Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
SECOND DIVISION
CARPIO, J, Chairperson,
- versus - BRION,
DEL CASTILLO,
MENDOZA, and
LEONEN,JJ
REGIE BREIS y ALVARADO and
GARY YUMOL y TUAZON,* Promulgated:
Appellants. nl AUG 2015~
:x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~
~
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated 26 June 2012 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04916, affirming the Decision2 dated
14 February 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Baguio City (trial
court) in Criminal Case No. 30409-R.
The Facts
3
Rollo, p. 3.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 205823
Upon reaching the bus terminal, Mangili asked the bus conductor
to identify the bus which would leave at 5:00 o’clock PM. Mangili was
directed to Genesis bus with plate number TXX 890. Thus, pretending to
be passengers, Mangili and Peralta boarded the bus and they observed two
male individuals whose physical appearances fitted the descriptions given
by the informant. Both agents likewise saw a box placed in between the
legs of accused Breis.
Mangili sat behind the accused while Peralta, stood near where the
accused were seated. In order to have a clearer view of the box tucked in
between the feet of accused Breis if the same fit the box described by
informant, Mangili took the seat opposite where the accused were seated
and saw that the box was with the markings “Ginebra San Miguel” and
which was described by the informant. Mangili then casually asked
accused Yumol who owned the “Ginebra San Miguel” box, the accused
replied that it was theirs.
Accused Yumol suddenly stood up and tried to leave but before he
could do so, Peralta blocked his way while Mangili confronted accused
Breis and asked what was contained in the box. Instead of answering,
Breis shoved Mangili and tried to flee but Mangili was able to block his
way as he was much larger than the accused Yumol (sic). Mangili ordered
him to sit down.
Agent Peralta then summoned the back-up officers to help secure
the bus and subdue the accused. After introducing themselves as PDEA
agents, Mangili asked the accused Breis to open the box but Breis ignored
the request which made Mangili lift and open the box. He took one brick
and discovered it was marijuana. The “Ginebra San Miguel” box yielded
three more bricks of marijuana. Mangili then marked the items on site.
Agent Peralta then informed the accused that they were being
arrested for violation of Rep. Act No. 9165 and then he read their
constitutional rights in Pilipino to them.
Thereafter, the team returned to the PDEA-CAR office of Melvin
Jones, Baguio City for documentation such as the preparation of the
affidavits of Agents Mangili and Peralta, Booking Sheet and Arrest
Report of both accused, Request for Physical Exam and Request for
Laboratory Exam. Inventory likewise was done around 7:43 o’clock PM
on February 10, 2010 at the said PDEA-CAR office.
After the documentation and inventory, the accused were brought
to the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC) and
Medico-Legal Certificates were issued showing that the accused had no
external signs of physical injuries at the time of their examination.
Chemistry Report No. D-08-2010 indicates that the confiscated items
from the accused yielded positive to (sic) the presence of marijuana, a
dangerous drugs (sic).4
4
Records, pp. 179-180.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 205823
SO ORDERED.7
In their appeal, appellants argued that the PDEA agents did not
comply with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165, and that the
prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody over the seized items.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding
that the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 were satisfied.
Further, the Court of Appeals found no break in the custody of the seized
items that might compromise their evidentiary integrity. The appellate court
also upheld the legality of the warrantless search and arrest of appellants.
The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals reads:
7
Records, p. 185.
8
CA rollo, p. 34.
9
Id. at 101.
10
Id. at 32-45, 59-84.
11
Rollo, pp. 39-40.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 205823
12
CA rollo, pp. 39-40.
13
Id. at 40-41.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 205823
What IO1 Mangili did in the bus upon seizure of the drugs was to
mark the same, which is not to be confused with taking the physical
inventory. Marking is not a requirement of RA 9165 or its IRR, but has been
held to be an initial stage in the chain of custody:
Nonetheless, the Court has acknowledged the practical value of the
process of marking the confiscated contraband and considered it as an
initial stage in the chain of custody – a process preliminary and
preparatory to the physical inventory and photograph requirements in
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165:
venue rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the “chain of
custody” rule requires that the “marking” of the seized items – to truly
ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually
the ones offered in evidence -- should be done (1) in the presence of the
apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.
Appellants argue that the prosecution was not able to establish the
chain of custody over the seized drugs:
The irregularities in the handling procedure of the seized items are
manifold. There is no indication what steps were taken after the seizure,
whether the items were turned over to the investigator or to the desk
officer before SPO4 Abordo allegedly delivered it to the crime laboratory.
How can the trial court rule that the integrity of the corpus delicti
was preserved when in fact, the prosecution failed to identify who was in
possession of the marijuana from the place of the seizure; to whom the
same was turned over; and how it came to the custody of SPO4 Abordo
who allegedly delivered the seized items at (sic) the laboratory. Nor was
there any prosecution’s evidence showing the identity of the person who
had the custody and safekeeping of the drug after its examination and
pending presentation in court.24
The links that the prosecution must endeavor to establish with respect
to the chain of custody are the following: 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
21
People v. Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, 13 July 2013, 701 SCRA 525, 545-546.
22
People v. Cervantes, 600 Phil. 819 (2009).
23
People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 191753, 17 September 2012, 680 SCRA 680, 690-691, citing People v.
