People of The Philippines vs. Salahudin Pindaton y Panianbaan at "Odin" A.K.A. Salahoden P. Pendatun
People of The Philippines vs. Salahudin Pindaton y Panianbaan at "Odin" A.K.A. Salahoden P. Pendatun
SUPREME COURT
Baguio City
SECOND DIVISION
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution
dated 27 April 2022 which reads as follows:
1
Rollo, pp. 108-1 2 1. Penned by Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios and concurred in by Associate Justices
Japar B. Dimaampao and Jhosep Y. Lopez (now Members of this Court).
2
Records, pp. 13 1-139. Penned by Presiding Judge Marivic Balisi-Umali.
3
Entitled "AN Acr INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS A CT OF 2002, RE PEALING
REPUBLIC AC"r No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS A CT OF I 972, As AMENDED,
PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, A ND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: June 7, 2002.
4
Records, pp. 1-2.
(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 249185
Contrary to law. 5
The prosecution alleges that on October 1, 2015, the Manila Police District
-District Anti-Illegal Drugs (MPD-DAID), received a report from an informant
regarding the drug-peddling activities of accused-appellant. Pursuant to this
report, the MPD-DAID chief ordered the conduct of a buy-bust operation,
headed by Senior Police Officer (SPO) I John Simon Baltazar (SPOI Baltazar),
as the poseur-buyer. 6
On the same date, the buy-bust team and the informant arrived at the target
area in front of SM Carriedo at Palanca Street, Quiapo, Manila, at around 2:00
p.m. After a while, SPO I Baltazar and the informant were approached by
accused-appellant who, upon being introduced to SPO 1 Baltazar, uttered:
"kukuha ka ba? Maganda ang tamuk (shabu) namin. "(will you buy? Our shabu
is good).7 Agreeing to the offer, SPOl Baltazar handed accused-appellant
marked bills consisting of five pieces of Pl 00.00-bills as payment. After
receiving the money, accused-appellant discreetly gave SPO I Baltazar a clear
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu.
Afterwards, SPO 1 Baltazar signaled to his companions the consummation of
the sale, and immediately arrested accused-appellant. SPOI Baltazar introduced
himself as a police officer, and informed accused-appellant of his Miranda
rights. Since some pedicab drivers and the relatives of the accused-appellant
tried to rescue him, the police officers decided to proceed to their office for the
marking and inventory of the seized items there. 8
At their office, SPOl Baltazar marked the clear plastic sachet with "SPP,"
the initials of the accused-appellant, inventoried, and took photographs of the
seized items in the presence of accused-appellant, and one Robert Amoroso, a
member of the Manila Police District Press Club. Thereafter, the items were
turned-over to Police Officer (PO) 2 Eduardo Dolleton (PO2 Dolleton), the case
investigator, who prepared the Booking Sheet, Arrest Report, and the Request
for Forensic Examination. Afterwards, PO2 Dolleton transferred the items to
Police Chief Inspector Elisa Reyes Arturo (PCI Arturo), the Forensic Chemical
Officer, for testing. The white crystalline substance seized from the accused-
appellant yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, also known as shabu.9
On the other hand, accused-appellant denied the charges against him, and
alleged that he was framed. He claimed that it was impossible for him to be at
5
Id. at I.
6
Rollo, pp. 4-5.
7
Id. at 5.
8
Id. at 5-6.
9
Id. at 6.
(158)URES(a) - more -
/1/r
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 249185
the area where the buy-bust occurred on October 1, 2015 because he was already
detained at the MPD-DAID office the day before. He asserted that on September
30, 2015, while walking along Palanca Street, he was apprehended by several
police officers and brought to the MPD-DAID office for questioning. The
accused-appellant claimed that he was threatened and mauled, and was forced
to admit that he was a drug pusher. He further alleged that he was later informed
by his sister that some police officers were extorting money from her in
exchange for his liberty. In addition, the accused-appellant presented the
testimonies of several persons who claimed that he was a person of good moral
character.
In its Judgment 10 dated May 18, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant
guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the trial court's Judgment reads:
so ORDERED. 11
In convicting accused-appellant, the RTC held that aside from his denial,
accused-appellant failed to present sufficient evidence to support the same.
