque who in follows:
turn examined its contents and thereafter handed the buy-bust money to
the accused-appellant. As she was placing the money inside her pocket, PO2 1. Finding the accused NENITA GAMATA y VALDEZ, GUILTY in
Aseboque made the pre-arranged signal to his buy-bust team mates by Criminal Case No. 06-1344 of the charge for violation of Section
lighting a cigarette. 5, Article II of RA 9165 and sentencing her to life imprisonment
and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS
Upon seeing MADAC operative Pulido rushing towards the scene, PO2 (Php500,000.00);
Aseboque held the accused-appellant and introduced himself as a police
officer. He directed her to empty the contents of her pockets but she 2. ACQUITTING the accused NENITA GAMATA y VALDEZ in
refused. This prompted PO2 Aseboque to order Pulido to dig into the Criminal Case No. 06-1345 of the charge for violation of Section
accused-appellant’s pockets. Pulido complied and discovered three more 11, Article II of RA 9165.
pieces of transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance
suspected as shabu along with the buy-bust money and 120.00 of the
accused-appellant’s personal money. SO ORDERED.14 (Emphasis ours)
The accused-appellant was then informed of her constitutional rights while On appeal, the accused-appellant argued for her acquittal on the ground
the sachet she sold to PO2 Aseboque was immediately marked by the latter that the identity of the drugs seized from her was not proved beyond
with his initials "REA" while those recovered by Pulido were marked with reasonable doubt because the prosecution failed to supply all the links in
"REA-1", "REA-2", and "REA-3". At the crime scene, PO2 Aseboque also the chain of their custody. She further pointed out the inconsistent
prepared an Acknowledgment Receipt7which he and the arresting team testimonial and documentary evidence on the markings placed on the
signed. seized items. The accused-appellant also questioned the failure of the police
officers to comply with the procedure laid down in Section 21, Article II of
R.A. No. 9165 particularly, the preparation of the inventory and taking of
The accused-appellant and the seized evidence were subsequently brought photographs of the seized items.15
to the Makati SAIDSOTF office where they were turned over to PO2 Rafael
Castillo (PO2 Castillo) for investigation, interrogation and proper
disposition. At the same office, PO2 Aseboque executed an Affidavit of In a Decision16 dated May 11, 2012, the CA denied the appeal and concurred
Arrest8 and a Supplemental Affidavit. with the findings and conclusions of the RTC that the identities of the buyer
and seller as well as the consummation of the sale of illegal drugs was
proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution through the
Along with a Request for Laboratory Examination9 prepared by S/Insp. straightforward testimony of the poseur-buyer himself, PO2 Aseboque, as
Siason, Pulido brought the seized specimens to the PNP Crime Laboratory. believably corroborated by two other members of the buy-bust team and
The same were received by a certain Relos, officer of the day, in the by extensive documentary evidence. The CA rejected the accused-
presence of Crime Laboratory Forensic Chemist P/Insp. Bonifacio. appellant’s arguments and held that the same were disproved by the
evidence on record, thus:
P/Insp. Bonifacio conducted the necessary tests on the subject specimens
and the results thereof yielded positive results for methylamphetamine Accused-appellant contends that while[PO2] Aseboque maintains that he
hydrochloride or shabu. Thereafter, she tagged each item with tape had custody of the items seized from her, Pulido testified that he was the
markings and reduced her findings in Physical Science Report Number D- one who held the items recovered from accused-appellant. A careful
506-06S.10 She then turned over the specimens to the evidence custodian perusal of the transcript of stenographic notes, however, reveals that there
from whom she later on retrieved them upon the instructions of the was actually no inconsistency as what Pulido testified to as the items that
prosecutor after the filing of criminal informations against the accused- was with him were the ones he recovered from the pocket of the accused-
appellant.11 appellant and not the one that was subject of the sale. x x x
The defense refuted all of the above occurrences and claimed, through the xxxx
testimony of the accused-appellant, that at around 3:00 p.m. of July 25,
2006, she had just finished taking a bath when she heard someone banging
the door of her house in Laperal Compound. When she opened the door, x x x [W]hen Pulido testified as to the seized items, he was referring to those
five armed men in civilian clothing greeted her and asked for Jun, her sachets that he was able to fish out of the pocket of accused-appellant and
brother-in-law. When she answered them that she did not know Jun’s he held on to the same as [PO2] Aseboque had his hands full trying to
whereabouts, they began searching her house. Since Jun actually resides at restrain accused-appellant. x x x Pulido corroborated [PO2] Aseboque’s
about five houses away from hers, the armed men were unable to locate statement that it was the latter who prepared the inventory of the items
him at the accused-appellant’s house. They then handcuffed the accused- seized from the accused-appellant. x x x
appellant and loaded her in a van where she saw her neighbor, Alaw, and a
certain Jonalyn Silvano. The three of them were brought to the SAIDSOTF xxxx
office where the accused-appellant was shown items that will be used as
evidence against her.12
It is noted that the four sachets were already marked with the initial of the
apprehending officer at the scene of the crime. The act was attested to by
In a Decision13 dated September 15, 2010,the RTC sustained the the rest of the arresting team and the markings were reflected in the
prosecution’s version and held that the pieces of evidence submitted acknowledgement report. Even if [PO2] Castillo failed to note in his spot
established the presence of the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, report that the items were marked with the initial of [PO2] Aseboque, it
viz: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, object and consideration; could not be discounted that the items were the ones seized from the
and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Both person of accused-appellant because if the same were different, the items
elements were found present in the poseur-buyer’s positive identification that were turned over to the forensic chemist P/Insp. Bonifacio would not
have borne the initial of [PO2] Aseboque considering that from the hands WITNESS: She said: Kami nandito lang, bakit kukuha ba kayo?
of [PO2] Castillo, the seized items were personally handed by him to Relos,
who in turn gave the same to P/Insp. Bonifacio who was, likewise, present
PROS. PAGGAO: What did you understand by that?
when [PO2] Castillo handed the items to Relos. Moreover, [P/Insp.]
Bonifacio explained that there is actually no difference between the
marking "REA" and "R.E.A." x x x WITNESS: It is a street language that they are using with dangerous drugs,
so it is understood that we are going to buy shabu, sir.
xxxx
PROS. PAGGAO: What did you reply, if any?
In addition, an examination of the letter request (Request for Laboratory
Examination) shows that while the signatory mentioned that the item WITNESS: I asked her, "Si Jun wala ba?"
subject of the sale was marked as "REA", when he attached the sachet to
the request, the signatory made a handwritten reference to the attached PROS. PAGGAO: Any answer from the woman?
specimen as "R.E.A." To Our mind, the presence or absence of the
punctuation marks is of no moment as the request was precisely clear that
the items to be examined were the ones attached to the request WITNESS: She said, "Wag n’yo ng hintayin si Jun, ako meron."
itself.17 (Citation omitted)
PROS. PAGGAO: What did you do?
The CA also dismissed the accused-appellant’s contentions that the
statutory procedure for the inventory and photograph of the seized items WITNESS: I asked her if she has worth Five Hundred Pesos, sir.
was not observed. The CA held that the absence of a media representative
or an elected public official during the inventory was not material to
overturn a conviction as it did not pertain to the elements of the crime PROS. PAGGAO: What was her reply, if any?
charged. The CA further stressed that non-compliance with the inventory
and photograph requirements will not render void and invalid the seizure WITNESS: She told me that she has worth Five Hundred Pesos, sir.
and custody over the items.
PROS. PAGGAO: And, after that, what did you do, if any?
Accordingly, the decision disposed as follows:
WITNESS: She took one plastic sachet from her right pocket, sir.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED and the
appealed Decision dated September 15, 2010 rendered by the Regional Trial
PROS. PAGGAO: What did she do with that?
Court, Branch 64, Makati City, in Criminal Case No. 06-1344 for Violation of
Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED.
WITNESS: She handed that to me, sir.
18
SO ORDERED.
PROS. PAGGAO: And, upon receiving the sachet of shabu, what did you do?
The accused-appellant is now before the Court pleading for her acquittal
based on the same arguments raised in her Appellant’s Brief before the WITNESS: I checked it first if it has contents, sir.
CA.19
PROS. PAGGAO: After checking, what did you do?
Ruling of the Court
WITNESS: I then handed the buy bust money worth Five Hundred Pesos, sir.
The Court denies the appeal.
PROS. PAGGAO: And, after she received the Five Hundred Pesos, what
The arguments proffered in support of the accused-appellant’s plea for happened next?
acquittal has already been exhaustively traversed by the CA and based on
evidence on record, the Court finds no reversible error imputable to the WITNESS: While she is putting the buy bust money inside her pocket, I made
appellate court and the trial court in finding her guilty beyond reasonable the pre-arranged signal by lighting a cigarette, sir.
doubt of illegal sale of shabu defined and penalized under Section 5, Article
II of R.A. No. 9165.
xxxx
As correctly ruled by the courts a quo, the presence of both requisites was
clearly established by the testimony of the poseur-buyer himself, PO2 The CA was also correct in ruling that the failure of the arresting officers to
Aseboque, who positively testified that the illegal sale took place when he strictly comply with paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No.
gave the ₱500.00 marked money to the accused-appellant in exchange for 916522 mandating the procedure for the inventory and photograph of seized
the shabu, thus: illegal drugs did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drugs seized from
the accused-appellant. As held in People v. Cardenas:23
WITNESS [PO2 Aseboque]: After I asked her if where is Jun, she told me that
Jun is not around, sir. [N]on-compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the making of the
inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized,
will not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule
PROS. PAGGAO: What did you do next? 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the
issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be
inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If
there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to PEOPLE v. GIL SALVIDAR Y GARLAN
the evidentiary weight that will accorded it by the courts. x x x
REYES, J.:
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will
For review[1] is the Decision[2] rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) on
bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due
October 31, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04989 affirming, albeit with
to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue
modification as to the wordings of one of the penalties imposed, the
therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of
Decision[3] dated April 11, 2011 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
admissibility—but of weight—evidentiary merit or probative value—to be
Caloocan City, Branch 120 in Criminal Case Nos. C-78532-33, convicting Gil
given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence
Salvidar y Garlan (accused-appellant) for violation of Sections 5[4] and
depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.24 (Emphasis supplied)
11,[5] Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.[6]
This is especially true when the chain of custody of the corpus delicti or the
illegal drug itself was shown to be unbroken,25 as in this case. Testimonial Factual Antecedents
and documentary evidence show that the poseur-buyer, PO2 Aseboque,
marked the seized illegal drug at the crime scene with his initials "REA". At The informations filed before the RTC against the accused-appellant
the same place, he also prepared an Acknowledgment Receipt of the items partially read as follows:
seized from the accused-appellant whose refusal to sign was duly noted in
the same document.26 The seized item was then immediately turned over
by PO2 Aseboque to SAIDSOTF investigating officer PO2 Castillo.27 On the CRIM CASE NO. 78532
same day, PO2 Castillo brought the seized illegal drug, together with the Violation of Section 5, Art. II, RA 9165
Request for Laboratory Examination,28 to the PNP Crime Laboratory where
it was received by a certain Relos in the presence of Forensic Chemist, "That on or about the 12th day of November 2007 in Caloocan City, Metro
P/Insp. Bonifacio.29 In her Physical Science Report No. D-506-06S,30 the Manila, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-
contents of the seized item marked REA weighed 0.03 gram tested positive named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully,
for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. After her examination, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO3 RAMON GALVEZ, who
P/Insp. Bonifacio turned over the seized item to the evidence custodian posed, as buyer, ten (10) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each
from whom she later retrieved them upon the instructions of and for containing dried MARIJUANA fruiting tops weighing 0.37 gram, 0.35 gram,
submission to the prosecutor. On the witness stand, P/Insp. Bonifacio 0.40 gram, 0.28 gram, 0.35 gram, 0.36 gram, 0.32 gram, 0.36 gram, 0.67
categorically identified the specimen presented as evidence as the very gram & 0.57 gram, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding license or
same specimen which she tested based on the marking she placed thereon: prescription therefore, knowing the same to be such.
"D-506-06S".31
Contrary to law."
Indeed, the following links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug
were duly accounted for, to wit: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal
CRIM CASE NO. 78533
drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the
Violation of Section 11, Art. II, RA 9165
turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the
"That on or about the 12th day of November 2007, in Caloocan City[,]
illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the
Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic
above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and
chemist to the court.32
there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody
and control one (1) transparent plastic box containing dried MARIJUANA
The alleged discrepancy between the testimony of P02 Aseboque that he fruiting tops weighing 29.01 grams, when subjected for laboratory
placed the marking REA on the seized item, the forensic chemist's report examination gave positive result to the tests of Marijuana, a dangerous
stating that the specimen was marked "R.E.A." and the absence of any such drug.
, description in the Spot Report33 of P02 Castillo did not cause a gap in the
chain of custody. As exhaustively discussed by the CA, the identity and Contrary to law."[7]
integrity of the seized item was preserved because, despite lack of accurate
description in the Spot Report, P/Insp. Bonifacio testified that the item she
received for laboratory examination bore the markings "REA" placed by P02 During arraignment, the accused-appellant entered a "not guilty" plea.
Aseboque at the crime scene. It is for this same reason that the punctuation Pre-trial then ensued. Since the two cases were filed against the same
marks after the letters R, E and A in her Physical Science Report No. D-506- accused and revolve around the same facts and evidence, they were
068 did not alter the identity and integrity of the actual specimen marked consolidated and tried jointly.
as "REA." The specimen marked at the crime scene, turned over to P02
Castillo and then received by P/Insp. Bonifacio were one and the same.
