FIRST DIVISION
PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,
Appellee,
G.R.
No.
148668
June 17, 2003
-versus-
TONY PEDRONAN Y
LIMMAYOG,
Appellant.
D E C I S I
O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an appeal from
the Decision[1]
of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 6, in Criminal Case
No. 17145-R, finding appellant, Tony Pedronan alias "Totoy", guilty
beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act
6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by Republic Act
7659,
and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to
pay
a fine of P500,000.00.
Appellant Pedronan was
charged on October 25, 1999 in an information that reads:
That on or
about the 22nd day of October 1999, in the City of Baguio, Philippines,
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and
deliver
to SPO2 FREDERICK LAOANG, a member of the Philippine National Police
who
acted as poseur-buyer, five (5) bricks of dried flowering tops of
marijuana
each wrapped in a newsprint paper contained in a plastic bag with
markings,
all placed in a green backpack with markings weighing 4.026 kilograms,
a prohibited drug, well knowing that the sale and delivery of such drug
is prohibited without authority of law to do so, in violation of the
aforementioned
provisions of law.chanrobles virtual law library
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
Upon arraignment,
appellant
entered a plea of not guilty.[3]
Thereafter, trial proceeded forthwith.
The prosecution’s version
of the facts is as follows:
At 4:00 p.m. of October
21, 1999, the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group, Cordillera
Administrative
Region (CIDG-CAR) stationed at DPS Compound, Baguio City, headed by
P/Supt.
Isagani Nerez, received a tip from a female civilian informant (CI)
that
a certain "Totoy" was engaged in the illegal sale of dried marijuana
bricks
at the Bahay Kawayan restaurant on Abanao, Baguio City.[4]
A police team, headed
by P/Insp. Rodolfo Castil, Jr.,[5]
was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation. On that same
afternoon,
some members of the team proceeded to Bahay Kawayan to see if the place
was suitable for a drug entrapment operation.[6]
The following day, October 22, 1999, at 3:00 p.m., the 6-member[7]
police team proceeded to Bahay Kawayan Restaurant. SPO2 Frederick
Laoang was designated as the poseur-buyer, while the others were
ordered
to secure the area. Laoang had with him the buy-bust money
amounting
to P4,000.00, which had been previously dusted with fluorescent powder
at the National Bureau of Investigation office in Baguio.[8]chanrobles virtual law library
The actual operation
started when Laoang and the female CI known only as "Mamang" went
inside
the restaurant, sat on a table and ordered drinks while waiting for
appellant.
At 4:00 p.m., a man who later turned out to be the appellant, Tony
Pedronan,
arrived. Mamang stood up to greet him and introduced SPO2 Laoang
as "Jerry." When Mamang told him that Jerry wanted to buy dried
marijuana
bricks, appellant immediately offered two kilos of marijuana at
P1,750.00
per kilo. After reaching an agreement, appellant told Jerry and
Mamang
to wait inside the restaurant while he left to get the merchandise.[9]
As soon as appellant
left, SPO2 Laoang went outside to inform the team about the agreement
and
to tell them to wait for the return of the appellant. Later, at
around
7:30 p.m., appellant arrived with a green backpack slung on his right
shoulder.[10]
He told Laoang that the bag contained four kilos of dried marijuana
bricks
instead of two as agreed upon, and asked for additional payment.cralaw:red
SPO2 Laoang opened the
backpack and saw five plastic bags of marijuana bricks. He
immediately
removed his bullcap, which was the pre-arranged signal to alert the
team.[11]
Thereafter, the members of the team rushed to the scene and arrested
appellant.[12]
Police Officers Modesto Carrera, Fernando Fernandez and Arturo Lavarias
identified themselves as members of the CIDG Narcotics and read the
appellant
his rights.[13]
Pedronan was subsequently booked[14]
and arrested for violation of Section 4, Article II of R.A. 6425, as
amended,
for the sale of marijuana.cralaw:red
The five bricks contained
in the green backpack were subsequently forwarded to NBI Forensic
Chemist
Ma. Carina Madrigal for laboratory examination.[15]
The forensic examination confirmed that the bricks, which weighed 4.026
kilograms, consisted of marijuana.[16]
The green backpack was also found positive[17]
for marijuana leaves. Appellant was brought to the City
Prosecutor’s
Office of Baguio for inquest, and thereafter detained at the Baguio
City
Jail.[18]
In his defense, appellant
claimed that at 4:00 p.m. on October 22, 1999, he was in his house at
No.
3932 Purok 3, Kias, Baguio City, doing repairs. At 7:00 p.m., he
went to Bahay Kawayan at Abanao Street to have dinner before taking the
11:00 p.m. bus trip to Manila, where he intended to follow-up his
application
for overseas employment in Palau, New Guinea.[19]chanrobles virtual law library
As he was about to order
food, police officers Laoang and Carrera approached him and invited him
to their office. Appellant knew Carrera and Laoang to be
policemen
since he was in high school, so he acceded to their invitation.[20]
Upon boarding the van
that would take them to the CIDG office in DPS Compound in Baguio City,
Officer Carrera frisked appellant and took his wallet containing
P8,000.00
in cash. When they reached the CIDG office, Carrera began to
undress
him and look for shabu.[21]
When Carrera did not find any shabu, appellant asked him to return the
money and have it receipted.[22]
Carrera refused, so appellant tried to punch him and pushed Laoang and
another officer which prompted the three police officers to subdue
him.
They put a black bag on his head and mauled him. The police
officers
only prepared their report of his alleged arrest thirty minutes after
he
was beaten up.[23]
At the time of appellant’s
arrest, he was carrying a blue traveling bag containing two pairs of
maong
pants, two t-shirts and two pairs of underwear.[24]
He denied that he had a green backpack, which the police allegedly
confiscated
during his arrest. According to him, the police officers brought
out a green bag when they were preparing their report.[25]
He also denied knowing Mamang, the female confidential informant.[26]
The defense also presented
Pacita Farinias, the sister of appellant, who testified that on October
22, 1999 her brother was at home from 8:00 a.m. and did not leave until
around 6:30 to 7:00 p.m.[27]
After trial, the lower
court rendered the following judgment:
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds the accused Tony Pedronan guilty beyond reasonable
doubt
for the offense of sale or delivery of 4.026 kilograms of marijuana in
violation of Section 4, Article 2 of R.A. 6425 as amended by Rep. Act
7659
as charged in the information and hereby sentences him to Reclusion
Perpetua
and to pay the fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in
case
of insolvency and to pay the cost.
The accused, Tony
Pedronan,
being a detention prisoner is entitled to be credited with 4/5 of his
preventive
imprisonment in the service of his sentence in accordance with Article
29 of the Revised Penal Code. The 4.026 kilograms of dried marijuana
bricks
contained in 5 plastic bags in the green and black backpack are
declared
confiscated and forfeited in favor of the State being the subject of
the
offense and instruments thereof to be destroyed immediately in
accordance
with law.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.[28]
Appellant interposed
the
instant appeal on the lone assigned error:
THE TRIAL
COURT
ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE
FAILURE
ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE
DOUBT.
Appellant contends that
the evidence of the prosecution is full of contradictions and
irregularity
which to an unbiased mind, leads only to one conclusion, that the
police
fabricated the case against him. He cited the fact that the
prosecution
had three different versions with respect to the buy-bust money.
According to him, since SPO2 Laoang allegedly went through a lot of
trouble
in preparing the buy-bust money by having it dusted with fluorescent
powder,
it is unusual that he did not make use of it. He also points to
the
fact that the members of the buy-bust team cannot seem to agree on the
denominations of the money they allegedly prepared and whether or not
the
team actually conducted surveillance on the appellant the day before
the
alleged buy-bust operation.[29]chanrobles virtual law library
We agree with the appellant.cralaw:red
Although the trial court’s
evaluation of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is
entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal, this rule
does not apply where it is shown that any fact of weight and substance
has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied by the trial court.[30]
In the case at bar, several circumstances warrant the appellant’s
acquittal.cralaw:red
A thorough examination
of the record of the case exposes flaws in the testimonies of Police
Officers
Laoang and Carrera. For one, they cannot agree on the amount and
denomination of money used in the buy-bust operation. Officer Laoang
claimed
that they used four P1,000.00 bills but SPO2 Fernandez, the team
leader,
claims that the buy-bust money only amounted to P3,500.00 in
denominations
of P500.00.[31]
Another team member, Officer Castil, claimed that the money consisted
of
three P500.00, or a total of P1,500.00 only.[32]
Furthermore, the NBI Forensic Chemist, Ma. Carina Madrigal, testified
that
no letter request for ultraviolet dusting was received by her from the
CIDG-CAR with respect to the buy-bust operation, contrary to the claims
of the police officers.[33]
The trial court itself remarked that it was unusual that the police
officers
went through a lot of trouble to have the money dusted only to keep it
and not use it to pay the accused during the operation. Thus:
Q. You likewise
testified, Mr. Witness that at the time you arrested the accused you
were
in possession of the P4,000.00 buy-bust money, is it not?
A.
Yes, sir.chanrobles virtual law library
Q. Your
prior arrangement, according to you, was for you to pay the accused
once
he delivers the marijuana to you is it not?
A.
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q. But the
buy-bust money remained in your possession up to the time that the
accused
was arrested and in fact, you never gave the money to him, is it not?
A.
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q. That
money was called buy-bust money purposely for you to entrap the
accused,
is it not?
A.
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q. Of selling
marijuana?chanrobles virtual law library
A.
Yes, sir.chanrobles virtual law library
Q. Where
is the buy-bust money now, Mr. Witness?chanrobles virtual law library
A.
It was used in some other operation, sir.cralaw:red
Q. You turned
it over to your superior, is that what you are saying?
A.
To my team leader, sir.cralaw:red
Q. Who was
team leader?
A.
At that time it was SPO2 Fernando Fernandez.cralaw:red
Q. So you
don’t know now where is the buy-bust money?
A.
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
COURT: (To witness)
Q: You are
telling this court that you went to a lot of trouble of having the
buy-bust
money marked with fluorescent powder by the NBI and yet when it came to
the actual transaction you did not use it?
A.
Because the suspect, sir, brought with him not the exact weight of the
marijuana. (Emphasis ours)[34]chanrobles virtual law library
More importantly, the
prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug
which
constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, an essential requirement
in drug-related cases.[35]
In People v. Mapa,[36]
appellant was acquitted after the prosecution failed to clarify whether
the specimen submitted to the NBI for laboratory examination was the
same
one allegedly taken from him. In People v. Dismuke,[37]
we ruled that the failure to prove that the specimen of marijuana
examined
by the forensic chemist was that seized from the appellant was fatal to
the prosecution’s case.cralaw:red
In the case at bar,
the five dried marijuana bricks presented in evidence cannot be relied
upon because of the irregularity in its handling, a fact observed by
the
trial court itself when it admonished Officer Laoang for changing the
wrappings
of the marijuana bricks allegedly seized from appellant, thus:
COURT:
Did it occur to your
mind that what could distinguish one brick of marijuana from another
brick
of marijuana that may have been previously confiscated; because they
are
almost always the same is their wrapper, precisely?
A.
Not actually, sir.cralaw:red
Q. It did
not occur to your mind? Are you telling us that you would be able to
distinguish
immediately what particular brick of marijuana was confiscated on what
occasion from another occasion without their wrappers?chanrobles virtual law library
A.
No, sir.cralaw:red
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
Q. Are you
sure you did not change the marijuana?
A.
No, sir.cralaw:red
Q. Because
this is the first time that the court has come across the placing of a
name on the crust of the marijuana, not on the wrapper but on the brick
itself. Is that your standard operating procedure?
A.
Yes, sir.cralaw:red
Q. How come
it is not done by others?
A.
I don’t know, sir.chanrobles virtual law library
COURT:
You know, for the record,
the court will call the attention of your superiors on this matter that
you did not use the money that was dusted with fluorescent powder when
you took pains and effort to have it dusted and that you changed the
wrappers
of the marijuana, thereby tampering and affecting the integrity of the
evidence you submitted here. (Emphasis ours)[38]
Apparently, not only
was Officer Laoang remiss in his duties as arresting officer, he was
also
careless in handling the evidence. He admitted changing the
original
wrappings of the marijuana bricks, yet he failed to report such fact
when
it was his duty to do so in order to preserve the integrity of the
chain
of custody.cralaw:red
Q. When
you changed the wrappers, did you write that in your report?chanrobles virtual law library
A.
No, sir.cralaw:red
Q. You did
not deem it necessary that the wrappers you changed would be needed in
court?
A.
