Professional Documents
Culture Documents
005 People vs. Nuarin
005 People vs. Nuarin
DECISION
BRION, J : p
PO1 MANALO:
A: I have my marking there[,] sir.
Q: Will you please go over the same and tell me what is the relation of the
said sachet with the substance with the one you were able to buy
(sic)?
A: This is the same stuff that I bought, this is my marking.
PROS ASIS:
Witness identified the sachet previously marked Exhibit "F-3." May we
request that the marking placed by the witness in the sachet
be marked as Exhibit "F-3-B."
xxx xxx xxx
Q: How sure are you that the sachet that you have just identified is also
the sachet that you recovered during the operation?
A: Nobody held it except me.
Q: How did you identify the sachet?
A: The marking that I made. 14 [emphasis supplied]
In his cross-examination, PO1 Manalo again stated that he was the one
who marked the confiscated plastic sachets with "RM."
We point out that succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the
initial markings as reference. If at the first instance or opportunity, there are
already doubts on who really placed the markings on the seized sachets (or if
the markings were made in accordance with the required procedure), serious
uncertainty hangs over the identification of the seized shabu that the
prosecution introduced into evidence.
In addition, the records do not show that the sachets were
marked in the presence of the appellant. In People v. Sanchez, 15 we
explained that the "marking" of the seized items [ ] to truly ensure that they
are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered
in evidence [ ] should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator
(2) immediately upon confiscation. 16 We explained therein that [t]his step
initiates the process of protecting innocent persons from dubious and
concocted searches, and of protecting as well the apprehending officers from
harassment suits based on planting of evidence under Section 29 and on
allegations of robbery or theft.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Significantly, PO1 Manalo and PO1 Mutia did not even mention that they
marked the seized plastic sachet in their Joint Affidavit of Arrest.
In People of the Philippines v. Merlita Palomares y Costuna, 17 the Court
acquitted the accused for the prosecution's failure to clearly establish the
identity of the person who marked the seized drugs; the place where marking
was made; and whether the marking had been made in the accused's
presence.
As to the subsequent links in the chain of custody, PO1 Manalo stated
that he handed the seized plastic sachets to the desk officer at the police
station. Curiously, the identity of this desk officer was never revealed during
trial. This is particularly significant since no reference was ever made as to the
person who submitted the seized specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory for
examination. PO1 Manalo, in fact, testified that he could not remember the
person who brought the seized plastic sachets to the crime laboratory. Notably,
the specimen was forwarded to the crime laboratory only at 10:35 p.m. It was
not clear, therefore, who had temporary custody of the seized items when
they left the hands of PO1 Manalo until they were brought to the crime
laboratory for qualitative analysis.
The stipulation on the testimony of the forensic chemist does nothing to
help fill the gap as regards the custody and possession of the sachets from the
police station to the crime laboratory. To recall, the parties merely stipulated
that P/Sr. Insp. Banac received a request for laboratory examination, together
with the specimen to be examined; that he recorded the receipt of the sachets
in the logbook and conducted a physical, chemical, and confirmatory test on
the submitted specimen; that he found them positive for the presence of
shabu; and that he put his markings on the sachet and placed it in an
improvised envelope before forwarding it to the evidence custodian. Notably,
the RTC held that P/Sr. Insp. Banac "has no personal knowledge from whom
the subject specimen presented before this court was taken (sic). " 18 Simply
put, the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemical officer has no bearing
on the question of whether the specimen submitted for chemical analysis and
subsequently presented in court were the same as that seized from the
appellant.
The requirements of paragraph 1, Section 21
of Article II of R.A. No. 9165
The required procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs is embodied
in Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which states:
1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of
the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized,
or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media
and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who
shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
thereof. [emphasis ours]
This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing
Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, which reads:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of
the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory
and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of
warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these
requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items; [emphasis ours]SDAaTC
This procedure, however, was not shown to have been complied with by
the members of the buy-bust team, as PO1 Manalo himself admitted that the
police did not make an inventory and photograph the seized items either
at the place of seizure or at the police station. In addition, the police did not
offer any acceptable reason why they failed to do a basic requirement like a
physical inventory of the seized drugs, considering that there were only three
(3) sachets taken from the appellant.
In the recent case of People of the Philippines v. Rosalinda Casabuena, 19
we acquitted the accused for failure of the police to make an inventory and to
photograph the seized shabu. We explained that strict compliance with the
prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique
characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to
tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise.
No Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Official Duties
The courts a quo erred in giving weight to the presumption of regularity
in performance that a police officer enjoys in the absence of any taint of
irregularity and of ill motive that would induce him to falsify his testimony.
The regularity of the performance of the police officers' duties leaves much to
be desired in this case given the lapses in their handling of the allegedly
confiscated shabu. The totality of all the procedural lapses we previously
discussed effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of
the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up and
extortion. We have previously held that these lapses negate the presumption
that official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers. Any
taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the
presumption unavailable. 20
We also entertain serious doubts on PO1 Manalo's claim that they
coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) before the
buy-bust operation, as he admitted that there was no pre-operation report or
coordination sheet prepared by the police. Significantly, PO1 Manalo likewise
admitted that the police did not coordinate with the barangay officials of the
subject area. To our mind, these circumstances vis-à-vis the lapses made in the
handling and safekeeping of the alleged sachets of shabu puts in doubt the
claim of the police that they had conducted a legitimate buy-bust operation.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
In fine, the totality of evidence presented in the instant case does not
support the appellant's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No.
9165, since the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt all the
elements of the offense. We reiterate that the prosecution's failure to comply
with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and with the chain of custody
requirement of this Act, compromised the identity of the item seized, which is
the corpus delicti of the crime charged against appellant. Following the
constitutional mandate, when the guilt of the appellant has not been proven
with moral certainty, as in this case, the presumption of innocence prevails
and his exoneration should be granted as a matter of right. 21
A final note.
We are mindful of the pernicious effects of drugs in our society; they are
lingering maladies that destroy families and relationships, and engender
crimes. The Court is one with all the agencies concerned in pursuing an
intensive and unrelenting campaign against this social dilemma. Regardless of
our desire to curb this menace, we cannot disregard the protection provided by
the Constitution, most particularly on the presumption of innocence bestowed
on the appellant. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof
sufficient to produce moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the
conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome this
constitutional presumption. If the prosecution has not proved, in the first
place, all the elements of the crime charged, which in this case is the corpus
delicti, then the appellant deserves no less than an acquittal. 22
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the
April 28, 2009 decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 02886.
Sonia Bernel Nuarin is hereby ACQUITTED for the failure of the prosecution
to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately
RELEASED from detention unless she is confined for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent, Correctional
Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. The
Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is directed to report
the action she has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this
Decision.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., * and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* Designated as Acting Member in lieu of Associate Justice Jose C. Mendoza, per
raffle dated July 6, 2015.
1. Rollo, pp. 2-7; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Bato, Jr., and concurred in by
Associate Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Associate Justice Jose C.
Mendoza (now a member of this Court).
2. CA rollo, pp. 104-112. In this Joint Decision, the RTC also acquitted the appellant in
Criminal Case No. Q-03-114919 (possession of dangerous drugs) for
insufficiency of evidence.
3. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
Essential Chemicals.
7. Id. at 4.
8. Id. at 5-6; Records, p. 5.
9. CA Decision, CA rollo, p. 90.
10. Id. at 12-20.
11. People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 267.
12. See People v. Alejandro, G.R. No. 176350, August 10, 2011, 655 SCRA 279, 289-
290.