Version of the Prosecution
Further, the failure of the evidence custodian to take the witness stand did
The prosecution offered the following as witnesses: (a) Police Officer 3
not weaken the case for the prosecution because P/Insp. Bonifacio was able
Ramon Galvez (PO3 Galvez), the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation
to positively identify that the evidence submitted in court was the very same
conducted against the accused-appellant; (b) PO2 Randulfo Hipolito (PO2
specimen which she subjected to laboratory examination and its contents
Hipolito), likewise a member of the buy-bust operation; (c) Senior Police
tested positive for shabu.34
Officer 1 Fernando Moran (SPO1 Moran), then the investigator-on-duty to
whom the accused-appellant and the seized evidence were turned over at
In sum, the Court finds no reversible error in the conviction meted the the police station; and (d) Police Chief Inspector Albert S. Arturo (PCI
accused-appellant.1awp++i1 The penalty of life imprisonment and Arturo), Forensic Chemical Officer of the Northern Police District Crime
₱500,000.00 fine imposed upon her were in accord with Section 5, Article II Laboratory Office, Caloocan City, who conducted the examination on the
of R.A. No. 9165.35 evidence seized from the accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED and the Decision PO3 Galvez testified that on November 12, 2007, he was ordered by their
dated May 11, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04839 is chief to conduct a surveillance operation to verify reported illegal drug
hereby AFFIRMED. selling activities in Don Antonio Street, Barangay 19, Caloocan City. A
confidential informant told the police that a certain "Keempee," who
would later on be identified as the herein accused-appellant, was
SO ORDERED. notoriously selling marijuana in the area. A buy-bust team was thereafter
formed. PO3 Galvez was designated as the poseur-buyer, PO3 Fernando
Modina (PO3 Modina) as team leader, and PO2 Hipolito as back-up
member. A hundred peso bill, marked with PO3 Galvez's initials, was When his wife arrived, she argued with the police officers. The officers got
prepared. To send a signal to the other members of the buy-bust team of angry and informed him that he would be indicted.[14]
the consummation of the transaction with the accused-appellant, PO3
Galvez was instructed to throw a lit cigarette.[8] Guillar corroborated the accused-appellant's testimony about the date of
the arrest and their whereabouts at that time. He added that three
The buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. PO3 Galvez and the policemen arrived. They dragged his father out of the video game shop
informant saw the accused-appellant near the front door of his house, and the latter, in turn, resisted. Guillar cried while he chased his father
stripping marijuana leaves. The rest of the team remained in the who was taken away, but the former's attempt was futile. Guillar went
perimeter. PO3 Galvez approached the house, uttered "Keempee, pakuha home to inform his mother about the incident.[15]
nga ng damo, halagang isang daan," and gave the latter the P100.00
marked money. The accused-appellant then held ten (10) pieces of plastic,
which appeared to contain marijuana and white pieces of paper, placed Ruling of the RTC
them inside a Marlboro pack, and handed them all to PO3 Galvez. When
PO3 Galvez threw a lit cigarette, PO2 Hipolito joined him in arresting the On April 11, 2011, the RTC rendered a decision,[16] the dispositive portion
accused-appellant, who was apprised of his constitutional rights. After a of which reads:
further search, one transparent plastic box containing what likewise
appeared to be dried marijuana leaves, one plastic sachet with white
pieces of paper, and a few empty transparent plastic sachets were also Premises considered, this court finds and so holds the accused
seized from the accused-appellant.[9] Gil Salvidar y Garlan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of [R.A. No. 9165], x x x and imposes upon him
PO3 Galvez marked the ten (10) plastic sachets with "GSG/RG 11/12/07" the following:
representing his and the accused-appellant's initials and the date the
imprint was made. The rest of the items seized were marked with (1) In Crim. Case No. C-78532, the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine
"GSG/RH," the last two letters representing PO2 Hipolito's initials. The of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos ([P]500,000.00); and
accused-appellant and the seized items were thereafter taken to the
police station and turned over to SPO1 Moran, who prepared the letter (2) In Crim. Case No. C-78533, the penalty of Imprisonment of twelve (12)
request for laboratory examination. The crime laboratory tested the seized years and one (1) day to Fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three Hundred
items and found the same to be marijuana.[10] Thousand Pesos ([P]300,000.00).
PO2 Hipolito corroborated PO3 Galvez's testimony about the conduct of a The drugs subject matter of these cases consisting of ten (10) heat-sealed
buy-bust operation and the turnover of the accused-appellant and the transparent plastic sachets each containing dried MARIJUANA fruiting tops
seized items to the investigator at the police station. Additionally, PO2 weighing 0.37 gram, 0.35 gram, 0.40 gram, 0.28 gram, 0.35 gram, 0.36
Hipolito stated that he held the accused-appellant while PO3 Galvez was gram, 0.32 gram, 0.36 gram, 0.67 gram & 0.57 gram[,] as well as the one
marking some of the seized items. The accused-appellant was turned over (1) transparent plastic box containing dried MARIJUANA fruiting tops
to PO3 Modina upon the latter's arrival, while PO2 Hipolito marked the weighing 29.01 grams[,] are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of
rest of the seized items.[11] the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
The prosecution and the defense entered into stipulations and admissions SO ORDERED.[17]
of facts anent:
SPO1 Moran's (1) having caused the buy-bust money to be The RTC found the accused-appellant's defense of denial and claim of
photographed; (2) receipt, while at the police station, of the person attempted police extortion as bare, hence, unmeritorious. The trial court
of the accused-appellant and the items allegedly seized from him; declared that the testimonies of the members of the buy-bust team
(3) preparation of the evidence acknowledgment receipt, affidavit deserve full faith and credit, unless it can be shown that they did not
(a) of arrest of the police officers, and referral slip to the inquest properly perform their duties, or that they were inspired by ill motives.
prosecutor; (4) preparation of a letter request for laboratory The accused-appellant, in this case, did not personally know the policemen
examination of the seized items; and (5) receipt of the result of the and had no previous altercation with any of them, which could have
laboratory examination, which yielded positive otherwise prompted the filing of fabricated charges against him. Besides,
for marijuana;[12] and the police officers could not have been oblivious of the fact that Section 29
of R.A. No. 9165 imposes the penalty of death upon persons found guilty
PCI Arturo's (1) receipt of a letter request for laboratory of planting dangerous drugs as evidence.[18]
examination of ten (10) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets
containing white pieces of paper and Citing People v. Cueno[19] and People v. Rigodon,[20] the RTC emphasized
(b) dried marijuana fruiting/flowering tops; (2) conduct of a laboratory that only two basic elements must be present for the charge of illegal sale
examination on the aforecited specimens; and (3) preparation of of drugs to prosper, namely: (a) the determination of the identities of the
Physical Science Report No. D-382-07 stating therein the result of buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (b) the delivery
the laboratory examination.[13] of the thing sold and the payment therefor. In the case at bar, PO3 Galvez
gave a detailed account of how the sale involving the accused-appellant
was consummated and his testimony was corroborated by PO2 Hipolito.
The testimonies of SPO1 Moran and PCI Arturo were thus dispensed with. The seized items were also positively identified and the unbroken chain of
custody over the same was established.[21]
Settled is the rule that in the prosecution for illegal sale of drugs, it is The CA modified the wordings of the penalty imposed by the RTC on the
material to prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled accused-appellant for violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165. The CA
with the presentation in court of the evidence of corpus delicti. Said emphasized that the Indeterminate Sentence Law should be applied.
otherwise, the essential elements of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous Consequently, the proper penalty should be "expressed at a range whose
drugs are: 1)the accused sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another; maximum term shall not exceed the maximum fixed by the special law,
and 2) he knew that what he had sold and delivered was a prohibited drug. and the minimum term shall not be less than the minimum prescribed."[30]
In the instant case, PO3 Galvez'[s] testimony proves that the sale of illegal
drugs actually took place. x x x [T]he Accused-Appellant was caught in a Issues
buy-bust operation freely and knowingly selling and delivering prohibited
drugs. x x x. The accused-appellant and the OSG both manifested that they no longer
intended to file supplemental briefs.[31]
x x x The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the
Accused-Appellant committed the crime of illegal possession of dangerous Hence, the issues before this Court are the same ones raised before and
drugs. It was able to prove the following elements: 1)the accused is in disposed of by the CA. Essentially then, the Court is once again asked to
possession of an object identified as a prohibited drug; 2)such possession determine whether or not: (a) the testimonies of the members of the buy-
is not authorized by law; and, 3)he freely and consciously possessed the bust team about the accused-appellant's illegal selling activities and
said drug. possession of marijuana while the latter was at the front door of his house
and within public view are credible; and (b) the prosecution had complied
The records manifestly show that, after the buy-bust team arrested the with the procedural requirements mandated by Section 21[32] of the
Accused-Appellant, the procedural body search was conducted on his Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 as regards the
person. The search led to the discovery of one(1) transparent plastic box chain of custody over the evidence seized from the accused-appellant.
containing an undetermined amount of suspected dried marijuana leaves
(later weighed at 29.01 grams), which he freely possessed knowing the
same to be prohibited drugs. After the conduct of laboratory Ruling of the Court
examinations, the same yielded positive for marijuana. Further, he failed
G.R. No. 205610 July 30, 2014
The instant appeal lacks merit.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
In cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Law, appellate courts
vs.
tend to rely heavily on the trial court's assessment of the credibility of
RAMONITO VILLARTA y RIVERA and ALLAN ARMENTA y
witnesses, because the latter had the unique opportunity, denied to the
CABILES, Accused-Appellants.
appellate courts, to observe the witnesses and to note their demeanor,
conduct, and attitude under direct and cross-examination. Hence, its
factual findings are accorded great respect, even finality, absent any DECISION
showing that certain facts of weight and substance bearing on the
elements of the crime have been overlooked, misapprehended, or PEREZ, J.:
misapplied.[33]
In the instant appeal, the RTC and CA uniformly found that PO3 Galvez's This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals Decision1 dated 20 July 2012 in
and PO2 Hipolito's testimonies anent the conduct of the buy-bust CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04953 affirming the Regional Trial Court2 (RTC) Joint
operation were categorical, detailed, and credible.[34] Moreover, the Decision3 dated 26 October 2010 in Criminal Case Nos. 14948-D, 14949-D,
accused-appellant had not ascribed any ill motive against the two police 14950-D, 14951-D and 14952-D, convicting herein appellant Ramonita
officers which could have otherwise induced them to fabricate the Villarta y Rivera alias Monet (Villarta) for Violation of Sections 5 and 11,
charges. Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the
"Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,'' and herein appellant Allan
As the first issue, the accused-appellant claimed that it was highly Armenta yCabiles alias Ambo (Armenta) for Violation of Section 11 of the
improbable for him to peddle and possess marijuana right in front of his same law.
house and within public view. This allegation fails to persuade especially in
the light of the court's observation that of late, drug pushers have turned Appellant Villarta was charged in three (3) separate Informations,4 all
more daring and defiant in the conduct of their illegal activities.[35] dated 24 April 2006, for Violation of Sections 5 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous
Drugs), 11 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs) and 15 (Illegal Use of
Anent the second issue, the Court finds the chain of custody over the Dangerous Drugs), Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the accusatory
evidence seized from the accused-appellant as unbroken and that there portions of which read:
was sufficient compliance with Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165.
PO3 Galvez positively testified that he marked the ten (10) plastic sachets CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14948-D
containing marijuana and the pieces of white paper while still in the place
where the accused-appellant was arrested, and in the presence of the On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this
latter.[36] PO2 Hipolito did the same relative to the plastic container Honorable Court, the [herein appellant Villarta], not being lawfully
with marijuana likewise found in the accused-appellant's authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
possession.[37] When the members of the buy-bust team arrived in the sell, deliver and give away to [Police Officer 2 (PO2) Ronald R. Caparas], a
police station, they turned-over the person of the accused-appellant and police poseur buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
the items seized from him to SPO1 Moran, who in turn, prepared the containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found
Evidence Acknowledgment Receipt and letter request for laboratory positive to the test for ephedrine, a dangerous drug, in violation of the
examination.[38] Thereafter, PCI Arturo conducted the laboratory said law.5 (Emphasis supplied).
examinations and found the specimens to be marijuana.[39] These were the
same items identified by the prosecution witnesses and presented to the
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14949-D
trial court as evidence.
The accused-appellant lamented that the evidence seized were not On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this
photographed and inventoried in the presence of a member of the media, Honorable Court, the [appellant Villarta], not being lawfully authorized to
a representative from the DOJ, and an elective government official. While possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
this factual allegation is admitted, the Court stresses that what Section 21 feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one
of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 requires is "substantial" and not necessarily (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white
"perfect adherence,"[40] as long as it can be proven that the integrity and crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for ephedrine, a
the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved as the same would dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.6 (Emphasis supplied).
be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.[41]
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14950-D
The accused-appellant attempted to establish that there was a breach in
the chain of custody over the evidence seized from him by pointing out
that SPO1 Moran twice delivered the items to the crime laboratory at first On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this
to a certain PO1 Bolora and later, to PCI Arturo.[42] The Court notes that Honorable Court, the [appellant Villarta], not being lawfully authorized by
despite the foregoing allegation, the defense agreed with the prosecution law to use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
to dispense with the testimonies of SPO1 Moran and PCI Arturo. The knowingly use, smoke and ingest into his body a methylamphetamine
parties entered into stipulations and admissions of facts as regards the hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and, that this is the first offense of the
participation of the aforementioned two. This is no less than an admission [appellant Villarta] under Section 15, of the abovecited law, who after a
on the part of the defense that there was nothing irregular in SPO1 Moran confirmatory urine test, was found positive to the test for
and PCI Arturo's performance of their duties relative to preserving the methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the
integrity of the evidence which fell in their custody. Had the accused- above-cited law.7 (Emphasis supplied).
appellant sincerely believed that there was indeed a breach in the chain of
custody over the seized items, he would have insisted on putting SPO1 Appellant Armenta was charged in two (2) separate Informations,8 all
Moran and PCI Arturo on the witness stand for cross-examination. dated 24 April 2006, for Violation of Sections 11 and 15, Article II of
Republic Act No. 9165, the accusatory portions of which read:
In sum, the Court finds the herein assailed decision affirming the RTC's
conviction of the accused-appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165 as amply supported by both evidence and CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14951-D
jurisprudence. The Court agrees as well with the CA in its modification of
the wordings of the penalty imposed on the accused-appellant for On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this
violation of the above-mentioned Section 11, as the same is mandated by Honorable Court, [the herein appellant Armenta], not being lawfully
Section 1 of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Decision of the Court of Appeals dated and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03
October 31, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04989 is AFFIRMED in toto. gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test
for ephedrine, a dangerous drug, in violation of the said law.9 (Emphasis was identified as [herein appellant] Ramonito Villarta [y Rivera]. When the
supplied). other members of the team arrived, PO2 Caparas told PO2 Camb[r]oner[o]
thatthe other male person was also possessing shabu. In a bit, he was also
apprehended and identified later on as [herein appellant] Allan Armenta [y
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 14952-D
Cabiles] @ AMBO. PO2 Caparas recovered from MONET the marked
money and one plastic sachet while PO2 Camb[r]onero recovered from
On or about [20 April 2006] in Pasig City, and within the jurisdiction of this AMBO the other plastic sachet. Both PO2 Caparas and PO2 Camb[r]onero
Honorable Court, the [appellant Armenta], not being lawfully authorized marked the items they had seized.
by law to use any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly use, smoke and ingest into his body a THC-metabolites, a
At the police station, PO1 Mapula prepared the requests for drug test and
dangerous drug, and, that this is the first offense of the [appellant
laboratory examination. Thereafter, the seized items were brought to the
Armenta] under Section 15, of the above-cited law, who after a
Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory. Forensic Chemical Officer
confirmatory urine test, was found positive tothe test for
[P/Sr. Insp. Go] received the above-mentioned requests and conducted
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the
laboratory tests on the subject specimens. The seized drugs gave positive
above-cited law.10 (Emphasis supplied).
result for ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Likewise, the drug tests showed
that the respective urine samples of MONET and AMBO were positive for
Upon arraignment,11 both appellants pleaded NOT GUILTY to the methamphetamine and THC metabolites, both of which are dangerous
respective charges against them. Thereafter, joint trial on the merits drugs.
ensued.
The defense proffered a divergent version of the facts.
The prosecution presented PO2 Ronald R. Caparas (PO2 Caparas), who
acted as the poseur-buyer in the buy-bust operation conducted against
Both MONET and AMBO denied the charges. MONET asseverated that
appellant Villarta;12 PO2 Jesus Cambronero (PO2 Cambronero), who acted
between 3:00 o’clock and 4:00 o’clock inthe afternoon of 19 April 2006, he
as the immediate back-up of PO2 Caparas;13 and Police Senior Inspector
was resting in the room he was renting. Suddenly, four armed male
Sandra Decena Go (P/Sr. Insp. Go), the forensic chemical officer who
persons entered looking for a certain "Jay Jay." When he replied that he
conducted physical, chemical and confirmatory tests on the items seized
did not know such person, he was brought and detained in Pariancillo. It
from the appellants.14The testimony, however, of the other prosecution
was there where he first met AMBO.
witness PO1 Allan Mapula (PO1 Mapula) was dispensed with per
stipulation of the parties that: (1) he is the investigating officer in these
cases; and (2) he was the one who prepared the Affidavit of Arrest of PO2 On the other hand, AMBO maintained that between 1:00 o’clock and 2:00
Caparas and the Request for Laboratory Examination, aswell as the o’clock in the afternoon on evendate while waiting for a tricycle in front of
Request for Drug Test.15 the 7-11 Store, three armed persons approached him. One of them placed
his arm around his shoulder, the other one handcuffed him, while the third
called for a tricycle. Subsequently, he was brought to the Pariancillo
On the side of the defense, both appellants were presented to contradict
Headquarters. When heasked why he was arrested, the aforesaid men did
all the allegations of the prosecution.16
not answer him. At the headquarters, he was frisked since they were
looking for a cellular phone which he had allegedly snatched. When
The respective versions of the prosecution and the defense, as accurately nothing was found with him, he was mauled and forced to confess where
summarized by the Court of Appeals, are as follows: he brought the phone. It was there where he got to know MONET.18
On 19 April 2006 at around 9:30 o’clock in the evening, PO2 [Caparas] was On 26 October 2010, the RTC, after considering the testimonies of both
at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF) parties, rendered its Joint Decision,the decretal portion of which reads:
office in Pasig City. A confidential informant arrived and spoke with Police
Inspector Ronaldo Pamor [P/Insp. Pamor]. The informant gave the tip that
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as
a certain MONET was selling shabualong Urbano Velasco Avenue,
follows:
Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. As a result, [P/Insp. Pamor] conducted a short
briefing attended by [Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1)] Baltazar, PO2
Camb[r]onero, PO2 Monte, [Police Officer 1 (PO1)] Caridad, PO1 Mapula 1) In Criminal Case No. 14948-D, this Court finds the [herein
and PO2 Caparas. [P/Insp.] Pamor instructed PO1 Mapula to prepare a pre- appellant] Ramonito Villarta yRivera aliasMonet, guilty beyond
operational report17 to be submitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article
Agency (PDEA), and directed PO1 Caparas to act as the poseur-buyer while II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive
PO2 Camb[r]onera was to serve as his back-up. Dangerous Drugs of 2002, and he is sentenced to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of
₱500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
In preparation for their operation, PO2 Caparas marked two pieces of the
insolvency;
One-Hundred Peso (₱100.00) bill with his initials "RRC" on the lower right
portion. Tout de suite, the team, together with the confidential informant
proceeded to Velasco Avenue. There, they went inside an alley located at 2) In Criminal Case No. 14949-D and Criminal Case No. 14951-D,
the Cupa Compound. However, they learned from the two persons this Court finds the [appellants] Ramonito Villarta yRivera
standing along the alley that MONET had already left. [P/Insp.] Pamor aliasMonetand Allan Armenta yCabiles alias Ambo,
instructed the informant to inform them whenever MONET would return. guiltybeyond reasonable of the crime of Violation of Section 11,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 and they are each
The following day, at about 5:00 o’clock in the afternoon, the confidential
sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of twelve
informant called and tolda member of the SAID-SOTF that MONET was
(12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years
already in the target place.Subsequently, the buy-bust team met with the
and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of
former at the market terminal. PO2 Caparas and the informant again
₱300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
proceeded to Velasco Avenue. When they reached Cupa Compound, the
insolvency; and
latter secretly told PO2 Caparas that MONET was standing at the alley.
They approached MONET. The informant then told him: "Pare iiscore to"
referring to PO2 Caparas. He told MONET that he would buy ₱200.00 3) Criminal Case No. 14950-D and Criminal Case No. 14952-Dfor
worth of shabuafter which, he handed MONET the money. At this point, a Violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 otherwise
male person arrived and asked MONET: "Pare, meron pa ba?" MONET known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs of 2002 against
retorted: "Dalawang piraso na lang ito." The male person then gave [appellants] Ramonito Villarta y Rivera alias Monetand Allan
MONET ₱100.00. Immediately thereafter, MONET handed one sachet to Armenta y Cabiles aliasAmbo are ordered DISMISSED.
PO2 Caparas and the other one to the male person. PO2 Caparas
examined the sachet and gave the pre-arranged signal by wearing his cap.
In the meantime, the Branch Clerk ofCourt is directed to transmit the
He then introduced himself as a police officer, and arrested MONET who
dangerous drugs, "ephedrine," subject of these cases to the Philippine
Drug Enforcement Agency for its disposition in accordance with illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the
law.19 (Emphasis supplied). selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer receives the
drug from the seller. Settled is the rule that as long as the police officer
went through the operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by
The RTC elucidated that the prosecution has sufficiently established all the
appellant and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former; the crime is
elements for a successful prosecution of illegal sale of prohibited drugs,
considered consummated by the delivery of the goods.28
which is in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. PO2
Caparas, who acted as the poseur-buyer, specifically stated that appellant
Villarta sold tohim one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing In the present case, this Court totallyagrees with the lower courts that the
0.02 gram of white crystalline substance worth ₱200.00. It was seized and aforesaid elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were adequately and
later on found positive to the test for ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Their satisfactorily established by the prosecution.
transaction was proven bythe actual exchange of the marked money
consisting of two ₱100.00-pesobills, and the drug sold. PO2 Caparas
To note, appellant Villarta, who was caught in flagrante delicto, was
positively identified appellant Villarta as the seller of the said oneheat
positively identified by PO2 Caparas, who acted as the poseur-buyer, as
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance,
the same person who sold the one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet
which was later on confirmed as ephedrine, a dangerous drug, by P/Sr.
containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance, later confirmed as
Insp. Go, the Forensic Chemist, who performed laboratory examination on
ephedrine, for a consideration of ₱200.00.The said one heat-sealed
all the seized items.20
transparent plastic sachet of ephedrinewas presented in court, which PO2
Caparas identified to be the same object sold to him by appellant Villarta.
As for the charge of illegal possession of prohibited drugs, which is in Moreover, the same bears the markings RRV/RRC 04-20-06, which he had
violation of Section 11, Article II ofRepublic Act No. 9165, against both written at the scene of the crime. "RRV" represents the initials of appellant
appellants, the RTC also found that all the elements thereof were Villarta while "RRC" represents the initials of PO2 Caparas. The marking
completely satisfied. When the appellants werearrested by PO2 Caparas "04-20-06" represents the date the said drug was seized. PO2 Caparas
and PO2 Cambronero, they were both found in possession of similarly identified in court the recovered marked money from appellant
dangerousdrugs. Both of them could not present any proof orjustification Villarta consisting of two ₱100.00-peso bills in the total amount of ₱200.00
that they were fully authorized by law to possess the same. Having been with markings "RRC" on the lower right portion thereof.29
caught in flagrante delicto, there is prima facieevidence of animus
possidendior intent to possess.21
Likewise, the testimony of PO2 Caparasclearly established in detail how his
transaction with appellant Villarta happened starting from the moment
In dismissing the charge of illegal use of dangerous drugs in violation of their informant introduced him to appellant Villarta as someone interested
Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, against both appellants, the in buying his stuff, up to the time he handed to appellant Villarta two
RTC applied the provisoof the afore-stated Section 15. The RTC, thus, held ₱100.00 peso bills marked money amounting to ₱200.00and, in turn,
that when a person is found tohave possessed and used dangerous drugs appellant Villarta handed him the one heat-sealed transparent plastic
at the same time, Section 15 shall not be applicable in which case the sachet of ephedrinethus consummating the sale transaction between
provisions of Section 11 shall apply.22 them. PO2 Caparas caused the one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet
of ephedrineto be examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory. The item
weighing 0.02 gram was tested positive for ephedrineas evidenced by
The RTC likewise held that despite the non-compliance with the
Chemistry Report No. D-355-0630 prepared by P/Sr. Insp. Go, Forensic
requirements of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items,
Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon
the integrity and evidentiary value of the same were properly preserved
City.31
because the chain of custody appears not to havebeen broken. Thus, in its
entirety, there was substantial compliance with the law.23
From the foregoing, it is already beyond question that appellant Villarta’s
guilt for illegal sale of ephedrine, a dangerous drug, in violation of Section
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC Joint Decision dated 26
5, Article II of RepublicAct No. 9165 was proven by the prosecution beyond
October 2010.24
reasonable doubt.
Hence, the present appeal raising the same assignment of errors in their
With respect to the prosecution ofillegal possession of dangerous drugs,
Appellants’ Brief filed before the Court of Appeals, towit: (a) the trial court
the following facts must be proved: (a) the accused was in possession of
gravely erred in pronouncing the guilt of the [appellants] despite the
dangerous drugs, (b) such possession was not authorized by law, and (c)
obvious non-compliance with the requirements for the proper custody of
the accused was freely and consciouslyaware of being in possession of
seized dangerous drugs under Republic Act No. 9165; and (b) the trial
dangerous drugs.32
court gravely erred in pronouncing the guilt of the [appellants]
notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to preserve the integrity
and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized dangerous drugs.25 In the case under consideration, this Court also conforms to the lower
courts’ findings that all the elementsof illegal possession of dangerous
drugs were adequately proven by the prosecution.
This Court sustains appellants’ conviction.
It bears emphasis that when the sale transaction between PO2 Caparas
Essentially, the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled to great
and appellant Villarta was on-going, another male person, who was later
weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and valid
on identified to be appellant Armenta, came in and also bought one-heat
reasons since the trial court is in a better position to examine the
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline
demeanor of the witnesses while testifying.26 This rule finds aneven more
substance later on confirmed to be ephedrine, a dangerous drug. Upon the
stringent application where said findings are sustained by the Court of
consummation of the sale transaction,between PO2 Caparas and appellant
Appeals27 as in this case.
Villarta, the former gave the pre-arranged signal by wearing his cap. PO2
Caparas then introduced himself as the police officer and arrested
After a careful perusal of the records, this Court finds no compelling appellant Villarta. PO2 Caparas then recovered from appellant Villarta the
reason to deviate from the lower courts’ findings that, indeed, the marked money and another one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet
appellants’ guilt on the respective charges against them were sufficiently containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance later on confirmed as
proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. ephedrine, a dangerous drug. When the immediate back-up officer, PO2
Cambronero, arrived, PO2 Caparas informed him that appellant Armenta
In every prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like ephedrinein was in possession of one-heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
this case, the following elementsmust be sufficiently proved to sustain a 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance,which the latter just bought from
conviction therefor: (1) the identity of the buyer, as well as the seller, the appellant Villarta. Thus, appellant Armenta was also apprehended and PO2
object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold Cambronero recovered from him one heat-sealed transparent plastic
and the payment therefor.What is material is proof that the transaction or sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance confirmed to be
sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the ephedrine, a dangerous drug.33 Clearly, both appellants were found in
dangerous drugs seized as evidence. The commission of the offense of possession of dangerous drugs. As observed by the RTC, which the Court
of Appeals affirmed, both appellants could not present any proof or Where PO1 Mapula, the investigating officer, prepared the Request for
justification that they were fully authorized by law to possess the same. Laboratory Examination,37 the Request for Drug Test38 and the Affidavit of
Having been caught in flagrante delicto, there is prima facieevidence of Arrest of PO2 Caparas.39Thereafter, PO2 Caparas personally brought all the
animus possidendior intent to possess. seized items to the crime laboratory for examination. The seized items
were examined by P/Sr. Insp. Go and they all yielded positive results for
ephedrine, a dangerous drug. When the seized items were offered in
Now, going to the issue raised by the appellants on the failure of the
court, they were all properly identified by the prosecution witnesses.
prosecution to comply with Section 21,Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
These facts persuasively proved that the three plastic sachets of ephedrine
this Court similarly affirms the findings of both lower courts that such
presented in court were the same items seized from the appellants during
failure will not render the appellants’ arrestillegal or the items
the buy-bust operation.The integrity and evidentiary value thereof were
seized/confiscated from them inadmissible.
duly preserved.