No, sir.[39]
It is worthy to note
that Officer Laoang began his law enforcement career in 1987 and had
been
a member of the Regional Criminal Investigation and Detection
Group-Cordillera
Administrative Region (RIDG-CAR) since 1996. The main function of
the RIDG-CAR is to investigate dangerous drugs cases and effect arrests
in connection with the same. Therefore, officer Laoang is not a
green
recruit unschooled in dangerous drugs cases and all matters related to
it, hence, his errors with respect to the handling of the marijuana are
inexcusable. As an officer of the law, SPO2 Laoang is presumed to
be aware of his duties and responsibilities in apprehending criminals,
securing the evidence related to arrests and protecting the chain of
custody,
just as it is presumed that in dispensing said duties, he acts with
regularity.chanrobles virtual law library
In this case, the prosecution
failed to prove the crucial first link in the chain of custody.
There
is a serious cloud of doubt as to whether the marijuana bricks
allegedly
seized from the appellant were the same bricks marked and forwarded by
the police officers to the crime laboratory for examination and later
presented
in court for identification. In People v. Casimiro,[40]
this Court held:
x
x x. The government’s drive against
illegal
drugs deserves everybody’s support. But it is precisely when the
government’s purposes are beneficent that we should be most on our
guard
to protect these rights. As Justice Brandeis warned long ago,
"the
greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men
of
zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Our desire to
stamp
out criminality cannot be achieved at the expense of constitutional
rights.
x x x.
WHEREFORE, in view of
the
foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City,
Branch
6, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of
Section
4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the
Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Tony
Pedronan
is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. Consequently, he
is ordered RELEASED from custody, unless he is being lawfully held for
another lawful cause. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections
is
ordered to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5)
days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Penned by Judge Ruben C. Ayson.
[2]
Record, p. 1.
[3]
Record, p. 24.
[4]
TSN, February 24, 2000, pp. 6-8.
[5]
Also referred to as Rodolfo Castel in the records.
[6]
Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Composed of P/Insp. Rodolfo Castil, Jr., as the leader, SPO2 Frederick
Laoang as poseur-buyer, and SPO1 Modesto Carrera, SPO2 Fernando
Fernandez,
PO1 Ruelito Peregrino, SPO2 Arturo Lavarias as members, Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
TSN, April 11, 2000, pp. 9-12.
[9]
TSN, February 24, 2000, pp. 13-21, 23, 43.
[10]
TSN, April 11, 2000, p. 14.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Id. pp. 24-26.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
TSN, April 3, 2000, p. 15.
[13]
Id. pp. 27-30.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Exhibit ‘A’, Booking Sheet and Arrest Record dated October 22, 1999,
Record,
p. 6.
[15]
Exhibit ‘D’, Letter request dated October 26, 1999, Folder of Exhibits,
p. 1.
[16]
Exhibit ‘E’, Certification by NBI Forensic Chemist Ma. Carina P.
Madrigal
dated October 23, 1999, Folder of Exhibits, p. 2.
[17]
Exhibit ‘F’, Dangerous Drugs Marijuana Report No. DDM-99-03-CAR, Folder
of Exhibits, p. 3.
[18]
Record, p. 36.chanrobles virtual law library
[19]
TSN, July 7, 2000, pp. 2-3.
[20]
Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Id., at pp. 4-5.
[22]
Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Id.
[24]
Id.
[25]
Id.
[26]
Id., at p. 16.
[27]
TSN, July 14, 2000, pp. 4-5.
[28]
Record, pp. 41-42.
[29]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 2; Rollo, p. 57.chanrobles virtual law library
[30]
People v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 146277, 20 June 2002, citing People v.
Laxa,
G.R. No. 138501, 20 July 2001 and People v. de los Santos, G.R. No.
126998,
14 September 1999, 314 SCRA 303.
[31]
Record, p. 60.chanrobles virtual law library
[32]
Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[33]
Appellant’s Brief, p. 7, Record, p. 62.
[34]
TSN, March 15, 2000, pp. 17-19.chanrobles virtual law library
[35]
People v. Lacap, G.R. No. 139114, 23 October 2001, 368 SCRA 124; People
v. Chen Tiz Chang, 382 Phil. 669 (2000).
[36]
G.R. No. 91014, 31 March 1993, 220 SCRA 670.chanrobles virtual law library
[37]
G.R. No. 108453, 11 July 1994, 234 SCRA 51.
[38]
TSN, March 22, 2000, pp. 3-5.chanrobles virtual law library
[39]
Id.chanrobles virtual law library
[40]
G.R. No. 146277, June 20, 2002, citing People v. Laxa, G.R. No. 138501,
July 20, 2001. |