While he presented witnesses who vouched for his good character, the RTC
stated that "there are however, times when good and upright man go astray." 12
More importantly, the RTC found that the prosecution was able to establish
all the elements of the crime charged. This, coupled with accused-appellant's
failure to "come up with strong and convincing evidence to overcome the
presumption that the law enforcement officer acted in the regular performance
of their official duties," undoubtedly warrants a conviction. 13
10
Records, pp. 13 1- 139.
11
Id. at 139.
12
Id at 137.
D Id. at 137-139.
14
Id.at 143- 144.
(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 249 185
In ruling so, the CA held that SPOl Baltazar' s testimony as to the conduct
of the buy-bust operation, which led to the arrest of the accused-appellant, was
credible and "materially supported by real and documentary evidence." 16 The
CA likewise found the integrity of the seized items to have been sufficiently
preserved. 17
SO ORDERED. 18
Issue
Our Ruling
(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 5 G.R. No. 249 185
In People v. Buniag,23 the Court laid down the elements required for a
successful prosecution of a drugs case:
[l]t is important for the Comito point out that for a successful prosecution of the
offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA 9165, x x x the following
elements must be proven: (1) the transaction or sale took place; (2) the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (3) the buyer and the
seller were identified.
The Court holds that the prosecution failed to establish the first element.
There is reasonable doubt as to whether the alleged buy-bust operation was
actually conducted, and whether it was conducted properly. Moreover, there is
a serious doubt as to the integrity of the seized dangerous drugs, assuming there
was any drug actually seized from accused-appellant.
In its attempt to establish the first element, i.e., that the transaction or sale
took place, the prosecution solely relied on the testimony of the alleged poseur-
buyer - SPOl Baltazar. However, a careful review of his testimony will reveal
many inconsistencies on crucial points which cast serious distrust as to the
truthfulness of the same.
SACP AGUILA: Now, of your own personal knowledge Mr. Witness since
you are member of DAID for almost two years what is
now the street value of tamuk or bato or shabu?
WITNESS: For now parang PhpS,000.00 per gram, sir.
23
G.R. No. 2 1766 1, June 26, 20 19.
24 Id.
(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 249185
SACP AGUILA: And how much gram or grams were you going to buy
from this alias Odin?
WITNESS: I'm just buying for the amount of PhpS00.00, sir. 25
(Emphasis supplied).
Clear from the foregoing testimony of SPO 1 Baltazar are two things: one,
that at the time of the arrest, he knew the street price of shabu to be
approximately P4,000.00 per gram; and two, that he was buying only P500.00
worth of s habu. Yet, despite these facts, SPO 1 Baltazar claims that he was able
to recover a total of3.403 grams of white crystalline substance, later on verified
to be shabu, from accused-appellant. On this point, We quote with approval the
argument of accused-appellant:
If the price of one (1) gram of shabu is wo1ih about Four Thousand Pesos
(Php4,000.00) at the time the accused-appellant was arrested, three point four
zero three (3.403) grams of shabu, the amount of illegal drugs allegedly sold by
the accused-appellant was worth about Thirteen Thousand Six Hundred and
Twelve Pesos (Php13,612.00). Meanwhile, the amount of money allegedly given
by SPO 1 Baltazar was merely Five Hundred Pesos (PhpS00.00).
This unexplained huge and unexplained gap between the value of the illegal
drugs allegedly sold by the accused-appellant and the consideration therefore that
SPO 1 Baltazar gave casts doubt as to whether an actual buy-bust operation
occurred. This detail uncontroverted by the plaintiff-appellee, sticks out like a
sore thumb, exposing the alleged buy-bust operation as a sham. 26
While this itself is not an element of the crime charged, it goes into the
plausibility of whether the sale or transaction actually happened - the element
of the crime - in view of the same being contrary to normal human experience.
Interestingly, this peculiar circumstance was never addressed by the
prosecution. As mentioned, this engenders disbelief as to the presence of the
first element; i.e., that an actual buy-bust took place. In fact, even assuming that
a buy-bust indeed took place, there is, at the very least, reasonable doubt as to
the true amount of illegal substance recovered from accused-appellant, for it is
highly unbelievable for shabu to be sold at such a low price. In any case, the
integrity of the seized items is tainted.
SACP AGUILA: So, after you gave the PhpS00.00 what happened next?
WITNESS: After I gave five (5) Phpl00.00 bills to alias Odin he put
it inside his right front pocket, sir.
25
TSN, November 14, 20 16, pp. 12-1 3.
26
Rollo, p. 44.
(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 7 G.R. No. 249 185
SACP AGUILA: Please demonstrate before this Court how did alias Odin
handing (sic} over to you the specimen discreetly which
you testified earlier.
WITNESS: He drew it from his left front pocket, sir. 27 (Emphasis
supplied).
Again, while in itself not an element, the foregoing goes into the credibility
of SPOl Baltazar's testimony on the alleged buy-bust.
27
TSN, November 14, 2016, p. 13.
28
Records, pp. 8-9.
29
Id. at 18.
30
Id. at 9.
- more -
(158)URES(a)
Jd,
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 249185
COURT: Why?
WITNESS: I think this marking is enough for me to identify.
COURT: No, but I can always say that it was not you who marked
that one, it was not you who seized that sachet from the
accused?
WITNESS: But during the arrest, the inventory and the markings of
the evidence I was the one who put. .. (interrupted)
COURT: Yes, you put the marking, but how can you convince us
that you were the one who put the marking when your
signature and the date when you put the marking does not
appear on the specimen itself? That is the question of the
Prosecutor. And you want the Court to believe you that
you were the one who seized that, you were the one who
marked that?
WITNESS: In the inventory and Chain of Custody, there is already a
date that indicates ... (interrupted)
COURT: Why did you not put your initials on the specimen itself?
WITNESS: I think the initials of the suspect are enough to identify
the evidence, Your Honor.
(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 9 G.R. No. 249185
Aside from their failure to affix the proper markings on the seized items,
the police officers likewise failed to do the same at the prescribed location, and
in the presence of the required persons, as mandated by Section 21, Article II of
RA 9165. To recap, SPO 1 Baltazar and his team marked the items not at the
place of the arrest, but at the MPD-DAID office. Likewise, it was marked and
photographed without the presence of an elected official, thus:
SACP AGUILA: Who were present when you conducted the inventory?
WITNESS: The investigator, me, the suspect, the media - photo
journalist and other operatives, sir.
SACP AGUILA: And who was the media who was present there?
WITNESS: I remember it is J. Robert Amoroso MPD-Press Corps,
sir.
xxxx
COURT: So, only Amoroso was present when the inventory and
the marking of confiscated items were being made?
WITNESS: We called a barangay official but no one came, Your
Honor.
xxxx
COURT: So, you mean to say only a barangay official can be asked
to be present on the marking and inventory of the
specimens confiscated?
WITNESS: Opo pwede pong barangay official, Your Honor.
COURT: Does not the law say that any elected official can be
present on the inventory and marking of the specimen?
WITNESS: Elected official, Your Honor.
xxxx
COURT: Why you did not call Mayor Estrada or the Vice Mayor
to be present there when you know barangay elected
official was there, is it not? Because the law does not say
that only a barangay official can be summoned to be
present on the marking of evidence. Continue, Mr,
Prosecutor. 32
31
TSN, November 28, 2016, pp. 9-10.
32
TSN, November 14, 2016, pp. 17-18.
(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 10 G.R. No. 249185
SACP AGUILA: By the way, you said that you conduct (,·ic) your
inventory and marking of the specimen at the office of
the DAID?
WITNESS: Yes, sir.
xxxx
To justify this deviation in procedure, SPOl Baltazar said that they were
trying to avoid causing a commotion and untoward incidents from happening,
since some pedicab drivers and relatives of the accused-appellant were
allegedly grabbing and trying to free the former.
While on its own this justification may seem valid, the Court cannot
ignore the fact that there have been too many irregularities committed by the
police officers, which lead us to doubt the integrity of the seized items.
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not read ily
identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their
composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the
33
TSN, November 28, 2016, pp. 13-14.
34
744 Phil. 8 16, 827 (2014).
35
576 Phil. 576, 588-589 (2008).
(158)URES(a) - more -
Resolution 11 G.R. No. 249185
likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of
custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution
of substances from other cases - by accident or otherwise - in which similar
evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for laboratory
testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that
applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied,
a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with suflicient
completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been
exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.
As a final note, the Court wishes to take this opportunity to again remind
law enforcement authorities to be more circumspect in caiTying out operations
and observing procedures meant to curb criminality, especially those involving
dangerous drugs. While the end-goal is laudable, equally important is the
respect to rules and protocols put in place to safeguard every person's sacred
right to life, liberty, and property.
36
Id. at 593.
(158)URES(a) - more -
lrh
Resolution 12 G.R. No. 249185
(158)URES(a)