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall,immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court of Appeals Decision dated 20
and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s July 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04953 is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her
representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the SO ORDERED.
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 G.R. No. 206366 August 13, 2014
seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team,
shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee,
items. vs.
EDUARDO BALAQUIOT y BALDERAMA, Appellant.
Under the same proviso, non-compliance with the stipulated procedure,
under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of DECISION
and custody over saiditems, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary
value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officers. PEREZ, J.:
Clearly, the purpose of the procedure outlined in the implementing rules is At bench is an appeal1 assailing the Decision2 dated 29 August 2012 of the
centered on the preservationof the integrityand evidentiary valueof the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04595. In the said decision,
seized items.35 (Emphasis supplied). The chain of custody requirement the appellate court affirmed the conviction of herein appellant Eduardo B.
performs the function of ensuring that the integrity and evidentiary value Balaquit for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 or the
of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
to the identity of the evidence are removed. To be admissible, the
prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous The Facts are as follows:
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
On 11 June 2008, appellant was arrested during a buy bust operation
determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence.36
performed by officers of the Philippine National Police (PNP) in Camiling,
Tarlac. He was thereafter charged with the offense of illegal sale of shabu
In the case at bench, after PO2 Caparas seized and confiscated the one under an Information filed before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of ephedrine, Tarlac.3 The Information reads:
which was the subject of the sale transaction, as well as the one heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of ephedrine,
That on June 11, 2008 at on or about 10 AM at Bobon 1st , in the
which was recovered from appellant Villarta after he was arrested and
Municipality of Camiling, Province of Tarlac, Philippines, and within the
ordered to empty his pocket, and the marked money used in the buy-bust
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there
operation, the former immediately marked the seized drugs atthe place of
willfully and feloniously sell to one another one (1) heat sealed plastic
arrest. He put the markings RRV/RRC 04-20-06 on the seizeddrug subject
sachet containing 0.049 grams of met[h]amphetamine hydrochloride
of the sale and the markings RRV/RRC on the seized drug recovered from
commonly known as "shabu", a dangerous drug, without being authorized
appellant Villarta. PO2 Cambronero, the immediate back-up of PO2
by law.
Caparas, also recovered from appellant Armenta one-heat sealed
transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of ephedrine. PO2
Cambronero, who was then beside PO2 Caparas, similarly marked the Appellant was arraigned on 26 August 2008 and entered a plea of not
seized drug from appellant Armenta at the place of arrest. They then guilty. Trial thereafter ensued.
brought the appellants, together with the seized items at their station.
During trial, the prosecution presented, among others, the following 1. On the date and time of the supposed buy-bust, he was in a
object evidence: day care center where he bought some sopasfor his children.
On his way home, he encountered two (2) men aboard a
motorcycle. 2. One of the two (2) men aboard the motorcycle
1. One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
alighted and drew a gun at him. At that point, SPO1 Daraman
0.049 grams of white crystalline substance.The plastic sachet is
arrived and introduced himself and the one pointing a gun at
dated "11 June 2008" and marked with "JSE-EBB,"4 and
him as policemen.
A review of the evidence on recordwill show that the prosecution was able
SO ORDERED.
to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the shabuthat it claims as
having been sold by the appellant:
1. PO3 Espiritu testified that he was able to buy ₱500.00 worth PEOPLE V EDWIN CABRERA
of shabuinside a transparent plastic sachet from appellant,
which he brought to the Camiling PNP station.19 Facts: After receiving information from residents of Sitio Galaxy, Tangke,
Talisay, Cebu and a report from a confidential assetof the illegal drug
activities of appellant, police officers conducted a buy-bust operation
2. Upon arrival at the station, PO3 Espiritu Espiritu testified that against appellant. At about 4:30 p.m., poseur-buyer, together with the
he dated the plastic sachet "11 June 2008" a marked it with confidential asset, approached appellant who was standing outside his
"JSE-EBB." Afterwards, a request for laboratory examination house. PO1 Palconitgave appellant two marked P50.00 bills, while the
was prepared.20 latter handed to him two plastic sachets containing white
crystallinesubstance. Thereupon, PO1 Palconit made the pr e-arr anged
3. The next day, plastic sachet dated "11 June 2008" and signal by touching his head with his right hand. His back-ups thenrushed to
marked "JSE-EBB" was sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory along the scene and simultaneously therewith PO1 Palconit arrested the
with the request for laboratory examination.21 appellant. He then put the markings "EC" on thetwo plastic sachets and
brought the same to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory
for forensic
4. At the PNP Crime Laboratory, Mr. Timario conducted examination. The chemistry report from the PNP Crime Laboratory
examination on the contents of the plastic sachet dated "11 laterrevealed that the white crystalline substance with a totalweight of
0.11 gram inside the two plastic sachets marked with "EC" tested positive laboratory examination gave positive result to the tests of
for methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.4
Issue: Whether or not there is compliance with Section 21 of Upon arraignment, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to said
the implementing rules of RA 9165’ charges.5 Trial thereafter proceeded.
Ruling: With regard to the non-compliance by the police officers Based on the evidence presented and on the stipulations and admitted
with Section 21 of the Implementing Rules of RA 9165 as alleged by facts entered into by the parties, the summary of factual findings is stated
appellant in his Supplemental Brief, particularly the lack of physical as follows:
inventory of the seized specimen and the non-taking of photograph
thereof, the Court notes that appellant raised the same only in this appeal. The Version of the Prosecution
The records of the case is bereft of any showing that appellant objected
before the RTC regarding the seizure and safekeeping of the shabu seized [A]t around 10:00 a.m. on July 27, 2007, acting on a tip from a confidential
from him on account of the failure of the police officers to maintain an informant that accused-appellant was selling shabu, the Station Anti-Illegal
unbroken chain of custody of the said drugs. Drugs Special Operation Unit (SAID-SOU) of the Philippine National Police
(PNP) organized a buy-bust operation [with] SPO2 Wilfredo Quillan as
The only time that appellant questioned the chain of custody was before team leader, PO3 [Ramon] Galvez as poseur- buyer, and SPO1 [Fernando]
theCA but not on the ground of lack of physical inventory or non-taking of Moran, PO2 Eugene Amaro, PO2 Celso Santos and PO3 Jose Martirez as
photograph, but on the alleged gap between the time of confiscation of members. After SPO2 Quillan briefed the buy-bust team, a pre-operation
the specimen and the time of its submission to the PNP Crime Laboratory. report was prepared. PO3 Galvez was provided with two (2) one hundred-
peso bills which he marked on the right portion with his initials "RG". Then,
But even then, it was already too late in the day for appellant to do so. the team and the informant boarded a passenger jeepney and proceeded
Appellant should have raised the said issue before the trial court. In similar to Phase 3-D, Camarin, Caloocan City. When the informant pointed to
cases, the Court brushed aside the accused's belated contention that the accused-appellant, PO3 Galvez approached him and said, "[p]’re, pa-iskor
illegal drugs confiscated from his person were inadmissible because the naman", offering to buy P200.00 worth of shabu. He then handed the buy-
arresting officers failed to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165. "Whatever bust money and accused-appellant brought out from his pocket three (3)
justifiable grounds may excuse the police officers from literally complying pieces of plastic sachets, chose one (1) sachet and gave it to PO3 Galvez.
with Section 21 will remain unknown, because [appellant] did not question As the sale was already consummated, PO3 Galvez introduced himself as a
during trial the safekeeping of the items seized from him. police officer, arrested accused-appellant, and gave the pre-arranged
signal to his companions by scratching his nape. When SPO1 Moran rushed
Objection to evidence cannot be raised for the first time on appeal; when in, PO3 Galvez marked the plastic sachet with "BMS/RG" and told SPO1
a party desires the court to reject the evidence offered, he must so state in Moran about the remaining two (2) plastic sachets in accused-appellant’s
the form of an objection. Without such objection, he cannot raise the pocket. SPO1 Moran then frisked him and confiscated the items which he
question for the first time on appeal. marked as "BMS/FM-1" and "BMS/FM-2". Thereafter, they brought
accused- appellant and the confiscated items to the SAID-SOU office in
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, Samson Road, Caloocan City, and turned them over to the investigator,
vs. PO2 [Randulfo] Hipolito, who prepared the corresponding evidence
BRIAN MERCADO y SARMIENTO, Accused-Appellant. acknowledgment receipt and request for laboratory examination.
Crim. Case No. 77992 (For violation of Section 5, R.A. No. 9165) The Ruling of the RTC
That on or about the 27th day of July, 2007 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a Decision8 finding the
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections
accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The dispositive portion of which is
and feloniously sell and deliver to PO3 RAMON GALVEZ, who posed, as hereunder quoted, to wit:
buyer, a plastic sachet containing METHYLAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.02 gram, a dangerous drug, without Premises considered, this court finds and so holds that:
corresponding license or prescription therefore, knowing the same to be
such.3 (1) The accused Brian Mercado y Sarmiento GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165,
Crim. Case No. 77993 (For violation of Section 11, R.A. No. 9165) otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and
imposes upon him the following:
That on or about the 27th day of July, 2007 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named (a)In Crim. Case No. C-77992, the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine
accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00); and
unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control Two
(2) sachets containing METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) (b)In Crim. Case No. C-77993, the penalty of Imprisonment of twelve (12)
weighing 0.02 gram & 0.02 gram, respectively, when subjected for years and one (1) day to Fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three Hundred
Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).1âwphi1
patent non-compliance with the strict and mandatory requirements of R.A.
The drugs subject matter of these cases are hereby confiscated and No. 9165.
forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with
law.9 The Issue
The trial court concluded that the evidence presented by the prosecution Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence of
sufficiently satisfied the quantum required for accused- appellant’s the prosecution was sufficient to convict the accused of the alleged sale
conviction. It declared that the fact of sale was sufficiently established and possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, in violation
upon showing the complete detailed manner of negotiation of said sale, of Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of R.A. No. 9165.
exchange of consideration, and handing of the subject of the sale. The
court a quo ruled that, as long as the police officer went through the Our Ruling
operation as a buyer and his offer was accepted by the accused-appellant,
and the dangerous drugs delivered to the former, the crime is considered We sustain the judgment of conviction.
consummated by the delivery of goods.10 Likewise, the testimonies of the
police officers who participated in the buy-bust operation appear credible The Court finds no valid reason to depart from the time-honored doctrine
and reliable since absence of any showing of ill-motive on their part to that where the issue is one of credibility of witnesses, and in this case their
concoct trumped charges, they enjoy the presumption of regularity in the testimonies as well, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed
performance of their duties.11 On the other hand, the denial of the unless the consideration of certain facts of substance and value, which
accused- appellant and his mere allegation of extortion were found to be have been plainly overlooked, might affect the result of the case.17
unsubstantiated by any convincing and credible evidence. Hence, being
considered as negative, weak, and self-serving evidence, accused- Upon perusal of the records of the case, we see no reason to reverse or
appellant’s bare denial cannot prevail over the positive testimony of the modify the findings of the RTC on the credibility of the testimony of
prosecution’s witnesses and the physical evidence which supported said prosecution’s witnesses, more so in the present case, in which its findings
judgment of conviction.12 were affirmed by the CA. It is worthy to mention that, in addition to the
legal presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duty,
The Ruling of the CA the court a quo was in the best position to weigh the evidence presented
during trial and ascertain the credibility of the police officers who testified
On intermediate appellate review, the CA affirmed the RTC’s Decision in as to the conduct of the buy-bust operation and in preserving the integrity
convicting the accused-appellant. It ruled that failure to comply with of the seized illegal drug.
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 will not render the arrest of the accused illegal,
nor will it result to the inadmissibility in evidence against the accused of This Court has consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of
the illegal drugs seized in the course of the entrapment operation. What is offenses involving the illegal sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A.
of utmost relevance is the preservation of the integrity and maintenance No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identity of the
of the evidentiary value of the confiscated illegal drugs, for in the end, the buyer and seller, the object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
same shall necessarily be the thrust that shall determine the guilt or thing sold and the payment therefor.18 In other words, there is a need to
innocence of the accused. The prosecution therefore must simply show establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and
that the seized item recovered from appellant was the same item delivered a prohibited drug to another, and that the former indeed knew
presented in court and found to be an illegal/prohibited drug. These were that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a prohibited drug.19
all established and proven beyond reasonable doubt in the instant case.13 To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of
Accordingly, the prosecution was able to sufficiently bear out the statutory dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took
elements of the crime of illegal sale and illegal possession of such drugs place, plus the presentation in court of corpus delicti as evidence.20 On
committed by accused-appellant. The disposal on appeal reads: the other hand, we have adhered to the time-honored principle that for
illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs under Section 11 of the
It is well-settled that objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be same law, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the
raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desire the court to reject accused is in possession of an item or object, which is identified to be a
the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Thus, as prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law;
the trial was already concluded, [w]e can no longer turn back to find out and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.21
the justifiable grounds for the omission of the legal requisites.
