Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83170:57141&catid=1584&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 11:15:58+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VIVIAN BULOTANO Y AMANTE, Accused-Appellant.
Under review is the conviction of Vivian A. Bulotano (Bulotano) for illegal sale of shabu, punishable under the “Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002”. The challenged decision is the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 23 July 2009, which affirmed the Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dated 10 August 2005 in Criminal Case No. 2004-727.
Upon a tip-off, a team of agents from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) conducted a buy-bust operation in Barangay 31, Sto. Niño, Cagayan de Oro City, to entrap Bulotano for allegedly selling illegal drugs or shabu.
Acting as poseur-buyers, PO1 Dizon Dagaraga (PO1 Dagaraga), together with an informant, approached Bulotano, who was playing a card game with two (2) other persons inside a billiard hall. When Bulotano noticed the two, she approached them and asked what they were looking for. PO1 Dagaraga replied that he wants to buy P200.00 worth of shabu. After Bulotano handed PO1 Dagaraga a transparent plastic sachet containing crystals, PO1 Dagaraga handed Bulotano marked money in the amount of P200.00.
Immediately, PO1 Dagaraga went out of the billiard hall to call the back-up officers to arrest Bulotano.
During her arrest, PO1 Cotta Tanggote informed Bulotano of the reason for her arrest and of her constitutional rights. Bulotano was brought to the PDEA- Region 10 Office at Cagayan De Oro City for her inquest for violation of Republic Act No. 9165.
As her defense, Bulotano claims that during her arrest, she was merely playing a card game when three (3) armed men suddenly barged into the billiard hall and approached her. According to Bulotano, one of the three (3) armed men introduced himself as a policeman, after which, she was brought outside and made to board a police vehicle. Bulotano further claims that during the entire incident, she was in a state of shock and was never informed of the reason for her arrest, as well as of her constitutional rights. Contrary to the prosecution’s allegation of facts, Bulotano claims that she found out the reason for her arrest only upon arrival at the PDEA-Region 10 Office, where PO1 Dagaraga made her sign an inventory receipt of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from her.
That on or about September 6, 2004, at 6:00 o’clock P.M., at Sto. Niño Brgy. 31, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, distribute and give away one (1) small sachet heat sealed transparent plastic cellophane containing 0.10 gram of met[h]amphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), to a poseur buyer in consideration of two (2) P100.00 bills, which was marked money bearing Serial Number QP541321 and RP780963, while the other members of the police unit strategically located nearby, intently observing the consummation of the transaction, including the giving of marked money by the poseur buyer to the accused on a buy-bust operation, well knowing that it is dangerous drug.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, (sic) consideration, this Court hereby rendered judgment finding the accused Vivian Bulotano y Amante guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in the information and sentences her to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 and to pay the cost.
Accused Vivian Bulotano who has been detained since her arrest shall be credited in the service of her sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty with the full time during which she has undergone preventive imprisonment if she agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon corrected prisoners.
WHEREFORE, Premises considered, the APPEAL is hereby DENIED. The decision dated August 10, 2005 of Branch 25 of the Regional trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
The trial court failed to appreciate the testimony of Joel Flores.
With the observations that follow, We affirm the conviction of the defendant for illegal sale of shabu.
Necessity of presenting in evidence the corpus delicti.
The elements necessary for the prosecution of the illegal sale of drugs are as follows: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor.11 The prosecution, to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, must present in evidence the corpus delicti of the case. The corpus delicti is the seized illegal drugs.
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 as a legal safeguard that the seized illegal drugs are the same one presented in court.
Otherwise stated, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 requires that upon seizure of illegal drug items, the apprehending team having initial custody of the drugs shall (a) conduct a physical inventory of the drugs and (b) take photographs thereof (c) in the presence of the person from whom these items were seized or confiscated and (d) a representative from the media and the Department of Justice and any elected public official (e) who shall all be required to sign the inventory and be given copies thereof.
There were no photographs of the alleged seized illegal drugs taken.
You also did not photograph the shabu at the scene in the presence of Vivian Bulotano?
