Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PP vs. EDWIN CABEZUDO y RIEZA G.R. 232357 PDF
PP vs. EDWIN CABEZUDO y RIEZA G.R. 232357 PDF
~upretne <!ourt
;illllnn ila
SECOND DIVISION
Promulgated:
EDWIN CABEZUDO y RIEZA,
CAGUIOA, J.:
The Facts
On wellness leave.
•• Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018.
See Notice of Appeal dated November 28, 2016, rol/o, pp. 20-23.
Rollo, pp. 2-19. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla with Associate Justices
Normandie B. Pizarro and Samuel H. Gaerlan, concurring.
CA rol/o, pp. 42-50. Penned by Judge Winston S. Racoma.
4
Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPUBLIC ACT No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, As AMENDED,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES" (2002).
Records, p. 1.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 232357
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
seized items. Later on, they transferred to the barangay hall where the
witnesses (Barangay Chairman and the representatives from the media and
DOJ) signed the inventory report. SI2 Magpantay was in possession of the
seized drugs from Brgy. Palanan to the Office of PDEA until the same
were delivered to the laboratory for examination. PCI Grace Tugas
conducted laboratory examination of the seized white crystalline substance
which yielded a positive result for methamp[h]etamine hydrochloride or
shabu. After the examination, she placed the shabu in an envelope with her
integrity seal (masking tape sealed with her signature) and kept the same
together with other documents in a steel cabinet. The shabu and other
confiscated items were presented in court and positively identified by the
witnesses for the prosecution. 8
Id. at 3-4.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 232357
businessman. Later on, his wife arrived with Php 21,000.00. While he was
counting the money, S02 Viafia suddenly grabbed the money and shouted,
"Nanunuhol ka?" allegedly because of the presence of a mediaman. In
response to Viafia's statement, accused-appellant told him that they have
not agreed on anything and that he is not bribing him. This prompted
Viafia to threaten his wife that they will file a case against her. He begged
Viafia to spare his wife and so the latter was instructed to sign in a
logbook to make it appear that she just visited him. Before his wife left the
office, Viafia handed the amount of Php 16,000.00 to her while the rest of
the Php21,000.00 amounting to Php 5,000.00 was handed over to accused-
appellant. Viafia told him that, "!tong Php 5, 000. 00 ay sadyang pinaiwan
niya para sa mga kasamahan niya, panggastos[.]" But before he was
jailed, S02 Viafia allegedly took back the Php 5,000.00 from him. 9
After trial on the merits, in its Decision dated June 10, 2014 the RTC
convicted Cabezudo of the crime charged. The dispositive portion of the said
Decision reads:
SO ORDERED. 10
Id. at 4-6.
1
°
11
CA rollo, p. 50.
Id.at47.
12
Id. at 47-48
Decision 5 G.R. No. 232357
Ruling of the CA
Issue
For resolution of the Court is the issue of whether the RTC and the
CA erred in convicting Cabezudo of the crime charged.
seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold
and the payment therefor. 16
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears not only the
burden of proving these elements, but also of proving the corpus delicti or
the body of the crime. In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very
corpus delicti of the violation of the law. 17 While it is true that a buy-bust
operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for
apprehending drug peddlers and distributors, 18 the law nevertheless requires
strict compliance with the procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights
are safeguarded.
Thus, the Court, in each case, looks into whether the police officers
involved adhered to the step-by-step procedure outlined in Section 21 of RA
9165. This is because, in all drugs cases, compliance with the chain of
custody rule is crucial in any prosecution that follows such operation. Chain
of custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of
seized drugs or controlled chemicals from the time of seizure/confiscation to
receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. 19 The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug
confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered
in court as exhibit; and that the identity of said drug is established with the
same unwavermg exactitude as that requisite is indispensable to make a
finding of guilt. 20
16
People v. Opiana, 750 Phil. 140, 147 (2015).
17
People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441, 451 (2013).
18
People v. Manta/aha, 669 Phil. 461, 471 (2011).
19
People v. Guzon, supra note 17, citing People v. Dumaplin, 700 Phil. 737, 747 (2012).
20
Id., citing People v. Remigio, 700 Phil. 452, 464-465 (2012).
21
People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 471 (2007), citing People v. Tan, 401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000).
I
!/
Decision 7 G.R. No. 232357
In the present case, while all three required witnesses signed the
inventory receipt, a thorough review of the records reveals that (a) none of
them was present at the time of seizure and apprehension, and (b) only one
of them was present during the actual conduct of the inventory. As SI2
Erwin Magpantay (SI2 Magpantay), the poseur-buyer, testified:
xx xx
Q And [a]fter that Mr. Witness, isn't not that Edwin Cabezudo was
trying to shout, if you recall?
A Yes, ma'am.
A Yes, ma'am.
22
IRR of RA 9165, Art. II, Section 2l(a).
Decision 8 G.R. No. 232357
A Yes, ma'am.
A Yes, ma'am.
Q But when you marked them, it was only your members who
were present?
A Barangay Officials.
Q And after that that (sic) is the only time you went to the
barangay hall?
A Yes, ma'am.
xx xx
Q And you will agree with me Mr. Witness that when the media
and DOJ representatives arrived at the barangay, the object
evidence was already marked?
23
TSN, September 26, 2012, pp. 4-20.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 232357
Q After he was subdued Mr. Witness, what did you do to whim (sic)?
A I cannot exactly remember the time but it was only for a short time
after we subdued him.
A Yes, ma'am.
xx xx
Q So, what else happened when they were still inside the barangay
hall?