Undoubtedly, the prosecution had indeed established that there was a
In any case, the procedural lapse did not render accused- appellant’s buy-bust operation22 showing that accused-appellant sold and delivered
arrest illegal or the evidence adduced inadmissible. If there is non- the shabu for value to PO3 Ramon Galvez (PO3 Galvez), the poseur-buyer.
compliance with Section 21, the issue is not of admissibility, but of weight PO3 Galvez himself testified that there was an actual exchange of the
– evidentiary merit or probative value – to be given the evidence. After a marked-money and the prohibited drug. Likewise, accused-appellant was
scrutiny of the records, [w]e find the evidence adduced more than fully aware that what he was selling was illegal and prohibited considering
sufficient to prove the charges against accused-appellant. Therefore, that when PO3 Galvez told him, "pre, pa-iskor naman," the former
considering that no circumstance exists to put the trial court’s findings in immediately answered, "magkano?," then when the poseur-buyer replied,
error, [w]e apply the time-honored precept that findings of the trial courts "dos lang," it resulted to the production of three (3) pieces of plastic
which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded sachets from accused-appellant’s pocket. Thereafter, the corpus delicti or
respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehension of facts and the subject drug was seized, marked, and subsequently identified as a
speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from prohibited drug. Note that there was nothing in the records showing that
such findings. he had authority to possess them. Jurisprudence had pronounced
repeatedly that mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes prima
FOR THESE REASONS, [w]e DENY the appeal and AFFIRM the assailed facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an
February 23, 2011 Decision of the Caloocan City Regional Trial Court, accused in the absence of any satisfactory explanation.23 Above all,
Branch 120.14 accused-appellant likewise failed to present contrary evidence to rebut his
possession of the shabu. Taken collectively, the illegal sale and illegal
Moreover, the appellate court emphasized that, during trial, accused- possession of dangerous drugs by accused-appellant were indeed
appellant neither suggested that there were lapses in the safekeeping of established beyond reasonable doubt.
the suspected drugs that could affect their integrity and evidentiary value
nor objected to their admissibility. Accused-appellant was then precluded By way of emphasis, in cases involving violations of Dangerous Drugs Act,
from raising such issue which must be timely raised during trial.15 credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the
prosecution witnesses especially when they are police officers who are
Upon elevation of this case before this Court, the Office of the Solicitor presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless
General manifested that it will no longer file its supplemental brief and, there is evidence to the contrary.24 In this regard, the defense failed to
instead, will adopt all the arguments in its brief filed before the CA.16 On show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police operatives to
the other hand, accused-appellant raised the issue that the court a quo impute such a serious crime that would put in jeopardy the life and liberty
gravely erred in convicting him notwithstanding the police operatives’ of an innocent person, such as in the case of accused-appellant. As a
matter of fact, aside from accused-appellant’s mere denial and alleged
extortion against him, no evidence was ever presented to prove the The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of
truthfulness of the same. Incidentally, if these were simply trumped-up admissibility, but of weight
charges against him, it remains a question why no administrative charges
were brought against the police officers. Moreover, in weighing the — evidentiary merit or probative value — to be given the evidence. The
testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses vis-à-vis that of the defense, it weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the
is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse circumstances obtaining in each case.31 (Emphases supplied and citations
of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court’s evaluation of omitted)
the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal.25
From the testimonies of the police officers in the case at bench, the
To reiterate, in the absence of any showing that substantial or relevant prosecution established that they had custody of the drug seized from the
facts bearing on the elements of the crime have been misapplied or accused from the moment he was arrested, during the time he was
overlooked, this Court can only accord full credence to such factual transported to the police station, and up to the time the drug was
assessment of the trial court which had the distinct advantage of submitted to the crime laboratory for examination. The same witnesses
observing the demeanor and conduct of the witnesses during the trial. also identified the seized drug with certainty when this was presented in
Absent any proof of motive to falsely charge an accused of such a grave court. With regard to the handling of the seized drugs, there are no
offense, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty conflicting testimonies or glaring inconsistencies that would cast doubt on
and the findings of the trial court with respect to the credibility of the integrity thereof as evidence presented and scrutinized in court. It is
witnesses shall prevail over his/her bare allegation.26 therefore safe to conclude that, to the unprejudiced mind, the testimonies
show without a doubt that the evidence seized from the accused-appellant
Furthermore, this Court has time and again adopted the chain of custody at the time of the buy-bust operation was the same one tested,
rule,27 a method of authenticating evidence which requires that the introduced, and testified to in court. This fact was further bolstered by the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a stipulations entered into between the parties as to the testimony of
finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. Forensic Chemical Officer of the Northern Police District Crime Laboratory
This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the Office, Caloocan City, Police Chief Inspector Albert S. Arturo.32 In other
moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in words, there is no question as to the integrity of the evidence against
such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how accused-appellant.
and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it
while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received Accordingly, we hereby affirm the position taken by the CA when it
and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. expounded on the matter:
These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that
there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity It is well-settled that objection to the admissibility of evidence cannot be
for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.28 raised for the first time on appeal; when a party desires the court to reject
the evidence offered, he must so state in the form of objection. Thus, as
It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug the trial was already concluded, [w]e can no longer turn back to find out
confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance the justifiable grounds for the omission of the legal requisites.
offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established with
unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt.29 In any case, the procedural lapse did not render accused- appellant’s
arrest illegal or the evidence adduced inadmissible. If there is non-
Alongside these rulings are our pronouncements, just as consistent, that compliance with Section 21, the issue is not of admissibility, but of weight
failure to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures in the inventory – evidentiary merit or probative value – to be given the evidence. After
of seized drugs does not render an arrest of the accused illegal or the scrutiny of the records, [w]e find the evidence adduced more than
items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. What is essential is "the sufficient to prove the charges against accused-appellant. Therefore,
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, considering that no circumstance exists to put the trial court’s findings in
as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or error, [w]e apply the time-honored precept that findings of the trial courts
innocence of the accused."30 Thus: which are factual in nature and which involve credibility are accorded
respect when no glaring errors, gross misapprehensions of facts and
From the point of view of jurisprudence, we are not beating any new path speculative, arbitrary and unsupported conclusions can be gathered from
by holding that the failure to undertake the required photography and such findings.33
immediate marking of seized items may be excused by the unique
circumstances of a case. In People v. Resurreccion, we already stated that Again, although this Court finds that the police officers did not strictly
"marking upon immediate confiscation" does not exclude the possibility comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165,
that marking can be at the police station or office of the apprehending such noncompliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of the drug
team. In the cases of People v. Rusiana, People v. Hernandez, and People seized from the accused-appellant, because the chain of custody of the
v. Gum-Oyen, the apprehending team marked the confiscated items at the evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case.
police station and not at the place of seizure. Nevertheless, we sustained As correctly found by the appellate court:
the conviction because the evidence showed that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the items seized had been preserved. To reiterate The following links must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-
what we have held in past cases, we are not always looking for the strict bust operation: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal
step-by-step adherence to the procedural requirements; what is important drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the
is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
the seized items, as these would determine the guilt or innocence of the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the
accused. We succinctly explained this in People v. Del Monte when we illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth,
held: the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the
forensic chemist to the court. A circumspect study of the evidence
We would like to add that non-compliance with Section 21 of said law, movements reveal the integrity and the evidentiary value of the suspected
particularly the making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs were safeguarded. PO3 Galvez and SPO1 Moran testified that they
drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not render the drugs inadmissible in marked the suspected drugs with "BMS/RG", "BMS/FM-1" and "BMS/FM-
evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is 2" in the presence of accused-appellant immediately upon confiscation.
admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law Then, they brought accused-appellant and the confiscated items to their
or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or office, entrusting custody to investigator PO2 Hipolito. Contrary to
rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the accused-appellant’s claim, there is no hiatus in the third and fourth link in
evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will the chain of custody. The defense admitted that, upon receipt of the
[be] accorded it by the courts. x x x items, PO2 Hipolito prepared the corresponding evidence
acknowledgment receipt and request for laboratory examination. The
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that request for laboratory examination, which the prosecution offered as part
will bring about the non- admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized of its documentary evidence, bears a stamp stating PO2 Hipolito was the
drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. one who delivered the marked confiscated items to PNP Crime Laboratory,
with forensic chemist PSI Arturo as the receiving officer. PSI Arturo then
conducted the examination which yielded positive for Tereso Javier, Head of the Sequestered Assets Department of PCGG, and
methylamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. When the prosecution of Danilo R.V. Daniel, Director of the Research and Development
presented the marked plastic sachets in court, PO3 Galvez and SPO1 Department of PCGG.10 Witnesses testified on the bank accounts and
Moran positively identified them as those recovered from accused- businesses owned or controlled by the Gimenez Spouses.11
appellant in the buy-bust operation. Considering that every link was
adequately established by the prosecution, the chain of custody was
On February 27, 2006, the Sandiganbayan denied a motion to recall Danilo
unbroken.34
R.V. Daniel’s testimony.12 The Republic then manifested that it was "no
longer presenting further evidence."13 Accordingly, the Sandiganbayan
In fine, considering the pieces of evidence presented by the prosecution,
gave the Republic 30 days or until March 29, 2006 "to file its formal offer
the denial and allegation of extortion of the accused-appellant fails. Courts
of evidence."14
generally view the defense of denial with disfavor due to the facility with
which an accused can concoct it to suit his or her defense. As evidence
that is both negative and self-serving, this defense cannot attain more On March 29, 2006, the Republic moved "for an extension of thirty (30)
credibility than the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who testify days or until April 28, 2006, within which to file [its] formal offer of
clearly, providing thereby positive evidence on the various aspects of the evidence."15 This Motion was granted by the Sandiganbayan in a
crime committed.35 Consequently, we find no cogent reason to disturb Resolution of the same date.16
the decisions of the RTC and the CA. Accused-appellant Bryan Mercado y
Sarmiento is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and On April 27, 2006, the Republic moved for an additional 15 days or until
11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. May 13, 2006 within which to file its Formal Offer of Evidence.17 This
Motion was granted by the Sandiganbayan in a Resolution dated May 8,
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The CA Decision in CA- G.R. CR HC No. 2006.18 Following this, no additional Motion for extension was filed by the
04942 dated 26 September 2012, is AFFIRMED in all respects. Republic.
SO ORDERED.
In the first assailed Resolution dated May 25, 2006, the Sandiganbayan
noted that the Republic failed to file its Formal Offer of Evidence
notwithstanding repeated extensions and the lapse of 75 days from the
G.R. No. 174673 date it terminated its presentation of evidence.19 Thus, it declared that the
Republic waived the filing of its Formal Offer of Evidence.20
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner,
vs. The first assailed Resolution provides:
FE ROA GIMENEZ AND IGNACIO B. GIMENEZ, Respondents.
It appearing that the plaintiff has long terminated the presentation of its
DECISION evidence on February 27, 2006, and it appearing further that it failed or
otherwise neglected to file its written formal offer of evidence for an
LEONEN, J.: unreasonable period of time consisting of 75 days (i.e., 30 days original
period plus two extension periods totaling 45 days), the filing of said
written formal offer of evidence is hereby deemed WAIVED.
Rules of procedure are not ends in themselves. The object of these rules is
to assist and facilitate a trial court's function to be able to receive all the
evidence of the parties, and evaluate their admissibility and probative WHEREFORE, the reception of the defendants’ evidence shall proceed on
value in the context of the issues presented by the parties' pleadings in June 22 and 23, 2006, both at 8:30 o’clock [sic] in the morning as
order to arrive at a conclusion as to the facts that transpired. Having been previously scheduled.21
able to establish the facts, the trial court will then be able to apply the law
and determine whether a complainant is deserving of the reliefs prayed Ignacio Gimenez filed a Motion to Dismiss on Demurrer to Evidence dated
for in the pleading. May 30, 2006.22 He argued that the Republic showed no right to relief as
there was no evidence to support its cause of action.23 Fe Roa Gimenez
Dismissal on the basis of a very strict interpretation of procedural rules filed a Motion to Dismiss dated June 13, 2006 on the ground of failure to
without a clear demonstration of the injury to a substantive right of the prosecute.24 Through her own Motion to Dismiss, she joined Ignacio
defendant weighed against 19 years of litigation actively participated in by Gimenez’s demurrer to evidence.25
both parties should not be encouraged.
Two days after Fe Roa Gimenez’s filing of the Motion to Dismiss or on June
There is likewise serious reversible error, even grave abuse of discretion, 15, 2006, the Republic filed a Motion for Reconsideration [of the first
when the Sandiganbayan dismisses a case on demurrer to evidence assailed Resolution] and to Admit Attached Formal Offer of
without a full statement of its evaluation of the evidence presented and Evidence.26 The pertinent portions of the Republic’s offer of documentary
offered and the interpretation of the relevant law. After all, dismissal on exhibits attached to the Motion are summarized as follows:
the basis of demurrer to evidence is similar to a judgment. It is a final
order ruling on the merits of a case. Exhibits A to G and series consist of the Income Tax Returns, Certificate of
Income Tax Withheld On Compensation, Statement of Tax Withheld At
This is a Petition1 for Review on Certiorari assailing the Sandiganbayan Source, Schedule of Interest Income, Royalties and Withholding Tax,
Resolutions dated May 25, 20062 and September 13, 2006.3 The Statement of Assets, Liabilities & Net Worth of Ignacio B. Gimenez from
Sandiganbayan deemed petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic) to 1980-1986 proving his legitimate income during said period. Exhibits H -
have waived the filing of its Formal Offer of Evidence4 and granted the J and series refer to the Deeds of Sale and Transfer Certificates of Title
Motion to Dismiss of respondents Spouses Ignacio Gimenez and Fe Roa proving that spouses Gimenezes acquired several real properties.
