GR 246165 2019 PDF
GR 246165 2019 PDF
'bilippine~
~upre e <!Court
~a ila
FIRST D VISION
DECISION
LAZARO-JAVIER, J.:
• Designated as additional member per S.O. No. 2726 ated October 25,2019.
1
Decision 2 G.R. No. 246165
Prosecution's Version
1
Record, p. I.
The Information reads:
That on or about the 13 111 of December 2015, in Pasay City, Metro Manila, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused JOEFFREY MACASPAC Y LLANETE
·and BRYAN MARCELO Y PANDINO, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another,
without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously bring and transport 552
(Five Hundred Fifty Two) grams ofMethamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, along SM
Mall of Asia Complex, this city, using a Hyundai Accent vehicle with Plate No. AAV 8780. Contrary to
law.
2
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Acts of2002.
Section 5, Article II states: Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of
life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten
million pesos (PlO,OOO,OOO.OO) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell,
trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any
dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved,
or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
3
Rollo, p. 4.
4
Record, p. 7.
5
!d. at 7; rolla, p. 5.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 246165
Meantime, the police team ins ected the Hyundai vehicle used by
appellants. Agent Otic recovered from t e backseat a "Zest 0" box containing
a plastic pack with white crystalline ubstance inside. Agent Otic did an
inventory and marked the seized item ith his initials "JLO" in the presence
of media representative Ryan Ann, an Barangay Kagawad Andres Ileja of
Barangay 76, Zone 10, Pasay City. A ent Liwalug took photographs of the
seized item. 10
Agent Otic also prepared a Req est for Laboratory Examination and
brought it to the NBI Manila's Forensi Chemist Division. Forensic Chemist
Loreto Bravo received from Agent Oti the specimen and the request for its
examination.
6
Record, p. 9.
7
Jd. at 8.
8
Rollo, p. 6.
9 Jd.
10
Record, p. 9.
II fd. at 90.
12
!d. at 7.
13
Jd. at 11.
14 Jd. at 12.
15
Jd. at 15.
16
Jd. at 16.
17
Jd. at 17.
I
Decision 4 G.R. No. 246165
Defense's Version
By Decision24 dated March 14, 2017, the trial court found appellants
guilty as charged, viz. :
Furnish the Legal and Prosecution Service of the PDEA, the NBI,
the prosecutor, the accused and his cotmsel, copies of this decision.
SO ORDERED.
The trial court found that the elements of transporting drugs were all
present here. Appellants had complete possession and control of the
prohibited drugs from the time they picked up the same at the SM
18
Id. at 18.
19
Id. at 19-20.
20
TSN, November 11,2016, p. 6.
21
Rollo, p. 7.
22
TSN, November 11, 2016, p. 6.
23
Rollo, p. 7.
24
Penned by Judge Racquelen Abary-Vasquez, CA rolla, pp. 30-48.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 246165
Hypermarket up until they boarded e drugs into Bong's car. 25 The trial
court also noted that since appellants ere actually in the act of committing
an offense, the police officers had law 1 reason to arrest them, search the
vehicle, and seize the prohibited item :D und therein. 26 Had it not been for the
timely interception by the police offic rs and NBI agents, both appellants
and the five hundred fifty-two .(552) grams of shabu would have freely
moved out from the SM MOA undetec ed. 27
For its part, the Office ofthe Soli~itor General (OSG) countered in the
main: 1) the elements of transportin dangerous drugs under Section 5,
Article II of RA 9165 were all suffici ntly established; 2) appellants were
caught in flagrante delicto while trans orting five hundred fifty-two (552)
grams of shabu; 31 3) the chain of custo y was followed, thus, preserving the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item; 32 and 4) Agent Otic's
testimony was not hearsay as he was si ply narrating independent relevant
statements which led to appellants' law 1 arrest. 33
25
Jd. at 39.
26
!d. at 39-40.
27
!d. at 40.
28
I d. at 45.
29
Jd. at 24.
30
!d. at 28.
31
Jd. at 60-61.
32
Jd. at 63-64.
I
33
Jd. at 65.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 246165
Another. Agent Otic's testimony .was not hearsay. Being the team
leader of the operation which coordinated with the PDEA, as well as the
mall's security personnel, he had ·personal knowledge of the · illegal
transporting of the drugs in question. He was also personally present at the
target area during the operation. 36
Appellants now seek affirmative relief from the Court and plead anew
for a verdict of acquittal.
In compliance with the Resolution38 dated June 10, 2019, the OSG
manifested-that in lieu of supplemental brief, it was adopting its brief before
the Court of Appeals. 39
~
Issue
34
Rollo, pp. 3-12.
35
Id. at 10.
36
Id. at 10-11.
37
Id. at 11
38
/d.atl?.
39
!d. at 26-28.
40
Id. at 32-38.
I
41
!d. at 33.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 246165
Ruli 1g
Records bear the following fac -s: 1) appellants picked up from the
baggage counter of the SM Hypermar ~et a plastic bag conti;lining a "Zest-0"
box filled with shabu; 2) appellants wal ed towards the SM MOA where Bong
Cuenca's car was waiting; 3) appella ts loaded the shabu' into the car and
boarded; 4) as they and Bong were dri ing away, Agent Mendoza and Agent
Escurel blocked them; 5) but instead o · halting, Bong accelerated the engine
and maneuvered to run over the agents 6) when he missed his targets, Bong
revved up the engine anew and man uvered another time to run over the
agents but this time, it was Agent Otic s Toyota Fortuner which blocked the
vehicle; and 7) when the driver and a pellants were asked to step out, the
driver simply repeated what he did ear ier, thus, forcing the agents to shoot.
Bong and appellants were conseque tly injured and later brought to the
hospital for treatment. Appellants survived, but the driver did not.
42
See People v. Laba, 702 Phil. 301, 308 (2013).
43
See 635 Phil. 315, 333-334 (2010).
44fd.
45
See 778 Phil. 509, 523 (2016).
46
Supra note 43.
47 Jd.
48
Rollo, p. 33.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 246165
People v. Asislo49 aptly noted that the law does not dictate the threshold
how far the drugs should have been transported in order to fall within the
limits of illegal transporting of dangerous drugs. People v. Gumilao 50 further
elucidated that in cases of illegal transporting of prohibited drugs, it is
immaterial whether or not the place of destination is reached.
We also reckon with the rule that the intent to transport illegal drugs
is presumed whenever a huge volume thereof is found in the possession of
the accused until the contrary is proved. 5 1
So must it be.
Going now to the chain of ~ustody rule, we reiterate that in illegal drugs
cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The
prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally
possessed, sold, delivered, or transported by the accused is the same substance
presented in court. 54
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug, the prosecution must account
for each link in its chain of custody: 55 first, the seizure and marking of the
illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending
49
Supra note 45.
50
See People v. Gumilao, G.R. No. 208755, October 5, 2016, citing People v. Mariacos, 635 Phil. 315, 333-
334 (2010).
51
See People v. Asislo, 778 Phil. 509 (2016); See People v. Alacdis, 811 Phil. 219, (2017).
52
Supra note 45.
53
See 811 PhiL 219, 232 (2017).
54
See People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 541-542 (2017).
55
· As defined in1 Section I (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of2002:
XXX
b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or
controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for
destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature
of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of
custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]
XXX
Decision 9 G.R. No. 246165
One, in the place where the dru =>s were seized and ~.n the presence of
insulating witnesses, i.e., media repro.sentative Ryan Ann and Barangay
Kagawad Andres Ileja from Barangay 76, Zone 10, Pasay'City, Agent Otic
marked and inventoried the "Zest-0" ox containing the original packing of
the five hundred fifty-two (552) grams of shabu, 57 while Agent Liwalug took
photographs of the same. Notably, th.., prosecution recognized that at that
time, appellants themselves were not around anymore because they were
taken to the hospital for treatment of :he injuries they sustained during the
encounter.
Two, Agent Otic remained in cu tody of the seized item from the time
it was seized until it was marked and i ventoried. He testified, thus:
Q: Anything else?
A: After that, we conducted the;: invyn ry of the items seized in the
presence of the witnesses, the baranga officials, MOA representatives
and media representatives, ma'am.
XXX XXX XXX
Q: And then?
A: We also requested the witnesses to sign the inventory sheet, rna' am.
56
See People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015)
57
Record, p. 79.
58
TSN, April 11,2016, pp. 29-30.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 246165
not a breach of the chain of custody. In People v. Santos, 59 NBI Agent Saul
was the one who seized the marijuana leaves and dangerous drugs
paraphernalia from the accused. He, too, marked and inventoried the seized
items. He did not tum them over to an investigator as he immediately
submitted the same to the forensic chemist for qualitative examination. The
Court ruled there was no breach in the chain of custody and the integrity and
evidentiary' value of the seized item remained intact from their seizure to their
presentation. as evidence in court.
Four, Forensic Chemist Bravo received the specimen and request for
examination. Per Certification dated December 14, 2015, he confirmed that
the specimen yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. It is a
matter of record that both the prosecution and the defense agreed to dispense
with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Bravo, and in its stead, stipulated ·'
among others, that: 1) Forensic Chemist Bravo who conducted the laboratory
examination of the specimen is a competent, qualified, and expert witness; 2)
his findings per Certification dated December 14, 2015 showed that the seized
item weighed five hundred fifty-two [552] grams and were found positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride; and 3) he had no personal knowledge of the
offense imputed against appellants.
59
See G.R. No. 223142, January 17, 2018.
60
Record, p. 76.
61
See G.R. No. 202206, March 5, 2018.
62
See 810 Phil. 999, 1002, 1005 (20 17).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 246165
Further, not all oeoole who came into contact with the seized
dru2:s are reQuired to testify in com t. There is nothin2: in Reuublic Act
No. 9165 or in anv rule imoleme llting the same that imposes such
requirement. As long as the chain of ustody of the seized drug was clearly
established not to have been br.oken a 1d that the prosecution did not fail to
identify properly the drugs seized, it its not indisuensable that each and
everv uerson who came into uosse sion of the dru2:s should take the
witness stand. x x x (Emphasis and uf!derscoring supplied)
In any event, the Court keenly nc tes the large amount of shabu involved
here--- five hundred fifty-two (552) g ams or more than halfkilo. In Malillin
v. People, 65 the Court stated that the li (elihood of tampering, loss, or mistake
with respect to a seized illegal drug is greatest when the item is small and is
one that has physical characteristics fin gible in nature. To repeat, five hundred
fifty-two (552) grams or more than mlf kilo of shabu is by no means a
minuscule amount, thus, logically cor firming the improbability of planting,
tampering, or alteration.
The Court has invariably orda"ned that while the chain of custody
should ideally be perfect, in reality it is not, "as it is almost always impossible
to obtain an unbroken chain." The most important factor is the preservation
of the integrity and the evidentiary val e of the seized items to determine the
guilt or innocence of the accused, 66 as n this case.
ll
In another vein, both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found
Agent Otic's testimony to be credib e, straightforward, and direct. More
important, both courts found that Ager t Otic was not shown, nay accused, to
have been impelled by malice or ill wil to falsely charge appellants with such
heinous offense 67 of illegal transporting of a huge amount of
methamphetamine hydrochloride. InPt: ople v. Flor, 68 the Court gave full faith
and credence to police officer's testimpny in the absence of imputed malice
on his part to testify against the accused for violation of Section 5, Article II
ofRA 9165. Here, Agent Otic was no shown to have any ulterior motive to
falsely charge appellants. The Court, t~erefore, finds no reason to doubt his
credibility.
been clearly shown to have performed their official duty in a regular manner.
People v. Cabiles69 .is apropos, viz. :
Surely, appellants' bare denial cannot prevail over Agent Otic's positive
testimony, much less, the presumption of regularity accorded him and his team
in the performance of their official duty. People v. Alcala70 stressed that the
presumption of regularity in the perfonnance of official duty and the findings
of the trial court with respect to the credibility of witnesses supported by
positive evidence shall prevail over appellant's self-serving defense of denial.
The Court accords great weight to the trial court's factual findings here,
\
x x x findings of the trial courts whkh are factual in nature and which
involve credibility are accorded respect when no glaring errors, gross
misapprehension of facts, or speculative, arbitrary, and unsupported
conclusions can be gathered from such findings. The reason for this is that
the trial court is in a better position to decide the credibility of witnesses,
having heard their testimonies and observed their deportment and manner
of testifying during the trial. The rule finds an even more stringent
application where said findings are sustained by the Court of Appeals.
x x x (Emphasis supplied).
All told, the Court of Appeals did not err when it affirmed the trial
court's verdict of conviction against appellants for violation of Section 5,
Article II ofRA 9165.
69
See 810 Phil. 969,976 (2017).
70
See 739 Phil. 189, 194-195 (2014).
71
See 754 Phil. 205,217 (2015).
Decision 13 G.R. No. 246165
SO ORDERED.
UkAZARO- JAVIER
Associate Justice
' I
' '
Decision 14 G.R. No. 246165
WE CONCUR:
TING
CERTIFICATION
,I