Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Case Study
Case Study
Instructions:
A. Read the case of People vs. Rogelio Yagao y Llaban and answer the
following questions:
1. What is the case all about?
2. What are the facts of the case based on the prosecution’s evidence?
3. What are the facts of the case based on the defense’s evidence?
4. What is the judgment of the Regional Trial Court? The Court of Appeals?
The Supreme Court?
5. What are the principles/rules of evidence applied to the case?
B. Assign a member to report on the questions during our class discussion
next meeting.
BERSAMIN, C.J.:
The delivery of the dangerous drug to the poseur-buyer by the accused as
the seller, and the receipt by the latter of the marked money during the buy-
bust transaction are the acts that consummate the crime of illegal sale of
the dangerous drug. Considering that there can be no sale without the
delivery, the act of delivery must be proved in order to hold the accused
guilty of the crime of illegal sale of the dangerous drug.
The observance of the chain of custody, being necessary to preserve the
integrity of the drug presented as evidence, must be clearly established.
Otherwise, the accused must be acquitted on the ground of reasonable
doubt of his guilt.
The Case
This appeal seeks the reversal of the decision promulgated on September
18, 2014,[1] whereby the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the judgment
rendered on February 11, 2011 by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
25, in Cagayan de Oro City finding the accused-appellant guilty of a
violation of Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), and accordingly penalizing him.[2]
Antecedents
The CA narrated the following procedural and factual antecedents:
Around 5 p.m. in the afternoon of the same day, PO2 Yasay and the buy-
bust team proceeded to Zone 4, Bugo, Cagayan de Oro to conduct the
buy-bust operation. It was agreed that the confidential informant, PO2 Joel
Deloso (PO2 Deloso) and PO2 Yasay would act as the poseurs-buyers.
Upon their arrival at appellant's residence, the confidential informant called
upon the former who was at the terrace of his house and asked "Kuha mi
bai" (We will get).
Appellant came down from the terrace and approached the buy-bust team.
The confidential informant then handed Five (5) Twenty (20) Peso bills to
appellant. Upon receiving the money, appellant then got from his right front
pocket a cellophane containing dried marijuana leaves.
At this juncture, PO2 Yasay and PO2 Deloso proceeded to grab appellant
and told him he was under arrest. PO2 Deloso then informed appellant of
his constitutional rights. Thereafter, appellant was brought to the Maharlika
police station in Carmen.
PO2 Deloso corroborated PO2 Yasay's testimony and narrated that at the
Maharlika police station, PO2 Sagun marked the sachet which he then
signed and initialled. After the marking, appellant was brought to the PNP
Crime Laboratory in Camp Alagar, Cagayan de Oro City, where the sachet
and marked money were presented for laboratory examination. Appellant's
hands were likewise subjected to an ultra-violet examination. The request
for laboratory examination was issued by P/SINSP Efren Miole Camaro at
19:45 in the evening.
In the instant case, while an extensive review of the records reveal that
PO2 Yasay and PO2 Deloso failed to mark, photograph and inventory the
seized marijuana at the crime scene, PO2 Deloso, however, offered
justifiable grounds for their non-compliance due to the hostile crowd that
amassed right after the buy-bust operations.
xxxx
In this case, it readily appears that due to the exigency of the situation, the
members of the buy-bust team had to leave the area immediately right after
the arrest of appellant in order to avert a confrontation with the latter's
family and relatives.
(1) The identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
Material in the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is proof that
the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in
court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug in evidence. The commission of
the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs merely requires the
consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the
exchange of money and drugs between the buyer and the seller takes
place.
In the case at bar, the prosecution, through the testimonies of PO2 Yasay
and PO2 Deloso were able to prove the consummation of the sale when
the confidential informant handed over the five (5) marked 20 Peso bills to
appellant, who in turn gave the informant marijuana in exchange, in their
presence.
xxxx
In this case, bereft from the records is anything to suggest that there was
ill-motive on the part of the buy-bust team or hat the arresting officers
improperly performed their duty.
All told, this Court finds no reason to disturb the assailed decision of the
RTC finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the illegal sale of
marijuana, a prohibited substance, as defined and penalized under Section
5, Article II of RA 9165.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is hereby DENIED.
Accordingly, the 11 February 2011 Decision rendered by the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 25, Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Case No. [2006-
484] finding accused-appellant Rogelio Yagao y Llaban (appellant) guilty of
violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is
hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.[6]
Hence, this appeal, in which the parties have respectively manifested their
desire to re-submit the arguments they had made in the CA.
Issue
In his appellant's brief, the accused-appellant has assigned the lone error
that:
I
The Prosecution did not establish the essential
element of delivery of the dangerous drug
by the accused-appellant to the poseur buyer
The crime that the accused-appellant was charged with and tried, and for
which he was found guilty of, was the crime of illegal sale of dangerous
drug defined and punished under the first paragraph of Section 5 of R.A.
No. 9165, which pertinently provides:
In prosecuting the charge, the State bore the burden to prove the following
elements of the violation, namely:
(a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and
(b) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. The delivery to the
poseur-buyer of the dangerous drug by the accused as the seller, and the
receipt by the latter of the marked money consummated the illegal sale of
the dangerous drug during the buy-bust transaction. [11] Without showing
that the delivery of the dangerous drug took place, the State's evidence
would not amount to proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, for it was the
delivery of the drug by the accused-appellant, coupled with the
presentation in court of the confiscated drug itself, or the corpus delicti, that
would establish to a moral certainty the commission of the violation. [12]
(Corpus delicti in its legal sense refers to the fact of the commission of the crime, not to the physical body of the
deceased or to the ashes of a burned building or — as in the present case — to the smuggled cigarettes. The corpus
delicti may be proven by the credible testimony of a sole witness, not necessarily by physical evidence such as those
aforementioned.)
The first is that we should still carefully review the evidence adduced at the
trial despite both the trial and the appellate courts having already
pronounced the accused-appellant guilty.
Indeed, nothing prevents or forbids us from such factual review, for we as a
reviewing tribunal remain committed to ensuring that his conviction rest on
the strength of the Prosecution's evidence, not on the weakness of his
defense.[13] We are wholly free to ascertain whether or not the lower courts
judiciously and correctly examined the evidence against him before they
concluded that the evidence supported their ultimate finding of his guilt
. The second is that we may consider in this appeal any fact or
circumstance in his favor although he has not assigned or raised it. For,
indeed, every appeal of a criminal conviction opens the entire record to the
reviewing court which should itself determine whether or not the findings
adverse to the accused should be upheld against him or struck down in his
favor.[14] The burden of the reviewing court is really to see to it that no man
is punished unless the proof of his guilt be beyond reasonable doubt.
To accord with these guides, we proceed to carefully and thoroughly
scrutinize the evidence of guilt to ascertain if the proof adduced against the
accused-appellant was sufficient to engender a conviction in the neutral
and reasonable mind on the moral certainty of his guilt. To be scrutinized
and considered for this purpose are the following relevant recollections of
the transaction given by poseur buyers PO2 Deloso and PO2 Yasay, who
were also the arresting and seizing officers, thus:
PO2 Deloso
Q: And what happened when you were already on that place?
A: When we were already in the place Sir, I, together with PO2 Yasay and
our confidential informant went to the house of Rogelio Yagao and our
confidential informant call the attention of Rogelio Yagao.
A: At that time Rogelio Yagao was inside his house and the confidential
informant called him, he went outside from his house.
Q: Where was Rogelio Yagao at that time when the confidential Informant
called him?
A: In the terrace of his house, Sir.
Q: And then after the confidential informant gave the money to Rogelio
Yagao, what happened?
A: Right pocket.
A: He pulled out from the right pocket of his trouser a one sachet containing
dried marijuana leaves inside.
Q: What did you do to that one sachet that he pulled out from his
trouser.
A: Upon seeing him that he pulled out from his trouser the one sachet
of marijuana, immediately we took held of him. Right after he received
the money he pulled out the marijuana, right after we saw the
marijuana immediately we took hold of him.
Q: Who took hold of him?
A: I just put my right arm around his neck and shoulder, Sir.
Q: And then how about your companion, what did they do?
Q: You said your CI gave money to the accused in exchanged [sic] of the
marijuana, how much and what is the denomination?
Q: Then what happened after the accused gave to your CI the marijuana?
Atty. Lopena:
We object Your Honor. No basis. There is no testimony of the accused that
the accused gave a pack of marijuana to the CI. He said, he pulled out a
pack of marijuana from his right front pocket.
Pros. Borja:
Q: What happened after the accused pulled out from his right fron[t]
pocket a marijuana?
A: When we saw the accused pulling out the pack of marijuana, we
immediately held him sir.
Q: Who arrested the accused?
(a) The apprehending office/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 the
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; (Emphasis supplied)
Conformably with the safeguards, we have frequently held that the
observance of the chain of custody was essential in the preservation of the
identity of the confiscated drug. This is because the drug, being itself
the corpus delicti of the crime of illegal sale charged, will be the factual
basis for holding the accused criminally liable under Section 5 of R.A. No.
9165.
We have frequently stated the justification for observing the chain of
custody. We particularly pronounced in People v. Reyes:[20]
To convict the accused for the illegal sale or the illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs must be
clearly and competently shown because such degree of proof is what was
necessary to establish the corpus delicti. In People v. Alcuizar, the Court
has underscored the importance of ensuring the chain of custody in drug-
related prosecutions, to wit:
The dangerous drug itself, the shabu in this case, constitutes the
very corpus delicti of the offense and in sustaining a conviction under
Republic Act No. 9165, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti must
definitely be shown to have been preserved. This requirement necessarily
arises from the illegal drugs unique characteristic that renders it indistinct,
not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or
substitution either by accident or otherwise. Thus, to remove any doubt or
uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must
definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal
drug actually recovered from the accused-appellant; otherwise, the
prosecution for possession under Republic Act No. 9165 fails.
The requirement for establishing the chain of custody fulfills the function of
ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence
are removed. The Prosecution does not comply with the requirement of
proving the corpus delicti not only when the dangerous drugs involved are
missing but also when there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody of
the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts on the authenticity of the
evidence presented in court.
xxxx
Contrary to the findings of the CA and the RTC, serious and unjustifiable
gaps broke the chain of custody of the confiscated marijuana. Cry
Although PO2 Yasay testified that PO2 Deloso had taken possession of the
marijuana following the arrest,[23] the latter did not actually mark the
marijuana at the place of the arrest; instead, he immediately brought the
accused-appellant and the confiscated drug to the police station, justifying
such move with the supposed growing hostility of the crowd that had
gathered at the crime scene. What is puzzling, however, is that PO2
Deloso did not mark the marijuana even after getting to the police station.
Instead, PO2 Deloso declared during his direct examination that PO2
Yasay was the one who had marked the seized drug. [24] Such a declaration
soon became the source of more confusion, however, after PO2 Deloso
completely reversed himself on cross-examination to state that it had been
PO2 Sagun who marked the seized drug and the latter just let him sign the
same.[25]
The inconsistencies between the police officers' testimonies, because they
were irreconcilable, diminished the credibility of their supposed observance
of the chain of custody. Hence, their incrimination of the accused-appellant
was fully discredited and should not be allowed to stand. As a result, we
should doubt the stated reason for the arrest.
In fine, the State did not establish the guilt of the accused-appellant for the
crime with which he was charged. He is, therefore, entitled to acquittal on
the ground of reasonable doubt of his guilt. The Rules of Court particularly
instructs that:
In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is
shown beyond reasonable doubt. 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.
[29]
The Penal Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm is directed
to report to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of
this decision.
SO ORDERED.
Del Castillo, Jardeleza, Gesmundo, and Carandang, JJ., concur.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 3-15; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, and
concurred in by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and Associate
Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting.
[2]
CA rollo, pp. 41-54; penned by Presiding Judge Arthur L. Abundiente.
[3]
Id. at 93-96.
[4]
Id. at 54.
[5]
Id. at 21-22.
[6]
Rollo, p. 15.
[7]
CA rollo, p. 15.
[8]
Id. at 20-21.
[9]
Rollo, pp. 25-26.
[10]
Id. at 85-86.
[11]
People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 199271, October 19, 2016, 806 SCRA 513,
526.
[12]
See, e.g., People v. Bautista, G.R. No. 177320, February 22, 2012, 666
SCRA 518, 529-530.
[13]
People v. Maraorao, G.R. No. 174369, June 20, 2012, 674 SCRA 151,
160.
[14]
People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 199271, October 19, 2016, 806 SCRA 513,
526.
[15]
TSN, February 9, 2007, pp. 5-9.
[16]
TSN, February 6, 2007, pp. 5-6.
[17]
Section 3(k), R.A. No. 9165.
[18]
E.g., People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009, 580 SCRA
259, 266-267.
[19]
Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 180177, April 18, 2012, 670 SCRA
148, 158.
[20]
G.R. No. 199271, October 19, 2016, 806 SCRA 513.
[21]
Id. at 531-534.
[22]
Section 1(b), Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.
[23]
TSN, November 6, 2007, pp. 8-9.
[24]
TSN, February 9, 2007, p. 13.
[25]
TSN, March 16, 2007, pp. 6-7.
[26]
G.R. No. 189296, March 11, 2015, 752 SCRA 531, 543.
[27]
TSN, March 16, 2007, p. 16.
[28]
G.R. No. 179029, August 9, 2010, 627 SCRA 308, 320-322.
[29]
Section 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court.