Gimenez (Gimenez Spouses) based on demurrer to evidence.5
Exhibits K and series (K-1-K-4) pertain to Checking Statements Summary
The Republic, through the Presidential Commission on Good Government issued by the Bankers Trust Company (BTC) proving that Fe Roa Gimenez
(PCGG), instituted a Complaint6 for Reconveyance, Reversion, Accounting, maintained a current account under Account Number 34-714-415 with
Restitution and Damages against the Gimenez Spouses before the BTC. Exhibits L and series (L1-L-114) are several BTC checks, proving that
Sandiganbayan.7 "The Complaint seeks to recover . . . ill-gotten wealth . . . from June 1982 to April 1984, Fe Roa Gimenez issued several checks
acquired by [the Gimenez Spouses] as dummies, agents[,] or nominees of against her BTC Current Account No. 34-714-415 payable to some
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda Marcos[.]"8 individuals and entities such as Erlinda Oledan, Vilma Bautista, The
Waldorf Towers, Cartier, Gliceria Tantoco, Bulgari, Hammer Galleries and
Renato Balestra, involving substantial amount of money in US
During trial, the Republic presented documentary evidence attesting to Dollars. Exhibits M and series (M1-M-25) are several The Chase
the positions held, business interests, income, and pertinent transactions Manhattan Bank (TCMB) checks drawn against the account of Fe Roa
of the Gimenez Spouses.9 The Republic presented the testimonies of Atty. Gimenez under Account Number 021000021, proving that she issued
several checks drawn against her TCMB account, payable to individuals Exhibits AA and series (AA-1 –AA-2) are the several Traders Royal Bank
and entities such as Gliceria Tantoco, Vilma Bautista and The Waldorf checks drawn against Account No. 74-702836-9 under the account name
Towers, involving substantial sums in US Dollars. Exhibit N is the Philippine of Fe Roa Gimenez which prove that she issued said checks payable to
National Bank (PNB), New York Branch Office Charge Ticket No. FT 56880 individuals and entities involving substantial amount of money.
dated December 9, 1982 in the amount of US$30,000.00 for Fe Roa
Gimenez proving that she received said enormous amount from the PNB,
Exhibits BB and CC and series (BB-1–BB-17; CC-1-CC-3) are the several
New York Branch Office, with clearance from the Central Bank, which
Transfer of Funds Advice from Traders Royal Bank Statements of Account
amount was charged against PNB Manila. Exhibit N-1 is the PNB New York
of Fe Roa Gimenez, proving that she maintained a current account under
Branch Advice to Payee No. FT 56535 dated November 12, 1982 in the
Account No. 74-7028369 at Traders Royal Bank.
amount of US$10,990.00 for Fe Roa Gimenez proving her receipt of such
amount as remitted from California Overseas Bank, Los Angeles. Exhibits O
and series (O1-O-8) refer to several Advices made by Bankers Trust AG Exhibits HH and series (HH-1-HH-3) are the Certification dated October 3,
Zurich-Geneve Bank in Switzerland to respondent Fe Roa Gimenez proving 2002 of Lamberto R. Barbin, Officer-in-Charge, Malacanang Records Office,
that she maintained a current account with said bank under Account that the Statement of Assets and Liabilities of spouses Marcoses for the
Number 107094.50 and that from July 30, 1984 to August 30, 1984, she years 1965 up to 1986 are not among the records on file in said Office
placed a substantial amount on time deposit in several banks, namely, except 1965, 1967 and 1969; the Statement of Assets and Liabilities as of
Hypobank, Luzemburg, Luxemburg, Societe Generale, Paris and Bank of December 31, 1969 and December 31, 1967 of former President Ferdinand
Nova Scotia, London. Marcos; and the Sworn Statement of Financial Condition, Assets, Income
and Liabilities as of December 31, 1965 of former President Ferdinand
Marcos. These documentary exhibits prove the assets and liabilities of
Exhibit P is the Certification dated March 19, 2002 issued by Director
former President Marcos for the years 1965,1967 and 1969.
Florino O. Ibanez of the Office of the President proving that Fe Roa
Gimenez, from January 1, 1966 to April 1, 1986, worked with the Office of
the President under different positions, the last of which as Presidential Exhibit II and series is [sic] the Statement of Assets and Liabilities as of
Staff Director with a salary of P87,072.00 per annum. December 31,1969 submitted by Fe Roa Gimenez which prove that her
assets on that period amounted only to P39,500.00.
Exhibit Q and series (Q-1-Q-18) is the Affirmation of Ralph Shapiro filed
with the United States Court of Appeals in the case entitled, "The Republic Exhibit KK is the Table of Contents of Civil Case No. [0]007 before the
of the Philippines vs. Ferdinand E. Marcos, et al." which discussed certain Sandiganbayan entitled "Republic of the Philippines vs. Ignacio B. Gimenez
acts of Fe Roa Gimenez and Vilma Bautista, among others, in relation to and Fe Roa Gimenez, et. al.", including its Annexes which prove the assets
the funds of the Marcoses. and liabilities of spouses Gimenezes.
Exhibits R and S and series (R-1, R-9; S-1-S-10) refer to the Certificate of Exhibits KK-1 up to KK-12 are several transfer certificates of title and tax
Filing of Amended Articles of Incorporation of GEI Guaranteed Education, declarations in the names of spouses Gimenezes, proving their acquisition
Inc., the Amended Articles of Incorporation of GEI Guaranteed Education, of several real properties.
Inc., the Treasurer’s Affidavit executed by Ignacio Gimenez and the
Director’s Certificate executed by Roberto B. Olanday, Ignacio Gimenez Exhibits KK-15, KK-18, KK-20 up to KK-27, KK-30, KK-32 up to KK-38 and
and Roberto Coyuto, Jr. proving Ignacio Gimenez and Roberto Olanday’s KK-40 are the General Information Sheet, Certificate of Filing of Amended
interests in GEl Guaranteed Education, Inc. Articles of Incorporation, and Amended Articles of Incorporation of various
corporations. These prove the corporations in which Ignacio B. Gimenez
Exhibits T and series (T-1-T-8) are the Advices made by the Bankers Trust has substantial interests.
AG Zurich-Geneve Bank in Switzerland to Ignacio Gimenez proving that he
maintained a current account with said bank under Account Number Exhibits KK-41 up to KK-44 are the Writs and Letters of Sequestration
101045.50 and that from March to June, 1984, he placed a substantial issued by the PCGG which prove that the shares of stocks of Ignacio
amount on time deposit in several banks, namely, Credit Lyonnais, Gimenez in Ignacio B. Gimenez, Securities, Inc. and the real properties
Brussels, Societe Generale, Paris, Credit Commercial De France, Paris and covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. 137638, 132807, 126693 and
Bank of Nova Scotia, London. 126694 located in San Fabian, Pangasinan, were sequestered by the PCGG.
Exhibits U and V and series (U-1-U-5; V1-V-18) consist of the Affidavit Exhibit KK-45 is the Memorandum dated August 1, 1988 of Atty. Ralph S.
dated April 25, 1986 and the Declaration dated June 23, 1987 including the Lee and Alexander M. Berces, Team Supervisor and Investiogator, [sic]
attachments, of Oscar Carino, Vice-President and Manager of the PNB New respectively, of IRD, PCGG, proving that the PCGG conducted an
York Branch, narrating in detail how the funds of the PNB New York Branch investigation on New City Builders, Inc., Transnational Construction
were disbursed outside regular banking business upon the instructions of Corporation, and OTO Construction and Development Corporation in
former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda Marcos using Fe Roa relation to Ignacio B. Gimenez and Roberto O. Olanday.
Gimenez and others as conduit.
Exhibits KK-48, KK-49 and KK-50 are certain Lis Pendens from the PCGG
Exhibits W and series (W-1-W-4) are the Debit memos from the PNB to Fe addressed to the concerned Register of Deeds informing that the real
Roa Gimenez while Exhibits X and X-1 are the Acknowledgments of said properties mentioned therein had been sequestered and are the subject
respondent, proving that she received substantial amounts of money of Civil Case No. [0]007 before the Sandiganbayan.
which were coursed through the PNB to be used by the Marcos spouses
for state visits and foreign trips.
Exhibits KK-51, KK-51-A, KK-52 and KK-52-A are the Letter and Writ of
Sequestration issued by the PCGG on Allied Banking Corporation and
Exhibit Y and series (Y-1-Y-2) is the Letter dated August 25, 1986 of Juan C. Guaranteed Education Inc. pursuant to its mandate to go after ill-gotten
Gatmaitan, Assistant Chief Legal Counsel of PNB to Charles G. LaBella, wealth.
Assistant United States Attorney regarding the ongoing investigation of
irregular transactions at the PNB, New York Branch proving that PNB
cooperated with the United States government in connection with the Exhibits NN, OO, PP, QQ and QQ-1 refer to the Memorandum To All
investigation on the irregular transactions of Oscar Carino at PNB New Commercial Banks dated March 14, 1986 issued by then Central Bank
York Branch. Governor Jose B. Fernandez and the Letter dated March 13, 1986 of Mary
Concepcion Bautista, PCGG Commissioner addressed to then Central Bank
Governor Fernandez requesting that names be added to the earlier
Exhibit Z is the service record of Fe Roa Gimenez issued by Florino O. request of PCGG Chairman Jovito Salonga to instruct all commercial banks
Ibanez of the Office of the President which proves that she worked with not to allow any withdrawal or transfer of funds from the market
the Office of the President from 1966-1986 holding different positions, the placements under the names of said persons, to include spouses
last of which was Presidential Staff Director.1âwphi1 Gimenezes, without authority from PCGG.
Exhibits KK and series, NN, OO, PP, QQ and QQ-1 which prove the various ACCORDINGLY, there being no valid and cogent justification shown by the
real properties, business interests and bank accounts owned by spouses plaintiff for the Court to Grant its Motion for Reconsideration and admit its
Gimenezes were part of the testimony of Atty. Tereso Javier. Formal Offer of Evidence, the plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration and to
Admit Attached Formal Offer of Evidence is DENIED. The Motion to
Dismiss on Demurrer to Evidence filed by the defendant Ignacio B.
Exhibit RR and series (RR-1-RR-23) are the Affidavit dated July 24, 1987 of
Gimenez and adopted by defendant Fe Roa Gimenez is GRANTED. The
Dominador Pangilinan, Acting President and President of Trader’s Royal
case is then DISMISSED.
Bank, and the attached Recapitulation, Status of Banker’s Acceptances,
Status of Funds and Savings Account Ledger wherein he mentioned that
Malacanang maintained trust accounts at Trader’s Royal Bank, the balance SO ORDERED.34 (Emphasis in the original)
of which is approximately 150-175 million Pesos, and that he was informed
by Mr. Rivera that the funds were given to him (Rivera) by Fe Roa Gimenez
The Republic filed its Petition for Review on Certiorari dated November 3,
for deposit to said accounts.
2006 before this court.35
Exhibits SS and series (SS-1-SS-29) are the Affidavit dated July 23, 1987 of
The Gimenez Spouses were required to comment on the Petition.36 This
Apolinario K. Medina, Executive Vice President of Traders Royal Bank and
court noted the separate Comments37 filed by the Gimenez Spouses.38 The
attachments, which include Recapitulation, Status of Funds, and Messages
Republic responded to the Comments through a Consolidated
from Traders Royal Bank Manila to various foreign banks. In his Affidavit,
Reply39 dated June 22, 2007.
Medina divulged certain numbered confidential trust accounts maintained
by Malacanang with the Trader’s Royal Bank. He further stated that the
deposits were so substantial that he suspected that they had been made In the Resolution40 dated August 29, 2007, this court required the parties
by President Marcos or his family. to submit their memoranda.41
Exhibit TT and series (TT-1-TT-3) is [sic] the Memorandum dated July 19, On February 18, 2008, this court resolved to require the parties to "move
2005 of Danilo R.V. Daniel, then Director of the Research and in the premises[.]"42
Development Department of PCGG regarding the investigation conducted
on the ill-gotten wealth of spouses Gimenezes, the subject matter of Civil On March 2, 2012, the Republic filed a Motion for Leave to Re-open
Case No. [0]007. He revealed that during the investigation on the ill-gotten Proceedings, to File and Admit Attached Supplement to the Petition for
wealth of spouses Gimenezes, it was found out that from 1977 to 1982, Certiorari.43 In this Supplement, the Republic argued that the second
several withdrawals, in the total amount of P75,090,306.42 were made assailed Resolution dated September 13, 2006 was void for failing to state
from Trust Account No. 128 (A/C 76-128) in favor of I.B. Gimenez, I.B. the facts and the law on which it was based.44This Motion was granted,
Gimenez Securities and Fe Roa Gimenez. and the Gimenez Spouses were required to file their Comment on the
Supplement to the Petition.45 Thereafter, the Republic filed its Reply.46
Exhibits RR, SS, TT and their series prove that spouses Gimenez
maintained bank accounts of substantial amounts and gained control of Fe Roa Gimenez filed a Rejoinder47 dated December 19, 2012 which was
various corporations.1âwphi1 These are also being offered as part of the expunged by this court in a Resolution48dated January 23, 2013. Ignacio
testimony of Danilo R.V. Daniel.27 (Emphasis in the original, citations Gimenez’s Motion for Leave to File and Admit Attached Rejoinder49 was
omitted) denied.50
In the second assailed Resolution dated September 13, 2006, the The Republic raised the following issues:
Sandiganbayan denied the Republic’s Motion for Reconsideration and
granted the Gimenez Spouses’ Motion to Dismiss.28 According to the
Sandiganbayan: Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in dismissing the case in
the light of the allegations in the Complaint which were substantiated by
overwhelming evidence presented vis-a-vis the material admissions of
While it is true that litigation is not a game of technicalities and that the spouses Gimenezes as their answer failed to specifically deny that they
higher ends of substantial justice militate against dismissal of cases purely were dummies of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos and that they
on technical grounds, the circumstances of this case show that the ends of acquired illegal wealth grossly disproportionate to their lawful income in a
justice will not be served if this Court allows the wanton disregard of the manner prohibited under the Constitution and Anti-Graft Statutes.
Rules of Court and of the Court’s orders. Rules of procedure are designed
for the proper and prompt disposition of cases. . . .
Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in denying petitioner’s
Motion to Admit Formal Offer of Evidence on the basis of mere
The reasons invoked by the plaintiff to justify its failure to timely file the technicalities, depriving petitioner of its right to due process.
formal offer of evidence fail to persuade this Court. The missing exhibits
mentioned by the plaintiff’s counsel appear to be the same missing
documents since 2004, or almost two (2) years ago. The plaintiff had more Whether or not the Sandiganbayan gravely erred in making a sweeping
than ample time to locate them for its purpose. . . . Since they remain pronouncement that petitioner’s evidence do not bear any probative
missing after lapse of the period indicated by the Court, there is no reason value.51
why the search for these documents should delay the filing of the formal
offer of evidence. The issues for consideration of this court are:
[Petitioner’s] counsel . . . admits that faced with other pressing matters, he First, whether a Petition for Review on Certiorari was the proper remedy
lost track of the time. We cannot just turn a blind eye on the negligence of to assail the Sandiganbayan Resolutions; and
the parties and in their failure to observe the orders of this Court. The
carelessness of [petitioner’s] counsel in keeping track of the deadlines is
an unacceptable reason for the Court to set aside its Order and relax the Second, whether the Sandiganbayan erred in holding that petitioner
observance of the period set for filing the formal offer of Republic of the Philippines waived the filing of its Formal Offer of Evidence
evidence.29 (Citation omitted) and in granting respondents Ignacio Gimenez and Fe Roa Gimenez’s
Motion to Dismiss on demurrer to evidence.