Q Aside from the PDEA members were you able to see a member
of the media?
A None, ma'am.
24
TSN, January 30, 2013, pp. 21-22.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 232357
A They let me sit in the chair and we waited for the barangay captain.
xx xx
xx xx
A After that I saw them that they were looking for a Xerox machine
because they will photocopy the Five Hundred peso (Php500.00)
bill.
Q After the money was photocopied, what did they do next, Mr.
Witness?
Q For how long did you wait for that DOJ representative?
A I don't know.
It is worth emphasizing that Section 21, RA 9165 and its IRR requires
the apprehending team to conduct the physical inventory of the seized items
and the photographing of the same in the presence of the required witness,
all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof:
In this case, clear from the afore-quoted testimonies is the fact that
while the inventory was conducted at the place of the apprehension, it was
conducted only in the presence of the barangav official. To repeat, the
representatives from the media and the DOJ were only "called-in" to sign
the inventory receipt at the barangay hall. Parenthetically, even the place
where the other witnesses were "called-in" was improper, for the rules
require the inventory to be conducted at the place of the arrest or, if
impracticable, at the nearest police station.
While there are cases where the Court had ruled that the failure of the
apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section
21 of RA 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the
items void and invalid, the prosecution still needs to satisfactorily prove that:
(a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 31 The Court has
29
Id. at 13.
30 See People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 461 (2015).
31
People v. Cera/de, G.R. No. 228894, August 7, 2017, 834 SCRA 613, 625.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 232357
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public
elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting,
contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court
in People vs. Mendoza, 37 without the insulating presence of the
representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official
during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching,
"planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts
32
People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010); People v. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596, January 10, 2018, p. 7;
People v. Villanueva, G.R. No. 231792, January 29, 2018, p. 7; People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102,
January 29, 2018, p. 7; People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018, p. 7; People v. Dionisio,
G.R. No. 229512, January 31, 2018, p. 9; People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018, p. 7;
People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 233744, February 28, 2018, p. 9; People v. Sagaunit, G.R. No. 231050, February
28, 2018, p. 7; People v. Lumaya, G.R. No. 231983, March 7, 2018, p. 8; People v. Ano, G.R. No. 230070,
March 14, 2018, p. 6; People v. Descalso, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, p. 8; People v. Dela Victoria,
G.R. No. 233325, April 16, 2018, p. 6.
33
See People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342 (2015).
34
797 Phil. 671 (2016).
35
Id. at 690.
36
G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018.
37
736 Phil. 749 (2014).
Decision 14 G.R. No. 232357
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during
the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest.
It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most
needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that
would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized
drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence
of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of
frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust
operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence
in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
A No, ma'am.
Q Can you tell the court where were you on August 16, 2011 at about
12:30 o'clock in the afternoon?
xx xx
Q While you were there, do you recall of any unusual incident that
happened?
38
People v. Tomawis, supra note 36, at 11-12.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 232357
Q Mr. Witness, can you describe before this Honorable Court how
was Edwin Cabezudo arrested?
A His hands were held and his face was laid down on the ground.
xx xx
Q You said, Mr. Witness, that there was, what is that the Police
Officers do after Edwin Cabezudo was already lying on his
stomach?
ATTY. ADMANA:
It bears stressing that the prosecution has the burden of (1) proving
compliance with Section 21, RA 9165, and (2) providing a sufficient
explanation in case of non-compliance. As the Court en bane held in the
recent case of People v. Lim: 42
In People v. Umipang, 44 the Court dealt with the same issue where the
police officers involved did not show any genuine effort to secure the
attendance of the required witness before the buy-bust operation was
executed. In the said case, the Court held:
Thus, we find that there was no genuine and sufficient effort on the
part of the apprehending police officers to look for the said representatives
pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. A sheer statement that
representatives were unavailable - without so much as an explanation
on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other
42
G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
43
Id. at 13, citing People v. Sip in, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018, p. 17.
44
686 Phil. 1024 (2012).
Decision 17 G.R. No. 232357
The prosecution did not present any other witness to offer a version
different from the foregoing. In a similar way, there was no explanation
offered as to why none of the three required witnesses was present in the
buy-bust operation conducted against Cabezudo, and why only one was
present in the conduct of the inventory. Thus, the RTC and the CA instead
had to rely only on the presumption that police officers performed their
functions in the regular manner to support Cabezudo's conviction.
In this connection, it was egregious error for both the RTC and the CA
to convict the accused by relying on the presumption of regularity in the
performance of duties supposedly extended in favor of the police officers.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcome
the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 46 Otherwise,
a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be
presumed innocent. 47 As the Court, in People v. Catalan, 48 reminded the
lower courts:
Both lower courts favored the members of the buy-bust team with
the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty, mainly
because the accused did not show that they had ill motive behind his
entrapment.
45
Id. at 1052-1053.
46
People v. Mendoza, supra note 37, at 769-770.
47
People v. Catalan, 699 Phil. 603, 621 (2012).
48 Id.
Decision 18 G.R. No. 232357
must be inferred only from an established basic fact, not plucked out
from thin air. To say it differently, it is the established basic fact that
triggers the presumed fact of regular performance. Where there is any hint
of irregularity committed by the police officers in arresting the accused
and thereafter, several of which we have earlier noted, there can be no
presumption of regularity of performance in their favor. 49 (Emphasis
supplied and italics in the original)
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
52
See People v. Jugo, G.R. No. 231792, January 29, 2018, p. 10.
Decision 20 G.R. No. 232357
a:~~~.
v~Jssociate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's division.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
CERTIFICATION