Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=82055:g-r-no-195528,-july-04,-2013-people-of-the-philippines,-plaintiff-appellee,-v-jose-clara-y-buhain,-accused-appellant&amp;catid=1572&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:58:05+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 195528, July 04, 2013 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE CLARA Y BUHAIN, Accused-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOSE CLARA Y BUHAIN, Accused-Appellant.
SPO2 Nagera was also called to the witness stand to present his version of the events. However, some inconsistencies surfaced during his examination at the witness stand.
ACCORDINGLY, judgment is rendered finding the accused JOEL CLARA Y BUHAIN GUILTY beyond reasonable of the crime [in] violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. 9165 as charged (for drug pushing) and he is sentenced to suffer the prescribed jail term of Life Imprisonment and pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The trial court ruled that Joel directly dealt with the poseur buyer and participated in all the stages of the illegal sale. It found conspiracy between Joel and Ningning. It pointed out that Ningning was able to escape the police dragnet while Joel was being arrested because of her familiarity as a drug operator with police operations.
After a careful review of the evidence, we resolve to reverse the ruling of conviction and render a judgment of acquittal in favor of the accused.
Inspite of the imperfect narration of events by the accused Joel, we are constrained to render a judgment of acquittal due to the lapses of the prosecution that led to its failure to discharge the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the crime.
In order to successfully prosecute an offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, like shabu, the following elements must first be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
It is basic in criminal prosecutions that an accused is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has the burden to overcome such presumption of innocence by presenting the quantum of evidence required.
In this case, the prosecution failed to overcome such presumption when it presented inconsistent versions of an illegal sale.
When we reached the house sir, we knocked at the door and alias Gigi open (sic) it.
What was the conversation with you during that time?
The informant first introduced me to Gigi that I will be the one to buy shabu.
What was the answer of Gigi at that time?
After informing him that you intend to buy dos of illegal drug, what happened?
I first asked where is Ningning.
What was the answer of Gigi?
He said that she was upstairs.
He asked for my money, sir.
Did you give the P200.00.
Yes sir, I gave the money.
After giving that money to Gigi, what happened after that?
He called Ningning from up stair (sic).
Did Ningning go to the place where you were talking with Gigi at that time?
No sir, she just open (sic) the door and handed the sachet of shabu.
When he received that from Ningning at that time, what did you do?
After Gigi got it he gave it to me, sir.
Can you describe that item you received from Gigi that came from Ningning at that time?
If that small plastic sachet is shown to you can you indentify the specimen?
Because I placed my marking.
Showing to you this transparent plastic sachet containing illegal drug, what can you say about that, what is the relation of that transparent plastic sachet to the plastic sachet you have just mentioned?
That is the sachet I was able to buy, sir.
Now, going [back] to the police station, other than searching, what other matters [were] taken during the arrest?
The evidence that I was able to get from Ningning and it was the investigator who marked it.
Other than putting the initial on the transparent plastic sachet immediately after the arrest Mr. Witness, what was the SOP in a buy-bust operation, after taking or receiving the item from the accused during the arrest?
x x x. You said that it was the investigator who made the marking in the transparent plastic sachet, where were you when the marking was placed on it?
I was in front of the investigator.
What was the marking placed?
You said that the investigator placed the marking in the transparent plastic sachet and likewise he was the one who made the inventory receipt. In what particular place that he prepared this particular document?
What do you mean by area?
In front of the house of the accused, sir.
What is the name of that investigator again?
The testimony of PO3 Ramos, which apparently was given as proof of all the elements that constitute an illegal sale of drug is however, inconsistent on material points from the recollection of events of PO3 Ramos, SPO2 Nagera and PO1 Jimenez regarding the marking, handling and turnover of the plastic sachet containing the dangerous drug of shabu.
What did the investigator do to shabu, Mr. Witness?
Where was PO3 Ramos when that plastic sachet, when the police investigator put the initial, Mr. Witness?
However, PO1 Jimenez later testified that it was PO3 Ramos who marked the plastic sachet in their office.
Being the investigator you saw the item confiscated?
Was it already marked when it was received by you?
It was already marked by the apprehending officers.
Did you [see] it marked by the apprehending officer?
You said immediately after arresting and searching the accused in this case you said that you brought the accused to the police station, who was in possession of the transparent plastic sachet from where you received that transparent plastic sachet in exchange to P200.00 going to the police station Mr. Witness?
You mean to say that investigator was present when the accused was arrested in this case?
What about the shabu, who was holding it in going to the police station, Mr. Witness?
What happened next, Mr. Witness?
These conflicting statements of the prosecution effectively broke the chain of custody of evidence of the sale of dangerous drug.
(a) The apprehending officer/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 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 copy thereof. Provided, that the physical inventory and the photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at least 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 evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team/officer, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
To establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, the prosecution must establish the following links, namely: 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.67.
In view of these guiding principles, we rule that the prosecution failed to present a clear picture on how the police officers seized and marked the illegal drug recovered by the apprehending officer and how the specimen was turned over by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer.
As to the first link of marking, the three police officers failed to agree on who among them marked the plastic sachet, which is highly improbable if they really had a clear grasp on what really transpired on the day of operation.
Likewise, they cannot seem to agree on the second link on who among them held the item confiscated from the time of arrest and confiscation until it was turned over to the investigator and the place where it was turned over.
The inconsistent statements of the police officers generated doubt on whether the identity of the evidence seized upon apprehension is the same evidence subjected to marking and inventory then given to the Jimenez for investigation and eventually submitted by PO3 Ramos for examination by the forensic chemist.
The prosecution cannot rely on the saving clause provided under Section 21(a) of the IRR that non-compliance with the legal requirements shall not render void and invalid seizures of and custody over said items. This saving clause is applicable only if prosecution was able to prove the twin conditions of (a) existence of justifiable grounds and (b) preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the items.77 The procedural lapses in this case put to doubt the integrity of the items presented in court.
The People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, is adamant in its argument that there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of duty by police officers conducting buy-bust operation.
We agree but with qualification.
In numerous cases, we were inclined to uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty of public officers.78 However, this is not a hard-and-fast rule. It does not mean that we straight away and without a blink of the eye rule on the regularity of their performance of duties. We at all times harmonize the interest of the accused alongside the interest of the State.
Inconsistencies committed by the police officers amounting to procedural lapses in observing the chain of custody of evidence requirement effectively negated this presumption. Their inaccurate recall of events amounted to irregularities that affected the presumption and tilted the evidence in favor of the accused. The absence of improper motive tends to sustain inexistence but does not absolutely rule out false charges.
Due to foregoing flagrant inconsistencies in the testimonies of police officers which directly constitute the recollection of events of buy-bust together and failure of observance of chain of custody of evidence which effectively broke the links to sustain conviction, we rule for the acquittal of the accused.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 4 August 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02714 affirming the judgment of conviction dated 21 March 2007 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 103 of Quezon City is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant JOSE CLARA y BUHAIN is hereby ACQUITTED and ordered immediately released from detention unless his continued confinement is warranted for some other cause or ground.
1Rollo, pp. 2-9; Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan with Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ricardo R. Rosario concurring.
2 An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act Of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes.
3 TSN, 31 July 2006, pp. 3-5; Testimony of PO3 Ramos.
6 Id. at 5; Pre-Operation/Coordination Report; A Certain Police Officer Ortiz was testified upon by Ramos as included in the team but his name appears to be nowhere in the records and Pre- Coordination Report.
10 TSN, 31 July 2006, pp. 10-11; Testimony of PO3 Ramos.
16 Id. at 18-19 and 23.
23 TSN, 20 February 2006, p. 3; Testimony of SPO2 Nagera.
29 TSN, 23 March 2006, pp. 6-7; Testimony of PO1 Jimenez.
31 TSN, 21 February 2007, pp. 3-4; Testimony of Joel.
41 RTC Decision, Records, pp. 74-81.
45Rollo, p. 6; CA Decision.
47 CA rollo, p. 35; Accused-Appellant’s Brief.
48 Section 2, Rule 133, Rules of Court; People v. Tadepa, G.R. No. 100354, 26 May 1995, 244 SCRA 339, 342.
49People v. Capuno, G.R. No. 185715, 19 January 2011 640 SCRA 233, 242-243 citing People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, 15 October 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 207 and People v. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 177222, 29 October 2008, 570 SCRA, 273, 283.
50 CA rollo, pp. 69-70; Brief for the Appellee; TSN, 31 July 2006, pp. 10-13; Testimony of PO3 Ramos.
51 TSN, 31July 2006, p. 14; Testimony of PO3 Ramos.
55 TSN, 20 February 2006, pp. 13-14; Testimony of SPO2 Nagera.
57 TSN, 23 March 2006, pp. 6-7; Testimony of PO1 Jimenez.
58 TSN, 31 July 2006, pp. 21-22; Testimony of PO3 Ramos.
59 TSN, 20 February 2006, p. 13; Testimony of SPO2 Nagera.
60People v. Llanita, G.R. No. 189817, 3 October 2012, 682 SCRA 288, 298-299 citing People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, 28 September 2011, 658 SCRA 305, 324 further citing People v. Gaspar, G.R. No. 192816, 6 July 2011, 653 SCRA 673, 686.
61Zarraga v. People, G.R. No. 162064, 14 March 2006, 484 SCRA 639, 647-649.
62People v. Ulat, G.R. No. 180504, 5 October 2011, 658 SCRA 695, 709.
63People v. Villahermosa, G.R. No. 186465, 1 June 2011, 650 SCRA 256, 276 citing People v. Sabardan, G.R. No. 132135, 21 May 2004, 429 SCRA 9, 19 further citing People v. Monieva, G.R. No. 123912, 8 June 2000, 333 SCRA 244, 252 and People v. Ignas, 458 Phil. 965, 988.
64 TSN, 20 February 2006, p. 3; Testimony of SPO2 Nagera.
65 TSN, 31 July 2006, p. 4; Testimony of PO3 Ramos.
66 Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, Sec. 1 (b).
67People v. Remegio, G.R. No. 189277, 5 December 2012 citing People v. Kamad, G.R. No. 174198, 19 January 2010, 610 SCRA 295, 307-308 and People v. Arriola, G.R. No. 187736, 8 February 2012, 665 SCRA 581, 598.
68People v. Ong, G.R. No. 175940, [Formerly G.R. Nos. 155361-62], 6 February 2008, 544 SCRA 123, 132-133; People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595 (1999).
70 TSN, 31 July 2006, pp. 14 and 20-22; Testimony of PO3 Ramos.
71 TSN, 20 February 2006, pp. 13-14 and 17; Testimony of SPO2 Nagera.
72 TSN, 23 March 2006, pp. 6-7; Testimony of PO1 Jimenez.
73 TSN, 31July 2006, p. 21; Testimony of PO3 Ramos.
74 TSN, 20 February 2006, p. 13; Testimony SPO2 Nagera.
75 G. R. No. 172953, 30 April 2008, 553 SCRA 619.
76People v. Almodiel, G.R. No. 200951, 5 September 2012, 680 SCRA 306, 324-325.
77People v. Jose Alex Secreto y Villanueva, G.R. No. 198115, 22 February 2013.
78People v. Joseph Robelo y Tungala, G.R. No. 184181, 26 November 2012, Dimacuha v. People, G.R. No. 143705, 23 February 2007, 516 SCRA 513, 525, People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 179038, 6 May 2010, 620 SCRA 327, 338.
79People v.. Gatlabayan, G.R. No. 186467, 13 July 2011, 653 SCRA 803, 824 citing People v. Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029, 9 August 2010, 627 SCRA 308, 326 and People v. Magat, G.R. No. 179939, 29 September 2008, 567 SCRA 86, 99.

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