The Sandiganbayan also found that the Republic failed to prosecute its
case for an unreasonable length of time and to comply with the court’s We grant the Petition.
rules.30 The court also noted that the documentary evidence presented by
the Republic consisted mostly of certified true copies.31 However, the I
persons who certified the documents as copies of the original were not
presented.32 Hence, the evidence lacked probative value.33 The dispositive
Respondent Ignacio Gimenez pictures petitioner as being confused as to
portion of the assailed Resolution reads:
the proper mode of review of the Sandiganbayan Resolutions. According
to him, petitioner claims that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse In this case, a civil forfeiture under Republic Act No. 1379, petitioner
of discretion.52 Hence, petitioner should have filed a petition for certiorari correctly filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
under Rule 65 and not a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Rules of Court. Section 1 of the Rule provides the mode of appeal from
Court.53 Nevertheless, the Sandiganbayan did not commit any error, and judgments, final orders, or resolutions of the Sandiganbayan:
petitioner has to show that the Sandiganbayan committed grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack of or in excess of jurisdiction.54
SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court.— A party desiring to
appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the
Observance of the proper procedure before courts, especially before the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other
Sandiganbayan, cannot be stressed enough. Due process is enshrined in courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a
the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights.55 "Due process [in criminal verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only
cases] guarantees the accused a presumption of innocence until the questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
contrary is proved[.]"56 "Mere suspicion of guilt should not sway
judgment."57
II
To determine the propriety of granting respondents’ Motion to Dismiss On another note, the evidence presented by the plaintiff consisted mainly
based on Demurrer to Evidence, we review the nature of demurrer. of certified true copies of the original. These certified copies of
documentary evidence presented by the plaintiff were not testified on by
the person who certified them to be photocopies of the original. Hence,
Rule 33, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides:
these evidence do not appear to have significant substantial probative
value.118
SECTION 1. Demurrer to evidence.— After the plaintiff has completed the
presentation of his evidence, the defendant may move for dismissal on the
Petitioner faults the Sandiganbayan for making "a general and sweeping
ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to
statement that the evidence presented by petitioner lacked probative
relief. If his motion is denied, he shall have the right to present evidence. If
value for the reason that they are mainly certified true copies which had
the motion is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is reversed he
not been testified on by the person who certified [them]."119 Thus, its right
shall be deemed to have waived the right to present evidence.
to due process was violated when the Sandiganbayan rejected petitioner’s
documentary evidence in the same Resolution which dismissed the case.120
In Oropesa v. Oropesa111 where this court affirmed the dismissal of the
case on demurrer to evidence due to petitioner’s non-submission of the
Petitioner argues that: a) respondents unqualifiedly admitted the identity
Formal Offer of Evidence,112 demurrer to evidence was defined as:
and authenticity of the documentary evidence presented by
petitioner;121 and b) the documents it presented were public documents,
. . . "an objection by one of the parties in an action, to the effect that the and there was no need for the identification and authentication of the
evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law, original documentary exhibits.122 Petitioner relies on the Sandiganbayan
whether true or not, to make out a case or sustain the issue." We have Order123 dated August 6, 2002. The Order reads:
also held that a demurrer to evidence "authorizes a judgment on the
merits of the case without the defendant having to submit evidence on his
Considering the manifestation of Atty. Reno Gonzales, counsel for SEC. 6. When original document is in adverse party's custody or control. —
plaintiff/PCGG, that the defendant Fe Roa Gimenez, through counsel, is If the document is in the custody or under the control of adverse party, he
willing to stipulate that the documents to be presented and identified by must have reasonable notice to produce it. If after such notice and after
the witness are in her custody as Records Officer of the PCGG, the parties satisfactory proof of its existence, he fails to produce the document,
agreed to dispense with the testimony of Ma. Lourdes Magno. secondary evidence may be presented as in the case of its loss. (5a)
WHEREFORE, and as prayed for, the continuation of the presentation of SEC. 7. Evidence admissible when original document is a public record.—
plaintiff’s evidence is set on October 9 and 10, 2002, both at 8:30 o’clock When the original of a document is in the custody of a public officer or is
[sic] in the morning. recorded in a public office, its contents may be proved by a certified copy
issued by the public officer in custody thereof. (Emphasis supplied)
SO ORDERED.124 (Emphasis supplied)
In Citibank, N.A. v. Sabeniano,134 citing Estrada v. Hon. Desierto,135 this
court clarified the applicability of the Best Evidence Rule:
Petitioner claims that the following exhibits were acquired in relation to
the PCGG’s functions prescribed under Executive Order No. 1, Section
3(b),125 and form part of the official records of the PCGG:126 "Certifications As the afore-quoted provision states, the best evidence rule applies only
as to the various positions held in Government by Fe Roa-Gimenez, her when the subject of the inquiry is the contents of the document. The
salaries and compensation during her stint as a public officer, the BIR scope of the rule is more extensively explained thus —
Income Tax Returns and Statement of Assets and Liabilities showing the
declared income of spouses Gimenezes; the Articles of Incorporation of
But even with respect to documentary evidence, the best evidence rule
various corporations showing spouses Gimenezes’ interests on various
applies only when the content of such document is the subject of the
corporations; and several transactions involving huge amounts of money
inquiry. Where the issue is only as to whether such document was actually
which prove that they acted as conduit in the disbursement of government
executed, or exists, or on the circumstances relevant to or surrounding its
funds."127
execution, the best evidence rule does not apply and testimonial evidence
is admissible (5 Moran, op. cit., pp. 76-66; 4 Martin, op. cit., p. 78). Any
On the other hand, respondent Ignacio Gimenez argues that petitioner’s other substitutionary evidence is likewise admissible without need for
documents are not "official issuances of the Philippine accounting for the original.
government."128 They are mostly notarized private
documents.129 Petitioner’s evidence has no probative value; hence, a
Thus, when a document is presented to prove its existence or condition it is
dismissal on demurrer to evidence is only proper.130 Respondent Fe Roa
offered not as documentary, but as real, evidence. Parol evidence of the
Gimenez claims that the Sandiganbayan did not err in holding that the
fact of execution of the documents is allowed (Hernaez, et al. vs. McGrath,
majority of petitioner’s documentary evidence has no probative value,
etc., et al., 91 Phil[.] 565). x x x
considering that most of these documents are only photocopies.131
(c) Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents . . . not all types of public documents are deemed prima facie evidence of
required by law to be entered therein. the facts therein stated:
All other writings are private. "Public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer"
include those specified as public documents under Section 19(a), Rule 132
The same Rule provides for the effect of public documents as evidence and of the Rules of Court and the acknowledgement, affirmation or oath, or
the manner of proof for public documents: jurat portion of public documents under Section 19(c). Hence, under
Section 23, notarized documents are merely proof of the fact which gave
rise to their execution (e.g., the notarized Answer to Interrogatories . . . is
SEC. 23. Public documents as evidence.— Documents consisting of entries proof that Philtrust had been served with Written Interrogatories), and of
in public records made in the performance of a duty by a public officer are the date of the latter (e.g., the notarized Answer to Interrogatories is proof
prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated. All other public that the same was executed on October 12, 1992, the date stated
documents are evidence, even against a third person, of the fact which thereon), but is not prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.
gave rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. Additionally, under Section 30 of the same Rule, the acknowledgement in
notarized documents is prima facie evidence of the execution of the
SEC. 24. Proof of official record.— The record of public documents referred instrument or document involved (e.g., the notarized Answer to
to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be Interrogatories is prima facie proof that petitioner executed the same).
evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the
officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and The reason for the distinction lies with the respective official duties
accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate attending the execution of the different kinds of public instruments. Official
that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is duties are disputably presumed to have been regularly performed. As
in a foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the regards affidavits, including Answers to Interrogatories which are required
embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent to be sworn to by the person making them, the only portion thereof
or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the executed by the person authorized to take oaths is the jurat. The
foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed therefore
of his office. applies only to the latter portion, wherein the notary public merely attests
that the affidavit was subscribed and sworn to before him or her, on the
SEC. 25. What attestation of copy must state.— Whenever a copy of a date mentioned thereon. Thus, even though affidavits are notarized
document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the documents, we have ruled that affidavits, being self-serving, must be
attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the received with caution.139 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation
must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if In Salas v. Sta. Mesa Market Corporation,140 this court discussed the
he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. difference between mere copies of audited financial statements submitted
to the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) and Securities and Exchange
.... Commission (SEC), and certified true copies of audited financial
statements obtained or secured from the BIR or the SEC which are public
documents under Rule 132, Section 19(c) of the Revised Rules of Evidence:
SEC. 27. Public record of a private document.— An authorized public record
of a private document may be proved by the original record, or by a copy
thereof, attested by the legal custodian of the record, with an appropriate The documents in question were supposedly copies of the audited
certificate that such officer has the custody. financial statements of SMMC. Financial statements (which include the
balance sheet, income statement and statement of cash flow) show the
fiscal condition of a particular entity within a specified period. The
....
financial statements prepared by external auditors who are certified public
accountants (like those presented by petitioner) are audited financial
SEC. 30. Proof of notarial documents.— Every instrument duly statements. Financial statements, whether audited or not, are, as [a]
acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law, may be general rule, private documents. However, once financial statements are
presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of filed with a government office pursuant to a provision of law, they become
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the public documents.
instrument or document involved. (Emphasis supplied)
Whether a document is public or private is relevant in determining its
Emphasizing the importance of the correct classification of documents, admissibility as evidence. Public documents are admissible in evidence
this court pronounced: even without further proof of their due execution and genuineness. On the
other hand, private documents are inadmissible in evidence unless they
are properly authenticated. Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court Petitioner presented both testimonial and documentary evidence that
provides: tended to establish a presumption that respondents acquired ill-gotten
wealth during respondent Fe Roa Gimenez’s incumbency as public officer
and which total amount or value was manifestly out of proportion to her
Petitioner and respondents agree that the documents presented as
and her husband’s salaries and to their other lawful income or properties.
evidence were mere copies of the audited financial statements submitted
to the BIR and SEC. Neither party claimed that copies presented were
certified true copies of audited financial statements obtained or secured Petitioner presented five (5) witnesses, two (2) of which were Atty. Tereso
from the BIR or the SEC which under Section 19(c), Rule 132 would have Javier and Director Danilo R.V. Daniel, both from the PCGG:
been public documents. Thus, the statements presented were private
documents. Consequently, authentication was a precondition to their
Petitioner presented as witnesses Atty. Tereso Javier, then Head of the
admissibility in evidence.
Sequestered Assets Department of PCGG, and Danilo R.V. Daniel, then
Director of the Research and Development Department of PCGG, who
During authentication in court, a witness positively testifies that a testified on the bank accounts and businesses owned and/ or under the
document presented as evidence is genuine and has been duly executed control of spouses Gimenezes.144
or that the document is neither spurious nor counterfeit nor executed by
mistake or under duress. In this case, petitioner merely presented a
Several exhibits excluded by the Sandiganbayan were offered as part of
memorandum attesting to the increase in the corporation’s monthly
petitioner’s testimonial evidence:
market revenue, prepared by a member of his management team. While
there is no fixed criterion as to what constitutes competent evidence to
establish the authenticity of a private document, the best proof available 1) Exhibit "KK"145 was offered "for the purpose of proving the
must be presented. The best proof available, in this instance, would have assets or properties of the spouses Ignacio B. Gimenez and Fe
been the testimony of a representative of SMMC’s external auditor who Roa Gimenez, and as part of the testimony of Tereso Javier."146
prepared the audited financial statements. Inasmuch as there was none,
the audited financial statements were never authenticated.141 (Emphasis 2) Exhibits "KK-1" to "KK-12"147 inclusive of sub-markings, were
supplied, citations omitted) offered "for the purpose of proving the real properties acquired
by the spouses Ignacio B. Gimenez and Fe Roa Gimenez, and as
Indeed, in Republic v. Marcos-Manotoc,142 this court held that mere part of the testimony of Tereso Javier."148
collection of documents by the PCGG does not make such documents
public documents per se under Rule 132 of the Rules of Court: 3) Exhibits "KK-15," "KK-18," "KK-20," "KK-27," "KK-30," "KK-32"
to "KK-38" and "KK-40"149 were offered "for the purpose of
The fact that these documents were collected by the PCGG in the course proving the corporations in which Ignacio B. Gimenez has
of its investigations does not make them per se public records referred to interest, and as part of the testimony of Tereso Javier."150
in the quoted rule.
4) Exhibit "KK-45"151 was offered "for the purpose of proving
Petitioner presented as witness its records officer, Maria Lourdes Magno, that the PCGG conducted an investigation of New City Builders,
who testified that these public and private documents had been gathered Inc., Transnational Construction Corporation, and OTO
by and taken into the custody of the PCGG in the course of the Construction and Development Corporation in relation to
Commission’s investigation of the alleged ill-gotten wealth of the Ignacio B. Gimenez and Roberto O. Olanday, and as part of the
Marcoses. However, given the purposes for which these documents were testimony of Tereso Javier."152
submitted, Magno was not a credible witness who could testify as to their
contents. To reiterate, "[i]f the writings have subscribing witnesses to 5) Exhibits "KK-48" to "KK-50"153 were offered "for the purpose
them, they must be proved by those witnesses." Witnesses can testify only of proving that the PCGG formally filed notices of lis pendens
to those facts which are of their personal knowledge; that is, those derived with the Registers of Deeds of Taytay, Rizal, Lucena City,
from their own perception. Thus, Magno could only testify as to how she Quezon and San Fabian, Pangasinan over the properties
obtained custody of these documents, but not as to the contents of the mentioned in said notices in connection with Civil Case No.
documents themselves. [0]007 pending with the Sandiganbayan, and as part of the
testimony of Tereso Javier."154
Neither did petitioner present as witnesses the affiants of these Affidavits
or Memoranda submitted to the court. Basic is the rule that, while 6) Exhibits "KK-51" to "KK-52"155 and their sub-markings were
affidavits may be considered as public documents if they are offered "for the purpose of proving that the PCGG sequestered
acknowledged before a notary public, these Affidavits are still classified as the shares of stock in Allied Banking Corporation and
hearsay evidence. The reason for this rule is that they are not generally Guaranteed Education, Inc. as stated in the said writ/letter of
prepared by the affiant, but by another one who uses his or her own sequestration, and as part of the testimony of Tereso Javier."156
language in writing the affiant’s statements, parts of which may thus be
either omitted or misunderstood by the one writing them. Moreover, the
adverse party is deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants. 7) Exhibits "NN" to "QQ"157 and their sub-markings were
For this reason, affidavits are generally rejected for being hearsay, unless offered "for the purpose of proving that the PCGG formally
the affiants themselves are placed on the witness stand to testify requested the Central Bank to freeze the bank accounts of the
thereon.143(Citations omitted) spouses Igancio [sic] B. Gimenez and Fe Roa Gimenez and that
the Central Bank, acting on said request, issued a memorandum
to all commercial banks relative thereto. They are also being
Notably, the Sandiganbayan’s evaluation of the evidence presented by offered as part of the testimony of Tereso Javier."158
petitioner was cursory. Its main reason for granting the Motion to Dismiss
on Demurrer to Evidence was that there was no evidence to consider due
to petitioner’s failure to file its Formal Offer of Evidence. It brushed off the 8) Exhibits "RR" to "RR-23"159 were offered "for the purpose of
totality of evidence on which petitioner built its case. proving that Dominador Pangilinan, former Acting President
and President of Traders Royal Bank, executed an affidavit on
July 24, 1987 wherein he mentioned Malacanang trust accounts
Even assuming that no documentary evidence was properly offered, this maintained with the Traders Royal Bank the balance of which
court finds it clear from the second assailed Resolution that the was very high, approximately 150-175 million pesos, as
Sandiganbayan did not even consider other evidence presented by indicated in the monthly statements attached to his affidavit.
petitioner during the 19 years of trial. The Sandiganbayan erred in ignoring They are also being offered as part of the testimony of Danilo
petitioner’s testimonial evidence without any basis or justification. R.V. Daniel."160
Numerous exhibits were offered as part of the testimonies of petitioner’s
witnesses.