Bautista, 665 Phil. 815, 833 (2011).
24
CA rollo, p. 43.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 205823
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.25
In this case, the prosecution adequately established the unbroken chain
of custody over the marijuana seized from appellants.
The records show that the seized drugs were marked immediately
upon confiscation by IO1 Mangili with his initials and signature, the date,
and the letters A, B, C or D to distinguish the bricks, in the presence of
appellants.26
IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta also testified that it was their evidence
custodian, Senior Police Officer 4 Abordo (SPO4 Abordo), who brought the
seized drugs to the Crime Laboratory for examination.28 A thorough review
of the records reveals that the Request for Laboratory Exam29 shows that the
seized drugs were delivered on 10 February 2010 by SPO4 Abordo and
received by Police Officer 2 Florendo and Police Senior Inspector Rowena
Fajardo Canlas (PSI Canlas). PSI Canlas was the forensic chemist who
conducted the examination on the seized drugs and signed Chemistry Report
No. D-08-201030 (chemistry report).
In this case, the prosecution was able to show that the same drugs
seized and marked by IO1 Mangili were the same ones he identified at the
trial.37 Further, the records consistently show that the markings on the bricks
of marijuana consisted of the initials and signature of IO1 Mangili, the date
and A, B, C, or D, as evidenced by the photograph38 taken during the
inventory and the chemistry report describing the submitted specimen as
follows:
A-One (1) carton knot tied with gray plastic straw labeled
GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL with markings ‘02-10-2010 ELM and
signature’, containing four (4) bricks of dried suspected marijuana fruiting
tops each wrapped with plastic and further wrapped with brown
packaging tape with the following markings and recorded net weights:
A-1 = [02-10-2010-A ELM and signature] = 2000.1 grams
A-2 = [02-10-2010-B ELM and signature] = 2158.3 grams
A-3 = [02-10-2010-C ELM and signature] = 2051.1 grams
A-4 = [02-10-2010-D ELM and signature] = 1971.5 grams39
(Emphasis supplied)
It is well settled that no arrest, search and seizure can be made without
a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. No less than the
Constitution guarantees this right –
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.40
The Court has ruled in several dangerous drug cases46 that tipped
40
1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 2.
41
1987 Constitution, Article III, Section 3(2).
42
G.R. No. 136860, 20 January 2003, 395 SCRA 407.
43
Id. at 414.
44
People v. Valdez, 363 Phil. 481, 489 (1999).
45
People v. Ayangao, 471 Phil. 379, 388 (2004).
46
People v. Ayangao, id.; People v. Libnao, supra; People v. Valdez, supra; People v. Mariacos, 635 Phil.
315 (2010).
Decision 12 G.R. No. 205823
In the present case, the vehicle that carried the prohibited drugs was
about to leave. The PDEA agents made a judgment call to act fast, as time
was of the essence. The team arrived at the terminal around 15 minutes49
before the bus was scheduled to depart. Upon boarding the bus, IO1 Mangili
and IO1 Peralta identified two men fitting the description given by the
informant in possession of a box described50 by the informant to contain
marijuana.
Q And Gary Yumol, of course, did not give you any answer?
A He said that it is theirs.
xxxx
Q The description given was the height and the built (sic) only, correct?
A And also the clothes they are wearing and the description of the box. (TSN, 7
July 2010, p. 13)
Decision 13 G.R. No. 205823
A When I asked him who owns the box, I then identified myself.
Q Did you ask them if you can see the contents of the box?
A I told Regie to open the box but he did not want that’s why I was
the one who opened it.
Q Gary Yumol according to you stood up?
A Yes, sir.
Q Before you told him to sit down did you introduce yourself as a
PDEA agent?
A Yes, sir.51 (Emphasis supplied)
nonetheless.
Unlike the officer in Chan Fook, IO1 Mangili did not exceed his
authority in the performance of his duty. Prior to Breis’ resistance, IO1
Mangili laid nary a finger on Breis or Yumol. Neither did his presence in the
bus constitute an excess of authority. The bus is public transportation, and is
open to the public. The expectation of privacy in relation to the
constitutional right against unreasonable searches in a public bus is not the
same as that in a person’s dwelling. In fact, at that point in time, only the bus
was being searched, not Yumol, Breis, or their belongings, and the search of
moving vehicles has been upheld.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 205823
Breis’ commission of a crime in view of, and against IO1 Mangili, and
proclivity for resorting to acts of violence further justify the warrantless
search of appellants.
64
Id.
65
Domalsin v. Sps. Valenciano, 515 Phil. 745, 764 (2006).
66
Yu v. De Lara, 116 Phil. 1105 (1962).
67
Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960).
68
Id.
69
Id.
70
265 U.S. 57 (1924).
71
Id.
72
499 U.S. 621 (1991).
73
Id.
Decision 17 G.R. No. 205823
xxxx
The defenses of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the positive
and categorical assertions of the PDEA agents who were strangers to
appellants and against whom no ill-motive was established.75 Further, such
defenses failed to overcome the documentary and physical evidence
presented by the prosecution.
xx xx
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
l2
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
Decision 19 G.R. No. 205823
~ ·~t:?
MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ND OZA
Associate Justice Asso~iate Ju~tice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION