SECOND DIVISION
November 16, 2016
G.R. No. 205148
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee
vs.
RAMIL PRUDENCIO Y BAJAMONDE, Appellant
D E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
We resolve the appeal of accused-appellant Ramil Prudencio y Bajamonde (Prudencio) assailing the March 22, 2012 decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 03748. The CA decision essentially affirmed the November 20, 2008 decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 18, City of Malolos, Bulacan, finding Prudencio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5, 11, and 15. Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.3
The Case
The prosecution charged Prudencio for illegal sale, possession, and use of dangerous drugs in three separate informations, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 668-M-2006 to 670-M-2006. On arraignment, Prudencio pleaded not guilty to all charges. Joint trial on the merits followed.
The prosecution presented Police Officer I Edgardo R. Magora (PO1 Magora) as its main witness. The parties stipulated on the testimony of Police Senior Inspector Nelson C. Sta. Maria (P/Sr. Insp. Sta. Maria) and agreed that he would identify the request for laboratory examination, the request for drug test, the subject sachets of shabu, and the chemistry reports.4
PO1 Magora testified that at about 11:00 P.M. on February 15, 2006, while he was in his office at the Bocaue Police Station, he received information from a confidential informant regarding the illegal drug activities of one alias Puronggoy, a resident of Kalye Buntisan, Barangay Lolomboy, Bocaue, Bulacan.5
At around 1:00 A.M. of the following day, PO1 Magora and his partner, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to the target area to conduct a buy-bust operation.6
When they arrived, the informant pointed out to them Puronggoy, who was sitting on a bench in front of a computer shop talking with some people.7 After about an hour of surveillance, they saw Puronggoy talk with a group of men aboard a tricycle.8 When the team saw Puronggoy hand something to the men onboard the tricycle, their suspicions were aroused.9
PO1 Magora, acting as a poseur-buyer and accompanied by the informant, approached Puronggoy;10 the informant introduced PO1 Magora as a friend. When Puronggoy asked how much he wanted, PO1 Magora replied, "Dos Zang, pang chika babes lang."11 Puronggoy said that he had three (3) pieces left, which he offered for ₱500.00; but PO1 Magora insisted on buying just one, saying that he only had ₱200.00 with him.12
PO1 Magora handed two (2) ₱100 bills and Puronggoy, in turn, gave him a small sachet which he took from his right pocket.13 Thereafter, PO1 Magora gave the pre-arranged signal so his partner could approach them while PO1 Magora arrested Puronggoy.14 A search on Puronggoy's person revealed the two (2) pre-marked ₱100 bills as well as two (2) other plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance.15
PO1 Magora said that he marked the plastic sachet handed to him in the buy-bust as "EMBB" and the two (2) plastic sachets recovered from Puronggoy's person as "P-1" and "P-2."16
The team brought Puronggoy to the police station where they learned that his true name is Prudencio.17 The officer-in-charge, Police Superintendent Buenaventura M. Viray, Jr. (P/Supt. Viray), prepared requests for a laboratory examination and a drug test.18
The Forensic Chemical Officer, P/Sr. Insp. Sta. Maria, issued Chemistry Report Nos. D-038-2006 and DTC-052-2006, both dated February 16, 2006, finding the specimens taken from the plastic sachets and the urine sample of the accused to be positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug otherwise known as shabu.19
The defense, on the other hand, presented a different version of what transpired. At the time of his arrest, Prudencio was a 17-year-old, out-of-school youth.20 On the night of February 15, 2006, Prudencio played games with a friend in a computer shop in Bolina St., Bocaue, Bulacan.21 Afterwards, Prudencio, his friend, and a certain Bryan, went outside and stayed in front of the computer shop.22
While they were standing there, four men arrived and arrested Prudencio and Bryan.23 Prudencio claimed that he did not sell or possess any sachets of shabu; that he was shown sachets only after their arrest; and that these sachets were smaller than the sachets presented in court.24
Prudencio also testified that he had tasted shabu a day before his arrest but that when a sample of his urine was taken, he was never informed of the results of the urine test.25
In its decision, the RTC found Prudencio guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The RTC ruled that the testimony of PO1 Magora sufficiently established the buyer, seller, and object of the transaction, as well as the delivery of the object and payment thereof. It added that the accused's denial of the transaction taking place is a weak defense especially when unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence.
Accordingly, the RTC sentenced Prudencio to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱500,000.00) for the illegal sale of shabu, and the penalty of imprisonment for twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00) for the illegal possession of shabu. The RTC did not penalize Prudencio for illegal use of shabu as he was also found to have possessed the dangerous drug.
On appeal, the CA affirmed with modifications the RTC decision convicting Prudencio for the illegal possession, sale, and use of shabu. The CA found that the RTC's findings were supported by the records of the case. It observed that the prosecution satisfactorily established an unbroken chain of custody through the testimony of PO1 Magora.
The CA ruled that the twin defenses of frame-up and denial are inferior to the presumption of regularity accorded to acts of public officials in the absence of clear and convincing evidence.
The CA, however, pointed out that the RTC failed to appreciate the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority in imposing the appropriate penalty. Thus, the CA reduced the penalties imposed to ten (10) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, four (4) months and one (1) day of reclusion temporal, as maximum, for the illegal sale of shabu; and five (5) years and one (1) day of prision correccional, as minimum, to eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum, for the illegal possession of shabu. It also reduced the fine to ₱500,000.00 and ₱300,000.00 for illegal sale and possession of shabu, respectively.
Hence, this appeal.
Our Ruling
After due consideration, we resolve to ACQUIT Prudencio because the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In illegal drugs cases, the prosecution
must establish all the elements of the
offenses charged, as well as the corpus
delicti itself.
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be duly established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence.26 On the other hand, a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs will prosper if the following elements are present: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug.27
In both cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it is important for the prosecution to show the chain of custody over the dangerous drug in order to establish the corpus delicti.28 This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise.29
Thus, to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for sale fails.30 The chain of custody rule31 performs the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed.32
The prosecution has the burden of
establishing the chain of custody of the
dangerous drugs from the time it was
confiscated to the time it was presented
in court.
In People v. Kamad,33 we recognized the following links in the chain of custody that must be established in a buy-bust situation:
the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;First,
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.34