Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PP VS. Virgilio A. Quim June 2016
PP VS. Virgilio A. Quim June 2016
Appellee, v. VIRGILIO A. QUIM, Appellant.
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the 24 April 2014 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01018,
affirming with modification the Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Cebu City (trial court), in
Criminal Case No. CBU-69184, convicting appellant Virgilio A. Quim (appellant) for violation of Section 5,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002.
The Facts
That on the 3rd day of April 2004 at around 9:50 A.M., in Barangay Valladolid Municipality of Carcar,
Province of Cebu, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously SELL and DELIVER one (1)
heat-sealed transparent plastic packet of 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance to a poseur buyer in a
buy-bust operation for and in consideration of the sum of One Hundred Pesos (P100.00), with Serial Number
HC872365, and when subjected for laboratory examination gave positive result for the presence of
Methylamphetamine [sic] Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.3 cralawred
Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented PO2 Jose Yamasaki Repompo
(PO2 Repompo) as its lone witness. PO2 Repompo testified that after a report confirmed appellant as selling
shabu in Carcar, Cebu, the police officers applied for a search warrant which was granted. A team was then
formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. The team was composed of SPO3 Rolando Cayubit (SPO3 Cayubit),
SPO1 Roland Navales (SPO1 Navales), SPO1 Meliton Agadier, Jr. (SPO1 Agadier), PO2 Repompo, the civilian
asset as a poseur buyer, and other Philippine National Police personnel (PNP). On 3 April 2004, at around
9:15 a.m., the civilian asset who acted as poseur buyer approached appellant who was just outside his
house. The police officers who composed the buy-bust team were positioned about 10 to 15 meters from
where the transaction occurred. The poseur buyer then handed the P100 marked money to appellant who
gave the poseur buyer one packet of shabu. The police team then arrested appellant and they were able to
recover from appellant P290, including the P100 marked money. SPO1 Navales marked the shabu specimen
with "VAQ-1." Appellant was then brought to the police station. The Chief of Police prepared a letter-request
for laboratory examination and PO2 Repompo delivered the shabu specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory,
where the specimen was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
The defense presented five witnesses: (1) Darlene Quim, (2) Asuncion Quim, (3) Gerard4 Quim, (4) Evelyn
Lapenia, and (5) appellant.
Darlene Quim, the daughter of appellant, testified that on 3 April 2004, her father and brother were fixing a
fluorescent lamp outside their house when policemen came and arrested them. One of the policemen poked
a gun at her and she shouted for help. The police officers frisked her father and brother but nothing was
recovered from them. Sometime later, a barangay official arrived. The police officers entered and searched
their house three times.
Asuncion Quim, appellant's wife, testified that in the morning of 3 April 2004, she was inside their house
with her daughter. From the sala where she was reading a pocketbook, she could see her husband and their
son fixing a fluorescent lamp just outside their house. Police officers suddenly entered their house and one
policeman poked a gun at her daughter, who shouted for help. The other police officers searched their
bedrooms. Meanwhile, her husband and son were being handcuffed by police officers. When the barangay
officials arrived, the police officers searched their bedrooms again. During the search, her husband and son
were brought outside the house, while she and her daughter were made to stay in the living room. The
police officers who searched the rooms did not recover anything. She later learned at the police station that
her husband was charged with possession and sale of illegal drugs.
Gerard Quim, son of appellant, testified that at around 9:00 a.m. on 3 April 2004, he was with his father
fixing a fluorescent lamp outside their house. His mother and sister were inside their house. Around 10
policemen arrived, and some went inside their house while the others handcuffed him and his father. When
his father asked what was happening, one of the police officers told his father to return the firearm pledged
to him by Wilson. Some of the police officers entered the bedrooms but recovered nothing. When the
barangay officials arrived, he and his father were frisked by police officers but nothing was recovered from
them.
Evelyn Lapenia, a barangay official, testified that on 3 April 2004, she was asked to go to appellant's house.
When she arrived at appellant's house, there were several police officers present. Together with two other
barangay officials, they accompanied the police officers inside the toilet and bedroom, which was already
topsy-turvy. She surmised that the bedroom was already searched even before they arrived, but she did not
see anything recovered by the police officers from their search. She was then led outside the house where
she saw a table with some items on top. She was made to sign a piece of paper which listed the items laid
on the table. The police officers told her these were the things found by the police officers in the rooms
searched.
Appellant testified that at around 10:00 a.m. on 3 April 2004, he and his son Gerard were fixing the electric
lamp just outside their house. His daughter Darlene was inside the house sitting by the door, while his wife
was also inside the house. Appellant noticed that the house of their neighbor, Nerio Marte, was surrounded
by policemen. Some police officers proceeded to their house. Two police officers, SPO1 Navales and SPO3
Cayubit, approached him and his son, while the rest of the policemen entered their house. SPO3 Cayubit
then showed him a search warrant and asked if he was Virgilio Quim, to which he answered yes. He was
about to read the search warrant when he heard his daughter cry out for help. He and his son rushed inside
the house and he saw Saki poking a gun at his daughter. When the Judge5 asked appellant about Saki's
identity, appellant told the Judge that Saki is PO2 Jose Yamasaki Repompo. Appellant told the Judge that
PO2 Repompo was known as Saki in their place. Upon further interrogation by the Judge, appellant testified
that a week before the incident, PO2 Repompo, SPO1 Agadier, and SPO1 Navales went to his house to get
the firearm which was pledged to him by Wilson. He told them that the firearm was not in his possession.
When they attempted to enter his house, he told them that they needed a search warrant.
Continuing his testimony on the alleged incident, appellant said that the police officers searched the rooms
twice but nothing was recovered. When the barangay officials arrived, the police officers again searched the
rooms but still recovered nothing. The police officers kept asking him to just turn over the firearm which was
pledged to him but which was no longer in his possession. He was then handcuffed by the police. Police
Officer Avila arrived together with Nerio Marte, who was already handcuffed. Avila then threw a blue plastic
bag on the table, which was opened by SPO1 Navales. SPO1 Navales placed the items on the table and
listed the items on a piece of paper. SPO1 Navales then asked appellant to sign the paper but appellant
refused because the items enumerated were not his.
On 4 August 2008, the trial court rendered a Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Virgilio A. Quim guilty beyond reasonable doubt
of the crime of Violation of Sec. 5, Article II, RA 9165 and sentence him to life imprisonment plus a fine in
the sum of P400,000.00.
The shabu described in the information and presented in court is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the
government and destroyed.
SO ORDERED.6 cralawred
The trial court held that the positive assertion of the prosecution witness prevails over the negative general
denial of the defense. The trial court found that the prosecution proved all the elements of the crime
charged.
On appeal, appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision but increased the fine imposed from P400,000 to
P500,000. The Court of Appeals held that the prosecution had sufficiently established all the elements
constituting the sale of shabu by appellant: the identity of appellant and the shabu, his act of selling shabu
in exchange for P100 buy-bust money and the actual delivery thereof to the poseur buyer.
The Issue
The issue is whether appellant is guilty of sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride under Section 5, Article II
of RA 9165.
Appellant was convicted based on the sole testimony of PO2 Repompo. PO2 Repompo testified that he was
10 to 15 meters away from the alleged transaction: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
ATTY. LIGTAS
Q You testified before that when you reached the area of the accused you
hid yourself a distance at around ten (10) to fifteen (15) meters away,
do you recall that in your direct testimony?
A Yes ma'am.
Q How did you conceal yourself?
A We were stooping down in that banana plantation.
Q And you were ten (10) to fifteen (15) meters away, is that correct? You
will confirm that, from the accused and informant?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And from that distance you, of course, could not hear what was being
spoken between the accused and your informant?
A No ma'am.
Q By the way, you were hiding behind some banana tress [sic]?
A Yes ma'am.
Q And there were [a] number of these banana trees?
A Yes ma'am.
Q And the banana [trees] were so planted that they were not in a line?
A I could not recall. It was planted but there were so many banana plants
in the place.
Q You claimed Mr. Witness that you saw the accused handed over [a] deck
of shabu to the informant or poseur buyer, is it not right?
A Yes, after the poseur buyer handed the P100.00 bill and the accused
handed the one deck of shabu to the poseur-buyer.
Q Is it the one you have identified?
A Yes ma'am.
Q As the one allegedly handed by the accused to the poseur buyer?
A Yes ma'am.
Q Could you please tell the Honorable Court on estimate of the size of this
deck of shabu, this plastic packet?
A Small plastic packet.
Q Would you agree with me Mr. Witness that this small pack could be
hidden between two fingers of the person's hand?
A Maybe.
Q Would you try to hold it between two fingers and see if it can be
concealed by your two fingers?
INTERPRETER
The witness is holding the said sample, Your Honor, and based on the
way he hold[s] it, only part or half of the plastic packet is hidden.7
Appellant in this case is accused of selling 0.04 gram of shabu contained in a plastic sachet. PO2 Repompo,
who was hiding behind the banana trees approximately 10 to 15 meters away, would indeed find it hard to
have a clear view of the alleged transaction, much less see the small plastic sachet containing the 0.04 gram
of shabu allegedly being passed from appellant to the poseur buyer. Since appellant denied selling the shabu
or that the drug transaction happened, the prosecution should have presented the poseur buyer to rebut
appellant's testimony instead of just relying on the lone testimony of PO2 Repompo, who admitted that he
observed the alleged transaction from a distance of 10 to 15 meters.8 Neither did the prosecution present
the other members of the buy-bust team as witnesses to corroborate the testimony of PO2 Repompo.
Even if PO2 Repompo did see clearly the alleged transaction, still the substantial gaps in the chain of
custody of the seized illegal drug raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.
In drug-related prosecutions, the State should not only establish all the elements of the sale and possession
of shabu under RA 9165, but also prove the corpus delicti, the body of the crime, to discharge its overall
duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.9 The illegal drug itself constitutes
the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital for the conviction of the accused.10
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165 states the initial stage in the custody and disposition of the
confiscated illegal drugs:
chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(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;
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provide the guidelines in the custody and disposition of
the confiscated illegal drugs, thus: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant
Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia
and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant
sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as
instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for
proper disposition in the following manner: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) The apprehending officer/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; 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 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;
xxxx cralawred
To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drug are preserved, the chain of custody
rule requires the prosecution to be able to account for each link in the chain of custody of the dangerous
drug, from the moment it was seized from the accused up to the time it was presented in court.11 Testimony
must be presented on every link in the chain of custody, from the moment the dangerous drug was seized
up to the time it is offered in evidence.12
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In this case, there was a gap in the chain of custody of the seized drug at the very beginning. The
prosecution's lone witness, PO2 Repompo omitted to testify to whom the poseur buyer handed the shabu
which was allegedly bought from appellant during the buy-bust operation. In his testimony, PO2 Repompo
stated that after they frisked appellant, SPO1 Agadier recovered P290 including the marked money which
they turned over to the team recorder SPO1 Navales.13 During the continuation of his testimony, PO2
Repompo stated that SPO1 Agadier turned over the sachet of shabu and the P290 to SPO1 Navales.14 It was
not clear whether the sachet of shabu was the one bought by the poseur buyer from appellant. Even if such
item did refer to the alleged shabu bought from appellant, still no mention was made on how SPO1 Agadier
came to possess it. After testifying about the poseur buyer buying the shabu from appellant, PO2 Repompo
no longer mentioned the succeeding actions of the poseur buyer, particularly to whom the poseur buyer
gave the shabu for custody. The only conclusion from this omission is that PO2 Repompo did not witness the
subsequent acts of the poseur buyer, especially with regard to the custody of the shabu. The pertinent
portions of PO2 Repompo's testimony read: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
FISCAL BALANSAG
Q Is your poseur buyer a policeman?
A civilian asset.
Q Did you see the poseur buyer and Virgilio Quim met [sic] in a certain
place, Mr. Witness?
A Yes.
Q From where?
A Near the gate of the house of Virgilio Quim.
Q Have you observed what your poseur buyer and Virgilio Quim do[sic] at
that time?
A Our poseur buyer handed a 100-peso bill and in return, Virgilio Quim
handed a one deck of shabu.
Q How far were you from the place where your poseur buyer and Virgilio
Awa Quim met?
A 10 to 15 meters.
Q You mentioned about the buy-bust money. Can you give us the serial
number of the buy bust money?
A The serial number of the buy bust money is HC[8]72365.
Q After you saw your poseur buyer handed [sic] the 100-peso bill to Virgilio
Quim and Virgilio Quim in return, gave [sic] the 1 pack of shabu. What
happened next?
A After that we rushed up towards the subject and Virgilio Quim noticed
that I and Agadier were approaching. So he ran towards his house and I
and Agadier followed him and informed him of his constitutional rights
and put him under arrest.
Q Did you say anything to the accused Virgilio?
A We informed him that we arrested him for selling shabu.
Q Aside from informing him that he is selling shabu, what else did you tell
to the accused?
A We also informed him that we were armed with a search warrant.
Q Did you frisk him, Mr. Witness?
A Not yet.
Q When did you frisk the accused?
A When the search started.
Q What did you confiscate from the accused?
A Nothing.
COURT
Q How about Agadier?
A SPO1 Agadier recovered from his possession P290.00 including, the buy-
bust money.