9) Exhibits "SS" to "SS-29"161 were offered "for the purpose of
proving that Apolinario K. Medina, Executive Vice President of
Traders Royal Bank, executed an Affidavit on July 23, 1987 her] part, as he [or she] would ordinarily have to do, if plaintiff’s evidence
wherein he mentioned about certain numbered (confidential) shows that he [or she] is not entitled to the relief sought."175 The order of
trust accounts maintained with the Traders Royal Bank, the dismissal must be clearly supported by facts and law since an order
deposits to which ‘were so substantial in amount that (he) granting demurrer is a judgment on the merits:
suspected that they had been made by President Marcos or his
family. They are also being offered as part of the testimony of
As it is settled that an order dismissing a case for insufficient evidence is a
Danilo R.V. Daniel."162
judgment on the merits, it is imperative that it be a reasoned decision
clearly and distinctly stating therein the facts and the law on which it is
10) Exhibits "TT" to "TT-3"163 were offered "for the purpose of based.176(Citation omitted)
proving that Director Danilo R.V. Daniel of the Research and
Development Department of the PCGG conducted an
To erroneously grant a dismissal simply based on the delay to formally
investigation on the ill-gotten wealth of the spouses Ignacio
offer documentary evidence essentially deprives one party of due process.
and Fe Roa Gimenez and found that from 1977 to 1982, the
total sum of P75,090,306.42 was withdrawn from the account
No. 128 (A/C 76-128) in favor of I.B Gimenez, I.B. Gimenez IV
Securities and Fe Roa Gimenez. They are also being offered as
part of the testimony of Director Danilo R.V. Daniel."164 Respondents did not fail to specifically deny material averments in the
Complaint.
The court cannot arbitrarily disregard evidence especially when resolving a
demurrer to evidence which tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s Under Rule 8, Section 10 of the Rules of Court, the "defendant must
evidence. specify each material allegation of fact the truth of which he does not
admit and, whenever practicable, shall set forth the substance of the
The difference between the admissibility of evidence and the matters upon which he relies to support his denial."177 There are three
determination of its probative weight is canonical.165 modes of specific denial provided for under the Rules:
Admissibility of evidence refers to the question of whether or not the 1) by specifying each material allegation of the fact in the complaint, the
circumstance (or evidence) is to [be] considered at all. On the other hand, truth of which the defendant does not admit, and whenever practicable,
the probative value of evidence refers to the question of whether or not it setting forth the substance of the matters which he will rely upon to
proves an issue. Thus, a letter may be offered in evidence and admitted as support his denial; (2) by specifying so much of an averment in the
such but its evidentiary weight depends upon the observance of the rules complaint as is true and material and denying only the remainder; (3) by
on evidence. Accordingly, the author of the letter should be presented as stating that the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient
witness to provide the other party to the litigation the opportunity to to form a belief as to the truth of a material averment in the complaint,
question him on the contents of the letter. Being mere hearsay evidence, which has the effect of a denial.178
failure to present the author of the letter renders its contents suspect. As
earlier stated, hearsay evidence, whether objected to or not, has no In paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the PCGG, through the Office of the
probative value.166 (Citations omitted) Solicitor General, averred that:
The Sandiganbayan should have considered Atienza v. Board of Medicine, 14. Defendant Fe Roa Gimenez, by herself and/or in unlawful concert with
et al.167 where this court held that it is better to admit and consider Defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, taking undue
evidence for determination of its probative value than to outright reject it advantage of her position, influence and connection and with grave abuse
based on very rigid and technical grounds.168 of power and authority, in order to prevent disclosure and recovery of
assets illegally obtained:
Although trial courts are enjoined to observe strict enforcement of the
rules of evidence, in connection with evidence which may appear to be of (a) actively participated in the unlawful transfer of millions of
doubtful relevancy, incompetency, or admissibility, we have held that: dollars of government funds into several accounts in her name
in foreign countries;
[I]t is the safest policy to be liberal, not rejecting them on doubtful or
technical grounds, but admitting them unless plainly irrelevant, immaterial (b) disbursed such funds from her various personal accounts for
or incompetent, for the reason that their rejection places them beyond the Defendants’ own use[,] benefit and enrichment;
consideration of the court, if they are thereafter found relevant or
competent; on the other hand, their admission, if they turn out later to be
irrelevant or incompetent, can easily be remedied by completely discarding (c) acted as conduit of the Defendants Ferdinand E. Marcos and
them or ignoring them.169(Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) Imelda R. Marcos in purchasing the New York properties,
particularly, the Crown Building, Herald Center, 40 Wall Street,
200 Wall Street, Lindenmere Estate and expensive works of
A liberal application of the Rules is in line with the state’s policy to recover arts;179
ill-gotten wealth. In case of doubt, courts should proceed with caution in
granting a motion to dismiss based on demurrer to evidence. An order
granting demurrer to evidence is a judgment on the merits.170 This is In their Answer, respondents claimed that;
because while a demurrer "is an aid or instrument for the expeditious
termination of an action,"171 it specifically "pertains to the merits of the 9. Defendants Spouses Gimenez and Fe Roa specifically deny the
case."172 allegations contained in paragraphs 14(a), 14(b) and 14(c), the truth being
that defendant Fe Roa never took advantage of her position or alleged
In Cabreza, Jr., et al. v. Cabreza,173 this court defined a judgment rendered connection and influence to allegedly prevent disclosure and recovery of
on the merits: alleged illegally obtained assets, in the manner alleged in said
paragraphs.180
(a) acted as the dummy, nominee or agent of Defendants To summarize, the Sandiganbayan erred in granting the Motion to Dismiss
Ferdinand E. Marcos and Imelda R. Marcos, in several on demurrer to evidence. It erred in making a sweeping declaration on the
corporations such as, the Allied Banking Corporation, Acoje probative value of the documentary evidence offered by petitioner and in
Mining Corporation, Baguio Gold Mining, Multi National excluding other evidence offered during trial without full evaluation based
Resources, Philippine Overseas, Inc. and Pioneer Natural on reasons grounded in law and/or jurisprudence.
Resources;
V
(b) unlawfully obtained, through corporations organized by
them such as the the [sic] New City Builders, Inc. (NCBI),
The third part of Rule 33, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that "[i]f
multimillion peso contracts with the government for the
the motion [to dismiss] is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal is
construction of government buildings, such as the University of
reversed [the movant] shall be deemed to have waived the right to
Life Sports Complex and Dining Hall as well as projects of the
present evidence." As this court held:
National Manpower Corporation, Human Settlements, GSIS,
and Maharlika Livelihood, to the gross and manifest
disadvantage to Plaintiff and the Filipino people. [I]f a demurrer to evidence is granted but on appeal the order of dismissal
is reversed, the movant shall be deemed to have waived the right to
present evidence. The movant who presents a demurrer to the plaintiff’s
(c) in furtherance of the above stated illegal purposes,
evidence retains the right to present their own evidence, if the trial court
organized several establishments engaged in food, mining and
disagrees with them; if the trial court agrees with them, but on appeal, the
other businesses such as the Transnational Construction
appellate court disagrees with both of them and reverses the dismissal
Corporation, Total Systems Technology, Inc., Pyro Control
order, the defendants lose the right to present their own evidence. The
Technology Corporation, Asian Alliance, Inc., A & T
appellate court shall, in addition, resolve the case and render judgment on
Development Corporation, RBO Agro Forestry Farm
the merits, inasmuch as a demurrer aims to discourage prolonged
Development Corporation, Bathala Coal Mining Corporation,
litigations.188 (Citations omitted)
Coal Basis Mining Corporation, Titan Coal Mining Corporation,
GEI Guaranteed Education, Inc., and I.B. Gimenez Securities,
Inc.181 This procedure, however, does not apply.
To which respondents specifically denied through the following paragraph: In this case, we principally nullify the assailed Resolutions that denied the
admission of the Formal Offer of Evidence. It only follows that the Order
granting demurrer should be denied. This is not the situation
11. Defendants Spouses Gimenez and Fe Roa specifically deny the
contemplated in Rule 33, Section 1.189 Respondents were not able to even
allegations contained in paragraphs 16, 16(a), 16(b) and 16(c) that
comment on the Formal Offer of Evidence. Due process now requires that
defendant Gimenez allegedly took advantage of his alleged relationship,
we remand the case to the Sandiganbayan. Respondents may, at their
influence and connection, and that by himself or in alleged unlawful
option and through proper motion, submit their Comment. The
concert with defendants Marcos and Imelda, for the alleged purpose of
Sandiganbayan should then rule on the admissibility of the documentary
enriching themselves and preventing the discovery of alleged illegally
and object evidence covered by the Formal Offer submitted by petitioner.
obtained assets: (1) allegedly acted as dummy, nominee or agent of
Respondents then may avail themselves of any remedy thereafter allowed
defendants Marcos and Imelda; (2) allegedly obtained multi-million peso
by the Rules.
projects unlawfully; and (3) allegedly organized several establishments, the
truth being: (1) that defendant Gimenez never acted as dummy, nominee
or agent of defendants Marcos and Imelda; (2) that defendant Gimen[e]z WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The assailed Resolutions dated
never once obtained any contract unlawfully; and (3) that defendant May 25, 2006 and September 13, 2006 of the Sandiganbayan Fourth
Gimenez is a legitimate businessman and organized business Division in Civil Case No. 0007 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is
establishments legally and as he saw fit, all in accordance with his own remanded to the. Sandiganbayan for further proceedings with due and
plans and for his own purposes.182 deliberate dispatch in accordance with this Decision.
In Aquintey v. Spouses Tibong,183 this court held that using "specifically" in SO ORDERED.
a general denial does not automatically convert that general denial to a
specific one.184 The denial in the answer must be so definite as to what is
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. MYRNA GAYOSO Y ARGUELLES
admitted and what is denied:
G.R. No. 206590 March 27, 2017
A denial is not made specific simply because it is so qualified by the
defendant. A general denial does not become specific by the use of the DEL CASTILLO, J.
word "specifically." When matters of whether the defendant alleges
having no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief are plainly FACTS:
and necessarily within the defendant’s knowledge, an alleged "ignorance
or lack of information" will not be considered as a specific denial. Section Based on the testimonies of SPO3 Victorino de Dios, SPO3
11, Rule 8 of the Rules also provides that material averments in the Rolando G. Salamida, PO2 Rex Isip, SPO4 Josefina Bandoy, P/Insp. Eleazar
complaint other than those as to the amount of unliquidated damages Barber, Jr., PS/Insp. Benjamin Cruto, and the documentary exhibits, the
shall be deemed admitted when not specifically denied. Thus, the answer following facts emerged: PI Barber of the PNP Guiuan Police Station directed
should be so definite and certain in its allegations that the pleader’s SPO3 De Dios to conduct a surveillance on appellant after receiving several
adversary should not be left in doubt as to what is admitted, what is reports that she was peddling prohibited drugs. Three weeks later, SPO3 De
denied, and what is covered by denials of knowledge as sufficient to form a Dios confirmed that appellant was indeed engaged in illegal drug activities.
belief.185 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) PI Barber filed for and was issued a search warrant. However, prior to
implementing the search warrant, PI Barber decided to conduct a
However, the allegations in the pleadings "must be contextualized and "confirmatory test-buy" designating SPO3 De Dios as poseur-buyer and
interpreted in relation to the rest of the statements in the giving him P200.00 marked money for the operation.
pleading."186 The denials in respondents’ Answer comply with the modes
provided for under the Rules. We have held that the purpose of requiring
specific denials from the defendant is to make the defendant disclose the
"matters alleged in the complaint which he [or she] succinctly intends to Appellant denied the charges against her. She claimed that on
disprove at the trial, together with the matter which he [or she] relied March 24, 2004, somebody forcibly kicked the front door of her house and
upon to support the denial."187 The denials proffered by respondents tried to break it open. When she opened the door, PI Barber pushed her
aside and told his companions to move quickly. They went directly to her
room; when PO2 Isip emerged therefrom seconds later, he was holding a
substance that looked like tawas. SPO3 De Dios and SPO3 Salamida went in
and out of her house. She maintained that the search warrant was shown
to her only after an hour and that the sachets of shabu were planted. She
argued that the police officers fabricated the charges against her since her
family had a quarrel with a police officer named Rizalina Cuantero regarding
the fence separating their houses
The RTC, in finding the appellant guilty, ruled that the evidence
sufficiently established the chain of custody of the sachets of shabu from
the time they were bought from appellant and/or seized from her house, to
its turnover to the PDEA and submission to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
examination. The RTC rejected appellant's defense of denial and frame-up
in view of her positive identification by eyewitnesses as the criminal
offender. The CA affirmed in toto the RTC ruling finding appellant guilty of
unauthorized sale and possession of shabu. The CA was not swayed by
appellant's contention that the "test-buy operation" amounted to
instigation since it is settled jurisprudence that a ''decoy solicitation" is not
tantamount to inducement or instigation.
ISSUE:
RULING: