People v. Dalisay (With Highlights)
People v. Dalisay (With Highlights)
THIRD DIVISION
CAGUIOA, J, Chairperson,
- versus - INTING,
GAERLAN,
DIMAAMPAO, and
EDWARD DALISA Y y BAGRO, SINGH,* JJ
Accused-Appellant.
Promulgated:
August 16, 2023
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
DECISION
CAGUIOA, J.:
Before this Court is an appeal assailing the Decision I dated January 13,
2021 of the Court of Appeals - Manila, First Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-
HC No. 10365. The CA Decision affirmed the Joint Decision 2 dated July 12,
2017 by Branch 7, Regional Trial Court of Batangas City (RTC) in Criminal
Case Nos. 19010 and 19011. The CA and the RTC found accused-appellant
Edward Dali say (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 28(a) and (e), Article V in relation to Section 3(dd),
subparagraph l(ii), Article I of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10591,3 otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act"
• On wellness leave.
Rollo, pp. 8-39. Penned by Associate Justice Walter S. Ong with Presiding Justice Remedios A. Salazar-
Fernando and Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes concurring.
Id. at 43---68.Penned by Presiding Judge Aida C. Santos.
3
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVELAW ON FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION PROVIDING
PENALTIESFOR VIOLATIONS THEP.EOF,approved on May 29, 2013.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 258060
and Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, 4 otherwise known as the
"'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Antecedents
That on or about July 22, 2014 at around 9:35 in the evening at Brgy.
Gulod ltaas, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and deliberately ha'✓e in his possession and under his custody
one (1) homemade Black Widow Magnum caliber .22 revolver marked with
"PVA," loaded with five (5) live ammunitions for the same caliber, without
first having obtained the proper license and permit therefor.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
That on or about July 22, 2014 at around 9:35 in the evening at Brgy.
Gulod Itaas, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this
Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly,
willfully, and criminally possess, or have under his custody and control one
(1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 11.50 grams of
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as "[shabu]," a
dangerous drng, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
AN Acr It✓ STITUTf{\/~j THF COMPREHl:-NS!VE DANlircROUS DRUGS ACT or 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC
ACT No. 6425, UTH[RWISE KNCWN AS THE D.a.1-mrnous DRUGS Acr OF J 972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING
FlJNDS THEREFOR, Ai--;DFOR OTHER ?URPO~E'>. approved June 7, 2002.
5
Ro/iv, p. 44.
6
Id.
Decision G.R. No. 258060
said barangay, carrying a gun. PO2 Asilo relayed the information to PO3
Alexander Narvacan Olea (PO3 Olea) and PO3 Jonas Manook Guarda (PO3
Guarda) and together, they planned on how to arrest alias Edu/Puwit. Before
they departed from the station, they recorded their intended operation with
duty desk officer SPO2 Leur Libio. Then, aboard a tinted unmarked vehicle,
they departed for the target area.
At the said barangay hall, they caused the recording of the arrest of
the suspect in the barangay blotter. Shortly, [SPOl Pepito Reyes Adelantar
(SPOl Adelantar)] prepared the Certificate oflnventory and conducted the
inventory of evidence in the presence of [accused-appellant], Department
of Justice (DOJ) representative Leonides Cueto, and Barangay Councilor
[Cueto], who, then[,] signed the said document. No media representative
was present during the inventory because, although they contracted (sic)
Lito Rendura, Boy Grii'io, and the one from the City Hall, they were not
available at the time. After the inventory, PO2 Asilo turned over the gun
with marking "PV A", the five (5) live ammunitions with marking "PV A 1"
to "PV A 5" and one transparent plastic sachet containing suspected [shabu]
with marking "PVA 07-22-14" to SPOl Adelantar. The team then left for
the station. From the said barangay hall to the station, SPO 1 Adelantar kept
the evidence in his custody.
At the station, the arrival of the team was recorded in the police
blotter. SPO l Adelantar prepared the letter-requests for laboratory
examination of the plastic sachet of suspected [shabu] and for the drug test
of the suspect. Forthwith. he brought the said requests with the suspect and
the evidence to the Batan gas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. 7
(Citations omitted)
---------·---~-
hi. at 14-16.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 258060
In an Order dated 17 February 2015, the trial court noted that the
parties further stipulated on the testimony of SPO4 Agustin, as follows: (i)
that he -is the evidence custodian of the Batangas Provincial Crime
Laboratory; (ii) that, at around midnight on 23 July 2014, he received from
SPOl Adelantar the Request for Laboratory Examination dated 22 July
2014 and the Chain of Custody Form dated 22 July 2014; (iii) that he also
received the Request for Drug Test dated 22 July 2014; (iv) that he turned
the Request for Laboratory Examination and the subject specimen over to
PSI Herminia Car:mdang Llacuna ("PSI Llacuna"); (v) that, at around 8:10
in the morning of23 July 2014, he received the subject specimen from PSI
Llacuna for custody; (vi) that, at around 1:00 p.m. on 28 October 2014, he
released the evidence to PO2 Isidro Manalo ("PO2 Manalo"); (vii) that, if
presented, he would be able to identify the subject specimen; and (viii) that
he would likewise be able to identify the Chain of Custody Form dated 22
July 2014.
In a subsequent Order dated 17 June 2015, the trial court noted that
parties stipulated on the testimony of PSI Llacuna, as follows: (i) that PSI
Llacuna is a chemist of the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory and is
qualified ro conduct an examination on the subject specimen and determine
its composition; (ii) that, at around 6:00 in the morning on 23 July 2014, she
received a Request for Laborato,y Examinarion dated 22 July 2014,
together with the subject specimen, and that she conducted a qualitative
examination of the_specimen which gave a positive result for the presence
of methamphetamine hydrochloride, which findings she reduced into
writing in the Chemistry Report No_ BD-495-2014 dated 23 July 2014; (iii)
that Chemistry Report No. BD-495-2014 exists and was duly executed, and
the signature thereon is genuine; (iv) that, after she conducted her
examination, she sealed and marked the subject specimen; (v) that,
thereafter, she turned the subject specimen over to SPO4 Agustin; and (vi)
that, if presented, she would be able to identify the Request for Laboratory
Examination dated 22 July 2014, the Chain of Custody Form dated 22 July
2014, and the subject specimen.
In another Order dated 23 February 2015, the trial court noted that
the parties stipulated on the testimony of PO2 Manalo, as follows: (i) that,
on 28 October 2014, PO2 Manalo withdrew the subject specimen from the
custody of SPO4 Agustin and delivered it to the trial court; and (ii) that the
Firearms and Explosives Office of the Philippine 1'.fationalPolice ("PNP"),
Camp Crame, Quezon City issued a Certification dated 23 October 2014
stating that, per the records of the office, [accused-appellant] "is not a
licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind and caliber." 8
He recounted that on July 22, 2014, at around 7 :00 p.m., he was buying
candles from a store in Bulclod-Unlad in Barangay Dumantay, Batangas City,
id. at 1J-14.
Decision· 6 G.R. No. 258060
when three am1.ed men wearing white plastic masks on board three
motorcycles grabbed him, asking him if he was "Joey." Accused-appellant
said that he was not Joey and showed the men his driver's license to prove it,
but the men kept insisting he was "Joey." Frightened, accused-appellant
managed to request his cousin to report the incident to his father. When the
latter arrived, the men told accused-appellant's father not to interfere, or else
he would get involved. The men then forcibly boarded accused-appellant
inside a van, where accused-appellant asked the men if they have evidence
against him. However, the men, asked accused-appellant to produce
Pl00,000.00 in exchange for his liberty. Since accused-appellant told the men
that he had no money, the men threatened him and told him, "Tuluyan ka [na
Zang] namin." Subsequently, the men brought accused-appellant to a police
station, where they ..showed him the pieces of evidence against him.
Afterwards, at around 9:00 p.rn., accused-appellant was brought somewhere
in Barangay Gulod, where his pictures were taken. Thereafter, he was brought
to the barangay hall of Barangay Gulod Itaas, where accused-appellant told
the barangay officials that the items were not his and that he was not even
arrested at the said barangay. Brgy. Councilor Cueto even wondered aloud
why they did not know about the arrest but the police did not react. 9
In aJoint Decision 10 dated July 12, 2017, the RTC convicted accused-
appellant of both charges. The dispositive portion of the Joint Decision reads:
9
Id ilt 50--51.
10
Sup,·a note 2.
Decision. 7 G.R. No. 258060
SO ORDERED. 11
The RTC concluded that the arrest of accused-appellant was valid, even
without a warrant, due to the fact that he was apprehended inflagrante delicto
while holding a firearm without a license therefor. This justifies the
admissibility of the Black Widow Magnum caliber .22 revolver marked with
"PV A"· and the· five live rounds of ammunition found inside the gun as
evidence against accused-appellant. Furthermore, accused-appellant's failure
to provide an explanation for possessing the firearm, coupled with the
Certification from the PNP's Firearms and Explosives Office confirming his
lack of registration as a firearm holder, established the elements of the offense
of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition. 12
RULING OF THE CA
IT 1S SO ORDERED. 1~
11
Rollo, pp. 66--67.
11
Id at 52-57.
n id. at 58-65.
1~ Supra note l.
15
Rollo, p. 38.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 258060
ISSUES
16
See P2,Jplc: v. A ifo, 828 Phil 43lJ, 44 7 (2P l 8).
17
SPe id
Decision 9 G.R. No. 258060
Upon close examination of the facts of this case, the search conducted
can be categorized as a stop-and-frisk encounter. A stop-and-frisk search was
defined as "the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate
him [or her], and pat him [or her] for weapon(s) or contraband." 20 To
determine whether a stop-and-frisk warrantless search is valid, the test is
whether "a reasonably prudent man [or woman], in the circumstances, would
be warranted in the belief that his [or her] safety or that of others was in
danger." 21 In tum, "in determining whether the officer acted reasonably in
such circumstances, due weight must be given not to his [or her] inchoate and
unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch,' but to the specific reasonable
inferences which he [or she] is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his
[or her] experience. " 22
18
CONSTITUTION, Article Ill, Sec. 2 provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.
19
Dominguez v. People, 849 Phil. 6 I 0, 622 (2019).
20
People v. Chua, 444 Phil. 757 (2003).
21
Terryv. 0/110, 392 U.S. I (1968).
22 Id.
Decision G.R. No. 258060
In this case, the arresting officer, PO2 Asilo, testified that they
proceeded to Brgy. Gulod Itaas pursuant to a call made to him by an informant
that accused-appellant was seen in a comer leading up to the elementary
school therein. 23 In his Salaysay, PO2 Asilo likewise narrated that they
proceeded quickly to Brgy. Gulod Itaas because accused-appellant was
reported to have a gun with him. 24
In the case of Teien v. People, 26 the Court had the opportunity to discuss
the balance that must be observed by the law enforcement operatives when it
conducts stop-and-frisk searches. Particularly, the Court explained the
concept of "suspiciousness" that should be present before a stop-and-frisk
search is conducted, viz.:
23
TSN dated May 7, 2015, pp. 4-5.
211
Records(Crim. Case·No 1.9010)~p. 3.
25
TSN dated December 9, 2015, pp. 3--8.
26 G.R. No. 228107, October 9,201 Q, 923 SCRA 108.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 258060
In tum, for an arrest effected under Section 5(a), Rule 113 to be valid,
it is required that: (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act
indicating that he or she has just committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit a crime; and, (b) such overt act is done in the presence
or within the view of the aiTesting officer. 28
In this case, it is evident that the arrest made aligns with the provisions
of Section 5(a) of Rule 113. The available evidence supports the conclusion
that accused-appellant was subjected to a lawful stop-and-frisk procedure.
During this procedure, it was discovered that accused-appellant was m
possession of an unregistered firearm, leading to his subsequent arrest.