In the PDEA Office, did you photograph the shabu in the presence of Vivian Bulotano?
Meaning to say, it is possible that you have perhaps the evidence together with Vivian Bulotano at the PDEA Office already?
There were no witnesses in the conduct of the inventory, except PO1 Dagaraga.
Besides the failure to photograph the seized illegal drugs, the defense claims that the inventory was not done immediately after the arrest. However, the defense failed to adduce evidence to establish such fact. Thus, on this point, the presumption of regularity must prevail.
The defense’s arguments, however, do not solely center on the promptness of the conduct of the inventory. The defense maintains that the inventory report is defective on the ground of lack of witnesses.
Will you agree with me that there are no witnesses who signed in this inventory receipt?
The Chemistry Report, prepared by P/S Insp. April Madroño (Forensic Chemical Officer) was not duly notarized.
(c) avows under penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the instrument or document.
Contrary to the requirements in the law, the Chemistry Report was notarized by a certain Theodore Ipan Baja (Baja), a Police Chief Inspector/ QD Examiner/C/OPN OFFR.19 Baja is not a duly commissioned notary public. Also, there were no allegations that PO1 Dagaraga was personally known to Baja and that PO1 Dagaraga avows under the penalty of law to the whole truth of the contents of the Chemistry Report.
In sum, the procedural requirements of Section 21, Republic Act No. 9165 were not followed. First, no photograph of the seized shabu was taken. Second, the arresting officers did not immediately mark the seized shabu at the scene of the crime. Third, although there was testimony about the marking of the seized items at the police station, the records do not show that the marking was done in the presence of Bulotano. Fourth, no representative of the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected official attended the conduct of the physical inventory and signed the inventory. And finally, the Chemistry Report was not duly notarized.
The “chain of custody” rule.
Without doubt, the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements provided in Section 21. However, noncompliance with the regulations is not necessarily fatal as to render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him inadmissible as evidence of his guilt, for what is of the utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated items that will be utilized in the determination of his guilt or innocence.20 Such that, when there is a failure to follow strictly the said procedure, the crime can still be proven, i.e., that the noncompliance was under justifiable grounds or that the shabu taken is the same one presented in court by proof of “chain of custody”.
As thus provided, noncompliance with the enumerated requirements in Section 21 of the law, does not automatically exonerate the accused. Upon proof that noncompliance was due to justifiable grounds, and that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, the seizure and custody over said items are not, by the noncompliance, rendered void. This is the “chain of custody” rule.
In the case at bar, the records establish the links in the chain of custody.
After PO1 Dagaraga seized from Bulotano a transparent plastic sachet containing crystalline substance (specimen) and the marked money of P200.00, PO1 Dagaraga then prepared an inventory and request for laboratory examination and brought the specimen, the marked money, and Bulotano, to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
Then I brought Vivian to our office at PDEA, and I let her filled [sic] up the booking sheet for her identification.
We prepared a request for laboratory examination for the specimen recovered from Vivian Bulotano.
If that laboratory request as you said prepared by you be shown to you, will you be able to identify it?
I’m showing to you a specimen already marked Exhibit “D”, is that the one you bought from the accused?
(Pros. Borja handed to the witness Exhibit “D”).
Yes, this is the one, the sachet that we bought from Vivian Bulotano worth P200.00 peso bills.
Why do you say that this is the one that you bought from Vivian Bulotano?
Because of the mark DGD, sir.
Why do you say that you were the one who submitted the letter request to the PNP Crime Laboratory?
Because it bears my signatory receipt and I indicated my names (sic) sir.
I am showing to you this request, is this the request that you received from the PDEA?
Yes, sir, including the specimen.
Is this the specimen that you are referring to?
Mr. Witness, when you received the laboratory request and the specimen, where did the requesting party placed the small sachet containing a white crystalline substance?
It is placed in a bigger transparent cellophane.
Where there markings on the bigger plastic cellophane where the small plastic sachet was placed?
Now, how was that big cellophane sealed, was it sealed through masking tape or staple wire?
It was sealed through staple wire.
When you received it, did you also open it in order to examine the specimen that was placed inside?