Q After Agadier recovered the money P290.00 including the marked
money, what else did you do?
A We turned it over to the team recorder.
COURT
You start from there.
COURT
Q Who was your team recorder?
A SPO1 Navales.
FISCAL BALANSAG
That would be all, Your Honor.15
During the continuation of the hearing, PO2 Repompo further testified: chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
PROSECUTOR BALANSAG
Q After SPO1 Mel[i]ton Agadier confiscated from the accused the P290.00
which included the buy-bust money what happened then?
A We turned it over to our team recorder SPO1 Roland Navales.
Q What did you turn over to SPO1 Roland Navales?
A The one sachet of shabu and the P290.00 including the buy bust money
were turned over by SPO1 Agadier to SPO1 Navales.
Q After turning over the one sachet of shabu and the P290.00 which
includes the buy-bust money, what happened then?
A After our team leader SPO3 Cayubit informed the search warrant to
Virgilio Quim.16
Clearly, there is a gap between the time the poseur buyer allegedly received the sachet of shabu from
appellant and when SPO1 Agadier came into possession of the shabu which he handed over to SPO1
Navales. Unfortunately, the prosecution did not present SPO1 Agadier or the poseur buyer to testify on this
matter.
Another breach in the chain of custody was the marking of the sachet of shabu by SPO1 Navales which was
not done in the presence of appellant. During his testimony, PO2 Repompo stated that he was present when
SPO1 Navales marked the sachet of shabu at the place where they made the search.17 No mention was
made of the whereabouts of appellant when the marking on the sachet of shabu was made, which leads to
the conclusion that appellant was not present when the marking was made. The seized drugs must be
marked immediately upon confiscation and in the presence of the apprehended violator to ensure that the
seized items are the ones eventually offered in evidence.18It is imperative that the marking of the seized
illegal drugs be done in the presence of the accused.19In this case, it was not shown that appellant was
present during the marking of the shabu.
Another lapse committed by the prosecution is the non-presentation of SPO1 Navales who brought the
shabu from the place where the search occurred to the police station. Only the prosecution's lone witness,
PO2 Repompo testified that SPO1 Navales brought the shabu to the police station.20 No other details were
provided by PO2 Repompo other than stating that it was SPO1 Navales who brought the shabu to the police
station. Thus, it was not clear whether PO2 Repompo saw SPO1 Navales in possession of the shabu from the
time SPO1 Navales marked the shabu up to the time the shabu was brought to the police station. This
constitutes another broken link in the chain of custody of the seized drug. In Mallillin v. People,21 the Court
held:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit
be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent
claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was
picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
would describe how 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 and the condition in which it was delivered to the
next link in the chain. 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 for someone not in the chain to have
possession of the same.22 cralawred
The prosecution's failure to establish every link in the chain of custody of the illegal drug gravely
compromised its identity and evidentiary value. The lack of conclusive identification of the illegal drug which
is the corpus delicti of the offense charged against appellant warrants his acquittal.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the appeal and ACQUIT appellant Virgilio A. Quim based on reasonable doubt.
We ORDER his immediate release from detention, unless he is detained for any other lawful cause.
SO ORDERED. chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Endnotes:
1
Rollo, pp. 4-23. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles
and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap concurring.
Records, p. 1.
3
CA rollo, p. 36.
6
8
In People v. Ale [229 Phil. 81 (1986)], the Court held that the presence and identity of the poseur buyer is
vital to the case as his very existence is disputed by the accused. The Court found it incredible to believe
that the police officers who testified in court could clearly see the alleged illegal transaction from a distance
of 10 to 15 meters.
People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441 (2013); People v. Coreche, 612 Phil. 1238 (2009).
9
10
People v. Enumerable, G.R. No. 207993, 21 January 2015, 747 SCRA 495.
People v. Sorin, G.R. No. 212635, 25 March 2015, 754 SCRA 594, 603, citing People v. Viterbo, G.R. No.
11
12
People v. Watanama, 692 Phil. 102 (2012).
13
TSN, 3 October 2007, pp. 8-9.
14
TSN, 7 November 2007, p. 5.
15
TSN, 3 October 2007, pp. 7-9.
16
TSN, 7 November 2007, pp. 5-6.
17
TSN, 7 November 2007, pp. 7-8.
18
Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752 (2012).
19
People v. Dahil, G.R. No. 212196, 12 January 2015, 745 SCRA 221.
20
TSN, 7 November 2007, p. 9.
21
576 Phil. 576 (2008).
22
Id. at 587.