Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Drugs Case 2021-1
Drugs Case 2021-1
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this ordinary appeal1 is the Decision2 dated October 25, 2019 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 09670, which affirmed with modification the Consolidated
Decision3 dated June 30, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Marikina City, Branch 193, and
accordingly, found: (a) accused-appellant Manolito Rivera y Suarez a.k.a. "Doc Aga" (Rivera) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and penalized under
Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;" and (b) accused-appellant Mary Grace Estanislao a.k.a. "Grace"
(Estanislao) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, as defined Paraphernalia, as defined and penalized under
Sections 11 and 12, Article II of the same Act, respectively.
The Facts
This case stemmed from three (3) separate Informations4 filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Mari kina City, Branch 193 (RTC) charging: (a) accused-appellants Rivera and Estanislao (accused-
appellants) of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and Illegal Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia; and (b) Estanislao of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the
accusatory portions of which read:
That on or about the 22nd day of September 2014, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
together, they [sic] mutually helping and aiding one another. without being authorized by law to
possess or otherwise use any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly sell, trade, deliver and/or distribute to PO3 DEOGRACIAS N. BASANG, acting as poseur
buyer, one (1) small plastic sachet containing 0.11 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
That on or about the 22nd day of September 2014, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating
together, they [sic] mutually helping and aiding each other, without being authorized by law did then
and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly, have in their possession, direct custody and
control of instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming,
administering, injecting, ingesting or introducing any dangerous drugs into the body, consisting of
two (2) improvised glass pipes marked as "MGE-12 9/22/14 and MGE 13 9/22/14.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
That on or about the 22nd day of September 2014, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to
possess or otherwise use any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
knowingly have in her possession, direct custody and control five (5) small heat sealed transparent
plastic sachets containing a total of 2.80 grams of white crystalline substance which yielded positive
result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the
cited-law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
The prosecution alleged that at around 5:30 in the afternoon of September 22, 2014, acting on a tip
from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain "Doc Aga" and "Grace" – later on identified as Rivera
and Estanislao – were selling illegal drugs at their residence in No. 5 Bangkaan Street, Concepcion
Uno, Marikina City, members of the Marikina Police Station prepared to conduct a buy-bust
operation against them, with PO3 Deogracias Basang (PO3 Basang) as the poseur-buyer. At the
target area, the CI knocked at the door of the said house while calling "Doc Aga." After Rivera
opened the door, the CI introduced PO3 Basang as the buyer, who then informed the former that he
will buy P500.00 worth of shabu. Thereafter, Rivera shouted to Estanislao, "Grace baba ka dito
bigyan mo ako ng taryang limang daan," to which the latter complied. After Rivera handed a heat-
sealed plastic sachet containing 0.11 gram of white crystalline substance to PO3 Basang, the latter
secretly performed the pre-arranged signal, i.e., calling PO1 Angie B. Oca's mobile phone, resulting
in the arrest of accused-appellants.8
When PO3 Basang searched accused-appellants subsequent to their arrest, he recovered: (a) from
Rivera, the buy-bust money; and (b) from Estanislao, her green bag which contained five (5) plastic
sachets with a total weight of 2.80 grams of white crystalline substance, all of which were placed in a
small brown envelope, one (1) empty transparent plastic sachet, a pair of stainless scissors, a polka-
dotted coin purse, four (4) pieces of aluminum foil strips, two (2) improvised water pipes, two (2)
disposable lighters, and a cellular phone. Immediately thereafter, PO3 Basang conducted the
marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items at the place of arrest and in the presence of
accused-appellants, Barangay Captain Enriquez Cruz, Vice Mayor Fabian Cadiz, and a
representative from the media. Subsequently, accused-appellants and the seized items, which were
in the custody of PO3 Basang, were brought to the police station, where the necessary paperworks
were prepared. PO3 Basang then brought accused-appellants to the hospital for a routine
examination, and the seized items to the crime laboratory, which were received by forensic chemist
PCI Margarita M. Libres (PCI Libres). Upon qualitative examination, the seized items tested positive
for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug.9 During trial, however, the parties
opted to dispense with PCI Libres' testimony, and in lieu thereof, entered into stipulations as to its
supposed contents.10
On the other hand, Rivera raised the defense of frame-up, claiming that during that time, he was
alone in his house watching television when he heard a noise coming from the house of his brother,
Luisito. When he went to Luisito's house, he saw two (2) men shouting, "We are police officers, don't
run!" Thereafter, the policemen brought him upstairs where he saw three (3) other persons, one of
which was Estanislao. He claimed that he heard one of them ask Estanislao if she knew a certain
"Burnik" and "Jed," which Estanislao answered in the negative. He averred that the police officers
frisked him and Estanislao and took their money and wallet, and when they were later brought
downstairs, the police officers brought out shabu and shabu paraphernalia and began taking pictures
of them.11
For her part, Estanislao claimed that while she was waiting for Luisito in front of the latter's house,
around five (5) or six (6) persons arrived and suddenly shouted, "Huwag kang tatakbo, mga pulis
kami." She averred that a policewoman held her while a policeman kicked the door of Luisito's
house, where she was forced in. She claimed that when she asked the policewoman why she was
being restrained, she was told "Sumunod ka na lang kung ayaw mong masaktan. Sumunod ka na
lang, manahimik ka." She huddled in a comer of the house while the police searched it. Later, the
policemen brought Rivera down from the second floor. Finally, she averred that she was scared that
time since the police officers were armed, and because the policewoman holding her was
threatening her. 12
In a Consolidated Decision13 dated June 30, 2017, the RTC ruled as follows: (a) in Criminal Case
No. 2014-4454-D-MK for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, Rivera was found guilty, and accordingly,
sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00,
while Estanislao was acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt; (b) in Criminal Case No. 2014-
4455-D-MK for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, Estanislao was found guilty, and accordingly,
sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum,
to twenty (20) years, as maximum and to pay a fine in the amount of P350,000.00; and (c) in
Criminal Case No. 2014-4456-D-MK for Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, accused-
appellants were found guilty, and accordingly, sentenced each to suffer the penalty of imprisonment
of six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, and four (4) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine in
the amount of P30,000.00.14
In convicting accused-appellants for the aforesaid charges, the RTC found that the prosecution was
able to establish all the elements of the crimes charged, and that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the seized items were preserved from the moment of seizure up to the time they were delivered to
the crime laboratory for examination. However, the RTC acquitted Estanislao of the crime of Illegal
Sale of Dangerous Drugs. In so ruling, the RTC opined that the prosecution witnesses failed to
categorically testify that she was also involved in the sale, as their testimonies reveal that Rivera
merely instructed her to get the pouch containing the illegal drugs.15
The CA Ruling
The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellants are guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.
At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review
and, thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the
appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned.19 The appeal confers the appellate
court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the
judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.20
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing
sold and the payment; while the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section
11, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a
prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug.21 Similarly, a violation of illegal possession of paraphernalia is
deemed consummated the moment the accused is found in possession of said articles without the
necessary license or prescription.22 Jurisprudence states that in these cases, I tis essential that the
identity of the seized drug/paraphernalia be established with moral certainty. Thus, in order to
obviate any unnecessary doubts on such identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of
custody over the same. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the
dangerous drug/paraphernalia from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as
evidence of the corpus delicti.23
As held in Dela Riva v. People,24 the chain of custody is divided into four (4) links: first, the seizure
and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending
officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating
officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for
laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by
the forensic chemist to the court.25
As regards the fourth link, case law provides that "it is of paramount necessity that the forensic
chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug
submitted for examination, i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what
identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it
was in. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in'
determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen."26
Thus, as a rule, the forensic chemist must testify as to the foregoing matters in order to show
compliance with the fourth link. Nonetheless, in People v. Pajarin,27 the Court ruled that in case of a
stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it
should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he took the precautionary
steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, to wit:
[A]s a rule, the police chemist who examines a seized substance should ordinarily testify that he
received the seized article as marked, properly sealed and intact; that he resealed it after
examination of the content; and that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could
not be tampered pending trial. In case the parties stipulate to dispense with the attendance of the
police chemist, they should stipulate that the latter would have testified that he took the
precautionary steps mentioned.28
In other words, if the forensic chemist's testimony is dispensed with, the parties must agree to
stipulate that: (a) the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and
intact; (b) he/she resealed it after examination of the contents; and (c) he/she placed his/her own
marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. Absent such stipulations,
the fourth link cannot be established, thus, resulting in acquittal/s.29
It must be recalled that during trial, the parties opted to dispense with the testimony of PCI Libres,
the forensic chemist, and in lieu thereof, entered into the following stipulations of facts:
1 That she is the same Police Chief Inspector Forensic Chemist Margarita M. Libres of the PNP
Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory with Office at Marikina Sports Complex, Brgy. Sta Elena,
Marikina City.
2 That on September 22, 2014, she received a Request for Laboratory Examination on seized
evidence from the Director of the PNP Crime Laboratory, Marikina City for the examination of the
items allegedly confiscated from accused Manolito Rivera y Suarez and Mary Grace Estanislao;
B. One (1) piece heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance suspected as shabu marked as "MGE-1 9/22/14" weighing 2.10 grams;
C. One (1) piece heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance suspected as shabu marked as "MGE-2 9/22/14" weighing 0.40 gram;
D. One (1) piece heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance suspected as shabu marked as "MGE-3 9/22/14" weighing 0.10 gram;
E. One (1) piece heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance suspected as shabu marked as "MGE-4 9/22/14" weighing 0.10 gram;
F. One (1) piece heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline
substance suspected as shabu marked as "MGE-5 9/22/14" weighing 0.10 gram;
G. One (1) piece disposable lighter, color white, with markings "MGE-14 9/22/14'';
H. One (1) piece disposable lighter, color green, with markings '"MGE-15 9/22/14";
I. One (1) piece improvised water pipe with markings "MGE-12 9/22/14";
J. One (1) piece improvised water pipe with markings "MGE-13 9/22/14";
4 That pursuant to the said laboratory examination request, she conducted examination of the
above-stated specimens "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", ''F", "G", "H", "I'' and "J";
5 That after a qualitative examination conducted by her, the substances contained in the specimens
"A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F", "I" and "J" gave positive result to the tests for the presence of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug;
6 That the results of her findings with regard to the specimens "A", "B", "C", "D", ''E", "F", "I" and "J"
were reduced into writing under Physical Science Report No. MCSO-D-111-14 dated September 22,
2014;
7 That the specimens ''A", "B"', "C", "D", "E", "F", "I" and "J" were the same items that were turned
over to her by PO3 Deogracias Basang;
8 That after a qualitative examination conducted by her, the specimens "G" and "H" gave negative
results to the tests for the presence of dangerous drugs;
9 That the specimens "G" and "H" were the same items that were turned over to her by PO3
Deogracias Basang;
x x x x30
From the foregoing, it would then appear that while the parties stipulated as to the manner the
seized items were received by the chemist and as to the results of the examination thereof, there
were no such stipulations as to the manner the seized items were managed, stored, preserved or
handled at the crime laboratory after it was examined by PCI Libres and before it was delivered to
the trial court for identification.31
Absent these required stipulations, the fourth link of the chain of custody could not be reasonably
established. The lapses committed by the prosecution and the law enforcers herein could not be
considered minor. Indeed, establishing every link in the chain of custody is crucial to the
preservation of the integrity, identity, and evidentiary value of the seized items. Failure to
demonstrate compliance with even just one of these links creates reasonable doubt that the items
confiscated from the accused are the same items offered in evidence,32 as in this case.
In sum, the prosecution's failure to account for the fourth link in the chain of custody of the items
purportedly seized from accused-appellants fatally compromises the integrity and evidentiary value
of the items purportedly seized from accused-appellants. Hence, their acquittal is in order.
Ꮮαwρhi ৷
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 25, 2019 of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 09670 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly,
accused-appellants Manolito Rivera y Suarez a.k.a. "Doc Aga" and Mary Grace Estanislao a.k.a.
"Grace" are ACQUITTED of the crimes charged.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause their
immediate release, unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason; and (b)
inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 24-25.
2 Id. at 3-23. Penned by Associate Justice Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin with Associate
Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
4 Rollo, pp. 4-5.
5 CA rollo, p. 119.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 120.
8 Rollo, pp. 8-9.
9 Id. at 9-10.
10 Id. at 5-8.
11 Id. at 10.
12 Id. at 11-12.
13 CA rollo, pp. 48-62.
14 Id. at 62.
15 Id. at 61-62.
16 Rollo, pp. 3-23.
17 Id. at 22-23.
18 Id. at 13-22.
23 Id. at 576.
25 Id. at 886-887.
28 Id. at 466.