Yes, Ma’am. I opened the bigger plastic for comparison.
By the way, who delivered this laboratory request and this specimen?
Now, Mr. Witness, on the smaller sachet which contains a white crystalline substance, what were the markings you found?
I found the making “DGD”.
And did you record in your police logbook, the receipt of this specimen and the laboratory request?
The requirements laid down in Section 21 are not a statement of duties or a job description of the drugs law enforcement officers. It is a statement of procedure for compliance with the imperative that the thing presented as proof of violation of the law is precisely that which was confiscated or taken from the accused, recognizing the unique characteristic of illegal drugs being vulnerable to tampering, altering or substitution.42 When it is not followed without any justifiable reason, an acquittal of the accused results.
Thus, while minor deviations from the procedures under Republic Act No. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused, when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law, serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence.43 Which is why the rule of chain of custody was included in the IRR of the law.
The same presumption holds good insofar as the fact of sale is concerned. Bulotano failed to show any motive on the part of the arresting officers to implicate her in a crime she claimed she did not commit. Bulotano’s bare denial cannot prevail over the positive identification by PO1 Dagaraga that she is the same person who sold the shabu to him, corroborated by SPO1 Tabligan. Parenthetically, the testimony of Joel Flores, merely corroborative of the defense is likewise of no moment.
Accordingly, We AFFIRM the 23 July 2009 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00254-MIN, which in turn affirmed in toto the decision of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case No. 2004-727 dated 10 August 2005, finding accused-appellant VIVIAN BULOTANO y AMANTE guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Carpio, Brion, Del Castillo, and Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.
1People v. Pringas, 558 Phil. 579, 593 (2007).
2 Penned by Associate Justice Rodrigo F. Lim, Jr., with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Ruben C. Ayson concurring, Court of Appeals-Mindanao Station, Twenty-Third Division, CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 00254-MIN; CA rollo, pp. 56-63.
3 Penned by Judge Noli T. Catli, RTC, Branch 25, Misamis Oriental, Crim. Case No. 2004-727; id. at 24-28.
4 Exhibit “D”, records, p. 108.
5 Exhibit “C”, id. at 107.
6 TSN, 19 July 2005, p. 3.
9 CA rollo, p. 59.
11People v. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 184760, 23 April 2010, 619 SCRA 389, 400.
12Sales v. People, 602 Phil. 1047, 1056 (2009).
14 TSN, 20 February 2005, p. 23.
15 Exhibit “1”, records, p. 17.
16 TSN, 20 February 2005, p. 24.
17 Exhibit “D”, records, p. 108.
18 A.M. No. 02-8-13-SC, 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice.
19 Exhibit “D”, records, p. 108.
20People v. Pringas, supra note 1.
21 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
22Valdez v. People, 563 Phil. 934, 954 (2007).
24People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, 14 August 2009, 596 SCRA 257, 267.
26 TSN, 20 February 2005, pp. 8-9.
27 TSN, 20 January 2005, pp. 3-4.
29 TSN, 20 January 2005, pp. 5- 6.
30 TSN, 20 February 2005, p. 23.
35 Exhibit “E-1”, records, p. 110.
36 Exhibit “C”, id. at 107.
37People v. Bara, G.R. No. 184808, 14 November 2011, 660 SCRA 38, 46 citing People v. Campomanes, G.R. No. 187741, 9 August 2010, 627 SCRA 494, 508.
38People v. Concepcion, 578 Phil. 957, 971 (2008).
40People v. Torres, G.R. No. 191730, 5 June 2013.
41 CA rollo, p. 59.
42People v. Alcuizar, G.R. No. 189980, 6 April 2011, 647 SCRA 431, 437.
43People v. Ancheta, G.R. No. 197371, 13 June 2012, 672 SCRA 604, 617, citing People v. Umipang, G.R. No. 190321, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 324, 355.
44People v. Torres, supra note 40, citing People v. Arriola, G.R. No. 187736, 8 February 2012, 665 SCRA 581, 591.
45 Section 27-29, RA 9165.
46People v. Lorenzo, supra note 11.

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