The corpus delicti in the crime of illegal possession of firearms lies not
in the act of possession, which is permissible under the law, but rather in the
accused's lack oflicense or permit to possess or carry the firearm. 30 To firmly
establish the corpus delicti, the prosecution has the burden of proving that: (a)
the firearm exists; and (b) the accused who owned or possessed it does not
have the corresponding license or permit to possess or carry the same. 31
28 Cast ii v. People, G .R. No. 253930, July 13, 2022, accessed at <https:/ /el ibrary .judiciary .gov. ph/the
bookshelf/showd0cs/l /68437.>.
29
De Guzman v. People, 857 Phil. 800, 81 I (2019).
30 See People v. Alcira, G.R. No. 242831, June 22, 2022, accessed at <https:/ /el ibrary.judiciary .gov. ph
/the bookshel f/showdocs/ I/68462>.
31 Peralta v. People, 817 Phil.· 554, 562 (2017).
32
TSN dated May 7, 2015, pp. 6-8.
33
TSN dated October 20, 2015, pp. 3--4.
34
Records (Crim. Case No. 19010), pp. 69-73.
35 TSN dated May 7, 2015, pp. 7-8.
Decision 13 G.R. No. 258060
36
Rollo, p. 3U.
3
; Act No. 4103, as amended by Act Nu. 4225 and R.A. 4203, ritled "AN ACT To PROVIDE FOR AN
INDETERMINATE ~ENTENCE AND PAROLE FOR ALL PERSONS CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES BY THE
COURTS Or THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS; To CREATE A BOA.RD OF INDETFRMINATE SENTENCE AND To
PRCWLDFFUNDS THEREP0k.; AND F( 1R OTHERPURPOSES,' approved December 5. ! 933.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 258060
Nevertheless, a review of the records would show that the lower courts
erred in convicting accused-appellant of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, as penalized by Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.
8
·' Veridiano v. People, 810 Phil. 642,657 (2017).
39
See People v. Asaytuno, Jr., G.R. No. 245972, December 2, 2019, 926 SCRA 613.
40
See People v. Andanar, G.R. No. 246284, June 16, 2021, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/
thebookshe lf/showdocs/1/67444>.
41 Id.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 258060
The wisdom of the Court in Tumabini resonates clearly with the present
case, viz.:
42
87 l Phil. 289 (2020).
43 fd.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 258060
44
Id. Citations omitted.
45 s·ee 1d.
46
Siu v. People, G.R. No. 27.4935, March 2. 2(J22, accessed at <https:.i/elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebook
sheif/showdocs(l l /681 '/7>.
Decision 17 G.R. No. 258060
In essence, there are four critical links in the ,.chain of custody of seized
drugs and paraphernalia that must be proven: 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 from the forensic chemist to the court. 47
In order to guide the bench, the bar, and the public, particularly our
law enforcement officers, the Court hereby adopts the following guidelines:
The events of this case transpired on July 22, 2014. Hence, Section 21
of R.A. 9165, prior to its amendment by R.A. 10640, shall apply. In sum,
Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires that the seized drugs must be inventoried
and photographed immediately after seizure and that the same must be
conducted in the presence of the accused and three other witnesses, namely:
(a) a representative from the media; (b) representative from the DOJ; and (c)
an elected public official. 52
Here, the facts show that once accused-appellant was arrested, he was
immediately frisked by PO2 Asilo. Upon frisking the right pocket of accused-
49
Id. at 9-10. Citations omitted.
50
See Belga v. People, G.R. No. 241836, November l l, 2021, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.
pJ-,Jthebookshelf/showdocs/1/68125>.
s: See Peopie v. 1\Jfanabat,G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019, 909 SCRA 543, 562.
52
People v. Malabanan, 851 Phil. 1155, 1166(2019).
Decision 19 G.R. No. 258060
appellant's shorts, 53 PO2 Asilo found a plastic sachet of what was later
confirmed to be shabu. While still at the location where the gun and the plastic
sachet were confiscated, PO2 Asilo then marked the plastic sachet as "PV A
07-22-14." 54
After the seizure and marking of the items, PO2 Asilo and his team
transported accused-appellant and the seized items to the barangay hall of
Brgy. Gulod Itaas, where an inventory was conducted. Notably, the blotter
records of Brgy. Gulod Itaas indicate that the police officers arrived there at
around 9:45 p.ni., 55 which is consistent with the prosecution's evidence stating
that the encounter with accused~appellant took place at around 9:35 p.m. 56
These testimonies also coin.tide with the records which indicate that the team
left the police station at 9:00 p.m. to cm;iduct surveillance in Brgy. Gulod
Itaas. 57
While the police officers were not able to secure the presence of a media
representative during the inventory, PO2 Asilo testified that they attempted to
call for the media representatives, but no one was available to witness the
inventory. 58 As there were earnest efforts exerted to comply with the law, the
non-compliance in this case is deemed excusable. After all, the Implementing
Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 allows some flexibility. 59
Deviations may be permitted, so long as the prosecution proves: ( 1) the
existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing departure from the rule on strict
compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items
are properly preserved by the apprehending team. 60 Thus, when the authorities
flout procedure, the prosecution must recognize such and compellingly justify
the same in order to warrant the application of the saving mechanism. 61
The prosecution was able to show compliance with the second link, as
well. PO2 Asilo testified that after he conducted the inventory of the seized
items in the Barangay Hall of Brgy. Gulod Itaas, he turned over the seized
items to SPOl Adelantar, the investigating officer of the case. 62
However, it appears that the third and fourth links were not properly
established by the prosecution.
In a subsequent Order dated 17 June 2015, the trial court noted that
parties stipulated on the testimony of PSI Llacuna, as follows: (i) that PSI
Llacuna is a chemist of the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory and is
qualified to conduct an examination on the subject specimen and determine
its composition; (ii) that, at around 6:00 in the morning on 23 July 2014,
she received a Request for Laboratory Examination dated 22 July 2014,
together with the subject specimen, and that she conducted a qualitative
examination of the specimen which gave a positive result for the presence
of mdhamphetamine hydrochloride, which findings she reduced into
writing in the Chemistry Report No. BD-495-2014 dated 23 July 2014; (iii)
that Chemistry Report No. BD-495-2014 exists and was duly executed, and
2
E TSN dated Ocwber 7.0,2015, pp. 3-5.
63 Also appears as SPO3 Agustin in some parts of the records.
64
Records (Crirn. Case No. 19010), pp. 69--71.
65
Id. at 94-95.
Decision 21 G.R. No. 258060
_the signature thereon is genuine; (iv) that, after she conducted her
examination, she sealed and marked the subject specimen; (v) that,
thereafter, she tum~d the subject specimen over to SPO4 Agustin; and (vi)
that; if presented, she would be able to identify the Request for Laboratory
_Examination dated 22 July 2014, the Chain of Custody Form dated 22 July
2014, and the subject specimen. 66 (Emphasis supplied)
Here, the testimony of PSI Llacuna glaringly does not provide the
condition in which she received the seized items. PSI Llacuna does not even
state from whom exactly she received the drugs from. 69 To stress, it is crucial
for the prosecution to establish the unbroken chain of custody. Without
confirmation as to how and from whom the drug item was received by PSI
Llacuna, the prosecution was not able to establish the fourth link. The
prosecution's failure to tie up loose ends in maintaining the chain of custody
ultimately undem1ines their case. Consequently, pursuant to the verdict in
People v. Rivera, 70 the gaps in the stipulations regarding the testimony of the
forensic chemist cannot be overlooked. This constrains the Court to order
accused-appellant's acquittal.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to tum over the seized sachets of
methamphetamine hydrochloride to the Dangerous Drugs Board for
destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.
Decision 23 G.R. No. 258060
WE CONCUR:
HEN
=:; ~€---
SAM.~ERLAN RB.DIMAA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
NS. CAGUIOA
tice
Decision 24 G.R. No. 258060
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision
had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Court's Division.