Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Manila: Appellant'S Brief
Republic of The Philippines Court of Appeals Manila: Appellant'S Brief
COURT OF APPEALS
Manila
x--------------------------------------------------------------x
APPELLANT’S BRIEF
EXORDIUM
1
People v. Angus, Jr., G.R. No. 178778. August 3, 2010.
Page 1 of 21
Pursuant to the Notice of this Honorable Court, dated October 19,
2014 that was received by the undersigned counsel on October 21, 2014,
accused-appellant Adrian D. Columa, by counsel, most respectfully submits
his brief.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
II
III
IV
Page 2 of 21
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
2
Under Rule 44 of the Rules of Court.
3
Record pp. 141-152, Crim. Case No. 16962-2010-C.
4
Records, p. 152 , Crim. Case No. 16952-2010-C [RTC Decision, p. 12.]
5
Records, p. 1, Crim. Case No. 16951-2010-C.
Page 3 of 21
That on January 27, 2010 or thereabout, in the City of Calamba,
Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court,
the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any
dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously has in his possession,
direct custody and control Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu)
weighing ZERO POINT ZERO SIX (0.06) grams, which is a dangerous
drug, in violation of the above-cited law.”
STATEMENT OF FACTS
10
Records, pp. 86-87, Crim. Case No. 16952-2010-C.
11
Exhibit “A”, Records, pp. 4-5, Crim. Case No. 16952-2010-C.
12
Exhibit “B”, Records, p. 7, Crim. Case No. 16952-2010-C.
13
Exhibit “C”, Records, pp. 92, Crim. Case No. 16952-2010-C.
14
Exhibits “D” to “D-3”
15
Exhibit “E”, Records, p. 7, Crim. Case No. 16952-2010-C.
16
Exhibit “F”, Records, p. 7, Crim. Case No. 16952-2010-C.
Page 5 of 21
the confidential asset replied, “Yes, only dos”. The asset then handed
Columa the Php200.00 marked money and in turn Columa gave the
asset a small plastic sachet. After the exchange, PO2 Aldabe held the
arms of Columa and introduced himself as a policeman. The other
members of the team who were hiding some seven to ten meters
away rushed to PO2 Aldabe assist him. PO2 Aldabe then conducted a
preventive search and confiscated three small plastic sachets
containing shabu in the possession of Columa in the latter’s right
pocket. PO2 Aldabe marked the confiscated items as well as the item
purchased in the buy-bust with initials RUA-ADC, RUA-ADC-1,
RUA-ADC-2, and RUA-ADC-3. The buy-bust money was likewise
recovered by PO2 Aldabe from Columa. PI Sarreal instructed the
team to go back to the police station due to a commotion as
somebody was throwing stones at them. When they reached the
police, station, PO2 Aldabe made a Request for Laboratory
Examination. The said request together with the seized specimens
were delivered by PO2 Tejada to the crime laboratory. The result of
the examination yielded that the seized items were positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride.17
After the prosecution had rested its case, the accused-appellant filed a
Motion for Leave of Court to File Demurrer to Evidence, 18 which the
Honorable Trial Court denied in its Order19 dated April 7. 2014.
17
Records, pp. 142-143, Crim. Case No. 16952-2010-C.
18
Records, pp. 96-97, Crim. Case No. 16952-2010-C.
19
Records, p. 98, Crim. Case No. 16952-2010-C.
20
Records, pp. 104-128, Crim. Case No. 16952-2010-C.
Page 6 of 21
In its Decision, the trial court upheld the veracity of the buy-bust
operation. It ruled that the accused-appellant was caught in flagrante
delicto of selling shabu which led to a warrantless arrest and search which
yielded the possession of more illegal drugs. The trial court ruled that the
elements for the prosecution of illegal sale of dangerous drugs had been
proven in this case, i.e., that there was a meeting of the minds between the
accused-appellant and the poseur-buyer for the sale of P200.00 worth of
shabu and there was delivery of the drugs to the poseur-buyer who gave
money in exchange therefor.
Whether or not the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal sale and
possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu was proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether or not the arresting officers preserved the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the seized items despite their failure to observe the
mandatory procedural requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. 9165 and its IRR.
Page 7 of 21
ARGUMENTS
Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof
as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral
certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces
conviction in an unprejudiced mind. 23 It must rest on its own merits and
must not rely on the weakness of the defense. If the prosecution fails to
meet the required amount of evidence, the defense may logically not
even present evidence on its own behalf, in which case, the
presumption prevails and the accused should necessarily be
acquitted.24
21
People v. Rentoria, G.R. No. 175333. September 21, 2007.
22
People v. Clara, G.R. No. 195528. July 24, 2013.
23
Section 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court.
24
People v. Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, 19 January 2011 640 SCRA 233.
25
People v. Mantalaba, G.R. No. 186227, July 20, 2011, 654 SCRA 188.
Page 8 of 21
of said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that
requisite to make a finding of guilt.26
26
People v. Remigio, G.R. No. 189277, December 5, 2012, 687 SCRA 336.
27
G.R. No. 173794, 18 January 2012.
Page 9 of 21
(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;”
Though the rule includes the proviso that procedural lapses in the
handling of the seized drugs are not ipso facto fatal to the prosecution’s
cause, provided that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are preserved. Courts, in each case, are nonetheless reminded to
thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those errors that constitute a simple
procedural lapse from those that amount to a gross, systematic,
or deliberate disregard of the safeguards that are drawn by the
law 28for the protection of the corpus delicti.
28
People v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, April 25, 2012, 671 SCRA 324, 355.
Page 10 of 21
"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 and finally 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. 29
29
Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 which
implements R.A. No. 9165
30
Supra, see note 26.
31
People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595 (1999).
32
Cabugao v. People, G.R. No. 158033, 30 July 2004, 435 SCRA 624.
Page 11 of 21
The strict demands and significant value of the chain of custody rule
were emphasized in the oft-cited Malillin v. People33 wherein the
Supreme Court held:
33
576 Phil. 576 (2008).
34
Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
35
People v. Relato, G.R. No. 173794, January 18, 2012, 663 SCRA 260.
Page 12 of 21
Here, below were such lapses and doubt that mar the instant case.
Page 13 of 21
that they arrested accused-appellant in an entrapment operation on 5:00
p.m. of January 27, 2010.36 Meanwhile, from “TIME RECIEVED” marked
on the face of the Coordination Form, it was received by PO1 Castillo at
2:00 p.m. of January 28, 2010.
36
TSN, 13 March 2014, pp. 4-8.
37
G.R. No. 193234. October 19, 2011.
Page 14 of 21
failing in which the State will be unable to discharge its basic duty of
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 38 To prove the
corpus delicti, the prosecution must show that the dangerous drugs seized
from the accused and subsequently examined in the laboratory are the
same dangerous drugs presented in court as evidence to prove his guilt. 39
The first stage after seizure is the taking of inventory of the dangerous
drugs seized from the suspect. It begins with the marking of the seized
objects to fix its identity. Such marking should be made as far as
practicable in the presence of the suspect immediately upon his
arrest. 40
Here, is not clear from the evidence that the markings were made in
the presence of the accused or his representative. Marking, which is the
affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending
officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying
signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator
immediately upon arrest.41
Although PO2 Aldabe, the State’s lone witness, testified that he had
marked the sachets of shabu with his own initials of “RUA-ADC”, “RUA-
ADC-1”, “RUA-ADC-2”, and RUA-ADC-3” following accused-appellant
arrest, he did not explain, either in his court testimony or in his
affidavit of arrest42, whether his marking had been done in the
presence of accused-appellant.
38
Supra, see note 35.
39
People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 182417, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 123, 133.
40
People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 198113. December 11, 2013.
41
Supra, see note 39.
42
Supra, see note 11.
43
Fajardo, et. al. v. People, G.R. No. 185460. July 25, 2012.
Page 15 of 21
Thus, there is already a gap in determining whether the specimens
that entered into the chain were actually the ones examined and offered in
evidence.
The saving clause in Section 21, IRR of R.A. No. 9165 cannot remedy
these lapses committed by the police. The Supreme Court has emphasized
44
TSN, 13 March, 2014, pp. 30-32.
45
Id., pp. 33-44.
46
Supra, see note 44.
Page 16 of 21
in People v. Garcia47 that the saving clause applies only where the
prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter cited
justifiable grounds.48 Failure to follow the procedure mandated under R.A.
No. 9165 and its IRR must be adequately explained. 49
Equally important,
the prosecution must establish that the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized item are properly preserved.
The prosecution failed in this regard. Taking into account the several
rules and requirements that were not followed by the law enforcers, there
was an evident disregard on their part of the established legal
requirements. Their breach of the chain of custody rule, magnified by the
prosecution’s anaemic explanation as to the deficiencies during the trial,
casts doubt on whether the items claimed to have been sold by accused-
appellant to the police asset, as was allegedly possessed by him were the
same items that were brought for examination by the police to the crime
laboratory and eventually presented in court as evidence.
In People v. Lim50, the Supreme Court held:
47
G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA 259.
48
People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194.
49
People v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 184760, April 23, 2010, 619 SCRA 389, 400.
50
G.R. No. 141699, August 7, 2002.
Page 17 of 21
his representative, who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof. The failure of the agents to
comply with such a requirement raises a doubt whether what was
submitted for laboratory examination and presented in court was
actually recovered from the appellants. It negates the presumption
that official duties have been regularly performed by the PAOC-TF
agents.”
“In People v. Laxa, where the buy-bust team failed to mark the
confiscated marijuana immediately after the apprehension of the
accused, the Court held that the deviation from the standard
procedure in anti-narcotics operations produced doubts as to the
origins of the marijuana. Consequently, the Court concluded that the
prosecution failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti.
51
G.R. No. 173804, December 10, 2008, 573 SCRA 497.
52
G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750.
53
People v. Salonga, G.R. No. 194948. September 2, 2013.
Page 18 of 21
innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. 54 The
inconsistency in the evidence and the weak presentation of the prosecution
leaves a gaping hole in the chain of custody, which creates a reasonable
doubt on the guilt of the accused. In view of the prosecution’s failure to
adduce justifiable grounds on their procedural lapses, the reversal of the
finding of the court a quo is in order.
RELIEF
54
Id.
55
Supra, see note 28.
56
Supra, see note 20.
Page 19 of 21
REVERSED AND SET ASIDE and accused-appellant Adrian D. Columa
@ “Tawtaw” be ACQUITTED.
Other reliefs, just and equitable under the premises are likewise
prayed for.
By:
Copy furnished:
Page 20 of 21
ATTY. BERNHARD RYAN MURO
Page 21 of 21