Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53022:gr-179213-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:30:55+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. NICOLAS GUTIERREZ y LICUANAN Appellant.
Assailed in the present appeal is the April 30, 2007 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01991 affirming that of Branch 267 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City in Criminal Case No. 12514-D finding Nicolas Gutierrez y Licuanan alias Nick (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
c. one (1) transparent plastic sachet containing five (5) empty transparent plastic sachets marked as exh-D.
On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty.3 The trial court, after trial, acquitted appellant of the charge subject of the second Information (illegal possession of paraphernalia), hence, this Decision shall dwell only on the review of appellant's conviction of selling shabu.
At around 5:00 p.m. on June 16, 2003, while on duty at the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Pasig City Police Force, SPO3 Matias received information via telephone from a concerned citizen that a certain alias "Nick," later identified to be appellant, was peddling shabu along San Agustin Street, Barangay Palatiw, Pasig City. On the instructions of SPO3 Matias, PO1 Espares and PO1 Mapula proceeded to, and surveilled, the area and confirmed the information.
SPO3 Matias thus formed a buy-bust team, which he headed, with PO1 Espares as poseur-buyer, and PO1 Mapula and PO1 Michael Familara (PO1 Familara) as members. Five marked twenty-peso bills were given to PO1 Espares as buy-bust money. The team thereafter went to the target area and met with a confidential asset who was to assist them in the operation.
While the other members of the team were strategically positioned, the asset, accompanied by PO1 Espares, approached appellant and asked him "Pare, meron ka ba diyan? Bibili kami. Bibili ako ng piso." Apparently not having heard the entire utterances, appellant replied, "Magkano ba bibilhin mo?" (How much are you buying?), to which PO1 Espares replied "Piso lang, eto pera" at the same time tendering the buy-bust money which appellant took and placed in his right front pocket. Appellant then drew from his pants' back pocket a black plastic case, opened it and took one plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance which he handed to PO1 Espares. PO1 Espares thereupon executed the pre-arranged signal, apprehended appellant, and confiscated the black plastic case which appellant was holding. The case yielded a pair of scissors, an unsealed plastic sachet containing traces of white crystalline substance, and five empty plastic sachets.
Heeding the pre-arranged signal, the other members of the team closed in to assist PO1 Espares who then marked all the seized items including the plastic sachet containing the substance subject of the sale. Appellant was brought to the police station wherein the confiscated items were surrendered to an investigator.
At about 7:30 p.m. on June 16, 2003, while he was at home having dinner with his wife Josephine, daughter Jennifer and her husband, someone kicked open the door of their house. Four armed men in civilian clothes immediately entered, handcuffed and frisked him, and confiscated his wallet. On asking them what his offense was, he was simply told to explain at the police station. Jennifer, too, asked the armed men what the offense of appellant was, but she received no answer.
He was thereafter brought to the Pariancillo police precinct where a police officer showed him a plastic sachet and threatened that a case would be filed against him unless he paid P20,000. He failed to pay, however, hence, he was detained and subsequently charged.
In convicting appellant of illegal sale of shabu, the trial court found that the prosecution sufficiently established the corpus delicti consisting of the buy-bust money paid to appellant and the shabu purchased from him. It added that appellant's defense of frame-up was not supported by clear and convincing evidence.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed appellant's conviction by Decision of April 30, 2007,11 hence, the present appeal.
The Court finds that the evidence for the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the allegedly seized shabu. That the defense stipulated on these matters, viz: that the specimen exists, that a request has been made by the arresting officers for examination thereof, that a forensic chemist examined it, and that it tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride has no bearing on the question of chain of custody. These stipulations, which merely affirm the existence of the specimen, and the request for laboratory examination and the results thereof, were entered into during pre-trial only in order to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist and abbreviate the proceedings. That such is the intention of the parties is clear from the additional stipulations that the forensic chemist had no personal knowledge as to the source of the alleged specimen; and that the defense was reserving its right to object to the pieces of evidence marked by the prosecution.21 Clearly, the stipulations do not cover the manner the specimen was handled before it came to the possession of the forensic chemist and after it left her possession.
To interpret the stipulations as an admission that appellant was the source of the specimen would be to bind him to an unceremonious withdrawal of his plea of not guilty - a reading not supported by the records which creates a dangerous precedent.
The nagging question, therefore, remains whether the object evidence subjected to laboratory examination and presented in court is the same object allegedly seized from appellant.
While alleged poseur-buyer PO1 Espares testified on the marking and eventual turnover of the allegedly seized sachet of substance to the investigator, no explanation was given regarding its custody in the interim - from the time it was turned over to the investigator to its turnover for laboratory examination. Such want of explanation bares a significant gap in the chain of custody of the allegedly seized item. Having merely substantially echoed the testimony of PO1 Espares, SPO3 Matias and PO1 Mapula did not fill in this gap.
And what happened to the allegedly seized shabu between the turnover by the chemist to the investigator and its presentation in court, the records do not show.
The Court reiterates that on account of the built-in danger of abuse that a buy-bust operation carries, it is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of persons under criminal investigation22 and of the accused facing a criminal charge23 are safeguarded. In People v. Tan,24 the Court expressed this concern as it recognized that "by the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in the pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, it exhorted courts to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.
At this juncture, the Court notes another lapse of the members of the buy-bust team - their failure to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 21, Paragraph 1 of Article II of R.A. No. 916525 with respect to custody and disposition of confiscated drugs. There was no physical inventory and photograph of the shabu allegedly confiscated from appellant. There was likewise no explanation offered for the non-observance of the rule. Coupled with the failure to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items adduced were not tainted, the buy bust team's disregard of the requirements of Section 21 is fatal.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant, Nicolas Gutierrez y Licuanan, is ACQUITTED of the crime charged for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City who is ORDERED to cause the immediate release of appellant unless he is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this Court of action taken within ten (10) days from notice hereof.
4 TSN of March 15, 2004, id. at 92-122.
5 TSN of June 16, 2004, id. at 123-132.
6 TSN of August 4, 2004, id. at 133-147.
7 TSN of September 12, 2005, id. at 164-178.
8 Vide TSN of April 5, 2005, id. at 157-163; TSN of February 9, 2005, id. at 151-156.
9 Vide TSN of November 7, 2005, id. at 179-185.
11 Penned by Associate Justice Portia AliÃ±o-Hormachuelos, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo F. Sundiam and Monina Arevalo Zenarosa, CA rollo, pp. 95-110.
12 Vide Brief for Appellant, id. at 36-49.
13 Vide Brief for Appellee, id. at 68-89.
14 Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy, regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. . .
15 Vide People v. Del Mundo, G.R. No. 169141, December 6, 2006, 510 SCRA 554, 562.
16 Vide People v. Simbahon, G.R. No. 132371, April 9, 2003, 401 SCRA 94, 99.
17 People v. Kimura, G.R. No. 130805, April 27, 2004, 428 SCRA 51, 70.
18 Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632.
19 Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, and Laboratory Equipment pursuant to Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 in relation to Section 81 (b), Article IX of R.A. No. 9165; adopted and approved on October 18, 2002.
20 Supra note 19 at 632-633.
21 Vide Pre-Trial Order, records, pp. 39-40.
22 Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 12 (1) of the Constitution reads: Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
23 Article III (Bill of Rights), Section 14 (2) of the Constitution reads: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. Vide also Rule 115 (Rights of Accused), Rules of Court.
24 G.R. No. 133001, December 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 116, 126-127.
26 People v. Obmiranis, G.R. No. 181492, December 16, 2008.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.