G.R. No.

108722 December 9, 1997 The appellant, together with her companion Armina de Monteverde, were subsequently
charged with violation of R.A. 6425, as amended. On arraignment, both entered pleas of
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, not guilty. After trial on the merits, the trial court found herein appellant guilty as charged
vs. while Armina de Monteverde was acquitted [on the ground that the prosecution failed to
ERLINDA CARREON y PRECIA, accused-appellant. convincingly prove the existence of conspiracy between the two accused]. 4

The appeal is not impressed with merit; hence we affirm the conviction.

FRANCISCO, J.: Appellant harps on the failure of the prosecution to present as evidence her handbag from
where the marijuana leaves were taken and assails C2C Rivera's inconsistent testimony
where on one part he declared that the bag was turned over to the Provincial Headquarters
Appellant Erlinda P. Carreon was charged with and convicted of violating Section 4 of while on another portion he said that appellant took it. The argument is unpersuasive.
Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, by the Appellant seems to have lost sight of the fact that her conviction was not premised on the
Regional Trial Court 1 and meted "the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Twenty presence or absence of the bag, but on her apprehension in flagrante delicto, i.e., while in
Thousand Pesos, and to [pay] the cost."2 Dissatisfied, appellant interposed the present the possession of and transporting the prohibited drugs. The non-presentation of the bag
appeal anchored on an interrelated assignment of errors, jointly discussed in her brief, does not debilitate the case for the prosecution. The alleged inconsistency in the testimony
which dwell on the alleged (1) insufficiency of evidence to prove her guilt; (2) erroneous of C2C Rivera, on the other hand, is inconsequential. The testimony, we note, is
admission in evidence of the bundles of marijuana, and (3) failure of the trial court to give unmistakably clear that the bag was forwarded to the Provincial Headquarters from where
any brobative value on the supposed affidavit of desistance of the apprehending officers appellant took the same. In addition, minor inconsistencies do not discredit but rather
and on her defense of denial.3 strengthen the testimony of a witness as they erase any suspicion of a rehearsed
testimony. 5 The alleged insufficiency of evidence, therefore, is more imagined than real.
The facts of the case, aptly narrated by the Office of the Solicitor General and which we
have verified to be duly supported by the record, are as follows: Anent appellant's averment that the bundles of marijuana were erroneously admitted in
evidence as C2C Rivera failed to immediately submit the marijuana leaves for laboratory
At around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of July 30, 1990, a passenger jeepney in which examination and, in fact, it was not he who actually brought the specimen to the Crime
herein appellant was riding was flagged down at a checkpoint manned by elements of the Laboratory, suffice it to say that there is no rule requiring the apprehending officer to
Philippine Constabulary in Lamut, Ifugao province. In accordance with orders from their personally deliver the prohibited drug to the Crime Laboratory for testing. What is
headquarters, a search was made on the jeepney as well as its passenger. The search was important is that the transmittal of the specimen , as in this case, was not vitiated by
conducted by C2C Melchor Rivera and C2C Samuel Bulahao, who was himself a passenger irregularity or fraud to cast doubt on the authenticity and source of the subject specimen.
of the same jeepney (TSN, supra, pp. 3-4). Moreover, the subject marijuana leaves taken from the appellant were duly identified by
C2C Rivera, the apprehending officer and Lt. Ong, the chemist assigned at Dangwa Crime
At the time the search was being conducted, herein appellant and her companion Armina Laboratory where the specimen was brought for testing. In the absence of evidence to
de Monteverde were seated side by side immediately behind the driver. The bags and indicate that these witnesses were moved by improper motive, their testimony is entitled
personal belongings of the passengers were individually searched by the constables. As a to full faith and credit. 6 Besides, the presumption of regularity in the conduct of their
result of said search, a small wrap of marijuana was found in the handbag of herein duties accorded by law 7 was not at all overthrown by contrary evidence.
appellant, while a larger bundle consisting of four wraps was found in a jute sack located
beside her, approximately one foot away from her feet (Tsn, supra, pp. 4-7.) In an apparent attempt to discredit the prosecution's witnesses, appellant invites the
court's attention to an affidavit of desistance purportedly executed by C2C Rivera and C2C
As a result thereof, appellant and her companion were arrested and their bags containing Bulahao. We are not persuaded as the said affidavit appears to be an afterthought. Apart
the marijuana were confiscated. The seized items were all later turned over to the from the fact that retractions are exceedingly unreliable 8 and looked upon with
Provincial Command (TSN, supra, pp. 14-15). The accused were later taken to the PC considerable disfavor by the courts9, the trial court rightly observed that the signatures
Headquarters in Lagawe where they were investigated and subsequently detained (TSN, appearing thereon were forgeries. Thus:
March 12, 1992, p. 12).
First, comparison on the real evidence or autoptic proference on record consisting of
Upon investigation by the forensic chemist assigned at the Crime Laboratory at Camp signatures of the affiant witness Melchor E. Rivera, appearing in the joint affidavit in
Dangwa, the items seized from appellant were confirmed to be marijuana (TSN, May 22, support of the criminal complaint found on page 2 of the records, and the signature of said
1991, p. 4). witness marked as Exhibit "3-C" appearing in Exhibit 3, Joint Affidavit of Desistance found
on page 5 of the records visibly show to the naked eye that the said two signatures are
entirely different, revealing the fact that the alleged signature of the alleged affiant
Melchor Rivera appearing in the contested document Exhibit 3 and 3-A was written by a source and strength from the very purpose advanced by accused Erlinda Carreon in going
person other than the true and real Melchor E. Rivera, the witness for the prosecution in to Hapao, Hungduan and later to O-ong, Banaue, two places in the province of Ifugao noted
the instant case. In other words, the signature marked as Exhibit "3-C" appearing in Exhibit and taken judicial notice of by this Court to be great source of marijuana leaves. The
"3" is a forgery. accused Erlina Carreon assisted earlier, a total stranger allegedly went to Hapao,
Hungduan, Ifugao a far flunged placed to see one Fidel, her alleged companion who applied
Second, it is quite surprising and lamentable to say the least, that an L.L.B. graduate, like in going abroad. Such an allegation is highly unbelievable for the accused does not even
the defense witness Revelino Antonio, professing himself to be a Notary public since 1979 know and cannot tell the Court the family name of that Fidel. All the more, that belies her
up to the present to have been allegedly satisfied as to his identity of the alleged affiants alleged purpose in going to those places is the fact that it runs counter to the ordinary
by the mere presentation of military ID's of the alleged affiants, for normally a Notary course of things or event for normally, it would be this Fidel who would have taken interest
public should satisfy himself as to the true identity of any person or party to a document in going to Metro Manila and verify for himself the status of his alleged application for
that he notarized. His allegation that he did not require them to present their Residence abroad, if there was indeed any, not the accused going to Hapao, Hungduan, Ifugao to look
Certificate because the alleged affiant told him that they do not have, has to be taken with for Fidel whose relationship to the accused was not even shown by evidence, as a matter
a grain of salt considering that a person like the witness who is capable of prevaricating of fact, he does not even know the family name of this Fidel, neither is there a showing that
on a vital and delicate matter by testifying that the witness Melchor Rivera appeared the accused is a legal recruiter of any recruitment agency to create an apparent semblance
before him as Notary Public, claiming to be personally present when the alleged affiant of truth of her alleged purpose in going to see the person Fidel.
affixed his signature n Exhibit "3", when in truth and in fact, the said signature is found out
to be a forgery is not trustworthy, thereby rendering his entire testimony unworthy of Anent the purpose of the accused Erlinda Carreon in going to
credence. A witness who is capable of testifying falsely on a forged signature of a person O-ong, Banaue, Ifugao as elsewhere stated herein earlier, is highly incredible. A scrutiny of
is likewise capable of committing falsehood on less important details. Consequently, the the testimony of the testimony of accused Erlinda Carreon would seem to suggest that
principle of law "Falsus in, unos-falsus in omnibus squarely jibes with the testimony of the these Liza Antonio and Rosa Kindipan are intimately related to her. Assuming the
defenses witness, Revelino Antonio. relationship to be such, it is strange that said persons would address and course their
letter to the accused at O-ong, Banaue, Ifugao, a far away place from her alleged residence
xxx xxx xxx at Miguelin, Sampaloc, Manila. At most, the logical and reasonable course of action to have
been taken by the said accused is for her to have given her city address to them, which for
purposes of convenience and expediency, could be at the ideal place where to address and
Thirdly, it would be unnatural for the alleged affiants in Exhibit "3" to have voluntarily course their alleged intended and expected letter from the two informing the accused
gone to the residence of Notary Public Evelino Antonio and requested for the preparation Carreon of a possible job placement or employment abroad. All the moren (sic) nugatory
and final execution of the document, and later categorically denied to have executed any to accused Carreon's alleged purpose in going to Hapao and O-ong is the fact that to a
when confronted by the Court during the preliminary investigation, which only goes to reasonable mind, the prudent course of action for her to have done is to write these Rita
show that it was fraudulently prepared, a fact reinforced by the act of policeman Daniel Antonio and Rosa Kindipan and/or go to the placement agency concerned, or to the Office
Dominong who accordingly to witness Revelino Antonio was the one who paid later the of the POEA, to verify the status of her alleged application for abroad, if any, instead of
Notarial fee for no apparent reason at all, a circumstance showing that there was going to two places.
something fishy in the preparation of the document Exhibit "3", which confirmed the
version of the alleged affiants that they did not in truth and in fact appear before any
notary public. The foregoing facts and circumstances indubitably show that the version of the accused
Erlinda Carreoin (sic) is self-serving being the product or a concoction so flimsy to deserve
the slightest consideration of this Court, and cannot be given greater evidentiary weight
More importantly, the veracity of the affidavit in question is now academic since C2C that the positive testimony of the witness C2C Melchor Rivera. 11
Rivera himself appeared as a witness for the prosecution; hence, reliance on his alleged
affidavit of desistance which he disowned is wanting in merit.
Denial constitutes self-serving negative evidence which can not be accorded greater
evidentiary weight than the declarations of the prosecution witnesses testifying on
Further, appellant's argument that her defense of denial and her witnesses' testimony affirmative matters. 12
should be given credence deserve scant consideration. Findings of fact of the trial court,
especially its assessment on the credibility of witnesses, are not disturbed on appeal
except when the trial court has overlooked, ignored, or disregard some fact or Appellant in this case was convicted and meted the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine
circumstance of weight or significance which if considered would have altered the of twenty thousand pesos under Rep. Act No. 6425 for transporting more or less six (6)
result, 10 an instance absent in this case. Besides, appellant's denial does not inspire belief. kilos of marijuana on July 1990. Rep. Act No. 7659, which took effect on December 31,
With approval, we quote the following disquisition of the trial court: 1993, amended the provisions of Rep. Act No. 6425, increasing the imposable penalty for
the sale or transport of 750 grams or more of marijuana to reclusion perpetua to death and
a fine ranging from five hundred thousand pesos to ten million pesos. Such penalty is not
In summation, the Court is of the considered view, that the defense of denial interposed by favorable to the appellant as it carries the accessory penalties provided under the Revised
the accused is flimsy and preposterous which finding and conclusion of the Court finds its
Penal Code and had a higher amount of fine which in accordance with Article 22 of the G.R. Nos. 108280-83 November 16, 1995
same Code should not be given retroactive effect. The Court, therefore, finds and so holds
that the penalty of life imprisonment and fine in the amount of twenty thousand ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR, JOEL TAN, RICHARD DE LOS SANTOS, and JOSELITO
pesos correctly imposed by the trial court should be retained. TAMAYO, petitioners,
vs.
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

SO ORDERED. G.R. Nos. 114931-33 November 16, 1995

Narvasa, C.J., Romero, Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
ANNIE FERRER, accused, ROMEO SISON, NILO PACADAR, JOEL TAN, RICHARD DE
LOS SANTOS, and JOSELITO TAMAYO, accused-appellants.

PUNO, J.:

The case before us occurred at a time of great political polarization in the aftermath of the
1986 EDSA Revolution. This was the time when the newly-installed government of
President Corazon C. Aquino was being openly challenged in rallies, demonstrations and
other public fora by "Marcos loyalists," supporters of deposed President Ferdinand E.
Marcos. Tension and animosity between the two (2) groups sometimes broke into
violence. On July 27, 1986, it resulted in the murder of Stephen Salcedo, a known
"Coryista."

From August to October 1986, several informations were filed in court against eleven
persons identified as Marcos loyalists charging them with the murder of Salcedo. Criminal
Case No. 86-47322 was filed against Raul Billosos y de Leon and Gerry Nery y Babazon;
Criminal Case No. 86-47617 against Romeo Sison y Mejia, Nilo Pacadar y Abe and Joel Tan
y Mostero; Criminal Case No. 86-47790 against Richard de los Santos y Arambulo; Criminal
Case No. 86-48538 against Joselito Tamayo y Ortia; and Criminal Case No. 86-48931
against Rolando Fernandez y Mandapat. Also filed were Criminal Cases Nos. 86-49007 and
86-49008 against Oliver Lozano and Benjamin Nuega as well as Annie Ferrer charging
them as accomplices to the murder of Salcedo.

The cases were consolidated and raffled to the Regional Trial Court, Branch XLIX, Manila.
All of the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and trial ensued accordingly. The
prosecution presented twelve witnesses, including two eyewitnesses, Ranulfo Sumilang
and Renato Banculo, and the police officers who were at the Luneta at the time of the
incident. In support of their testimonies, the prosecution likewise presented documentary
evidence consisting of newspaper accounts of the incident and various photographs taken
during the mauling.

The prosecution established that on July 27, 1986, a rally was scheduled to be held at the
Luneta by the Marcos loyalists. Earlier, they applied for a permit to hold the rally but their
application was denied by the authorities. Despite this setback, three thousand of them
gathered at the Rizal Monument of the Luneta at 2:30 in the afternoon of the scheduled
day. Led by Oliver Lozano and Benjamin Nuega, both members of the Integrated Bar of the of a traffic officer, brought Salcedo to the Medical Center Manila but he was refused
Philippines, the loyalists started an impromptu singing contest, recited prayers and admission. So they took him to the Philippine General Hospital where he died upon arrival.
delivered speeches in between. Colonel Edgar Dula Torres, then Deputy Superintendent of
the Western Police District, arrived and asked the leaders for their permit. No permit could Salcedo died of "hemorrhage, intracranial traumatic." He sustained various contusions,
be produced. Colonel Dula Torres thereupon gave them ten minutes to disperse. The abrasions, lacerated wounds and skull fractures as revealed in the following post-mortem
loyalist leaders asked for thirty minutes but this was refused. Atty. Lozano turned towards findings:
his group and said "Gulpihin ninyo ang lahat ng mga Cory infiltrators." Atty. Nuega added
"Sige, sige gulpihin ninyo!" The police then pushed the crowd, and used tear gas and
truncheons to disperse them. The loyalists scampered away but some of them fought back Cyanosis, lips, and nailbeds.
and threw stones at the police. Eventually, the crowd fled towards Maria Orosa Street and
the situation later stabilized.1 Contused-abrasions: 6.0 x 2.5 cm., and 3.0 x 2.4 cm., frontal region, right side; 6.8 x 4.2 cm.,
frontal region, left side; 5.0 x 4.0 cm., right cheek; 5.0 x 3.5 cm., face, left side; 3.5 x 2.0 cm.,
At about 4:00 p.m., a small group of loyalists converged at the Chinese Garden, Phase III of nose; 4.0 x 2.1 cm., left ear, pinna; 5.0 x 4.0 cm. left suprascapular region; 6.0 x 2.8 cm.,
the Luneta. There, they saw Annie Ferrer, a popular movie starlet and supporter of right elbow.
President Marcos, jogging around the fountain. They approached her and informed her of
their dispersal and Annie Ferrer angrily ordered them "Gulpihin ninyo and mga Cory Abrasions: 4.0 x 2.0 cm., left elbow; 2.0 x 1.5 cm., right knee.
hecklers!" Then she continued jogging around the fountain chanting "Marcos pa rin,
Marcos pa rin, Pabalikin si Marcos, Pabalikin si Marcos, Bugbugin ang mga nakadilaw!" Lacerated wounds: 2.2 cm., over the left eyebrow; 1.0 cm., upper lip.
The loyalists replied "Bugbugin!" A few minutes later, Annie Ferrer was arrested by the
police. Somebody then shouted "Kailangang gumanti, tayo ngayon!" A commotion ensued
and Renato Banculo, a cigarette vendor, saw the loyalists attacking persons in yellow, the Hematoma, scalp; frontal region, both sides; left parietal region; right temporal region;
color of the "Coryistas." Renato took off his yellow shirt.2 He then saw a man wearing a occipital region, right side.
yellow t-shirt being chased by a group of persons shouting "Iyan, habulin iyan. Cory iyan!"
The man in the yellow t-shirt was Salcedo and his pursuers appeared to be Marcos Fractures, skull; occipital bone, right side; right posterior cranial fossa; right anterior
loyalists. They caught Salcedo and boxed and kicked and mauled him. Salcedo tried to cranial fossa.
extricate himself from the group but they again pounced on him and pummelled him with
fist blows and kicks hitting him on various parts of his body. Banculo saw Ranulfo Hemorrhage, subdural, extensive.
Sumilang, an electrician at the Luneta, rush to Salcedo's aid. Sumilang tried to pacify the
maulers so he could extricate Salcedo from them. But the maulers pursued Salcedo
unrelentingly, boxing him with stones in their fists. Somebody gave Sumilang a loyalist tag Other visceral organs, congested.
which Sumilang showed to Salcedo's attackers. They backed off for a while and Sumilang
was able to tow Salcedo away from them. But accused Raul Billosos emerged from behind Stomach, about 1/2 filled with grayish brown food materials and fluid.10
Sumilang as another man boxed Salcedo on the head. Accused Richard de los Santos also
boxed Salcedo twice on the head and kicked him even as he was already fallen.3Salcedo The mauling of Salcedo was witnessed by bystanders and several press people, both local
tried to stand but accused Joel Tan boxed him on the left side of his head and ear. 4 Accused and foreign. The press took pictures and a video of the event which became front-page
Nilo Pacadar punched Salcedo on his nape, shouting: "Iyan, Cory Iyan. Patayin!"5 Sumilang news the following day, capturing national and international attention. This prompted
tried to pacify Pacadar but the latter lunged at the victim again. Accused Joselito Tamayo President Aquino to order the Capital Regional Command and the Western Police District
boxed Salcedo on the left jaw and kicked him as he once more fell. Banculo saw accused to investigate the incident. A reward of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) was put up by
Romeo Sison trip Salcedo and kick him on the head, and when he tried to stand, Sison Brigadier General Alfredo Lim, then Police Chief, for persons who could give information
repeatedly boxed him.6 Sumilang saw accused Gerry Neri approach the victim but did not leading to the arrest of the killers.11Several persons, including Ranulfo Sumilang and
notice what he did.7 Renato Banculo, cooperated with the police, and on the basis of their identification, several
persons, including the accused, were apprehended and investigated.
Salcedo somehow managed to get away from his attackers and wipe off the blood from his
face. He sat on some cement steps8 and then tried to flee towards Roxas boulevard to the For their defense, the principal accused denied their participation in the mauling of the
sanctuary of the Rizal Monument but accused Joel Tan and Nilo Pacadar pursued him, victim and offered their respective alibis. Accused Joselito Tamayo testified that he was
mauling Sumilang in the process. Salcedo pleaded for his life exclaiming "Maawa na kayo not in any of the photographs presented by the prosecution12 because on July 27, 1986, he
sa akin. Tulungan ninyo ako." He cried: "Pulis, pulis. Wala bang pulis?"9 was in his house in Quezon City.13 Gerry Neri claimed that he was at the Luneta Theater at
the time of the
The mauling resumed at the Rizal Monument and continued along Roxas Boulevard until incident. 14 Romeo Sison, a commercial photographer, was allegedly at his office near the
Salcedo collapsed and lost consciousness. Sumilang flagged down a van and with the help Luneta waiting for some pictures to be developed at that time. 15 He claimed to be afflicted
with hernia impairing his mobility; he cannot run normally nor do things penalty of from FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and TWENTY (20) DAYS
forcefully. 16 Richard de los Santos admits he was at the Luneta at the time of the mauling of Reclusion Temporal, as Minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal, as
but denies hitting Salcedo. 17 He said that he merely watched the mauling which explains Maximum;
why his face appeared in some of the photographs. 18 Unlike the other accused, Nilo
Pacadar admits that he is a Marcos loyalist and a member of the Ako'y Pilipino Movement 5. In "People versus Rolando Fernandez," Criminal Case No. 86-4893l, the Court finds that
and that he attended the rally on that fateful day. According to him, he saw Salcedo being the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the crime charged beyond
mauled and like Richard de los Santos, merely viewed the incident. 19 His face was in the reasonable doubt and hereby acquits him of said charge;
pictures because he shouted to the maulers to stop hitting Salcedo. 20 Joel Tan also testified
that he tried to pacify the maulers because he pitied Salcedo. The maulers however
ignored him. 21 6. In "People versus Oliver Lozano, et al.," Criminal Case No. 86-49007, the Court finds that
the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt for the
crime charged and hereby acquits them of said charge;
The other accused, specifically Attys. Lozano and Nuega and Annie Ferrer opted not to
testify in their defense.
7. In "People versus Annie Ferrer," Criminal Case No. 86-49008, the Court finds the said
Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as accomplice to the crime of Murder under
On December 16, 1988, the trial court rendered a decision finding Romeo Sison, Nilo Article 18 in relation to Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby imposes on her
Pacadar, Joel Tan, Richard de los Santos and Joselito Tamayo guilty as principals in the an indeterminate penalty of NINE (9) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS of Prision Mayor, as
crime of murder qualified by treachery and sentenced them to 14 years 10 months and 20 Minimum to TWELVE (12) YEARS, FIVE (5) MONTHS and ELEVEN (11) DAYS of Reclusion
days of reclusion temporal as minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum. Temporal, as Maximum.
Annie Ferrer was likewise convicted as an accomplice. The court, however, found that the
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the other accused and thus acquitted Raul Billosos,
Gerry Nery, Rolando Fernandez, Oliver Lozano and Benjamin Nuega. The dispositive The Accused Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Richard de los Santos, Joel Tan, Joselito Tamayo
portion of the decision reads as follows: and Annie Ferrer are hereby ordered to pay, jointly and severally, to the heirs of Stephen
Salcedo the total amount of P74,000.00 as actual damages and the amount of P30,000.00
as moral and exemplary damages, and one-half (1/2) of the costs of suit.
WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered in the aforementioned cases as follows:
The period during which the Accused Nilo Pacadar, Romeo Sison, Joel Tan, Richard de los
1. In "People versus Raul Billosos and Gerry Nery," Criminal Case No. 86-47322, the Court Santos and Joselito Tamayo had been under detention during the pendency of these cases
finds that the Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the two (2) Accused beyond shall be credited to them provided that they agreed in writing to abide by and comply
reasonable doubt for the crime charged and hereby acquits them of said charge; strictly with the rules and regulations of the City Jail.

2. In "People versus Romeo Sison, et al.," Criminal Case No. 86-47617, the Court finds the The Warden of the City Jail of Manila is hereby ordered to release the Accused Gerry Nery,
Accused Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as Raul Billosos and Rolando Fernandez from the City Jail unless they are being detained for
principals for the crime of Murder, defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, and, another cause or charge.
there being no other mitigating or aggravating circumstances, hereby imposes on each of
them an indeterminate penalty of from FOURTEEN (14)YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and
TWENTY (20) DAYS, of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, to TWENTY (20) DAYS, The Petition for Bail of the Accused Rolando Fernandez has become moot and academic.
of Reclusion Temporal, as minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal, as The Petition for Bail of the Accused Joel Tan, Romeo Sison and Joselito Tamayo is denied
Maximum; for lack of merit.

3. In "People versus Richard de los Santos," Criminal Case No. 86-47790, the Court finds the The bail bonds posted by the Accused Oliver Lozano and Benjamin Nuega are hereby
Accused Richard de los Santos guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal for the crime cancelled. 22
of Murder defined in Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and, there being no other
extenuating circumstances, the Court hereby imposes on him an indeterminate penalty of On appeal, the Court of Appeals 23 on December 28, 1992, modified the decision of the trial
from FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, TEN (10) MONTHS and TWENTY (20) DAYS of Reclusion court by acquitting Annie Ferrer but increasing the penalty of the rest of the accused,
Temporal, as Minimum, to TWENTY (20) YEARS of Reclusion Temporal as Maximum; except for Joselito Tamayo, to reclusion perpetua. The appellate court found them guilty of
murder qualified by abuse of superior strength, but convicted Joselito Tamayo of homicide
4. In "People versus Joselito Tamayo," Criminal Case No. 86-48538 the Court finds the because the information against him did not allege the said qualifying circumstance. The
Accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal, for the crime of "Murder" defined in dispositive portion of the decision reads:
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code and hereby imposes on him an indeterminate
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED as follows: IV

1. Accused-appellants Romeo Sison y Mejia, Nilo Pacadar y Abe, Joel Tan y Mostero and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THERE
Richard de los Santos are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder and EXISTS CONSPIRACY AMONG THE PRINCIPAL ACCUSED.
are each hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua;
V
2. Accused-appellant Joselito Tamayo y Oria is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of Homicide with the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE CRIME
superior strength and, as a consequence, an indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS COMMITTED IS MURDER AND NOT DEATH (HOMICIDE) CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS
of prision mayor as Minimum to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal as Maximum AFFRAY. 25
is hereby imposed upon him;
In their additional brief, appellants contend that:
3. Accused-appellant Annie Ferrer is hereby ACQUITTED of being an accomplice to the
crime of Murder.
I
CONSIDERING that the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua has been imposed in the instant
consolidated cases, the said cases are now hereby certified to the Honorable Supreme THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN REACHING A CONCLUSION
Court for review. 24 OF FACT UTILIZING SPECULATIONS, SURMISES, NON-SEQUITUR CONCLUSIONS, AND
EVEN THE DISPUTED DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT, TO UPHOLD THE VALIDITY OF
THE VERY SAME JUDGMENT, ALL CONTRARY TO THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.
Petitioners filed G.R. Nos. 108280-83 under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court
inasmuch as Joselito Tamayo was not sentenced to reclusion perpetua. G.R. Nos. 114931-
33 was certified to us for automatic review of the decision of the Court of Appeals against II
the four accused-appellants sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN ADMITTING EXHIBITS "D", "G", "O", "P",
Before this court, accused-appellants assign the following errors: "V", TO "V-48", "W" TO "W-13", ALL OF WHICH WERE NOT PROPERLY IDENTIFIED.

I III

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT NOTED THAT THE THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT
ACCUSED FAILED TO CITE ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THEIR AVERMENT CONSPIRACY EXISTED IN THE CASE AT BAR DISREGARDING ALTOGETHER THE
THAT THERE WERE NO WITNESSES WHO HAVE COME FORWARD TO IDENTIFY THE SETTLED JURISPRUDENCE ON THE MATTER.
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF STEPHEN SALCEDO.
IV
II
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE CRIME
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE COMMITTED WAS MURDER, NOT DEATH (HOMICIDE) IN TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
UNRELIABLE, DOUBTFUL, SUSPICIOUS AND INCONCLUSIVE TESTIMONIES OF SIDESTEPPING IN THE PROCESS THE FACTUAL GROUNDS SURROUNDING THE
PROSECUTION WITNESS RANULFO SUMILANG. INCIDENT. 26

III Appellants mainly claim that the Court of Appeals erred in sustaining the testimonies of
the two in prosecution eyewitnesses, Ranulfo Sumilang and Renato Banculo, because they
are unreliable, doubtful and do not deserve any credence. According to them, the
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED testimonies of these two witnesses are suspect because they surfaced only after a reward
GUILTY WHEN THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT ANY OF THE ACCUSED was announced by General Lim. Renato Banculo even submitted three sworn statements
CARRIED A HARD AND BLUNT INSTRUMENT, THE ADMITTED CAUSE OF THE to the police geared at providing a new or improved version of the incident. On the witness
HEMORRHAGE RESULTING IN THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED. stand, he mistakenly identified a detention prisoner in another case as accused Rolando
Fernandez. 27 Ranulfo Sumilang was evasive and unresponsive prompting the trial court 48," "W," "W-1" to "W-13." 39 Exhibit "O" is the Joint Affidavit of Pat. Flores and Pat.
to reprimand him several times. 28 Bautista, the police intelligence-operatives who witnessed the rally and subsequent
dispersal operation. Pat. Flores properly identified Exhibit "O" as his sworn statement and
There is no proof that Banculo or Sumilang testified because of the reward announced by in fact gave testimony corroborating the contents thereof. 40 Besides, the Joint Affidavit
General Lim, much less that both or either of them ever received such reward from the merely reiterates what the other prosecution witnesses testified to. Identification by Pat.
government. On the contrary, the evidence shows that Sumilang reported the incident to Bautista is a surplusage. If appellants wanted to impeach the said affidavit, they should
the police and submitted his sworn statement immediately two hours after the mauling, have placed Pat. Flores on the witness stand.
even before announcement of any reward. 29 He informed the police that he would
cooperate with them and identify Salcedo's assailants if he saw them again. 30 Exhibits "V," "V-1" to "V-48" are photographs taken of the victim as he was being mauled
at the Luneta — starting from a grassy portion to the pavement at the Rizal Monument and
The fact that Banculo executed three sworn statements does not make them and his along Roxas Boulevard, 41 — as he was being chased by his assailants 42 and as he sat
testimony incredible. The sworn statements were made to identify more suspects who pleading with his assailants. 43 Exhibits "W", "W-1" to "W-13" are photographs of Salcedo
were apprehended during the investigation of Salcedo's death. 31 and the mauling published in local newspapers and magazines such as the Philippine
Star, 44 Mr. and Ms. Magazine, 45 Philippine Daily Inquirer, 46 and the Malaya. 47 The
admissibility of these photographs is being questioned by appellants for lack of proper
The records show that Sumilang was admonished several times by the trial court on the identification by the person or persons who took the same.
witness stand for being argumentative and evasive. 32 This is not enough reason to reject
Sumilang's testimony for he did not exhibit this undesirable conduct all throughout his
testimony. On the whole, his testimony was correctly given credence by the trial court The rule in this jurisdiction is that photographs, when presented in evidence, must be
despite his evasiveness at some instances. Except for compelling reasons, we cannot identified by the photographer as to its production and testified as to the circumstances
disturb the way trial courts calibrate the credence of witnesses considering their visual under which they were produced. 48 The value of this kind of evidence lies in its being a
view of the demeanor of witnesses when on the witness stand. As trial courts, they can correct representation or reproduction of the original, 49 and its admissibility is
best appreciate the verbal and non-verbal dimensions of a witness' testimony. determined by its accuracy in portraying the scene at the time of the crime. 50 The
photographer, however, is not the only witness who can identify the pictures he has
taken. 51 The correctness of the photograph as a faithful representation of the object
Banculo's mistake in identifying another person as one of the accused does not make him portrayed can be proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the person who made it or
an entirely untrustworthy witness. 33 It does not make his whole testimony a falsity. An by other competent witnesses, after which the court can admit it subject to impeachment
honest mistake is not inconsistent with a truthful testimony. Perfect testimonies cannot as to its accuracy. 52Photographs, therefore, can be identified by the photographer or by
be expected from persons with imperfect senses. In the court's discretion, therefore, the any other competent witness who can testify to its exactness and accuracy. 53
testimony of a witness can be believed as to some facts but disbelieved with respect to the
others. 34
This court notes that when the prosecution offered the photographs as part of its evidence,
appellants, through counsel Atty. Alfredo Lazaro, Jr. objected to their admissibility for lack
We sustain the appellate and trial courts' findings that the witnesses' testimonies of proper identification. 54 However, when the accused presented their evidence, Atty.
corroborate each other on all important and relevant details of the principal occurrence. Winlove Dumayas, counsel for accused Joselito Tamayo and Gerry Neri used Exhibits "V",
Their positive identification of all petitioners jibe with each other and their narration of "V-1" to "V-48" to prove that his clients were not in any of the pictures and therefore could
the events are supported by the medical and documentary evidence on record. not have participated in the mauling of the victim. 55 The photographs were adopted by
appellant Joselito Tamayo and accused Gerry Neri as part of the defense exhibits. And at
Dr. Roberto Garcia, the medico-legal officer of the National Bureau of Investigation, this hearing, Atty. Dumayas represented all the other accused per understanding with
testified that the victim had various wounds on his body which could have been inflicted their respective counsels, including Atty. Lazaro, who were absent. At subsequent
by pressure from more than one hard object. 35 The contusions and abrasions found could hearings, the prosecution used the photographs to cross-examine all the accused who took
have been caused by punches, kicks and blows from rough stones. 36 The fatal injury of the witness stand. 56 No objection was made by counsel for any of the accused, not until
intracranial hemorrhage was a result of fractures in Salcedo's skull which may have been Atty. Lazaro appeared at the third hearing and interposed a continuing objection to their
caused by contact with a hard and blunt object such as fistblows, kicks and a blunt wooden admissibility. 57
instrument. 37
The objection of Atty. Lazaro to the admissibility of the photographs is anchored on the
Appellants do not deny that Salcedo was mauled, kicked and punched. Sumilang in fact fact that the person who took the same was not presented to identify them. We rule that
testified that Salcedo was pummeled by his assailants with stones in their hands. 38 the use of these photographs by some of the accused to show their alleged non-
participation in the crime is an admission of the exactness and accuracy thereof. That the
Appellants also contend that although the appellate court correctly disregarded Exhibits photographs are faithful representations of the mauling incident was affirmed when
"D," "G," and "P," it erroneously gave evidentiary weight to Exhibits "O," "V," "V-1" to "V-
appellants Richard de los Santos, Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan identified themselves therein loyalists picked on one defenseless individual and attacked him repeatedly, taking turns
and gave reasons for their presence thereat. 58 in inflicting punches, kicks and blows on him. There was no confusion and tumultuous
quarrel or affray, nor was there a reciprocal aggression at this stage of the incident. 64
An analysis of the photographs vis-a-vis the accused's testimonies reveal that only three of
the appellants, namely, Richard de los Santos, Nilo Pacadar and Joel Tan could be readily As the lower courts found, the victim's assailants were numerous by as much as fifty in
seen in various belligerent poses lunging or hovering behind or over the number65 and were armed with stones with which they hit the victim. They took
victim. 59 Appellant Romeo Sison appears only once and he, although afflicted with hernia advantage of their superior strength and excessive force and frustrated any attempt by
is shown merely running after the Salcedo to escape and free himself. They followed Salcedo from the Chinese Garden to the
victim. 60Appellant Joselito Tamayo was not identified in any of the pictures. The absence Rizal Monument several meters away and hit him mercilessly even when he was already
of the two appellants in the photographs does not exculpate them. The photographs did fallen on the ground. There was a time when Salcedo was able to get up, prop himself
not capture the entire sequence of the killing of Salcedo but only segments thereof. While against the pavement and wipe off the blood from his face. But his attackers continued to
the pictures did not record Sison and Tamayo hitting Salcedo, they were unequivocally pursue him relentlessly. Salcedo could not defend himself nor could he find means to
identified by Sumilang and defend himself. Sumilang tried to save him from his assailants but they continued beating
Banculo61Appellants' denials and alibis cannot overcome their eyeball identification. him, hitting Sumilang in the process. Salcedo pleaded for mercy but they ignored his pleas
until he finally lost consciousness. The deliberate and prolonged use of superior strength
Appellants claim that the lower courts erred in finding the existence of conspiracy among on a defenseless victim qualifies the killing to murder.
the principal accused and in convicting them of murder qualified by abuse of superior
strength, not death in tumultuous affray. Treachery as a qualifying circumstance cannot be appreciated in the instant case. There is
no proof that the attack on Salcedo was deliberately and consciously chosen to ensure the
Death in a tumultuous affray is defined in Article 251 of the Revised Penal code as follows: assailants' safety from any defense the victim could have made. True, the attack on Salcedo
was sudden and unexpected but it was apparently because of the fact that he was wearing
a yellow t-shirt or because he allegedly flashed the "Laban" sign against the rallyists,
Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. — When, while several persons, not taunting them into mauling him. As the appellate court well found, Salcedo had the
composing groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each opportunity to sense the temper of the rallyists and run away from them but he,
other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, unfortunately, was overtaken by them. The essence of treachery is the sudden and
and in the course of the affray someone is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually unexpected attack without the slightest provocation on the part of the person being
killed the deceased, but the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries can attacked. 66
be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prison mayor.
The qualifying circumstance of evident premeditation was alleged in the information
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, the against Joselito Tamayo. Evident premeditation cannot be appreciated in this case because
penalty ofprision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon the attack against Salcedo was sudden and spontaneous, spurred by the raging animosity
all those who shall have used violence upon the person of the victim. against the so-called "Coryistas." It was not preceded by cool thought and reflection.

For this article to apply, it must be established that: (1) there be several persons; (2) that We find however the existence of a conspiracy among appellants. At the time they were
they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and committing the crime, their actions impliedly showed a unity of purpose among them, a
attacking each other reciprocally; (3) these several persons quarrelled and assaulted one concerted effort to bring about the death of Salcedo. Where a conspiracy existed and is
another in a confused and tumultuous manner; (4) someone was killed in the course of the proved, a showing as to who among the conspirators inflicted the fatal wound is not
affray; (5) it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased; and (6) that the required to sustain a conviction. 67 Each of the conspirators is liable for all acts of the
person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be others regardless of the intent and character of their participation, because the act of one
identified.62 is the act of all. 68

A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel occurs between several persons and they The trial court awarded the heirs of Salcedo P74,000.00 as actual damages, P30,000.00 as
engage in a confused and tumultuous affray, in the course of which some person is killed moral and exemplary damages, and one half of the costs of the suit. At the time he died on
or wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained.63 July 27, 1986, Salcedo was twenty three years old and was set to leave on August 4, 1986
for employment in Saudi Arabia. 69 The reckless disregard for such a young person's life
The quarrel in the instant case, if it can be called a quarrel, was between one distinct group and the anguish wrought on his widow and three small children, 70 warrant an increase in
and one individual. Confusion may have occurred because of the police dispersal of the moral damages from P30,000.00 to P100,000.00. The indemnity of P50,000.00 must also
rallyists, but this confusion subsided eventually after the loyalists fled to Maria Orosa be awarded for the death of the victim.71
Street. It was only a while later after said dispersal that one distinct group identified as
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed and modified as G.R. No. 105830 January 15, 2002
follows:
ELADIO C. TANGAN, petitioner,
1. Accused-appellants Romeo Sison, Nilo Pacadar, Joel Tan and Richard de los Santos are vs.
found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Murder without any aggravating or mitigating THE COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
circumstance and are each hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua;
RESOLUTION
2. Accused-appellant Joselito Tamayo is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the
crime of Homicide with the generic aggravating circumstance of abuse of superior strength YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
and, as a consequence, he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS
of prision mayor as minimum to TWENTY (20) YEARS of reclusion temporal as maximum;
On February 23, 2001, this Court rendered a Decision as follows:
3. All accused-appellants are hereby ordered to pay jointly and severally the heirs of
Stephen Salcedo the following amounts: WHEREFORE, the petition in G.R. No. 103613 is DISMISSED. The appealed decision
subject of G.R. No. 105830 is AFFIRMED with the following MODIFICATIONS:
(a) P74,000.00 as actual damages;
(1) Tangan is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day
of prision mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day
(b) P100,000.00 as moral damages; and of reclusion temporal,maximum, with all the accessory penalties.

(c) P50,000.00 as indemnity for the death of the victim. (2) Tangan is ordered to pay the victim's heirs P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P42,000.00
as funeral and burial expenses, P5,000.00 as attorney's fees, and P50,000.00 as moral
Costs against accused-appellants. damages,

SO ORDERED. SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., Regalado and Mendoza, JJ., concur. Petitioner Eladio C. Tangan filed a Motion for Reconsideration, invoking the rule that
factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are binding on this Court. Thus,
Francisco, J., is on leave. he argues that this Court erred in disregarding the mitigating circumstances which were
appreciated by the lower courts and in raising the indeterminate penalty imposed on him
from a maximum of two years and four months of prision correccional to a maximum of
fourteen years, eight months and one day of reclusion temporal. This, he claims, exposed
him to the "horrifying reality" of being re-incarcerated after having been preventively
confined for more than four years.1

It bears stressing that at no time during the trial of the case did petitioner raise self-
defense. Nevertheless, the trial court and the Court of Appeals found the attendance of the
mitigating circumstances of incomplete self-defense, sufficient provocation, and passion
and obfuscation.1âwphi1.nêt

When petitioner appealed the decision, he threw open the whole case for review. It
became the duty of this Court to correct any error as may be found in the appealed
judgment, whether it was made the subject of assignment of errors or not.2

Thus, this Court reviewed the records of the case and found that the evidence fails to
support or substantiate the lower court's findings and conclusions. Clearly, therefore, this
case falls within the recognized exceptions to the rule that an appellate court will generally
not disturb the assessment of the trial court on factual matters considering that the latter, By the same token, the evidence does not show the attendance of the mitigating
as a trier of fact, is in a better position to appreciate the same.3 circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the offended party. As stated, the
provocation must be sufficient to excite a person to commit a wrong and must accordingly
First of all, the physical evidence belies petitioner's version of the incident. As we clearly be proportionate to its gravity. In this case, all that the deceased did immediately before
explained in our assailed Decision: he was shot was shout expletives and slap petitioner's hand when the latter pointed it to
his face. These acts, while offensive, were grossly disproportionate to petitioner's act of
drawing and firing of a gun.
The medical examiner testified that the distance between the muzzle of the gun and the
target was about 2 inches but definitely not more than 3 inches. Based on the point of exit
and trajectory transit of the wound, the victim and the alleged assailant were facing each Furthermore, there was no sudden and unexpected occurrence that could have naturally
other when the shot was made and the position of the gun was almost perpendicular when produced a powerful excitement in petitioner's mind causing him to lose his reason and
fired. These findings disprove Tangan's claim of accidental shooting. A revolver is not self-control. As shown by the facts, no passion and obfuscation could have clouded his
prone to accidental firing because of the nature of its mechanism, unless it were uncocked, mind.
then considerable pressure had to be applied on the trigger to fire the revolver. 4
On the whole, therefore, this Court correctly imposed on petitioner the proper penalty for
Physical evidence is a mute but eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks high in the Homicide, without the attendance of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, and
hierarchy of our trustworthy evidence.5 For this reason, it is regarded as evidence of the sentenced him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of six (6) years and one (1) day of prision
highest order. It speaks more eloquently than a hundred witnesses. 6 mayor, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of reclusion
temporal, maximum.
The physical evidence is amply corroborated by the eyewitness accounts of Rosalia dela
Cruz and Mary Ann Borromeo to the effect that petitioner took a gun from his car and While his Motion for Reconsideration was pending, petitioner filed with the Court an
suddenly fired it at the deceased.7 "Omnibus Motion to Re-Raffle/Transfer and/or to Recuse." He alleged, among others, that
the ponente of the assailed Decision is biased in favor of respondents and, therefore, must
recuse herself from this case. Petitioner's accusation, however, is based on nothing more
Likewise, this Court found that the mitigating circumstances appreciated by the trial court than this Court's own evaluation of the evidence and departure from the rule that findings
are not present. Petitioner refutes this and insists on his version of the facts. However, the of facts of lower court are not to be disturbed.
testimony of his witness, on which he heavily relies, suffers from material inconsistencies
which render it unworthy of belief.
Petitioner should bear in mind that the Decision, although penned by a member of the
Court, is a decision of the whole Court. Hence, any attack on the integrity of the ponente, or
It was shown that defense witness Nelson Pante was 10 meters away when he saw the any member of the Court for that matter, is an attack on the entire Court. More
incident, and his line of vision was blocked by petitioner's car. 8 From that distance and importantly, petitioner fails to establish with concrete proof his imputations of bias. Such
vantage point, he could not have heard anything or have had an unobstructed view of the irresponsible and unfounded statements will not be taken lightly by this Court. Hence,
events. Sure enough, the details of his statement betray the falsity thereof. He testified that petitioner and his counsel should be admonished for making such baseless and
petitioner was hit on the eyebrow, while petitioner said he was hit on the jaw.9 Pante was unsubstantiated accusations of bias against the Court. Moreover, the Omnibus Motion
also unable to identify Manuel Miranda, the person whom he supposedly saw punch should be denied for lack of merit.1âwphi1.nêt
petitioner.10
Petitioner faults the Court for increasing the penalty five times such that, despite having
All of these, and the incredibility of petitioner's account when compared with the physical served the penalty imposed by the trial court, he now faces the "intolerable specter of
evidence, belie self-defense. From the established facts, it can be plainly gleaned that there reincarceration."13 It should be recalled that petitioner, by consciously and deliberately
was no unlawful aggression on the part of the deceased. What merely transpired before firing his gun, snuffed the life out of a 29-year old optometrist. Suffice it to state that
petitioner's gun went off was a heated exchange of words between the protagonists. This petitioner should bear the consequences of his felonious act.
does not qualify as unlawful aggression. Unlawful aggression presupposes an actual,
sudden, and unexpected attack, or imminent danger thereof. The person defending himself
must have been attacked with actual physical force or with actual use of weapon.11 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED for lack
of merit. The Omnibus Motion to Re-Raffle/Transfer and/or to Recuse is likewise DENIED.
This denial is FINAL.
Unlawful aggression is a condition sine qua non for the justifying circumstance of self-
defense. There can be no self-defense, complete or incomplete, unless the victim has
committed an unlawful aggression against the person defending himself.12 SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.

G.R. No. 104383 July 12, 2001 all belonging to said complainant, to the damage and prejudice of the latter, in the
aforesaid amount of P728,000.00; and on the occasion thereof, said accused conspiring
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, together and mutually helping one another likewise by means of force and violence and
vs. with the use of their weapons, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse
VALERIANO AMESTUZO y VIÑAS, FEDERICO AMPATIN y SABUSAB, ALBINO BAGAS y with Fe Catanyag y Cabañero and Estrella Rolago y Madrid both residents of said house,
DALUHATAN and DIASCORO VIÑAS y ODAL, accused. against their will and without their consent.
ALBINO BAGAS y DALUHATAN, accused-appellant
Contrary to law.2
KAPUNAN, J.:
On arraignment, all the accused including accused-appellant Albino Bagas pleaded "Not
One of the cardinal rules of criminal law is that the guilt of the accused must be proven Guilty" to the charge. Thereafter, trial ensued.
beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. If the inculpatory facts and circumstances
are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is consistent with the innocence of The facts as found by the trial court and as presented in the Solicitor General's Brief are as
the accused and the other consistent with his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the follows:
test of moral certainty and is not sufficient to support a conviction. 1 In the present case,
there being a doubt as to the guilt of accused-appellant, the constitutional presumption of The incident happened at the compound of Block 5, Road 32, Phase II of the Sacred Heart
innocence stands and he must be acquitted. Village in Kalookan City (pp. 6-7, TSN, July 2, 1991). In the compound are the main house
where Mrs. Perlita Lacsamana resides and another house which serves as the office and
This is an appeal from the decision dated November 28, 1991 of the Regional Trial Court, quarters for Lacsamana's employees. In between of these two houses is about three (3)
Branch 131, Kalookan City in Criminal Case No. 36930 finding accused-appellant Albino meter-wide area where the dirty kitchen and the garage are found. In the first floor of the
Bagas guilty of the complex crime of robbery in band with double rape and sentencing him main house is the master's bedroom, and on the second floor is the guestroom" (pp. 6-8,
accordingly. TSN, July 2, 1991).

At about nine-thirty in the evening of February 22, 1991, a group of eight armed men While at the master's bedroom on that particular evening at about 9:30 p.m., Lacsamana
wearing masks entered the house of complainant Perlita delos Santos Lacsamana at Sacred overheard her maid, cried 'aray, aray, aray'. She immediately went out but as soon as she
Heart Village, Kalookan City and robbed the said premises of valuables in the total amount opened the door of her room, two (2) men (one of them is accused Amestuzo while the
of P728,000.00. In the course of the robbery, two members of the gang raped Maria Fe other one remains unarrested) poked their guns on her. At gun point, Lacsamana, Lea,
Catanyag and Estrella Rolago, niece and employee, respectively of complainant Edwin, and Belen were forcibly brought to the second floor of the main house. Thereat,
Lacsamana. Lacsamana saw four (4) other male persons ransacking her premises. The said male
persons, armed with guns and knives, tied her including all her employees and members
On February 27, 1991, accused-appellant Albino Bagas, Valeriano Amestuzo, Federico of her household with the use of torn electric fan wire and television wire. After that they
Ampatin, Dioscoro Viñas and four other accused, whose identities are unknown and who were told to lie down with face against the floor but a minute later she was asked where
are still at large up to the present, were charged with the complex crime of robbery in band the master's bedroom is and when she answered that it is on the ground floor, she was
with double rape under the following information: again forcefully brought down. On her way down, she saw, aside from the six (6) male
persons who were inside her house, two (2) other male persons (later identified as
accused Ampatin and Viñas) outside the main house but within the compound (pp. 8-10,
That on or about the 22nd day of February 1991, in Kalookan City, Metro Manila, and TSN, July 2, 1991).
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring
together and mutually helping one another, all armed with guns, with intent of gain, and
by means of violence, threats and intimidation upon the person of Perlita delos Santos de Once they were already inside the master's bedroom, the six (6 ) armed male persons (two
Lacsamana, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously take, rob and carry (2) of them were Amestuzo and Bagas) ransacked the same and took all her monies,
away the following, to wit: jewelries, shoes, jackets, colored television and imported wine. Likewise, aforesaid
accused ate the foods found by them in their kitchen. (pp.10-11, 13, TSN, July 2, 1991).

Cash money in the amount of ----------- P128,000.00 After ransacking the room, two (2) of the accused, one (1) of them is Amestuzo, brought
Estrella Rolago inside her room and afterwhich she was in turn brought to the guest room.
Jewelries worth ---------------------------- 600,000.00
Thereat she heard Rolago pleading "Maawa kayo, maawa kayo" then after ten (10)
Total - P728,000.00 minutes, Rolago, with bloodstain on her shorts, was brought in back to the guest room (pp.
13-14, TSN, July 2, 1991). Rolago was raped by Amestuzo (pp. 17-20, TSN, July 3, 1991).
Almost simultaneously, Bagas likewise sexually assaulted and ravished Fe Catanyag (pp. an error in pointing him out to the police, "namumukaan lang niya ako, napagkamalian
38-40, TSN, July 3, 1991; pp. 2-5, TSN, July 4, 1991). Thereafter, Bagas shouted at her to lang niya ako." They were brought to the Urduja Police Station in Kalookan City and placed
stand up and although she was experiencing pain on her private part which was bleeding under detention together with the other two accused, Amestuzo and Viñas. When the
at that time, she stood up, dressed up and proceeded to the servants' quarter (pp. 4-5, TSN, complainants arrived, accused-appellant was brought out, instructed to turn to the left and
July 4, 1991). then to the right and he was asked to talk. Complainant Lacsamana asked him if he knew
accused Amestuzo and Viñas. Accused-appellant answered in the negative. The policemen
Thereafter, Mrs, Lacsamana shouted for help. Sensing that the accused had already left, told the complainants that accused-appellant was one of the suspects. This incited
they locked the door. With the help of her employer and co-employees, more particularly complainants to an emotional frenzy, kicking and hitting him. They only stopped when one
Nanding, she and Rolago were brought the nearby Neopolitan Clinic and from there they of the policemen intervened.5
proceeded to the St. Luke's Hospital where Dr. Brion treated Catanyag and Rolago (pp. 6-
7, TSN, July 4, 1991; pp. 19-20, TSN, July 3, 1991).3 Accused-appellant alleges that the trial court committed a serious error when it deprived
him of his constitutional right to be represented by a lawyer during his investigation. His
On November 28, 1991, the trial court rendered judgment convicting all the accused. The singular presentation to the complainants for identification without the benefit of counsel,
dispositive portion of the trial court's decision reads as follows: accused-appellant avers, is a flagrant violation of the constitutional prerogative to be
assisted by counsel to which he was entitled from the moment he was arrested by the
police and placed on detention. He maintains that the identification was a critical stage of
WHEREFORE, this Court renders judgment CONVICTING accused VALERIANO AMESTUZO prosecution at which he was as much entitled to the aid of counsel as during the trial
y VIÑAS, FEDERICO AMPATIN y SABUSAB, ALBINO BAGAS y DALUHATAN, DIOSCORO proper.
VINAS y ODAL of the complex crime of ROBBERY IN BAND WITH DOUBLE RAPE and
sentences each of them to suffer imprisonment of DOUBLE RECLUSION PERPETUA and
orders them to jointly and severally indemnify to complainant Perlita delos Santos de The contention is not meritorious. The guarantees of Sec. 12 (1), Art. III of the 1987
Lacsamana the amount of P800,000.00 representing the value of monies and properties Constitution, or the so-called Miranda rights, may be invoked only by a person while he is
taken forcibly away by the accused and to indemnify, jointly and severally, Ma. Fe Catanyag under custodial investigation.6 Custodial investigation starts when the police investigation
and Estrella Rolago the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND (P50,000.00) PESOS each. is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a particular
suspect taken into custody by the police who starts the interrogation and propounds
questions to the person to elicit incriminating statements. 7 Police line-up is not part of the
SO ORDERED. custodial investigation; hence, the right to counsel guaranteed by the Constitution cannot
yet be invoked at this stage.8 This was settled in the case of People vs. Lamsing9 and in the
From the judgment of conviction by the trial court, only herein accused-appellant Bagas more recent case of People vs. Salvatierra.10 The right to be assisted by counsel attaches
appealed to this Court. His appeal is based mainly on (1) the alleged deprivation of his only during custodial investigation and cannot be claimed by the accused during
constitutional right to be represented by counsel during his identification, (2) the trial identification in a police line-up because it is not part of the custodial investigation
court's error in giving due weight to the open court identification of him which was based process. This is because during a police line-up, the process has not yet shifted from the
on a suggestive and irregular out-of-court identification, and (3) the trial court's improper investigatory to the accusatory11 and it is usually the witness or the complainant who is
rejection of his defense of alibi. interrogated and who gives a statement in the course of the line-up.12

Accused-appellant maintains that from the time he was arrested until he was presented to Hence, herein accused-appellant could not yet invoke his right to counsel when he was
the complainants for identification, he was deprived of the benefit of counsel. He narrates presented for identification by the complainants because the same was not yet part of the
the circumstances surrounding his arrest and investigation as follows: investigation process. Moreover, there was no showing that during his identification by
the complainants, the police investigators sought to elicit any admission or confession
On February 26, 1991, four days after the alleged incident, a group of policemen together from accused-appellant. In fact, records show that the police did not at all talk to accused-
with accused Federico Ampatin, who was then a suspect, went to the handicrafts factory appellant when he was presented before the complainants. The alleged infringement of
in NIA Road, Pasay City where accused-appellant was working as a stay-in shell cutter. the constitutional rights of the accused while under custodial investigation is relevant and
They were looking for a certain "Mario" and searched the first and second floors of the material only to cases in which an extra-judicial admission or confession extracted from
building. Failing to find said Mario, the police hit Ampatin at the back of his neck with a the accused becomes the basis of his conviction.13 In the present case, there is no such
gun and uttered, "Niloloko lang yata tayo ng taong ito" and "Magturo ka ng tao kahit confession or extra-judicial admission.
sino." It was at this juncture that Ampatin pointed to accused-appellant Bagas as he was
the first person Ampatin chanced to look upon. Accused-appellant also makes much ado about the manner in which he was presented to
the complainants for identification. It is alleged that the identification was irregular as he
Thereafter, he was arrested and made to board the police vehicle together with accused was not placed in a police line-up and instead, made to stand before the complainants
Ampatin. While on board the jeep, accused Ampatin told him that he (Ampatin) committed alone.
Again, the contention has no merit. As aptly pointed out by the Solicitor General, there is to by Ampatin. The fact that this information came to the knowledge of the complainants
no law requiring a police line-up as essential to a proper identification. 14 The fact that he prior to their identification based on their own recall of the incident detracts from the
was brought out of the detention cell alone and was made to stand before the accused by spontaneity of their subsequent identification and therefore, its objectivity.
himself and unaccompanied by any other suspects or persons does not detract from the
validity of the identification process. In a similar case, People vs. Cruz,17 accused Cruz, a suspected co-conspirator in a case of
robbery with homicide, was presented to the witnesses alone and made to walk and turn
However, we agree that complainants' out-of-court identification of accused-appellant around in their presence. Then the police pointed out to the accused and several others as
was seriously flawed as to preclude its admissibility. In resolving the admissibility and the persons suspected by the police as the perpetrators of the robbery committed in Goso-
reliability of out-of-court identifications, we have applied the totality of circumstances test on. The Court, in rejecting the subsequent identification made by the witnesses, reasoned
enunciated in the case of People vs. Teehankee15 which lists the following factors: that:

xxx (1) the witness' opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the The manner by which (witnesses) were made to identify the accused at the police station
witness' degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given was pointedly suggestive, generated confidence where there was none, activated visual
by the witness; (4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; imagination, and all told, subverted their reliability as eyewitnesses.
(5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and (6) the suggestiveness
of the identification process. In Tuason vs. Court of Appeals,18 an NBI agent first pointed the accused to the witnesses
after which the latter identified the accused. The Court held that such identification was
The out-of-court identification of herein accused-appellant by complainants in the police doubtful as the same was not spontaneous and independent as there was improper
station appears to have been improperly suggestive. Even before complainants had the suggestion coming from the NBI agent. We ruled that a "show-up" or the presentation of a
opportunity to view accused-appellant face-to-face when he was brought our of the single suspect to a witness for purposes of identification is seriously flawed as it
detention cell to be presented to them for identification, the police made an announcement "constitutes the most grossly suggestive identification procedure now or ever used by the
that he was one of the suspects in the crime and that he was the one pointed to by accused police."
Ampatin as one of culprits. According to accused-appellant -
Likewise in People vs. Meneses,19 where the accused was presented to the lone witness as
Q: When the complaining witnesses arrived at the Urduja precinct at that time you the suspect in the crime inside the police investigator's office, the Court pronounced that
mentioned, were you immediately kicked by them? although the police officer did not literally point to the accused as in the Tuason case, the
confrontation and the identification proceeding therefrom was objectionable.
A: No, sir.
The Court also finds that the trial court erroneously rejected accused-appellant's alibi.
Q: How long a time from the time they arrived at the Urduja precinct to the time that
you were kicked by them? Accused-appellant clearly and positively testified that at the time of the crime, February
22, 1991, he was working as a shell cutter in a factory in Pasay City where he was a stay-
A: Around 10 minutes, sir. in employee. He rendered overtime work until ten o'clock in the evening that night
because they had to rush work. After ten p.m., he, together with his stay-in co-workers,
went to sleep. Four days later, he was arrested when accused Ampatin randomly pointed
Q: And how were you identified or recognized by the complaining witnesses? him out to the police.20

A: Because upon arrival at the Urduja police station, the policemen announced that I This testimony of accused-appellant was materially corroborated by two of his co-
am one of the suspects in this case and thereafter, the complainants started kicking me, employees who were with him on the night of the incident. Rodolfo Rosales, his co-worker,
sir. testified that he worked overtime until 10 p.m. in the Pasay City factory together with
accused-appellant. Upon finishing work, they went to sleep in their quarters on the second
Q: So that the announcement of the policemen that you were one of the suspects came floor of the building because they were stay-in employees of the factory.21 Another co-
first then they started kicking you? worker of accused-appellant, Clemente Gahelan, was similarly offered as a witness to
corroborate Rosales' testimony and his testimony was duly admitted by the prosecution.22
A: Yes, sir.16
The employer of accused-appellant Rolando Ocasla, likewise testified that on the night of
It is, thus, clear that the identification was practically suggested by the police themselves the incident, accused-appellant worked overtime in his factory until 10 p.m. After 10 p.m.,
when they announced to the complainants that accused-appellant was the person pointed he personally locked the door of the premises which was the only means of ingress and
engress, as he always does because it was his means of preventing any pilferage of A: All the persons were ordered to lie down, sir.
materials. He was the only one who had keys to said door. Around five a.m. of the following
day, he woke up accused-appellant and told him to drink his coffee. He also declared that xxx
there was nothing unusual about accused-appellant's behavior either, before, during or
after the date of the alleged crime.23
Q: And what did they do to you?
The defense of alibi or denial assumes significance or strength when it is amply
corroborated by a credible witness.24 And to be given weight, accused must prove not only A: Immediately I was instructed to follow the policemen who went upstairs, sir.
that he was somewhere else when the crime was committed but that he was so far away
that it was physically impossible for him to be present at the crime scene or its immediate Q: Why did that policemen go upstairs?
vicinity at the time of its commission.25
A: He was looking for Mario, sir.
In this case, we find accused-appellant's alibi sufficiently corroborated by the testimonies
of his co-workers and his employer who categorically stated that they were with accused- xxx
appellant on the night of the crime. There was no evidence that these witnesses were
related to accused-appellant; neither was it shown that they had any personal interest nor
motive in the case. As impartial credible witnesses, their testimonies cannot be doubted Q: Upon reaching the second floor, what happened there?
absent a clear showing of undue bias or prejudice, or convincing proof of the impropriety
of their motives to testify for the accused.26 A: They did not see any person there, sir.

Accused-appellant vehemently argues that it was physically impossible for him to have Q: What followed next?
been present at the scene of the crime or its immediate vicinity at the time of its
commission. First, the crime was committed around 9:30 in the evening of February 22, A: P/O Melmida pistol-whipped me, sir.
1991. Accused-appellant, as well as two other witnesses, testified that he worked in the
factory until 10 p.m. that night and went to sleep after. Second, there was only one door in
the factory which was the only means of entrance and exit and this door was kept locked Q: Where were you hit?
by witness Ocasla after ten p.m. that night. Ocasla was the only person who had a key to
this door. Third, the windows on the first floor of the building consisted of hollow blocks A: On the left portion of my neck, sir.
with small holes which do not allow passage. The second and third floor windows were 14
and 21 feet high, respectively. There was no possible means of exit through these windows Q: Did Melmida utter any remark while hitting you?
without accused-appellant getting hurt or injured. Lastly, the crime took place in Kalookan
City around 9:30 p.m. while accused-appellant's place of work was in Pasay City. Assuming
for the sake of argument that he was able to leave the premises after 10 p.m. that night, by xxx
the time he reaches Kalookan, the crime would have already been completed.
A: He told me to point to somebody else, sir, saying these words, "Magturo ka ng tao
The Court has held that where an accused sets up alibi as a defense, the courts should not kahit sino."
be too readily disposed to dismiss the same, for, taken in the light of all the evidence on
record, it may be sufficient to reverse the outcome of the case as found by the trial court xxx
and thereby rightly set the accused free.27 Though inherently weak as a defense, alibi in
the present case has been sufficiently established by corroborative testimonies of credible Q: So what did you do when you were ordered to point to anyone?
witnesses and by evidence of physical impossibility of accused-appellant's presence at the
scene of the crime. Alibi, therefore, should have been properly appreciated in accused-
appellant's favor. A: Because at that time I cannot yet stand up he forced me to go downstairs, sir.

Another significant evidence which the trial court failed to consider is the voluntary xxx
confession of accused Federico Ampatin absolving accused-appellant Bagas of the crime.
Ampatin's testimony was clear and categorical: Q: Were you able to reached (sic) the ground floor?

Q: When you reached that house where Bagas was working what happened? A: Yes, sir.
Q: And what happened there? A: The situation goes like this, sir, the policemen arrived there and they were holding
the persons of Ampatin and they were looking for a person named Mario that was what I
A: I pointed to Albino Bagas, sir, because he was the only first person I saw there at the heard, sir, and then the policemen forced us to be identified or to be seen by the guide.
ground floor while his companions were on the other side because I don't want to get hurt Ampatin at first at the ground floor but since there was nobody there by the name of Mario
anymore, Your Honor. they proceeded to the second floor and upon looking one of the policemen shouted, "Wala
rito, niloloko lang tayo ng taong ito."
Court: When you see (sic) Bagas was lying face down at the time you pointed to him?
Court: Then what happened next?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Witness: And I noticed that the reaction of Federico Ampatin that he was afraid, so,
because of fear he was able to point on the person of Albino Bagas but when asked he does
Court: You did not bother to look at his face? not know the name of Albino Bagas, Your Honor.

A: No more Your Honor because I was in a hurry to point to somebody because I was Atty. Pacis: Before going to the second floor, because according to you the arresting
afraid that I will be hurt again, Your Honor. officers and the guide went to the second floor, was Albino Bagas at the ground floor seen
by the guide and the policemen?
xxx
A: We were the first group of persons seen by the policemen and Albino and I were
Court: You mean to say at the time you pointed to Albino Bagas you did not know him? beside each other, sir.

A: No I don't know him, Your Honor.28 Q: And you want to impressed (sic) upon this Honorable Court that at first at the ground
floor, Albino Bagas was not identified by this Ampatin before going to the second floor?
Ampatin and accused-appellant were charged as co-conspirators in the crime of robbery
with rape. As a co-accused, it would have been more consistent with human nature for A: The guide was not able to identify the person of Albino Bagas and that was the reason
Ampatin to implicate accused-appellant if indeed he was one of the gang. In fact, the Court why they still made searches at the second floor, sir.
has recognized that "as is usual with human nature, a culprit, confessing a crime is likely
to put the blame as far as possible on others rather than himself. 29 The fact that he testified Q: How was Federico Ampatin able to identify Albino Bagas when he was accompanied
to the innocence of a co-accused, an act which resulted in no advantage or benefit to him by the policemen went downstairs?
and which might in fact implicate him more, should have been received by the trial court
as an indicum of the truth of Ampatin's testimony and the innocence of herein accused-
appellant. Ampatin's testimony, therefore, should have been given weight by the trial A: I noticed from the reaction of Federico Ampatin that he was afraid after hearing the
court. More so, the same was substantially corroborated by another witness, Rodolfo shout of the policemen, sir.
Rosales, accused-appellant's co-worker and who was present when accused-appellant
was arrested. Rosales testified as follows: The testimony of witness Rosales corroborates Ampatin's declaration in court that he does
not know herein accused-appellant and merely pointed to him out of fear of the police.
Q: Now, do you know when was Albino Bagas arrested in connection with this case? These testimonies remain unrebutted by the prosecution as the arresting officers were not
presented to refute or deny the same. The foregoing testimonies exculpating accused-
appellant have sufficiently cast at least a shadow of doubt as to his guilt.
A: Last February 25, that was Monday, sir.
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court convicting accused-appellant Albino Bagas of
Q: And where were you when he was arrested? the crime of robbery with multiple rape is hereby REVERSED and he is ACQUITTED of the
crime charged. His immediate release is hereby ordered unless he is held for some other
A: I was there at that time. valid charges.

xxx SO ORDERED.

Q: xxx what was the reaction of Albino Bagas when he was being pointed to and Davide, Jr., C.J., Puno, Pardo, Ynares-Santiago, JJ., concur.
arrested by the arresting officers?
G.R. No. 181545 October 8, 2008 The buy-bust team underwent a briefing and then proceeded to the target area on board
two (2) separate vehicles. They arrived at a parking lot along Hipon Liit in Dagat-dagatan
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, appellee, at 7:30 p.m. PO2 Amoyo, PO3 Velasco and PO3 Borda, along with the informant, waited
vs. beside a coconut tree for Mac-Mac.
MARK DELA CRUZ, appellant.
After two hours, appellant arrived with two male companions. The informant approached
DECISION appellant and introduced PO2 Amoyo to him as a buyer of ₱200.00 worth
of shabu. Appellant left for a while to get the shabu from his companions, who were
standing 7 meters away from the group. He returned ten (10) minutes later and handed
TINGA, J.: two (2) plastic sachets to PO2 Amoyo, who, in exchange, handed over the boodle money.

Subject of this appeal is the 12 September 2007 decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA- After the exchange, PO2 Amoyo raised his left hand to signal the other members of the
G.R. CR-H.C. No. 02534, affirming the 24 August 2006 judgment 2 of the Regional Trial buy-bust team that the transaction had already been concluded. PO3 Velasco and PO3
Court (RTC), Branch 120 of Caloocan City, finding appellant Mark Dela Cruz y Batac guilty Borda immediately arrested appellant while PO2 Amoyo ran after appellant’s companions.
of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. There was an exchange of gunfire between PO2 Amoyo and an unidentified companion but
the latter was able to escape unscathed. PO2 Amoyo kept the two (2) plastic sachets in his
Appellant was charged with illegal sale of shabu in an Information dated 18 July 2003, pocket.
committed as follows:
A spot investigation was conducted on appellant. It was revealed that the two (2) male
That on or about the 16th day of July 2003 in Caloocan City, M.M. and within the jurisdiction companions were identified as Amay and Tabo. Appellant was then brought to the police
of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually headquarters. PO2 Amoyo placed his markings "ECA-BB-1" and "ECA-BB-2" on the plastic
helping one another, without having been authorized by law, did then and there wil[l]fully, sachets before turning them over, together with the buy-bust money, to SPO4 Jorge
unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to one PO2 EUGENE C. AMOYO, who posed as Tabayag. PO2 Amoyo also prepared a request for laboratory examination addressed to the
buyer, two (2) pcs. of small transparent plastic sachets containing 0.08 gram, total weight Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory.
of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) for [t]wo (2) pcs of One Hundred Peso Bill
with SN DF950395 and KY384741 knowing the same to be a dangerous drug. The two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were found positive
for shabu. Said finding was indicated in Physical Science Report No. D-845-035 prepared
CONTRARY TO LAW.3 by Forensic Chemist and Police Inspector Erickson L. Calabocal of the PNP Crime
Laboratory Group.
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty upon arraignment. During the pre-trial conference,
the parties stipulated that P/Insp. Ericson L. Calabocal conducted a qualitative Appellant presented a different version of the facts. He testified that at 8:30 p.m. on 16 July
examination on two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets evidenced by Physical 2003, he was sitting in the plaza located on Hipon Liit St., Dagat-dagatan, Caloocan City. He
Science Report No. D-845-03 dated 17 July 2003. It was further stipulated that said witness was waiting for his brother to deliver his boots when the policemen arrived and were
had no personal knowledge as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the arrest of looking for an alias Amay. Appellant then heard a gunshot and saw Amay firing the shot.
appellant, as well as the source of the subject specimens.4 Appellant ran towards his house. Later, the policemen went to his house and handcuffed
him. When appellant asked why he was being arrested, the policemen claimed that
Trial ensued. Witnesses for the prosecution narrated that in the evening of 16 July 2003, a appellant knew Amay. Appellant denied selling shabu and asserted that the case was filed
male informant came to the office of the Northern Police District on Tanigue Street, against him when he refused to give information about Amay.
Kaunlaran Village, Caloocan City. In the presence of PO3 Gilbert Velasco (PO3 Velasco) and
PO2 Eugene Amoyo (PO2 Amoyo), the informant complained about the rampant selling Appellant’s testimony was corroborated by his brother, Balweg Dela la Cruz, who stated
of shabu by a certain Mac-Mac. Said information was relayed to P/Chief Inspector Rafael in court that appellant instructed him to get his boots and bring them to the plaza at
Santiago who immediately instructed PO3 Velasco to form a buy-bust team. The team was around 8:30 p.m.6 As he was about to leave the house, Balweg saw his brother being
composed of PO3 Velasco, PO2 Amoyo, PO3 Joel Borda (PO3 Borda), PO2 Loreto Lagmay, arrested by two policemen. He heard from other people that the policemen were asking
PO1 Renato Ameng, PO1 Allan Reyes and PO1 Joel Cosme. PO2 Amoyo was the designated appellant if he knew of a man named Amay. In finding appellant guilty, the trial court ruled
poseur-buyer. Two (2) pieces of ₱100.00 bills were prepared as boodle money. The initials that there was a meeting of minds between the poseur-buyer and appellant as to the
"ECA" were placed on the bills. delivery of shabu in exchange for ₱200.00. The dispositive portion of said judgment reads:
Premises considered, this Court finds accused MARK DELA CRUZ Y BATAC "GUILTY" the illegal sale of drugs were duly established by the prosecution, namely: the appellant,
beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Sec. 5, Article II of [R.A. No.] 9165, otherwise as seller of the shabu, and the poseur-buyer were identified; and the shabu confiscated
known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and imposes upon him the from appellant and the money used to buy it were also presented in court. The OSG
penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (₱500,000.00) Pesos. emphasizes that the sachets of shabupresented in court were the same sachets confiscated
from appellant and subjected to laboratory examination. It justifies the non-observance of
The two (2) plastic sachets containing 0.04 gram each of Methylamphetamine Section 21 (1) of R. A. No. 9165 since the corpus delicti of the illegal sale of drugs was duly
Hydrochloride is hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be turned over established during trial. It adds that after the confiscation of the sachets of shabu from
to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PEDEA) [sic] for proper disposition. appellant, they were immediately submitted for laboratory examination to the PNP Crime
Laboratory.17
SO ORDERED.8
The appeal is meritorious.
On 15 September 2006, appellant appealed to the Court of Appeals via a notice of appeal. 9
The elements necessary for the prosecution of illegal sale of drugs are: (1) the identities of
the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing
On 12 September 2007, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment affirming the RTC's sold and the payment therefor. What is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of
decision in Criminal Case No. 68601.10 The appellate court gave weight to the testimony of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with
the poseur-buyer as well as to the Physical Science Report in concluding that the illegal the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. The common issue that crops out of
sale of shabu was perpetrated by appellant. The appellate court rejected appellant’s a buy-bust operation, like in this case, is whether the drug submitted for laboratory
defense of frame-up for failure to substantiate such allegation and in light of the examination and presented in court was actually recovered from appellant. The Court is
presumption of regularity accorded to police officers in the performance of their official cognizant of the fact that an entrapment operation is open to possibilities of abuse. It is by
duties. Anent the alleged failure of the police officers to observe the procedure laid down this same thrust that the chain of custody rule was adopted by the Court. In Lopez v.
under Section 21 of R. A. No. 9165, the appellate court held that such failure is not fatal as People,19 we had the occasion to expound on the chain of custody rule, thus:
the circumstances in the instant case show that the integrity pertaining to the custody of
the seized shabuwas not compromised notwithstanding that the same were marked only
during the investigation held at the police station. 11 As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about
After obtaining an unfavorable decision, appellant filed a notice of appeal before this every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
Court.12 into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe
how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
On 9 April 2008, this Court required the parties to simultaneously file their supplemental witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it
briefs.13 was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and
In two separate manifestations, both parties expressed their intention not to file any no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
supplemental brief since all the issues and arguments have already been raised in their
respective Briefs.14 While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost
always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and
Appellant maintains that the prosecution was not able to establish the moral certainty essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or
required by law to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He contends that his defenses when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to
of alibi and denial were supported not only by his testimony but by that of other witnesses. observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is
He questions the identity of the shabu allegedly confiscated from him as the marking was susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange.
made only in the police station in front of the investigating officer, contrary to the In other words, the exhibit’s level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering—
requirement laid down in Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165. He also assails the forensic without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not—dictates the level of
laboratory examination result in that it was not covered by a certification in violation of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule.
Section 21 (3) of the same law. He stresses that the prosecution must not simply rely on
the presumption of regularity for it cannot by itself support a judgment of conviction. 15 Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest
when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and
In its appellee’s brief,16 the Office of the Solicitor-General (OSG) supports the conviction of similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives. Graham v.
appellant. It argues that appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu in a State positively acknowledged this danger. In that case where a substance later analyzed
legitimate buy-bust operation. It claims that the elements necessary in the prosecution of as heroin—was handled by two police officers prior to examination who however did not
testify in court on the condition and whereabouts of the exhibit at the time it was in their Moreover, no other witness was presented to testify or to fill the gap from the time SPO4
possession—was excluded from the prosecution evidence, the court pointing out that the Tabayag received the sachets of shabu from PO2 Amoyo up to the time they were delivered
white powder seized could have been indeed heroin or it could have been sugar or baking to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
powder. It ruled that unless the state can show by records or testimony, the continuous
whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into the possession of police Furthermore, nothing on record shows that the procedural requirements of Section 21,
officers until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition, testimony of the Paragraph 1 of Article II of R. A. No. 916523 with respect to custody and disposition of
state as to the laboratory’s findings is inadmissible. confiscated drugs were complied with. There was no physical inventory and photograph
of the items allegedly confiscated from appellant. Neither did the police officers offer any
A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in explanation for their failure to observe the rule. The prosecution merely sought refuge in
fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The its belief that a stringent application of the rule may be dispensed with if the corpus
Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at delicti has been duly established.
any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering,
alteration or substitution of substances from other cases—by accident or otherwise—in In People v. Orteza,24 the Court citing People v. Laxa,25 People v. Kimura26 and Zarraga v.
which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted for People,27 reiterated the ruling that the failure of the police to comply with the procedure
laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that in the custody of the seized drugs raises doubt as to its origins. In People v. Nazareno,29 the
applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more poseur-buyer failed to immediately place his markings on the seized drugs before turning
exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness them over to the police investigators. The police officer who placed his markings was not
if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with presented to testify on what actually transpired after the drugs were turned over to him.
another or been contaminated or tampered with. The Court equated these circumstances as failure on the part of the prosecution to prove
the existence of the corpus delicti.30
Thus, the corpus delicti should be identified with unwavering exactitude. 20
As stated by the Court in People v. Santos, Jr.,31 failure to observe the proper procedure also
This Court believes that the prosecution failed to clearly establish the chain of custody of negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers. 32 As a
the seized plastic sachets containing shabu from the time they were first allegedly received general rule, the testimony of the police officers who apprehended the accused is usually
until they were brought to the police investigator. accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their
duties regularly.33 However, when the performance of their duties is tainted with
PO2 Amoyo testified that he failed to place any marking on the sachets irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. While the law enforcers enjoy the
of shabu immediately after the apprehension of appellant. In fact, PO3 Amoyo admitted presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot
that he only placed his markings upon being ordered by SPO4 Tabayag.21 prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot
by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 34 The presumption of
regularity is merely just that—a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and
The defense however failed to corroborate PO2 Amoyo’s claim. While SPO4 Tabayag was which when challenged by the evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. In fine, the
presented in court, he neglected to mention nor was he asked about the markings on failure to establish the corpus delicti is detrimental to the cause of the prosecution. The
the shabu. On the contrary, the sworn statement of PO2 Amoyo, which was formally Court is thus constrained to acquit appellant on reasonable doubt.
offered in evidence, seemed to suggest that markings were made prior to the submission
of the shabu to SPO4 Tabayag, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 12 September 2007
affirming the judgment of conviction of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch
16— T: Maipapakita mo ba yong sinasabi mong pinaghihinalaang Shabu na nabili mo dito 120 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant MARK DELA CRUZ y BATAC
kay Mark Dela Cruz, alyas Mac Mac? is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and is accordingly ordered immediately released
from custody unless he is being lawfully held for another offense. The Director of the
S: Opo. Ito po. [Affiant presented two (2) pieces of small transparent plastic sachets (heat- Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to implement this decision forthwith and to INFORM
sealed) containing a crystalline substance believed to be Shabu] at ang plastic po nito ay this Court, within five (5) days from receipt hereof, of the date appellant was actually
aking minarkahan ng aking inisyal na "ECA-BB1" at "ECA-BB2]."22 released from confinement.

Verily, PO2 Amoyo’s testimony suggests that he already placed his markings prior to being Let a copy of this decision be forwarded to the PNP Director and the Director General of
questioned by SPO4 Tabayag. the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper guidance and implementation. No
costs.

SO ORDERED.
G.R. No. 180177 April 18, 2012 CONTRARY TO LAW.5

ROGELIO S. REYES, Petitioner, After petitioner pled not guilty, trial ensued. The summary of the evidence of the parties
vs. adduced at trial follows.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondent.
In the morning of January 20, 2005, a lady confidential informant went to the Police Station
DECISION 8 of the Western Police District to report on the drug-dealing activities of a certain alias
Boy (later identified as petitioner) on M. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa, Manila. 6 A buy-bust team
BERSAMIN, J.: of ten members,7 including PO2 Erwin Payumo as designated poseur-buyer,8was formed.
PO2 Payumo then prepared the necessary documents prior to the operation.9
The burden rests in the Prosecution to see to it that the evidence of guilt satisfies the
standard of moral certainty demanded in all criminal prosecutions. The standard demands From the police station, the lady confidential informant called petitioner by phone. The
that all the essential elements of the offense are established as to leave no room for any latter instructed her to wait on M. Mapa Street. 10 Thus, the buy-bust team proceeded to
doubt about the guilt of the accused. The courts should unfailingly impose the standard in that area and arrived at around 4:20 p.m. of January 20, 2005.11 PO2 Payumo and the lady
order to prevent injustice from being perpetrated against the accused. confidential informant arrived together to wait for petitioner. The rest of the buy-bust
team, who had gone to the area on board an L300 van,12 took positions nearby. Petitioner
came by five minutes later,13 and, after asking the lady confidential informant whether PO2
Under review is the decision promulgated on September 28, 2007 by the Court of Appeals Payumo was the buyer, instructed Payumo to follow him to his house where he told PO2
(CA),1 whereby the CA affirmed the conviction of petitioner by the Regional Trial Court Payumo to wait. Two other individuals, later identified as Conchita Carlos and Jeonilo
(RTC), Branch 2, in Manila2 for violations of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Flores, were also waiting for petitioner.14
Act No. 9165 (The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002).
Upon getting back, petitioner asked PO2 Payumo for the payment, 15 and the latter
Antecedents complied and handed the marked money consisting of three ₱50.00 bills all bearing the
initials "TF".16 Petitioner then went into a room and returned with a plastic sachet
On February 23, 2005, the Office of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed two informations containing white crystalline substance that he gave to PO2 Payumo. Receiving the plastic
charging petitioner with illegal sale of shabu and illegal possession of shabu defined and sachet, PO2 Payumo placed a missed call to PO1 Miguelito Gil, a member of the buy-bust
punished, respectively, by Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165,3 to wit: team, thereby giving the pre-arranged signal showing that the transaction was completed.
PO2 Payumo then arrested petitioner after identifying himself as an officer. PO2 Payumo
Criminal Case No. 05234564 recovered another sachet containing white crystalline substance from petitioner’s right
hand, and the marked money from petitioner’s right front pocket. 17 The rest of the buy-
bust team meanwhile came around and recovered two sachets also containing white
That on or about January 20, 2005, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not crystalline substance from the sofa where Conchita and Jeonilo were sitting. The buy-bust
being been (sic) authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any team thus also arrested Conchita and Jeonilo.18
dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell One (1) heat
sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero two two (0.022) gram, of
white crystalline substance known as "SHABU" containing methylamphetamine Back at the police station, PO2 Payumo placed on the plastic sachet that petitioner had
hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug. handed him the marking "RRS-1" and on the other sachet recovered from petitioner’s right
hand the marking "RRS-2."19 The seized items were thereafter turned over to the Western
Police District Crime Laboratory for examination by P/Insp. Judycel Macapagal, who found
CONTRARY TO LAW.4 the items positive for methampethamine hydrochloride or shabu. 20

Criminal Case No. 05234565 On the other hand, petitioner denied that there had been a buy-bust operation, and
claimed that he had been framed up.
That on or about January 20, 2005, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not
being then authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, Petitioner testified that he was at his house entertaining his visitors Conchita and Jeonilo
unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control One in the afternoon of January 20, 2005;21 that Conchita was selling to him a sofa bed for
(1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero two four (0.024) ₱800.00, while Jeonilo was only contracted by Conchita to drive the jeepney carrying the
gram of white crystalline substance known as "SHABU" containing methylamphetamine sofa bed;22 that the three of them were surprised when a group of armed men in civilian
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. clothes barged into his house and conducted a search, and arrested them; that he was also
surprised to see a plastic sachet when the armed men emptied his pocket; that the plastic duty, or (2) that they were inspired by any improper motive." (People of the Philippines
sachet did not belong to him;23 that PO2 Payumo was not among those who entered and vs. Reynaldo Remarata et al., G.R. No. 147230, April 29, 2003)
searched his house;24 that the three of them were made to board a van where PO1 Rudolf
Mijares demanded ₱30,000.00 for his release;25 and that because he told them he had no The positive identification of appellants by the prosecution witness should prevail over
money to give to them, one of the men remarked: Sige, tuluyan na yan; and that they were the former’s denials of the commission of the crime for which they are charged, since
then brought to the police station.26 greater weight is generally accorded to the positive testimony of the prosecution witness
than the accused’s denial. Denial, like alibi, is inherently a weak defense and cannot prevail
Jeonilo corroborated petitioner’s story.27 over the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witness that the accused
committed the crime. (People of the Philippines vs. Edwin Belibet, Manny Banoy and
Ruling of the RTC Ronnie Rosero, G.R. No. 91260, July 25, 1991)28

As stated, on May 23, 2006, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt, to The dispositive portion of the decision of the RTC reads:
wit:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows, to wit:
Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were
inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, their 1. In Criminal Case No. 05-234564, finding accused, Rogelio Reyes y Samson, GUILTY
testimonies with respect to the operation deserve full faith and credit. beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, he is hereby sentenced to life
imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case
However like alibi, we view the defense of frame up with disfavor as it can easily be of insolvency and to pay the costs.
concocted and is commonly used as a standard line of defense in most prosecution arising
from violations of the Dangerous Drugs Acts. 2. In Criminal Case No. 05-234565, finding accused, Rogelio Reyes y Samson, GUILTY
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, he is hereby sentenced to suffer the
Having established that a legitimate buy-bust operation occurred in the case at bar, there indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 17 years and 4 months as
can now be no question as to the guilt of the accused-appellant. Such operation has been maximum; to pay a fine of P300,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of
considered as an effective mode of apprehending drug pushers. If carried out with due insolvency and to pay the costs.
regard to the constitutional and legal safeguards, it deserves judicial sanction." (People of
the Philippines vs. Lowell Saludes, et al., G.R. No. 144157, June 10, 2003) The specimens are forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court,
accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to turn over with dispatch and upon receipt
The accused failed to show any ill motive on the part of the policeman to testify falsely the said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal
against him. Indeed, the prosecution showed that the police were at the place of the in accordance with the law and rules.
incident to do exactly what they are supposed to do—to conduct an operation. The
portrayal put forward by accused and his lone witness remained uncorroborated. SO ORDERED.29
Evidence to be believed must not only come from a credible witness but must in itself be
credible. With his motion for reconsideration being denied by the RTC, petitioner filed his notice of
appeal.30
The entrapment operation paved the way for the valid warrantless arrest of accused, Sec.
5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides thus: Ruling of the CA

"A police officer or private person, without warrant, may arrest a person: On appeal, the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC thuswise:

(a) when, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, A fortiori, viewed in the light of the foregoing, We are strongly convinced that the
or is attempting to commit an offense; xxx prosecution has proven the guilt of the Appellant for the crimes charged beyond
reasonable doubt.
"It has been held that the testimonies of police officers involved in a buy-bust operation
deserve full faith and credit, given the presumption that they have performed their duties WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED. The challenged
regularly. This presumption can be overturned if clear and convincing evidence is Decision of the court a quo is hereby AFFIRMED in toto.
presented to prove either two things: (1) that they were not properly performing their
 SO ORDERED.31 Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered
Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
The CA gave more weight to the testimony of poseur buyer PO2 Payumo, and believed the Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – xxx:
findings of the laboratory examination conducted by P/Insp. Macapagal. It recognized the
validity of the buy-bust operation. (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs
shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and
Issue 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 the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public
Petitioner is now before the Court seeking to reverse the decision of the CA upon the sole official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy
error that: thereof; xxx (Emphasis supplied)

THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT This appeal involves two distinct drug-related offenses, namely: illegal sale of dangerous
FINDING WORTHY OF CREDENCE PETITIONER’S WITNESS TESTIMONY CREATING drugs, and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The successful prosecution of illegal sale
DOUBT ON THE GUILT OF THE PETITIONER OF THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE of dangerous drugs requires: (a) proof that the transaction or sale took place, and (b) the
INFORMATION. presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti, or the dangerous drugs themselves.
On the other hand, the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs necessitates
Petitioner wants the Court to give credence to his defense of frame-up, and to believe the the following facts to be proved, namely: (a) the accused was in possession of dangerous
testimony of Jeonilo Flores who had no reason to testify falsely against the arresting drugs, (b) such possession was not authorized by law, and (c) the accused was freely and
officers. consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.36 For both offenses, it is
crucial that the Prosecution establishes the identity of the seized dangerous drugs in a way
Ruling that the integrity thereof has been well preserved from the time of seizure or confiscation
from the accused until the time of presentation as evidence in court. Nothing less than a
faithful compliance with this duty is demanded of all law enforcers arresting drug pushers
The appeal is meritorious. and drug possessors and confiscating and seizing the dangerous drugs and substances
from them.
In this jurisdiction, we convict the accused only when his guilt is established beyond
reasonable doubt. Conformably with this standard, we are mandated as an appellate court This duty of seeing to the integrity of the dangerous drugs and substances is discharged
to sift the records and search for every error, though unassigned in the appeal, in order to only when the arresting law enforcer ensures that the chain of custody is unbroken. This
ensure that the conviction is warranted, and to correct every error that the lower court has been the reason for defining chain of custody under Section 1(b) of the Dangerous
has committed in finding guilt against the accused.32 Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, viz:

Guided by the standard, we acquit petitioner. (b) "Chain of custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody
of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
The buy-bust operation mounted against petitioner resulted from the tip of an unnamed equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the
lady confidential informant. Such an operation, according to People v. Garcia, 33 was forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such
"susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion," record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature
and the possibility of that abuse was great. 34 The susceptibility to abuse of the operation of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time
led to the institution of several procedural safeguards by R.A. No. 9165, mainly to guide when such transfer or custody were made in the course of safekeeping and used in
the law enforcers. Thus, the State must show a faithful compliance with such safeguards court as evidence, and the final disposition; (Emphasis supplied)
during the prosecution of every drug-related offense.35
In Mallilin v. People,37 the need to maintain an unbroken chain of custody is emphasized:
The procedural safeguards start with the requirements prescribed by Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165 relating to the custody and disposition of the confiscated, seized, and As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of the dangerous drugs, controlled admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
precursors and essential chemicals, instruments and paraphernalia, and laboratory matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about
equipment. The provision relevantly states: every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe
how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it considering that they were to be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the the accused.
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and
no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. However, the omissions noted herein indicated that the State did not establish the identity
of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from petitioner with the same exacting certitude
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost required for a finding of guilt.
always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and
essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or To be sure, the buy-bust operation was infected by lapses. Although PO2 Payumo declared
when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to that he was the one who had received the sachet of shabu ("RRS-1") from petitioner and
observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is who had confiscated the two sachets of shabu ("RRS-2") from petitioner, all of which he
susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. had then sealed, nothing more to support the fact that the evidence thus seized had
In other words, the exhibit’s level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering— remained intact was adduced. In fact, the State did not anymore establish to whom the
without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not—dictates the level of seized articles had been endorsed after PO2 Payumo had placed the markings at the
strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. station, and with whose custody or safekeeping the seized articles had remained until their
endorsement to P/Insp. Macapagal for the laboratory examination. Presently, we cannot
Cogently, Mallilin v. People is reiterated in Catuiran v. People, 38 People v. Garcia,39 and justifiably presume that the seized articles had remained in the possession of PO2 Payumo
People v. Villanueva,40among others. in view of the testimony of P/Insp. Macapagal to the effect that the party requesting the
laboratory examination had been a certain Police Officer Alano, 43 whom the Prosecution
Here, the Prosecution failed to demonstrate a faithful compliance by the arresting lawmen did not at all particularly identify or present as its witness. In this regard, Laboratory
of the rule on chain of custody. To start with, the fact that the dangerous drugs were Report No. D-085-05,44 the report prepared by P/Insp. Macapagal, also stated that the
inventoried and photographed at the site of arrest upon seizure in the presence of party requesting the conduct of the laboratory examination was the "OIC-SAID-SOTU, PS-
petitioner, a representative of the media, a representative of the Department of Justice 8, Western Police District." Also, the Prosecution did not show to whom the seized articles
(DOJ), and any elected public official, was not shown. As such, the arresting lawmen did had been turned over following the conduct of the laboratory examination, and how the
not at all comply with the further requirement to have the attending representative of the seized articles had been kept in a manner that preserved their integrity until their final
media, representative of the DOJ, and elected public official sign the inventory and be presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. Such lapses of the Prosecution were
furnished a copy each of the inventory. Instead, the records show that PO2 Payumo placed fatal to its proof of guilt because they demonstrated that the chain of custody did not stay
the markings of "RRS-1" on the sachet allegedly received from petitioner and "RRS-2" on unbroken, thereby raising doubt on the integrity and identity of the dangerous drugs as
the two sachets allegedly seized from petitioner’s hand already at the police station with evidence of the corpus delicti of the crimes charged.
only petitioner present. Yet, the Prosecution did not also present any witness to establish
that an inventory of the seized articles at least signed by petitioner at that point was We are then not surprised to detect other grounds for skepticism about the evidence of
prepared. guilt.

We clarified in People v. Sanchez41 that in compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, Firstly, PO2 Payumo testified that the lady confidential informant had gone to Police
supra, the physical inventory and photographing of the seized articles should be Station 8 to report the alleged drug-selling activities of petitioner for the first time in the
conducted, if practicable, at the place of seizure or confiscation in cases of warrantless morning of January 20, 2005. That report led to the forming of the buy-bust team,45 for
seizure. But that was true only if there were indications that petitioner tried to escape or purposes of which he prepared the pre-operation documents. His veracity was suspect,
resisted arrest, which might provide the reason why the arresting team was not able to do however, considering that his so-called Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet appeared to
the inventory or photographing at petitioner’s house; otherwise, the physical inventory have been prepared on the day before, as its date "January 19, 2005" disclosed. 46 The date
and photographing must always be immediately executed at the place of seizure or of January 19, 2005 also appeared in the Certification of Coordination issued by the
confiscation. Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency in reference to the buy-bust operation against
petitioner.47 Considering that the Prosecution did not explain the discrepancy, the
In People v. Pringas,42 the non-compliance by the buy-bust team with Section 21, supra, impression is unavoidable that the buy-bust operation was already set in motion even
was held not to be fatal for as long as there was justifiable ground for it, and for as long as before the lady informant actually made her report against petitioner. Thereby, his
the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated or seized articles were properly defense of frame-up was bolstered.
preserved by the apprehending officer or team. The Court further pronounced therein that
such non-compliance would not render an accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized or Secondly, the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet indicated that there were ten members
confiscated from him inadmissible, for what was of utmost importance was the "and three (3) others" that comprised the buy-bust team.48 Yet, the Joint Affidavit
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized or confiscated articles, submitted by the members of the buy-bust team was executed and signed by only six
officers (excluding even poseur buyer PO2 Payumo himself), namely: PO1 Mijares, PO1
Mark Dave Vicente, PO1 Maurison Ablaza, PO1 Elmer Clemente and PO1 Gil. 49 The G.R. No. 190749 April 25, 2012
Prosecution’s failure to explain why only six members of the buy-bust team actually
executed and signed the Joint Affidavit might indicate that the incrimination of petitioner VALENTIN ZAFRA y DECHOSA and EROLL MARCELINO y REYES, Petitioners,
through the buy-bust operation was probably not reliable.1âwphi1 vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
And, thirdly, both the Pre-Operation/Coordination Sheet and the Certification of
Coordination revealed that the confidential information received involved two suspects of DECISION
illegal drug trade in Bacood, Sta. Mesa known as alias Boy and alias Totoy Tinga. PO2
Payumo recalled, however, that the lady confidential informant had tipped the police off
only about alias Boy. It seems from such selectiveness that PO2 Payumo deliberately PEREZ, J.:
omitted the other target and zeroed in only on alias Boy (petitioner), which might suggest
that PO2 Payumo was not as reliable as a poseur buyer-witness as he presented himself to For review before this Court is the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No.
be.1âwphi1 31713 dated 30 October 2009,1 affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 76, Malolos, Bulacan,2 which found petitioners Valentin Zafra y Dechosa (Zafra)
Conviction must stand on the strength of the Prosecution’s evidence, not on the weakness and Eroll Marcelino y Reyes (Marcelino) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Possession of
of the defense the accused put up.50 Evidence proving the guilt of the accused must always Dangerous Drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 (the
be beyond reasonable doubt. If the evidence of guilt falls short of this requirement, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) and imposing on each of them the penalty
Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of his liberty. His acquittal should come as of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as the minimum term, to thirteen
a matter of course. (13) years as maximum, and of fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (₱300,000.00).

WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision promulgated on The Facts
September 28, 2007 by the Court of Appeals; and ACQUITS accused ROGELIO S. REYES of
the crimes charged in Criminal Case No. 05-234564 and Criminal Case No. 05-234565. The prosecution charged Zafra and Marcelino with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA
No. 91653 before the RTC of Bulacan under the Information below:
The Court DIRECTS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections in Muntinlupa City to release
ROGELIO S. REYES from custody unless he is detained thereat for another lawful cause; That on or about the 12th day of June, 2003, in the municipality of Balagtas, province of
and to report on his compliance herewith within five days from receipt. Bulacan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named
accused, without authority of law and legal justification, did then and there willfully,
No pronouncements on costs of suit. unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession and control dangerous drug consisting
of two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of methylamphetamine hydrochloride
(shabu) weighing 0.0614 gram, in conspiracy with one another.5
SO ORDERED.
The prosecution’s lone witness, SPO46 Apolinario Mendoza (SPO4 Mendoza), Chief of the
Investigation and Drug Enforcement Unit of the Philippine National Police of Balagtas,
Bulacan, testified that on 12 January 2003, at around 4:30 in the afternoon, he conducted
surveillance in front of a sari-sari store at the corner of Miraflor Subdivision and P. Castro
Street in Balagtas, Bulacan, due to reported drug trafficking in the area. SPO4 Mendoza
found there the group of Zafra, Marcelino, and a certain Marlon Daluz (Daluz) standing and
facing each other.7 In that position, he saw Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu, while Daluz
was holding an aluminum foil and a disposable lighter. 8 Seeing this illegal activity, SPO4
Mendoza single-handedly apprehended them. He grabbed the shabu from the hands of
Zafra and Marcelino, and confiscated the drug paraphernalia from Daluz. Then, he ordered
the three to lie down; he frisked them. Boarding a tricycle, he brought them to the Balagtas
Police Station,9 where he personally marked the confiscated two (2) sachets of shabu, one
with VSD, the initials of Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and the other with EMR, the initials of
Eroll Marcelino y Reyes.10
On the following day, 13 June 2003, SPO4 Mendoza brought the accused and the items to nakatalikod sa isang corner ng tindahan sa P. Castro St., na nakilala ko na sina Valentine D.
the crime laboratory for urine sampling and laboratory examination, respectively.11 The Zafra @ Val, Eroll R. Marcelino @ Eroll, at Marlon B. Daluz @ Marlon na pawang mga
test of the items resulted to positive presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. 12 residente ng Borol-1, Balagtas, Bulacan.

The RTC, Branch 76, Malolos, Bulacan, in a decision dated 11 June 2008, convicted Zafra Na, ako ay lumapit na naglalakad kina Valentine Zafra, Errol Marcelino at Marlon Daluz at
and Marcelino for the crime of possession of shabu: sa aking paglapit sa kanilang tatlo ay aking nakita at naaktuhang inabot ni Valentine Zafra
kay Eroll Marcelino ang isang (1) plastic sachet ng shabu may timbang na 0.30 grams, at
WHEREFORE, finding guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. isa pang plastic sachet ng shabu na si Marlon Daluz ay hawak ang isang disposable lighter
2297-M-2003, accused VALENTIN ZAFRA y DECHOSA and accused EROLL MARCELINO y at 2 piraso ng aluminum foil na inaayos na nilalagyan ng lupi at 7 piraso ng empty plastic
REYES are hereby CONVICTED for possession of sachets of methylamphetamine sachet. (Emphasis supplied)19
hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, with a weight of 0.31 gram and 0.30 gram,
respectively, which are classified as dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II xxxx
of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002" and are each SENTENCED to suffer the IMPRISONMENT of, applying the On cross examination, SPO4 Mendoza testified that it was Zafra and not Daluz, who was
Indeterminate Sentence Law, TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE DAY, AS THE MINIMUM holding the aluminum foil (contrary to his earlier testimony that Zafra was holding
TERM, TO THIRTEEN (13) YEARS, AS THE MAXIMUM TERM, and to pay the FINE of THREE shabu);20 that Daluz (whom he claimed during the direct examination to be holding the
HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (₱300,000.00).13 aluminum foil) and Marcelino were holding handkerchiefs and on top of them were
shabu;21 When the defense confronted SPO4 Mendoza about the inconsistency, he told the
Daluz, on the other hand, who was charged of possession of drug paraphernalia in court that his version during his direct testimony was the correct one. 22
violation of Section 12 of RA No. 9165 pleaded guilty to the charge and was released after
serving his sentence of eight (8) months.14 While, it is hornbook doctrine that the evaluation of the trial court on the credibility of the
witness and the testimony is entitled to great weight and is generally not disturbed upon
Zafra and Marcelino appealed; but the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Decision: appeal,23 such rule does not apply when the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended,
or misapplied any fact of weight or substance. 24 In the instant case, these circumstances
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. are present, that, when properly appreciated, would warrant the acquittal of petitioners.
Accordingly, the assailed 11 June 2008 Decision of the Court a quo STANDS. 15
Certainly, SPO4 Mendoza’s credibility has to be thoroughly looked into, being the only
Hence, this appeal on the following grounds: first, the arrest was unlawful; second, the witness in this case. While in his affidavit, SPO4 Mendoza claimed that he saw the sachet
prohibited drugs are inadmissible in evidence; third, Section 21 of RA No. 9165 was not of shabu (0.30 gram) because Zafra was in the act of handing it to Marcelino, his testimony
complied with; and, finally, the prosecution failed to prove petitioners’ guilt beyond during the direct examination reveals another version, that is, from a distance, he saw
reasonable doubt. Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu, respectively, hence, he approached them from behind
and confiscated the shabu from both of them and the paraphernalia from Daluz. How he
saw a 0.30 gram of shabu from a distance in a busy street, baffles this Court. Asked,
The Court’s Ruling however, on cross examination, who among the three were holding the shabu and drug
paraphernalia, SPO4 Mendoza failed to be consistent with his earlier testimony and
We resolve to ACQUIT petitioners Zafra and Marcelino on the following grounds: pointed to Daluz as the one holding shabu with a handkerchief in his hand and Zafra as the
one in possession of drug paraphernalia. These inconsistencies are not minor ones, and,
First, the prosecution’s lone witness, SPO4 Mendoza, 16 testified that, from a distance, he certainly, not among those which strengthens the credibility of a witness. Possession of
saw Zafra and Marcelino holding shabu by their bare hands, respectively, while Daluz was drug paraphernalia vis-à-vis shabu, are two different offenses under RA No. 9165. That
holding an aluminum foil and a disposable lighter. 17Seeing this illegal activity, he single- Zafra was holding drug paraphernalia and not shabu is material to this case, to the
handedly apprehended them.18 He grabbed the shabu from the hands of Zafra and accusation against him, and to his defense.
Marcelino, and confiscated the drug paraphernalia from Daluz.
Second, a reading of the RTC decision on this matter reveals that the conviction was
In his affidavit, however, SPO4 Mendoza stated, that: arrived at upon reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of Mendoza’s
official duty.25
Na, nitong nakaraang Hunyo 12, 2003 ng 4:30 ng hapon humigit kumulang, sa P. Casto St.,
Barangay Borol-1, Balagtas Bulacan, habang ako ay nagsasagawa ng surveillance sa It is noteworthy, however, that presumption of regularity in the performance of official
Suspected Drug Pusher sa nasabing lugar ay aking nakita ang tatlo (3) kalalakihan na functions cannot by its lonesome overcome the constitutional presumption of
innocence.26 Evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and nothing else can eclipse the inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is
hypothesis of guiltlessness. And this burden is met not by bestowing distrust on the served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
innocence of the accused but by obliterating all doubts as to his culpability. 27 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
Third, SPO4 Mendoza was the lone arresting officer, who brought the petitioners to the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
police station,28 who himself marked the confiscated pieces of evidence sans witnesses, apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
photographs, media, and in the absence of the petitioners. His colleagues were over said items.
nowhere.29 And, worse, he was the same person who took custody of the same pieces of
evidence, then, brought them on his own to the crime laboratory for testing. 30 No inventory As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
was ever done;31 no inventory was presented in court. admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.38 It would include testimony
The solo performance by SPO4 Mendoza of all the acts necessary for the prosecution of the about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is
offense is unexplained and puts the proof of corpus delicti, which is the illegal object itself offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would
in serious doubt. No definite answer can be established regarding the question as to who describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while
possessed what at the time of the alleged apprehension. More significantly, we are left in in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in
doubt whether not the two sachets of shabu allegedly seized from the petitioners were the which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.39 These witnesses would then describe
very same objects offered in court as the corpus delicti. the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item
and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.40
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs necessitates that the elemental act
of possession of a prohibited substance be established with moral certainty. 32 The The records readily raise significant doubts as to the identity of the sachets
dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its of shabu allegedly seized from Zafra and Marcelino. SPO4 Mendoza’s claim that the two
existence is vital to a judgment of conviction.33 Essential therefore in these cases is that the sachets of shabu presented in court were the same ones confiscated from the petitioners,
identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond doubt.34 Be that as it may, the mere cannot be taken at its face value, solely on the presumption of regularity of one’s
fact of unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a reasonable mind the moral performance of duty. SPO4 Mendoza blatantly broke all the rules established by law to
certainty required to sustain a finding of guilt. 35 More than just the fact of possession, the safeguard the identity of a corpus delicti. There was even no mention about the details of
fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is the same substance offered the laboratory examination of the allegedly seized drugs. To allow this to happen is to
in court as exhibit must also be established with the same unwavering exactitude as that abandon everything that has been said about the necessity of proving an unbroken chain
requisite to make a finding of guilt.36 The chain of custody requirement performs this of custody. SPO4 Mendoza cannot alone satisfy the requirements in RA No. 9165 which is
function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence anchored on, expressly, the participation of several personalities and the execution of
are removed.37 specified documents.

Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA No. 9165 reads: And, while jurisprudence has refined the enumerated duties of an apprehending officer in
a drug case and has thus described the equivalent requirements for a proper chain of
custody of the corpus delicti, still, the case at bar cannot pass the constitutional
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
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 the media and We reiterate, that this Court will never waver in ensuring that the prescribed procedures
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to in the handling of the seized drugs should be observed. In People v. Salonga,41 we acquitted
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. the accused for the failure of the police to inventory and photograph the confiscated items.
We also reversed a conviction in People v. Gutierrez,42 for the failure of the buy-bust team
to inventory and photograph the seized items without justifiable grounds. People v.
Section 21(a) Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165 reads: Cantalejo43 also resulted in an acquittal because no inventory or photograph was ever
made by the police.
(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 We reached the same conclusions in the recent cases of People v. Capuno, 44 People v.
in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated Lorena,45 and People v. Martinez.46
and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the 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 a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical The present petition is the sum total of all the violations committed in the cases cited
above.
Lest the chain of custody rule be misunderstood, we reiterate that non-compliance with G.R. No. 190343 February 06, 2013
the prescribed procedural requirements does not necessarily render the seizure and
custody of the items void and invalid; the seizure may still be held valid, provided that (a) PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
there is a justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary vs.
value of the seized items are shown to have been properly preserved. 47 These conditions, SAIBEN LANGCUAy DAIMLA, Accused-Appellant.
however, were not met in the present case as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer
any justification for the failure of SPO4 Mendoza to follow the prescribed procedures in
the handling of the seized items.1âwphi1 As we held in People v. De Guzman,48 the failure DECISION
to follow the procedure mandated under RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and
Regulations must be adequately explained. The justifiable ground for the non-compliance PEREZ, J.:
must be proven as a fact. The Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they
even exist. For review through this appeal 1 is the decision2 dated 16 October 2009 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-1-I.C. No. 03462 which affirmed the conviction of herein
In our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the presupposition that the burden accused-appellant SAIBEN LANGCUA y DAI MLA (Langcua) of illegal sale of dangerous
of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength drugs in violation of Section 5, Article 113 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 or the
of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. 49 The rule is invariable Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
whatever may be the reputation of the accused, for the law presumes his innocence unless
and until the contrary is shown.50 In dubio pro reo.51 When moral certainty as to culpability The factual rendition of the prosecution follows:
hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a matter of right.52
The first witness presented by the prosecution was PO1 Jonie Domingo (PO1 Domingo).
WHEREFORE, premises considered, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court He testified that he has been a member of the Philippine National Police since 16 December
of Appeals dated 30 October 2009 in CA-G.R. CR No. 31713. Petitioners Valentin Zafra y 2003 and assigned at the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations (PAID-SO) at
Dechosa and Eroll Marcelino y Reyes are hereby ACQUITTED for the failure of the Camp Valentin Juan, Laoag City on the day of the busy-bust operation on 4 October 2006.4
prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately
RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for another lawful cause.
On the day of the buy-bust, at about 1:45 o’clock in the afternoon, one of their police
informants came to their office and reported to their team leader Police Inspector Teddy
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Rosqueta (P/I Rosqueta) the selling of drugs by the accused Langcua. He was just beside
Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections P/I Rosqueta when the report was made.5 Thereupon, P/I Rosqueta instructed the
is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this informant to contact Langcua and place an order for P11,000.00-worth of shabu.
Decision.
The informant did what he was told to do. Langcua agreed to deliver the
SO ORDERED. ordered shabu at Barangay 7-B, Laoag City near City Employment Center.6

A team composed of P/I Rosqueta, PO3 Rousel Albano, PO3 Marlon Nicolas (PO3 Nicolas),
PO2 Jonathan Pasamonte, PO1 Alizer Cabotage, PO1 Rona Gaoiran, PO1 Domingo and the
informant was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation with PO1 Domingo as the poseur-
buyer, and the other members of the team as back-up perimeter security. PO3 Nicolas
recorded in the Police Blotter the pre-operation activity, including the marking of the buy-
bust money and the circumstances leading to the report of the informant. 7 The buy-bust
money was eight (8) pieces of P1,000.00 bills and six (6) pieces of P500.00 bills8 all
marked with letter "J" at the upper right portion by PO1 Domingo. 9

PO1 Domingo and the informant proceeded to the agreed place of the transaction on board
a motorcycle, while the rest of the team followed on board an unmarked vehicle.10 PO1
Domingo and the informant waited for Langcua 11 at the agreed place. After a few minutes,
Langcua arrived on board a motorcycle and approached them. He then asked the
informant "SINO NAMAN YONG KASAMA MO?"12 The informant replied, "HUWAG KANG
MAG-ALALA, KASAMA YAN." Langcua then asked, "YONG BALANCE MO PA, KAILAN MO asked him and Ali to move to the side of the street and go with them. When he asked the
BABAYARAN?" to which the latter replied, "SA SUSUNOD NALANG." 13 police officers what was their fault, they replied "just come with us if you don’t want to get
hurt."26He eventually complied with the police officers after one of them kicked his
Langcua initiated the sale by asking, "SAAN NA YONG PERA NYO?" PO1 Domingo replied, motorcycle and strangled him. Ali ran away when he saw this.27
"HETO," and handed the marked money to Langcua. Langcua put the money in his pocket
and thereafter handed out to PO1 Domingo one (1) light blue colored folded paper coming The police officers pulled him towards the direction of Guerrero Street where several
from the right portion of his pants.14 armed men were already waiting for them. One of them boxed him and handcuffed his
hands.28 Upon boarding the car of the police officers, he saw a man he knew as Danny
Upon receipt, PO1 Domingo opened the folded paper and found one (1) big heat-sealed Domingo inside and both of them were brought to the police station.29 He added that he
plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. He then secured the plastic sachet was again physically maltreated inside the vehicle until they reached the station. 30
and called the cellular phone of P/I Rosqueta. After the call, he then grabbed the right arm
of Langcua who was already starting to accelerate his motorcycle but was stopped by the While inside the police station, the police officers frisked him and recovered his wallet
other police officers acting as back-up.15 containing money worth P11,000.00. When asked why he had such amount, he explained
that he and his wife owned a carinderia and were saving to go home to Mindanao. A male
He also testified that one of the members of the buy-bust team, PO3 Nicolas conducted a person then showed a plastic sachet of shabu and claimed that it came from his
body search and recovered the buy-bust money, cellular phone and wallet from Langcua.16 motorcycle. He denied the allegation. The police officers maltreated him again. 31 He also
denied possession of the cellular phone recovered by the police officers.
In open court, PO1 Domingo identified the money recovered from Langcua as the same
marked money used in the operation through the markings letter "J" on the upper right His statements were corroborated by his wife Naimah Sultan and Ali. 32
portion of the paper bills as well as their serial numbers recorded in the police blotter. 17 He
also identified the white crystalline substance contained in the plastic sachet handed over Eventually, an Information33 was filed by Laoag City Prosecutor Angel G. Rubio as follows:
by Langcua to him in the sale and pointed out the marking "JD" on one side and "SL" on the
other side.18 That on or about the 4th day of October 2006, in the City of Laoag, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [above] herein accused[,] did then and there[,]
Afterwards, PAID-SO made a letter request to the Provincial Crime Laboratory for the willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a police officer who acted as poseur
examination of the confiscated white crystalline substance. 19 buyer one (1) big plastic sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug
popularly known as "shabu[,]" with net weight of 1.7257 gram, without any license or
PO3 Nicolas and P/I Rosqueta corroborated the direct testimony of PO1 Domingo on authority, in violation of the aforecited law.
materials points constituting the buy-bust operation conducted by them.20
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The presentation of evidence on the authenticity, genuineness and due execution of the
initial laboratory report issued by Police Senior Inspector and Forensic Chemical Officer Upon arraignment on 16 April 2007,34 the accused-appellant, with the assistance of
Mary Ann Cayabyab, (PSI Cayabyab), with regard to the specimen subjected for counsel, pleaded NOT GUILTY to the offense charged.
examination, was dispensed with following the agreement of the prosecution and defense
as evidenced by the Pre-Trial Order.21 On 7 March 2008, the trial court found the accused-appellant GUILTY of violation of
Section 5, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165 under Criminal Case No. 13295-13. The disposition
On the other hand, the factual version of the defense follows: reads:

Langcua in his defense testified that on the date of the alleged sale of illegal drug on 4 WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Saibern Langcua y Daimla
October 2006, he just came from the mosque for his noon prayer. 22 Upon returning home, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged of the offense of illegal sale of shabu and is
he saw his wife already waiting for him. At around 12:30-1:00 o’clock in the afternoon she therefore sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of
instructed him to buy medicines for their child who then had fever. 23 P2,000, 000.00.

While he was setting his motorcycle, he saw Ombawa Ali (Ali) whom he asked to go with The shabu subject of this case consisting of 1.7257 grams is ordered confiscated, the same
him.24 Upon approaching Rizal corner Guerrero Streets, three male persons on board a car to be disposed of as the law prescribes.35
flagged them to stop. The three men introduced themselves as police officers and asked
both of them if they were Muslims.25 When Langcua answered in the affirmative, they
On appeal to the CA, the accused-appellant argued that the trial court erred in holding that A: And after that, Saiben Langcua asked: "SAN NA YUNG PERA NYO?" [(]Where is your
the buy-bust operation was sufficiently established; in finding credible the testimonies of money then[?")]
the police officers; and in relying on the presumption of regularity of the performance of
official duties. He argued that the corpus delicti of the crime was not established.36 Q: What was your reply, if any?

The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court. The dispositive portion reads: A: "HETO," I answered, "here[.]"

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City, Branch 13, in Criminal Q: And after that, what next transpired?
Case No. 132925-13 dated 7 March 2008 is hereby AFFIRMED.37
A: I showed to the subject person the money and I handed it to him, sir.
In this appeal, accused-appellant adopted his arguments before the appellate court:
Q: You said money, what money are you referring to that you handed to the subject
I. THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE INITIAL CONTACT ON THE person?
ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION WAS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED.
A: The buy-bust money used in the buy-bust operation, sir.
II. THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN GIVING CREDENCE TO THE TESTIMONIES OF THE
POLICE OFFICERS AND THE APPLICATION OF PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE
PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTY. Q: What is that money in relation to the one that you have recorded in the police blotter?

III. THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CORPUS DELICTI OF THE A: It is the one to be used in the buy-bust operation, sir.
CRIME CHARGED HAS BEEN PROPERLY ESTABLISHED BY THE PROSECUTION.
Q: And after handling the money, what next transpired?
We do not agree.
A: Subject person Saiben Langcua accounted the peso bills and after he accounted the
On the first assigned error, the focus is on the alleged inconsistency of recollection of money, he immediately pocketed it in his left front pocket of his short pants, sir.
events of PO1 Domingo and PO3 Nicolas as compared to the statement of P/I Rosqueta.
PO1 Domingo and PO3 Nicolas testified that the police informant relayed to them the Q: By the way, Mr. Witness, what denominations are those money that were used in the
telephone conversation regarding an illegal sale. On the other hand, P/I Rosqueta recalled buy-bust operation?
that he himself heard the telephone conversation because he placed his ear on the cellular
phone of the informant. This inconsistency, according to the defense, tainted the initial A: Eight (8) pieces of P1,000,000.00 bills and Six (6) pieces of P500.00 bills, sir.
contact of the buy-bust operation.
Q: After pocketing them, what did the accused do, if any?
The argument is misplaced.
A: The accused brought out one (1) folded paper colored light blue from the right
What is material is proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the front of his short pants and he handed it to me, sir.
presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti.38 The commission of illegal sale
merely consummates the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer
receives the drug from the seller. As long as the police officer went through the operation Q: And did you actually receive that?
as a buyer, whose offer was accepted by seller, followed by the delivery of the dangerous
drugs to the former, the crime is already consummated.39 A: Yes, sir.

In this case, the prosecution has adequately proven all the elements constituting sale of Q: What did you with it after receiving the same?
illegal drug. This is evident from the testimony of PO1 Domingo, we quote:
A: I immediately opened the folded paper containing one (1) big heat-sealed plastic
Q: And after that, what happened next? sachet containing white crystalline substance, sir.
Q: After determining that it is a big plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, The contention of the defense suggests that the non-marking of the seized illegal drug at
what did you do, if any? the place where the same was confiscated is enough to exonerate the accused-appellant.
The reason is that this allegedly places in doubt the authenticity of the drug delivered to
A: I secured the plastic sachet containing alleged shabu and I immediately miss called the the crime laboratory for examination.
cell phone of Police Inspector Teddy Rosqueta, sir.40 (Emphasis supplied)
A review of the records and pleadings failed to convince us to overturn the ruling of
PO1 Domingo in open court identified the white crystalline substance contained in the conviction.
plastic sachet as the one handed by Langcua to him during the buy-bust operation. The
substance yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized
as evidenced by the Chemistry Report given by PSI Cayabyab.41 drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic
Further, the defense cited several inconsistencies on the part of the police officers. One laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of
instance was the disagreement on the name of the street where the accused-appellant movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the
came from when he approached the Employment Center. Another inconsistency was person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such
whether he was riding a motorcycle when he was arrested or was just standing near the transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence,
same. A question on whether the cellular phone confiscated from him was operational or and the final disposition.46
not was also put in issue. Further, the defense doubted the lower court’s finding that there
is no significance in the non-indication of the marking "J" in the buy-bust money in the pre- In the case of People v. Kamad,47 the Court had the opportunity to enumerate the different
operation blotter and the absence of the confiscated cellular phone in the list of the links that the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-
Certificate of Seized Items. bust operation, namely:

We cannot subscribe to the arguments of the defense. First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused
by the apprehending officer;
As held in the case of People v. Gonzaga,42 minor inconsistencies do not negate or dissolve
the eyewitnesses’ positive identification of the appellant as the perpetrator of the Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the
crime.43 "[M]inor inconsistencies in the narration of witnesses do not detract from their investigating officer;
essential credibility as long as their testimony on the whole is coherent and intrinsically
believable. Inaccuracies may in fact suggest that the witnesses are telling the truth and Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist
have not been rehearsed. Witnesses are not expected to remember every single detail of for laboratory examination; and
an incident with perfect or total recall."44"[T]he witnesses’ testimonies need only to
corroborate one another on material details surrounding the actual commission of the
crime."45 Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic
chemist to the court.48
The inconsistencies in the recollection of facts of PO1 Domingo, PO3 Nicolas and P/I
Rosqueta regarding the street where the accused came from, the position of the The Court finds that the different links to establish the chain of custody are sufficiently
motorcycle as well as the operational condition of the cellular phone, are not material established.
elements in establishing an illegal sale of dangerous drug. It is not irregular for police
officers to have inconsistent statements in the narration of details of the buy-bust PO1 Domingo in his testimony identified the confiscated white crystalline substance and
operation, as, indeed the inconsistency can indicate truthfulness. What is important is for its turnover to the crime laboratory for examination. We quote the portion of his
them to recount the material facts constituting sale of dangerous drug such as the testimony:
exchange of the illegal drug for buy-bust money and identification of the buyer, seller and
illegal drug in court as the object of the sale. The three witnesses corroborated each other Q: Now, Mr. Witness, with respect to the white crystalline substance contained in the
on material points which added to the confidence placed on their testimonies. plastic sachet that you claimed to have been handed to you by the accused Saiben Langcua,
if shown to you again, Mr. Witness, would you be able to identify it?
As last attempt to persuade this Court of his innocence, the accused-appellant relied on
the allegation of broken chain of custody of evidence. A: Yes, sir.

Q: What could make you identify it?

A: I put markings, sir, my initial "JD" and the other is the initial of the accused, I put "SL" The prosecution has properly established the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at
on the other side. least from the time it came into possession of the police officers, during its testing in the
laboratory to determine its composition and up to the time it was offered in
Q: I have here a plastic sachet with markings that corresponds to what you have just evidence.1âwphi1
mentioned, Mr. Witness, kindly look over the same and tell what is the relation of that to
that which was handed to you by the accused? Be it granted that there was no strict observance of the procedure; the substantial
compliance thereof is well sanctioned for in Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and
A: This is the plastic sachet handed to me by the accused, sir. (The witness identified the Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 which reads:
heat-sealed plastic sachet sealed with masking tape with markings containing white
crystalline substance. On one side were the markings "JD." October 4, 2006 and the other Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous
side bearing the initial "SL[,]" October 4, 2006). Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. – The PDEA shall take charge
Q: After taking custody of that, after it was delivered to you by the accused, what did you and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
do with it, if any? precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the
following manner:
A: We made a letter request to the crime laboratory and we delivered that heat-sealed
plastic sachet containing alleged shabu to the Provincial Crime Laboratory for
examination, sir.49 (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
The Request for Laboratory Examination50 dated 4 October 2006 also stated that PO1 and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from media and the
Domingo delivered the heat-sealed plastic sachet, containing white crystalline substance Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign
with markings "JD" representing his initials and "SL" at the other side of the plastic sachets the copies of the inventory and be given copy thereof. Provided, that the physical inventory
representing the initials of the arrested suspect Langcua, to PSI Cayabyab. 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,
The laboratory examination yielded positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that
an illegal drug.51 The testimony of PSI Cayabyab was dispensed with by both parties hence, noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
the appreciation of the report was left to the sound discretion of the court for evaluation. 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
In his cross testimony, P/I Rosqueta explained why the marking was not made at the place custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)
of the buy-bust operation, we quote:
The function of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity and
Q: And because there were other people in the area from the time that you were able to evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts
confiscate the items from the accused, you immediately ordered the accused to be brought as to the identity of the evidence are removed.53 As long as the integrity and evidentiary
to your office because you were afraid that the incident might invite commotion? value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending police officers,
substantial compliance with the procedure to establish a chain of custody is sanctioned.
A: Yes, sir, because after the confiscation of the items, there were many people gathering
near and they were shouting. This Court in People v. Lorena54held that:

Q: And it was because of this reason that you did not longer (sic) order the marking of the People v. Pringas teaches that non-compliance by the apprehending/buy-bust team with
confiscated items on the buybust? Section 21 is not necessarily fatal. Its non-compliance will not automatically render an
accused’s arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible. what is of
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
A: Not anymore, sir, because after showing me the confiscated item. I told them to bring it seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence
to the camp and when were already at the camp, the shabu that was bought from Saiben of the accused. We recognize that the strict compliance with the requirements of Section
is the same that was sold and that is also the same that was brought to the crime 21 may not always be possible under field conditions; the police operates under varied
laboratory.52 conditions, and cannot at all times attend to all the niceties of the procedures in the
handling of confiscated evidence.55
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of G.R. No. 212196 January 12, 2015
Appeals dated 16 October 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-II. C. No. 03462 is hereby AFFIRMED. No
costs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
SO ORDERED. RAMIL DORIA DAHIL and ROMMEL CASTRO y CARLOS, Accused-Appellants.

DECISION

MENDOZA, J.:

This is an appeal from the September 27, 2013 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05707, which affirmed the July 17, 2012 Decision2 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 57, Angeles City (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. DC 02-376, DC 02-377 and DC
02-378, finding accused Ramil Doria Dahil (Dahil) and Rommel Castro (Castro) guilty
beyond reasonable doubt for violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165
or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

The Facts

On October 1, 2002, Dahil and Castro were charged in three (3) separate Informations
before the RTC. In Criminal Case No. DC 02-376, Dahil and Castro were charged with
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for the sale of 26.8098 grams of marijuana
in the Information which reads:

That on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and
confederating and mutually helping one another, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously sell and/or deliver to a poseur buyer six (6) tea bags of dried marijuana
fruiting tops weighing TWENTY SIX GRAMS AND EIGHT THOUSAND NINETY EIGHT TEN
THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (26.8098), which is a dangerous drug, without authority
whatsoever.

CONTRARY TO LAW.3

In Criminal Case No. DC 02-377, Dahil was charged with possession of 20.6642 grams of
marijuana in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in the Information which
reads: That on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused,
did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and custody
and control Five (5) tea bags of dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing TWENTY GRAMS
AND SIX THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED FORTY TWO TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM
(20.6642), which is a dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.

CONTRARY TO LAW.4

In Criminal Case No. DC 02-378, Castro was charged with possession of 130.8286 grams
of marijuana in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, in the Information which
reads: That on or about the 29th day of September, 2002, in the City of Angeles, Both Castro and Dahil, together with the confiscated drugs, were then brought by the buy-
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, bust team to the PDEA office. There, the seized items were marked by PO2 Corpuz and
did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and SPO1Licu. First, the six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana which were sold by Dahil to PO2
custody and control One (1) brick in form wrapped in masking tape of dried marijuana Corpuz were marked with "A-1" to "A-6" and with letters "RDRC," "ADGC" and "EML."
fruiting tops weighing ONE HUNDRED THIRTY GRAMS and EIGHT THOUSAND TWO Second, the five (5) plastic sachets recovered from Dahil were marked with "B-1" to "B-5"
HUNDRED EIGHTY SIX TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (130.8286), which is a dangerous and with letters "RDRC," "ADGC" and "EML." Finally, the marijuana brick confiscated from
drug, without authority whatsoever. Castro was marked "C-RDRC." Sergeant dela Cruz then prepared the request for laboratory
examination, affidavits of arrest and other pertinent documents. An inventory of the seized
CONTRARY TO LAW.5 items7 was also prepared which was signed by Kagawad Pamintuan. Thereafter, PO2
Corpuz brought the confiscated drugs to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory for examination, which subsequently yielded positive results for marijuana.
On November 14, 2002, Castro was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Dahil, on the other
hand, filed a motion for reinvestigation and his arraignment was deferred. Trial ensued
and the prosecution presented PO2 Arieltino Corpuz (PO2 Corpuz)and SPO1 Eliseo Licu The prosecution and defense entered into stipulation as to the essential contents of the
(SPO1 Licu), as witnesses. prospective testimony of the forensic chemist, to wit:

On August 6, 2009, the RTC discovered that Dahil was never arraigned through 1. That a laboratory examination request was prepared by PO3 Dela Cruz;
inadvertence.6 The RTC informed the parties of the situation and the defense counsel did
not interpose any objection to the reopening of the case and the arraignment of Dahil. The 2. That said letter request for laboratory examination was sent to the PNP Crime
latter was then arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, the public prosecutor Laboratory,Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga;
manifested that he was adopting all the evidence already adduced.
3. That Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran David is a forensic chemist;
Version of the Prosecution
4. That said forensic chemist conducted an examination on the substance subject of the
Evidence of the prosecution tended to show that, for a couple of weeks, the agents of the letter request with qualification that said request was not subscribedor under oath and
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Region 3, conducted surveillance and casing that the forensic chemist has no personal knowledge as from whom and where said
operations relative to the information they received that a certain alias "Buddy" and alias substance was taken;
"Mel" were trafficking dried marijuana in TB Pavilion, Marisol Subdivision, Barangay
Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City. On September 29, 2002, the Chief of PDEA formed a team to 5. That the result of the laboratory examination is embodied in Chemistry Report No. D-
conduct a buy-bust operation. The team was composed of four (4) police officers, namely, 0518-2002; and
Sergeant Juanito dela Cruz (Sergeant dela Cruz), as team leader; and PO2 Corpuz, SPO1
Licu and PO2 Javiar, as members. PO2 Corpuz was designated as the poseur-buyer while
SPO1 Licu was assigned as his back-up. 6. The findings and conclusion thereof.8

The team proceeded to the target place at around 8:00 o’clock in the evening. Upon The prosecution was ordered to formally offer its evidence on March 7, 2007.9 After much
arriving, PO2 Corpuz together with the informant went to the house of Dahil which was delay, the public prosecutor was finally able to orally submit his formal offer of exhibits
within the TB Pavillon compound. When PO2 Corpuz and the informant were in front of after almost two years, or on January 6, 2009. 10 He offered the following documentary
the house, they met Dahil and Castro. The informant then introduced PO2 Corpuz as the evidence: (1) Joint Affidavit of Arrest, (2) Custodial Investigation Report, (3) Photocopy of
buyer of marijuana. Dahil asked PO2 Corpuz how much would he be buying and the latter the marked money, (4) Brown envelope containing the subject illegal drugs, (5) Inventory
answered that he would buy ₱200.00 worth of marijuana. At this juncture, Dahil took out of Property Seized, (6) Laboratory Examination Request, and (7) Chemistry Report No. D-
from his pocket six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana and handed them to PO2 Corpuz. After 0518-2002.
checking the items, PO2 Corpuz handed two (2) ₱100.00 marked bills to Castro.
Version of the Defense
Immediately thereafter, PO2 Cruz took off his cap to signal that the sale had been
consummated. The rest of the buy-bust team then rushed to their location and arrested In his defense, Dahil claimed that on September 29, 2002, a tricycle driver came looking
Castro and Dahil. PO2 Corpuz frisked Dahil and recovered from his possession another five for him after he had arrived home. He saw the tricycle driver with another man already
(5) plastic sachets containing marijuana while SPO1 Licu searched the person of Castro waiting for him. He was then asked by the unknown man whether he knew a certain Buddy
and confiscated from him one (1) brick of suspected marijuana. in their place. He answered that there were many persons named Buddy. Suddenly,
persons alighted from the vehicles parked in front of his house and dragged him into one
of the vehicles. He was brought to Clark Air Base and was charged with illegal selling and out the two (2) ₱100.00 marked bills, after they agreed to transact ₱200.00 worth of the
possession of marijuana. illegal drug.16 The charge of illegal possession of marijuana, was also thus established by
the prosecution.17 Another five (5) plastic sachets of marijuana were recovered from
For his part, Castro testified thaton September 29, 2002, he was on 4th Street of Marisol, Dahil’s possession while one (1) brick of marijuana from Castro’s possession. 18
Barangay Ninoy Aquino, Angeles City, watching a game of chess when he was approached
by some men who asked if he knew a certain Boy residing at Hardian Extension. He then It was likewise proven that the illicit drugs confiscated from the accused during the buy-
replied that he did not know the said person and then the men ordered him to board a bust operation were the same drugs presented before the RTC. As testified to by PO2
vehicle and brought him to Clark Air Base where he was charged withillegal possession of Corpuz, the six (6) plastic sachets of marijuana, which were sold by Dahil toPO2 Corpuz
marijuana. were marked "A-1" to "A-6" and with letters "RDRC," "ADGC"and "EML," the five (5) plastic
sachets recovered in the possession of Dahil were marked "B-1" to "B-5" and with the
RTC Ruling initials "ADGC" and "EML," while the marijuana brick confiscated from Castro was marked
"C-RDRC."19
In its Decision,11 dated July 17, 2012, the RTC found both accused liable for violating
Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165, and imposed upon them the penalty of life It was also held that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody. PO2 Corpuz
imprisonment and a fine of ₱500,000.00 each for the crime of illegal sale of and SPO1 Licu testified that the said drugs were marked at the police station. An inventory
marijuana;Twelve (12) Years and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years of of the seized items was made as shown by the Inventory Report of Property Seized, duly
Reclusion Temporal, as maximum, and a fine of ₱300,000.00 each for the crime of illegal signed by Kagawad Pamintuan. The Request for Laboratory Examination revealed that the
possession of marijuana. confiscated drugs were the same items submitted to the PNP crime laboratory for
examination. On the other hand, Chemistry Report No. D-0518-2002 showed that the
specimen gave positive results to the test of marijuana. The accused failed to show that the
The RTC was convinced that the prosecution was able to prove the case of selling and confiscated marijuana items were tampered with, or switched, before they were delivered
possession of illegal drugs against the accused. All the elements of the crimes were to the crime laboratory for examination.20
established. To the trial court, the evidence proved that PO2 Corpuz bought marijuana
from Dahil. The latter examined the marijuana purchased and then handed the marked
money to Castro. Hence, this appeal.

The marked money was lost in the custody of the police officers, but the RTC ruled that the This appeal involves the sole issue of whether or not the law enforcement officers
same was not fatal considering that a photocopy of the marked money was presented and substantially complied with the chain of custody procedure required by R.A. No. 9165.
identified by the arresting officers.12 It did not give credence to the defense of frame-up by
Dahil and Castro explaining that it could easily be concocted with no supporting proof. The Court’s Ruling

CA Ruling Let it be underscored that appeal incriminal cases throws the whole case open for review
and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite and appreciate errors in the
The accused then appealed to the CA. In their Brief for the Accused-Appellants,13 they appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 21 Considering that what is
argued that there were irregularities on the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary at stake here is no less than the liberty of the accused, this Court has meticulously and
value of the illegal items seized from them. The prosecution witnesses exhibited gross thoroughly reviewed and examined the records of the case and finds that there is merit in
disregard of the procedural safeguards which generated clouds of doubts as tothe identity the appeal. The Court holds that that there was no unbroken chain of custody and that the
of the seized items presented in evidence.14 prosecution failed to establish the very corpus delicti of the crime charged.

In its Brief for the Appellee,15 the OSG contended that the prosecution was able to prove A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been
all the elements of the crime of illegal sale and possession of marijuana. As to the chain of proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted
custody procedure, it insists that the prosecution witnesses were able to account for the covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust operation has a significant downside that has not
series of events that transpired, from the time the buy-bust operation was conducted until escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible topolice abuse, the most
the time the items were presented in court. notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion.22

The CA denied the appeal in its Decision, dated September 27, 2013. In its view, the The presentation of the dangerous drugs as evidence in court is material if not
prosecution was able to establish that the illegal sale of marijuana actually took place. As indispensable in every prosecution for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.
could be gleaned from the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, there was an actual exchange as Dahil As such, the identity of the dangerous drugs should be established beyond doubt by
took out from his pocket six (6) sachets containing marijuana, while PO2 Corpuz handled showing that the items offered in court were the same substances boughtduring the buy-
bust operation. This rigorous requirement, known under R.A. No. 9165 as the chain of that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the
custody, performs the function of ensuring thatunnecessary doubts concerning the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
identity of the evidence are removed.23 In People v. Catalan,24 the Court said: apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody
over said items;
To discharge its duty of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,
therefore, the Prosecution must prove the corpus delicti.That proof is vital to a judgment The strict procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not complied with.
of conviction. On the other hand, the Prosecution does not comply with the indispensable
requirement of proving the violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 when the Although the prosecution offered inevidence the Inventory of the Property Seized signed
dangerous drugs are missing but also when there are substantial gapsin the chain of by the arresting officers and Kagawad Pamintuan, the procedures provided in Section 21
custody of the seized dangerous drugs that raise doubts about the authenticity of the of R.A. No. 9165 were not observed. The said provision requires the apprehending team,
evidence presented in court. after seizure and confiscation, to immediately (1) conduct a physically inventory; and (2)
photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such
Although R.A. No. 9165 does not define the meaning of chain of custody, Section 1(b) of items were confiscated and/orseized, or his/her representative or counsel, a
Dangerous DrugsBoard Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, which implements R.A. No. 9165, representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be
explains the said term as follows: required tosign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized First,the inventory of the property was not immediately conducted after seizure and
drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory confiscation as it was only done at the police station. Notably, Article II, Section 21(a) of
equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic the IRR allows the inventory to be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of of the apprehending team whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures. In this
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the case, however, the prosecution did not even claim that the PDEA Office Region 3 was the
person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such nearest office from TB Pavilion where the drugs were seized. The prosecution also failed
transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, to give sufficient justification for the delayed conduct of the inventory. PO2 Corpuz
and the final disposition. testified, to wit:

As a means of ensuring the establishment of the chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. Q: What documents did you ask Kgd. Abel Pamintuan to sign?
9165 specifies that:
A: The inventory of the property seized, sir.
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall,
immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photographthe same Q: And did he sign that?
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 the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to A: Yes, sir.
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Q: Where was he when he signed that?
Specifically, Article II, Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)of
R.A. No. 9165 enumeratesthe procedures to be observed by the apprehending officers A: In our office, sir.
toconfirm the chain of custody, to wit:
Q: Already in your office?
(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 A: Yes, sir.
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 the media and
the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to Q: Who prepared the inventory of the property seized?
sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrantis A: Our investigator, sir.
served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further Q: And that was prepared while you were already at your office?
A: Yes, sir, because we did not bring with us the material or equipment for the preparation A: Pictures were takenon the accused, ma’am.
of the documents so, we invited him to our office.25
(Emphasis supplied]
PO2 Corpuz gave the flimsy excusethat they failed to immediately conduct an inventory
because they did not bring with them the material or equipment for the preparation of the In other words, when questioned on the conduct of the inventory, PO2 Corpuz testified
documents. Such explanation is unacceptable considering that they conducted a that no pictures of the seized items were taken while SPO1 Licu said that pictures of the
surveillance on the target for a couple of weeks.26 They should have been prepared with accused were taken. From the vague statements of the police officers, the Court doubts
their equipment even before the buy-bust operation took place. that photographs of the alleged drugs were indeed taken. The records are bereft of any
document showing the photos of the seized items. The Court notes that SPO1 Licu could
Second,there is doubt as to the identity of the person who prepared the Inventory of have misunderstood the question because he answered that "pictures were taken on the
Property Seized. According to the CA decision, it was Sergeant dela Cruzwho prepared the accused" when the question referred to photographs of the drugs and not of the accused.
said document.27 PO2 Cruz on the other hand, testified that it was their investigatorwho
prepared the document while SPO1 Licu’s testimony was that a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin The prosecution failed to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
was their investigator.28 items were preserved.

Third, there were conflicting claims on whether the seized items were photographed in Notwithstanding the failure of the prosecution to establish the rigorous requirements of
the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, jurisprudence dictates that substantial compliance is
the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. During the cross-examination, PO2 sufficient. Failure to strictly comply with the law does not necessarily render the arrestof
Corpuz testified: Q: After you arrested Ramil Dahil,did you conduct the inventory of the the accused illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible. 30 The issue of
alleged seized items? non-compliance with the said section is not of admissibility, but of weight to be given on
the evidence.31Moreover, Section 21 of the IRR requires "substantial" and not necessarily
A: Yes, sir (sic). "perfect adherence," as long as it can be proven that the integrity and the evidentiary value
of the seized items are preserved as the same would be utilized in the determination of the
Q: Where did you conduct the inventory? guilt or innocence of the accused.32

A: In our office, ma’am To ensure that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved,
the proper chain of custody of the seized items must be shown. The Court explained in
People v. Malillin33 how the chain of custody or movement of the seized evidence should
Q: Were pictures takenon the alleged seized items together with Ramil Dahil? be maintained and why this must be shown by evidence, viz:

A: No, ma’am.29 As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the
admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
[Emphases supplied] matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about
every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
SPO1 Licu when cross-examined on the same point, testified this was: into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe
how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it
Q: After you conducted the alleged buy-bust operation, did you conduct an inventory of was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
the alleged seized items? precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and
no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
A: Yes, ma’am.
In People v. Kamad,34 the Court identified the links that the prosecution must establish in
Q: Were the accused assisted by counsel at the time you conduct the inventory? the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation to be as follows: first, the seizure and marking,
ifpracticable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
A: No, ma’am. second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized bythe 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
Q: Were pictures taken on them including the alleged seized items? of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.
First link: Marking of the Drugs Recovered from the Accused by the Apprehending Officer Still, there are cases whenthe chain of a custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking
of the seized items is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related of arrest for as long as it is done in the presence of the accused in illegal drugs cases. 38 Even
items immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the a less stringent application of the requirement, however, will not suffice to sustain the
placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature conviction of the accused in this case. Aside from the fact that the police officers did not
on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, immediately place their markings on the seized marijuana upon their arrival at the PDEA
it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers Office, there was also no showing that the markings were made in the presence of the
of the specimens will use the markingsas reference. The marking of the evidence serves to accused.
separate the markedevidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from
the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the PO2 Corpuz testified that they only placed their markings on the drugs when they were
criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.35 about to send them to Camp Olivas for forensic examination. This damaging testimony was
corroborated by the documentary evidence offered by the prosecution. The following
It must be noted that marking isnot found in R.A. No. 9165 and is different from the documents were made at the PDEA Office: (1) Joint Affidavit of Arrest, (2) Custodial
inventory-taking and photography under Section 21 of the said law. Long before Congress Investigation Report, (3) Inventory of Property Seized, and (4) Laboratory Examination
passed R.A. No. 9165, however, this Court had consistently held that failure of the Request. Glaringly, only the Laboratory Examination Request cited the markings on the
authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the seized drugs. Thus, it could only mean that when the other documents were being
authenticity of the corpus delicti.36 prepared, the seized drugs had not been marked and the police officers did not have basis
for identifying them. Considering that the seized drugs wereto be used for different
criminal charges, it was imperative for the police officers to properly mark them at the
In the present case, PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu claimed that they had placed their initials earliest possible opportunity. Here, they failed in such a simple and critical task. The seized
on the seized items. They, however, gave little information on how they actually did the drugs were prone to mix-up at the PDEA Office itself because of the delayed markings.
marking. It is clear, nonetheless, that the marking was not immediately done at the place
of seizure, and the markings were only placed at the police station based on the testimony
of PO2 Corpuz, to wit: Q: So, after recovering all those marijuana bricks and plastic sachets Worse, not all of the seized drugs were properly marked. As noted by the RTC, Exhibit B-3
of marijuana and the marked money from the accused, what else did you do? RC RD,39 Exhibit A-5 RC RD and Exhibit A-6 RD RC40 did not have the initials of the
apprehending officers on the back. Bearing in mind the importance of marking the seized
items, these lapses in the procedure are too conspicuous and cannot be ignored. They
A: We brought the two (2) suspects and the evidence and marked money to our office, sir. placed uncertainty as to the identity of the corpus delicti from the moment of seizure until
it was belatedly marked at the PDEA Office.
Q: So, in your office, what happened there?
Similarly, in People v. Garcia,41 the Court considered the belated marking of the seized
A: Our investigator prepared the necessary documents, sir, the request for crime lab drug by the apprehending officer in acquitting the accused in the case. The officer testified
examination, joint affidavit of arrest, booking sheet, and all other documents necessary for that he marked the confiscated items only after he had returned tothe police station. Such
the filing of the case against the two (2), sir. admission showed that the marking was not done immediately after the seizure of the
items, but after the lapse of a significant intervening time.
xxx
Second Link: Turnover of the Seized Drugs by the Apprehending Officer to the
Q: What about the marijuana, subject of the deal, and the one which you confiscated from Investigating Officer
the accused, what did you do with those?
The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs by the
A: Before sending them to Olivas, we placed our markings, sir.37 apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Usually, the police officer who seizes the
suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier
to the police crime laboratory for testing.42 This is a necessary step in the chain of custody
Hence, from the place of the seizure to the PDEA Office Region 3, the seized items were not because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the proper investigation and
marked. It could not, therefore, be determined how the unmarked drugs were handled. prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the
The Court must conduct guesswork on how the seized drugs were transported and who investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the
took custody of them while in transit. Evidently, the alteration of the seized items was a required documents.
possibility absent their immediate marking thereof.
The investigator in this case was a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin. 43 Surprisingly, there was no
testimony from the witnesses as to the turnover of the seized items to SPO4 Jamisolamin.
It is highly improbable for an investigator in a drug-related case toeffectively perform his The recent case of People v. Beran48 involved irregularities in the third link. The police
work without having custody of the seized items. Again, the case of the prosecution is officer, who both served as apprehending and investigating officer, claimed that he
forcing this Court to resort to guesswork as to whether PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Licu gave personally took the drug to the laboratory for testing, but there was no showing who
the seized drugs to SPO4 Jamisolamin as the investigating officer or they had custody of received the drug from him. The records also showed that he submitted the sachet to the
the marijuana all night while SPO4 Jamisolamin was conducting his investigation on the laboratory only on the next day, without explaining how he preserved his exclusive
same items. custody thereof overnight. All those facts raised serious doubt that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized item have not been fatally compromised. Hence, the
In People v. Remigio,44 the Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the accused inthe said case was also acquitted.
chain of custody as the apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the
investigating officer. The apprehending officer kept the alleged shabu from the time of Fourth Link: Turnover of the Marked Illegal Drug Seized by the Forensic Chemist to the
confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic chemist. The deviation from Court.
the links in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in the said case.
The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the
Third Link: Turnover by the Investigating Officer of the Illegal Drugs to the Forensic court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. No testimonial or documentary
Chemist evidence was given whatsoever as to how the drugs were kept while in the custody of the
forensic chemist until it was transferred to the court. The forensic chemist should have
From the investigating officer, the illegal drug is delivered to the forensic chemist. Once personally testified on the safekeeping of the drugs but the parties resorted to a general
the seized drugs arrive at the forensic laboratory, it will be the laboratory technician who stipulation of her testimony. Although several subpoenae were sent to the forensic
will test and verify the nature of the substance. In this case, it was only during his cross- chemist, only a brown envelope containing the seized drugs arrived in court. 49 Sadly,
examination that PO2 Corpuz provided some information on the delivery of the seized instead of focusing on the essential links in the chain of custody, the prosecutor
drugs to Camp Olivas, to wit: propounded questions concerning the location of the misplaced marked money, which
was not even indispensable in the criminal case.
Q: How about the alleged marijuana, you stated that the same was brought to the crime
laboratory, who brought the same to the crime lab? The case of People v. Gutierrez50 also had inadequate stipulations as to the testimony of
the forensic chemist. No explanation was given regarding the custody of the seized drug in
the interim - from the time it was turned over to the investigator up to its turnover for
A: Me and my back-up, ma’am. laboratory examination. The records of the said case did not show what happened to the
allegedly seized shabu between the turnover by the investigator to the chemist and its
Q: When did you bring the marijuana to the crime lab for examination? presentation in court. Thus, since there was no showing that precautions were taken to
ensure that there was no change in the condition of that object and no opportunity for
A: I think it was the following day, ma’am.45 someone not in the chain to have possession thereof, the accused therein was likewise
acquitted.
As can be gleaned from the testimony of PO2 Corpuz, very little detail was offered on how
the seized marijuana was handled and transferred from the PDEA Office in Angeles City to In view of all the foregoing, the Court can only conclude that, indeed, there was no
the crime laboratory in Camp Olivas, San Fernando, Pampanga. PO2 Corpuz kept compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 because of
possession of the seized drugs overnight without giving detailson the safekeeping of the the inadequate physical inventory and the lack of photography of the marijuana allegedly
items. The most palpable deficiency of the testimony would be the lack of information as confiscated from Dahil and Castro. No explanation was offered for the non-observance of
to who received the subject drugs in Camp Olivas. the rule. The prosecution cannot apply the saving mechanism of Section 21 of the IRR of
R.A. No. 9165 because it miserably failed to prove that the integrity and the evidentiary
value of the seized items were preserved. The four links required to establish the proper
Engr. Ma. Luisa Gundran, the forensic chemist who conducted the tests on the subject chain of custody were breached with irregularity and lapses.
drugs, did not appear in court despite the numerous subpoenas sent to her. 46 Instead, the
prosecution and the defense agreed to stipulate on the essential points of her proffered
testimony. Regrettably, the stipulated testimony of the forensic chemist failed to shed light The Court cannot either agree with the CA that the evidentiary rule involving the
as to who received the subject drugs in Camp Olivas. One of the stipulations was "that said presumption of regularity of the performance of official duties could apply in favor of the
forensic chemist conducted an examination on the substance of the letter-request with police officers. The regularity of the performance of duty could not be properly presumed
qualification that said request was not subscribed or under oath and that forensic chemist in favor of the police officers because the records were replete with indicia of their serious
has no personalknowledge as from whom and where said substance was taken." 47 This lapses.51 The presumption stands when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt
bolsters the fact that the forensic chemist had no knowledge as to who received the seized the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance, the
marijuana at the crime laboratory. presumption of regularity will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in
favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally G.R. No. 163217 April 18, 2006
enshrined right of an accused to be presumed innocent.52
CELESTINO MARTURILLAS, Petitioner
Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the identity of the seized vs.
marijuana that the prosecution presented as evidence before the Court. In effect, the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of the crime charged, creating a reasonable
doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.53 DECISION

For said reason, there is no need to discuss the specific defenses raised by the accused. PANGANIBAN, CJ:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 27, 2013 Decision of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05707 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The accused-appellants,
Ramil Doria Dahil and Rommel Castro y Carlos, are ACQUITTED of the crime charged Well-rooted is the principle that factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed
against them and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless they are being by the appellate court, are generally binding on the Supreme Court. In convicting the
held for some other lawful cause. accused in the present case, the Court not merely relied on this doctrine, but also
meticulously reviewed the evidence on record. It has come to the inevitable conclusion
that petitioner is indeed guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to implement this decision and to
inform this Court of the date of the actual release from confinement of the accused within
five (5) days from receipt of copy. The Case

SO ORDERED. Before us is a Petition for Review1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to set aside
the November 28, 2003 Decision2 and the March 10, 2004 Resolution3 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-GR CR No. 25401. The CA affirmed, with modifications as to the award
JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA of damages, the Decision4 of Branch 10 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City.
The RTC had found Celestino Marturillas guilty of homicide in Criminal Case No. 42091-
98. The assailed CA Decision disposed as follows:

"WHEREFORE, subject to the modification thus indicated, the judgment appealed from
must be, as it hereby is, AFFIRMED. With the costs of this instance to be assessed against
the accused-appellant."5

The challenged CA Resolution denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. 6

Petitioner was charged with homicide in an Information 7 dated November 5, 1998,

worded as follows:

"[T]hat on or about November 4 1998, in the City of Davao, Philippines, and within the
jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, armed with a gun, and
with intent to kill, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously shot one Artemio Pantinople,
thereby inflicting fatal wound upon the latter which caused his death."8

The Facts

Version of the Prosecution

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized the People’s version of the facts:
"4. The prosecution presented Lito Santos, Ernita Pantinople, PO2 Mariano Operario, Alicia the baby’s mouth, she suddenly heard the sound of a gunburst followed by a shout, ‘Help
Pantinople and Dr. Danilo Ledesma as its witnesses from whose testimonies, the following me Pre, I was shot by the captain.’ She immediately pushed open the window of their
facts were established. kitchen and saw appellant wearing a black jacket and camouflage pants running towards
the direction of the back portion of Lito’s house. From there, appellant crossed the street
"Lito Santos, a forty-three-year old farmer and resident of Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan and disappeared.
District, Davao City, testified that about 6:00 o’clock in the afternoon of November 4, 1998,
he saw his neighbor and ‘kumpare’ Artemio Pantinople arrive on board a jeepney from "Ernita saw appellant carrying with him a long firearm which looked like an M-14 rifle.
Bunawan, Davao City. Artemio was carrying a truck battery, some corn bran and rice. They Ernita also sensed that appellant had some companions with him because she heard the
talked for a while concerning their livelihood afterwhich, Artemio proceeded to connect crackling sound of the dried leaves around the place. Ernita had a clear view of appellant
the battery to the fluorescent lamps in his store. Artemio’s store was located about five (5) at that time because their place was well-illumined by the full moon that night and by the
meters away from Lito’s house. two (2) fluorescent lamps in their store which were switched on at the time of the incident.

"After installing the battery to the fluorescent lamps, Artemio sat for a while on a bench "Ernita immediately went out of their house and ran towards Artemio. Artemio tried to
located in front of his store. Then, Cecilia Santos, Lito’s wife, called him and Artemio for speak to her but he could not do so because his mouth was full of blood. Upon seeing the
supper. Artemio obliged. Lito, opting to eat later, served Artemio and Cecilia the food. After pitiful sight of her husband, Ernita shouted several times, ‘Kapitan, ngano nimo gipatay
eating, Artemio returned to the bench and sat on it again together with his tree (3) and akong bana.’ She also repeatedly called her neighbors for help but only Lito Santos,
children, namely: Janice, Saysay and Pitpit. Eufemio Antenero, Norman Libre and some residents of Poblacion Gatungan responded to
her calls and approached them. She noted that no member of the CFO and CAFGU came to
"Lito was eating supper in their kitchen when he heard a gunshot. From a distance of about help them. Also, no barangay tanod came to offer them to help.
ten (10) meters, he also noticed smoke and fire coming from the muzzle of a big gun.
Moments later, he saw Artemio clasping his chest and staggering backwards to the "While waiting for the police, Ernita did not allow Artemio’s body to be touched by
direction of his (Lito’s) kitchen. Artemio shouted to him, ‘Tabangi ko Pre, gipusil ko ni anybody. After more than two (2) hours, the police arrived, together with a photographer
kapitan,’ meaning ‘Help me, Pre, I was shot by the captain.’ However, Lito did not approach by the name of Fe Mendez of Bunawan District, Davao City who took pictures of the crime
Artemio right after the shooting incident because Cecilia warned him that he might also be scene.
shot.
"PO2 Mariano Operario, Investigation Officer of the Investigation Section of the Bunawan
"Lito did not see the person who shot Artemio because his attention was then focused on Police Station, Philippine National Police, Davao City, testified that about 9:05 in the
Artemio. evening of November 4, 1998, he received a report of an alleged shooting incident at
Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan District in Davao City. Together with SPO1 Rodel C.
"Shortly, Lito saw Ernita Pantinople, the wife of Artemio, coming from her house towards Estrellan and a member of the mobile police patrol on board their mobile car, PO2
the direction where Artemio was sprawled on the ground. Ernita was hysterical, jumping Operario proceeded immediately to the crime scene. They reached the crime scene about
and shouting, ‘Kapitan, bakit mo binaril and aking asawa.’ She also repeatedly cried for 10:00 o’clock in the evening of the same date. They found the lifeless body of Artemio
help. sprawled on the ground. Ernita and Lito then approached PO2 Operario and informed him
that appellant was the one responsible for the shooting.
"Lito then went out of their house and approached Artemio who was lying dead near a
banana trunk more than five (5) meters from his house. Some of their neighbors, namely: "PO2 Operario stayed at the crime scene for about one (1) hour and waited for the funeral
Antenero, Loloy Libre and Lapis answered Ernita’s call for help and approached them. vehicle to pick up the body of Artemio. When the funeral hearse arrived, PO2 Operario told
the crew to load Artemio’s body into the vehicle. Thereafter, he then boarded again their
mobile car together with Lito Santos.
"When the shooting incident happened about 7:30 in the evening of November 4, 1998,
Lito’s house was illumined by a lamp. Their kitchen has no walls. It is an open-type kitchen
giving him an unobstructed view of Artemio who was about five (5) meters away from "Armed with the information that appellant was the one responsible for the shooting of
where he was positioned at that time. Although there was a gemilina tree growing in the Artemio, PO2 Operario proceeded to the house of appellant and informed him that he was
space in between his house and the store of Artemio, the same did not block his view of a suspect in the killing of Artemio. He then invited appellant to go with him to the police
Artemio. Likewise, the coconut trees and young banana plants growing at the scene of the station and also to bring along with him his M-14 rifle. Appellant did not say anything. He
crime did not affect his view. just got his M-14 rifle and went with the police to the police station where he was detained
the whole night of November 4, 1998. Appellant did not also give any statement to
anybody about the incident. The following day, appellant was transferred by the police to
"At the same instance, Ernita was also in their kitchen preparing milk for her baby. Her Tibungco Police Station where he was detained.
baby was then lying on the floor of their kitchen. When she was about to put the bottle into
"Alicia Pantinople, the 44-year old sister of Artemio, testified that on the night of the midline from the right to left, involving the soft tissues, perforating the body of the
November 4, 1998, she was at home watching television. She heard a gunshot but did not sternum, into the pericardial cavity, perforating the heart into the left thoracic cavity,
mind it because she was already used to hearing the sound of guns fired indiscriminately perforating the heart into the left thoracic cavity, perforating the upper lobe of the left
in their place. lung, forming an irregular EXIT, 1.5 x 1.1 cms. at the posterior chest wall left side, 13.0 cms.
from the posterior median line and 139.0 cms. above the left heel.
"After a few minutes, Junjun, a child and resident of Sitio Centro, Barangay Gatungan,
Bunawan District, Davao City came knocking at their door. Junjun informed them that: ‘Hemopericadium, 300 ml.
‘Yoyo, Uncle Titing was shot,’ referring to Artemio.
‘Hemothorax, left, 1,000 ml.
"Upon hearing the report, Alicia looked for some money thinking that it might be needed
for Artemio’s hospitalization because she expected Artemio to be still alive. Artemio’s two ‘Stomach, filled with partially digested food particles.
(2) children, namely: Jonel and Genesis who were staying with her hurriedly left. She then
ran to the place where her brother was shot and found Artemio’s dead body on the ground
surrounded by his four (4) children. ‘Other visceral organs, pale.

"At the Bunawan Police Station, Alicia was informed by the police that appellant was at ‘CAUSE OF DEATH: Gunshot wound of the chest.
Tibungco Police Station. She sent her male cousin to proceed to Tibungco Police Station to
find out if appellant was indeed in the said place. However, her cousin immediately Signed by: DANILO P. LEDESMA
returned and informed her that appellant was not in Tibungco Police Station. She then Medico-Legal Officer IV’
went around the Bunawan Police Station and noticed a locked door. When she peeped
through the hole of the said door, she saw appellant reclining on a bench about two and a "During the trial, Dr. Ledesma explained that Artemio died of a gunshot wound, 0.9 x 0.8
half (2 ½) meters away from the door. Appellant’s left leg was on top of the bench while centimeters in size located about one (1) inch away from the centerline of Artemio’s
his right leg was on the ground. Appellant was wearing a brown shirt, black jacket and a Adam’s apple down to his navel and about 1:00 o’clock from his right nipple.
pair of camouflage pants. He was also wearing brown shoes but he had no socks on his
feet.
"The trajectory of the bullet passing through Artemio’s body indicates that his assailant
was in a lower position than Artemio when the gun was fired. Dr. Ledesma also found the
"At the police station, Alicia confronted appellant: ‘Nong Listing I know that you can wound of Artemio negative of powder burns indicating that the assailant was at a distance
recognize my voice. It is me. Why did you kill my brother? What has he done wrong to of more than twenty-four (24) inches when he fired his gun at Artemio. He did not also
you?’ find any bullet slug inside the body of Artemio indicating that the bullet went through
Artemio’s body. Artemio’s heart and lungs were lacerated and his stomach contained
"Appellant did not answer her. Nevertheless, she was sure that appellant was awake partially digested food particles indicating that he had just eaten his meal when he was
because he was tapping the floor with his right foot. shot.

"Dr. Danilo Ledesma, a medico-legal officer of the Davao City Health Department, "In the certificate of death of Artemio, Dr. Ledesma indicated that the cause of his death
conducted an autopsy on Artemio’s cadaver about 9:30 in the morning of November 5, was a gunshot wound on the chest.
1998 at the Rivera Funeral Homes located at Licanan, Lasang. His findings are summarized
in his Necropsy Report No. 76: "5. After the defense presented its evidence, the case was submitted for decision."9

‘POSTMORTEM FINDINGS Version of the Defense

‘Pallor, marked generalized. On the other hand, petitioner presented the following statement of facts:

‘Body in rigor mortis. "9. This is a criminal case for Homicide originally lodged before the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 10 of Davao City against herein Petitioner Celestino Marturillas, former Barangay
‘Wound, gunshot, ENTRANCE, 0.9 x 0.8 cm. Ovaloid located at the anterior chestwall, Captain of Gatungan, Bunawan District[,] Davao City and docketed as Criminal Case No.
rightside, 1.0 cm; from the anterior median line, at the level of the third (3rd) intercoastal 42,091-98. The criminal charge against Petitioner was the result of a shooting incident in
space and 131.0 cms. above the right heel, directed backwards, upwards, medially crossing
Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City which resulted in the slaying of Artemio 2289 110498 2105H SHOOTING INCIDENT-
Pantinople while the latter was on his way home in the evening of November 4, 1998.
‘One Dominador Lopez 43 years old, married, farmer and a resident of Puro[k] 5, Barangay
"10. On that same evening at around 8:30 p.m. herein Petitioner former Barangay Captain Gatungan, Davao City appeared at this Precinct and reported that shortly before this
Celestino Marturillas was roused from his sleep at his house in Barangay Gatungan, writing, one ARTEMIO PANTINOPLE, former barangay kagawad of Barangay Gatungan
Bunawan District, Davao City by his wife since Kagawads Jimmy Balugo and Norman Libre was allegedly shot to death by an unidentified armed men at the aforementioned
(Barangay Kagawads of Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City) wanted to see him. Dazed Barangay. x x x.’
after just having risen from bed, Petitioner was rubbing his eyes when he met the two
Kagawads inside his house. He was informed that a resident of his barangay, Artemio "15. The extract from the police blotter prepared by SPO2 Dario B. Undo dated November
Pantinople, had just been shot. Petitioner at once ordered his Kagawads to assemble the 9, 1998 already had a little modification indicating therein that deceased was shot by an
members of the SCAA (Special Civilian Armed [Auxiliary]) so that they could be escorted unidentified armed man and the following entry was made.
to the crime scene some 250 meters away. As soon as the SCAA’s were contacted, they
(Petitioner, Kagawads Libre and Balugo including Wiliam Gabas, Eddie Loyahan and Junior
Marturillas - the last three being SCAA members) then proceeded to the crime scene to ‘2105H: Shooting Incident: One Dominador Lopez, 43 years old, married, farmer and a
determine what assistance they could render. resident of Purok 5, Barangay Gatungan Bunawan District, Davao City appeared at this
Police Precinct and reported that prior to these writing, one Artemio Pantinople, former
Barangay Kagawad of Barangay Gatungan was allegedly shot to death by unidentified
"11. While approaching the store owned by the Pantinople’s and not very far from where armed man at the aforementioned barangay. x x x.’
the deceased lay sprawled, Petitioner was met by Ernita Pantinople (wife of the deceased-
Artemio Pantinople) who was very mad and belligerent. She immediately accused
Petitioner of having shot her husband instead of Lito Santos who was his enemy. Petitioner "16. On November 5, 1998 at around 7:15 a.m. PO2 Mariano Operario indorsed with the
was taken aback by the instant accusation against him. He explained that he just came from Bunawan PNP an empty shell fired from a carbine rifle which was recovered by the said
his house where he was roused by his Kagawads from his sleep. Not being able to talk police officer from the crime scene in the night of the incident. Owing to his pre-occupation
sense with Ernita Pantinople, Petitioner and his companions backed off to avoid a heated in organizing and preparing the affidavits of the Complainant and her witnesses the
confrontation. Petitioner instead decided to go back to his house along with his previous evening, he was only able to indorse the same the following morning. At the same
companions. time, P/Chief Insp. Julito M. Diray, Station Commander of the Bunawan PNP made a written
request addressed to the District Commander of the PNP Crime Laboratory requesting that
a paraffin test be conducted on Petitioner and that a ballistics examination be made on the
"12. Upon reaching his house, Petitioner instructed Kagawad Jimmy Balugo to contact the M-14 rifle which he surrendered to Bunawan PNP.
Bunawan Police Station and inform them what transpired. Not knowing the radio
frequency of the local police, Kagawad Balugo instead radioed officials of nearby Barangay
San Isidro requesting them to contact the Bunawan PNP for police assistance since "17. At around 9:30 a.m. of November 5, 1998, Dr. Danilo P. Ledesma, M.D., Medico-Legal
someone was shot in their locality. Officer for Davao City conducted an autopsy on the cadaver of deceased and made the
following Post-Mortem Findings contained in Necropsy Report No. 76 dated November 6,
1998, viz:
"13. Moments later, PO2 Mariano Operario and another police officer arrived at the house
of Petitioner and when confronted by the latter, he was informed by PO2 Operario that he
was the principal suspect in the slaying of Artemio Pantinople. Upon their invitation, ‘Pallor, marked, generalized
Petitioner immediately went with the said police officers for questioning at the Bunawan
Police Station. He also took with him his government-issued M-14 Rifle and one magazine ‘Body in rigor mortis
of live M-14 ammunition which Petitioner turned over for safe keeping with the Bunawan
PNP. The police blotter showed that Petitioner surrendered his M-14 rifle with live ‘Wound, gunshot, ENTRANCE, 0.9-0.8 cm. ovaloid located at the anterior chest wall, right
ammunition to SPO1 Estrellan and PO3 Sendrijas of the Bunawan PNP at around 10:45 side, .0 cm. from the anterior median line, at the level of the third (3rd) intercostal space
p.m. of November 4, 1998. and 131.0 cms. above the right neck, directed backwards, upwards, medially, crossing the
midline from the right to left, involving the soft tissues, perforating the body of the
"14. When the shooting incident was first recorded in the Daily Record of Events of the sternum into the pericardial cavity, perforating the heart into the left thoracic cavity,
Bunawan PNP it was indicated therein that deceased may have been shot by unidentified perforating the upper lobe of the left lung forming an irregular EXIT, 1.5x1.1 cms. at the
armed men viz: posterior chest wall, left side, 13.0 cms. from the posterior median line and 139.0 cms.
above the left neck.
‘Entry No. Date Time Incident/Events
‘Hemopericadium, 300 ml.
‘Hemothorax, left 1,000 ml. ‘That I hurriedly go down from my house and proceeded to the victims body, wherein
when I came nearer I got surprised for the victim was my beloved husband;
‘Stomach filled with partially digested food particles.
‘That I was always shouting in visayan words ‘kapitan nganong imo mang gipatay and
‘Other visceral organs, pale akong bana’;

‘CAUSE OF DEATH: Gunshot wound of the chest.’ ‘That I let my husband body still at that placed until the police officers will arrived and
investigate the incident;
"18. After the fatal shooting of deceased, Celestino Marturillas was subjected to paraffin
testing by the PNP Crime Laboratory in Davao City at 10:30 a.m. November 5, 1998. The ‘That I know personally Brgy. Capt. Celestino Marturillas for he is my nearby neighbor at
next day, November 6, 1998, the PNP Crime Laboratory released Physical Sciences Report that placed;
No. C-074-98 regarding the paraffin test results which found Petitioner NEGATIVE for
gunpowder nitrates based on the following findings of the PNP Crime Laboratory: ‘That I am executing this affidavit to apprise the authorities concern of the truthfulness of
the foregoing and my desire to file necessary charges against Celestino Marturillas.’
‘FINDINGS:
‘Witness-Affidavit of Lito Santos dated November 5, 1998 reads:
‘Qualitative examination conducted on the above-mentioned specimen gave NEGATIVE
result to the test for the presence of gunpowder nitrates. x x x ‘I, LITO D. SANTOS, 43 yrs. old, married, farmer, a resident of Purok 5, Brgy. Gatungan,
Bunawan District, Davao City after having been duly sworn to in accordance with law do
‘CONCLUSION: hereby depose and say:

‘Both hands of Celestino Marturillas do not contain gunpowder nitrates[.]’ ‘That last November 4, 1998 at about 7:30 in the evening I was taking my dinner at the
kitchen of my house and after finished eating I stood up then got a glass of water and at
that time I heard one gun shot burst estimated to more or less ten (10) meters from my
"19. After preparing all the affidavits of Ernita Pantinople and her witnesses PO2 Mariano possession then followed somebody shouting seeking for help in Visayan words ‘tabangi
R. Operario Jr., the police officer as[s]igned to investigate the shooting of the deceased, ko pre gipusil ko ni Kapitan’;
prepared and transmitted, on November 5, 1998, a Complaint to the City Prosecution
Office recommending that Petitioner be indicted for Murder, attaching therewith the
Sworn Affidavits of Ernita O. Pantinople (Complainant), Lito D. Santos (witness) and the ‘That I really saw the victim moving backward to more or less five (5) meters away from
Sworn Joint Affidavit of SPO1 Rodel Estrellan and PO2 Mariano R. Operario Jr. of the PNP. where he was shot then and there the victim slumped at the grassy area;

"20. The following is the Affidavit-Complaint of Ernita Pantinople as well as the supporting ‘That I immediately go out from my house and proceeded to the victims body, wherein,
affidavits of her witnesses all of which are quoted in full hereunder: when I came nearer I found and identified the victim one Artemio Pantinople who was my
nearby neighbor sprawled on his own blood at the grassy area;
‘Ernita Pantinople’s Affidavit-Complaint dated November 5, 1998:
‘That no other person named by the victim other than Brgy. Capt. Celestino Marturillas of
Brgy. Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City;
‘That last November 4, 1998 at about 7:30 in the evening, I was attending and caring my
baby boy at that time to let him sleep and that moment I heard first one gun shot burst
after then somebody shouting seeking for help in Visayan words ‘tabangi ko Pre gipusil ko ‘That I am executing this affidavit to apprised the authorities concern of the true facts and
ni Kapitan’ I estimated a distance to more or less ten (10) meters away from my house; circumstances that surrounds the incident.’

‘That I immediately peep at the windows, wherein I very saw a person of Brgy. Capt. "21. Based on the Affidavits executed by Ernita Pantinople and Lito Santos, then 2nd Asst.
Celestino Marturillas of Brgy. Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City, wearing black City Prosecutor Raul B. Bendigo issued a Resolution on November 5, 1998 finding
jacket and camouflage pants carrying his M-14 rifle running to the direction to the left side sufficient evidence to indict Appellant for the crime of Homicide and not Murder as alleged
portion of the house of Lito Santos who was my neighbor respectively; in Private Complainant’s Affidavit Complaint. The Information states:
‘Above-mentioned Accused, armed with a gun, and with intent to kill, willfully, unlawfully matter of procedure at the PNP Crime Laboratory, they do not conduct paraffin testing on
and feloniously shot one Artemio Pantinople, thereby inflicting fatal wound upon the latter a crime suspect seventy two (72) hours after an alleged shooting incident. She also
which caused his death. testified that based on her experience she is not aware of any chemical that could extract
gunpowder nitrates from the hands of a person who had just fired his weapon.
‘CONTRARY TO LAW.’
‘23.5) Dominador Lapiz testified that he lived on the land of the victim, Artemio Pantinople
"23. The theory of the Defense was anchored on the testimony of the following individuals: for ten (10) years. He was one of the first persons who went to the crime scene where he
personally saw the body of deceased lying at a very dark portion some distance from the
victim’s house and that those with him at that time even had to light the place with a lamp
‘23.1 Jimmy Balugo, was one of the Barangay Kagawads who went to the house of so that they could clearly see the deceased. He also testified that there were many coconut
Petitioner after receiving a radio message from Brgy. Kagawad Glenda Lascuña that a and other trees and bananas in the crime scene. He also testified that the house of Lito
shooting incident took place in their barangay. He also testified that together with Santos was only about four (4) meters from the crime scene, while the house of victim-
Kagawad Norberto Libre, he proceeded to the house of Petitioner to inform him of the Artemio Pantinople was about FIFTY (50) meters away. He testified that there was no
shooting incident involving a certain Artemio ‘Titing’ Pantinople. After informing lighted fluorescent at the store of deceased at the time of the shooting. He was also the one
Petitioner about what happened, the latter instructed him and Norberto Libre to gather who informed Kagawad Glenda Lascuna about the shooting of Artemio Pantinople. His
the SCAA’s and to accompany them to the crime scene. He also narrated to the court that testimony also revealed that when the responding policemen arrived, Lito Santos
Petitioner and their group were not able to render any assistance at the crime scene since immediately approached the policemen, volunteered himself as a witness and even
the widow and the relatives of deceased were already belligerent. As a result of which, the declared that he would testify that it was Petitioner who shot Artemio Pantinople.
group of Petitioner including himself, went back to the former’s house where he asked
Petitioner if it would be alright to contact the police and request for assistance. He claimed
that he was able to contact the Bunawan PNP with the help of the Barangay Police of ‘On cross-examination, this witness declared that the crime scene was very dark and one
Barangay San Isidro. cannot see the body of the victim without light. On cross-examination, this witness also
testified that Lito Santos approached the service vehicle of the responding policemen and
volunteered to be a witness that Petitioner was the assailant of the victim, Artemio
‘23.2) Norberto Libre testified that in the evening of November 4, 1998, he heard a Pantinople. This witness further testified that immediately after he went to the crime
gunburst which resembled a firecracker and after a few minutes Barangay Kagawad Jimmy scene, the widow of the victim and the children were merely shouting and crying and it
Balugo went to his house and informed him that their neighbor Titing Pantinople was shot. was only after the policemen arrived that the widow uttered in a loud voice, ‘Kapitan
Kagawad Balugo requested him to accompany the former to go to the house of then nganong gipatay mo and akong bana?’
Barangay Captain Celestino Marturillas; that he and Kagawad Balugo proceeded to the
house of Petitioner and shouted to awaken the latter; that Barangay Captain Marturillas
went out rubbing his eyes awakened from his sleep and was informed of the killing of ‘23.6) Celestino Marturillas, former Barangay Captain of Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan
Artemio Pantinople; that Petitioner immediately instructed them to fetch the SCAA and District, Davao City testified that he learned of Pantinople’s killing two hours later through
thereafter their group went to the crime scene. information personally relayed to him by Kagawads Jimmy Balugo and Norberto Libre. He
intimated to the Court that he did try to extend some assistance to the family of the
deceased but was prevented from so doing since the wife of deceased herself and her
‘23.3) Ronito Bedero testified that he was in his house on the night Artemio Pantinop[l]e relatives were already hostile with him when he was about to approach the crime scene.
was shot. The material point raised by this witness in his testimony was the fact that he He also testified that he voluntarily went with the police officers who arrested him at his
saw an unidentified armed man flee from the crime scene who later joined two other residence on the same evening after the victim was shot. He also turned over to police
armed men near a nangka tree not far from where deceased was shot. All three later fled custody the M-14 rifle issued to him and voluntarily submitted himself to paraffin testing
on foot towards the direction of the Purok Center in Barangay Gatungan. This witness a few hours after he was taken in for questioning by the Bunawan PNP. Petitioner, during
noticed that one of the three men was armed with a rifle but could not make out their the trial consistently maintained that he is innocent of the charge against him.’" 10
identities since the area where the three men converged was a very dark place. After the
three men disappeared, he saw from the opposite direction Petitioner, Barangay Kagawad
Jimmy Balugo and three (3) SCAA members going to the scene of the crime but they did Ruling of the Court of Appeals
not reach the crime scene. A little later, he saw the group of Petitioner return to where
they came from. The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC that the guilt of petitioner had been established
beyond reasonable doubt. According to the appellate court, he was positively identified as
‘23.4) Police C/Insp. Noemi Austero, Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory, the one running away from the crime scene immediately after the gunshot. This fact,
testified that she conducted a paraffin test on both hands of Petitioner on November 5, together with the declaration of the victim himself that he had been shot by the captain,
1999 at around 10:30 a.m. She also testified that Petitioner tested NEGATIVE for clearly established the latter’s complicity in the crime.
gunpowder nitrates indicating that he never fired a weapon at any time between 7:30 p.m.
of November 4, 1999 until the next day, November 5, 1999. She also testified that as a
No ill motive could be ascribed by the CA to the prosecution witnesses. Thus, their positive, plausibility of the allegation that the victim had uttered, "Tabangi ko p’re, gipusil ko ni
credible and unequivocal testimonies were accepted as sufficient to establish the guilt of kapitan" ("Help me p’re, I was shot by the captain"), which was considered by the two
petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. lower courts either as his dying declaration or as part of res gestae.

On the other hand, the CA also rejected his defenses of denial and alibi. It held that they Under the second main issue, petitioner contends that the burden of proof was
were necessarily suspect, especially when established by friends or relatives, and should erroneously shifted to him; that there should have been no finding of guilt because of the
thus be subjected to the strictest scrutiny. At any rate, his alibi and denial cannot prevail negative results of the paraffin test; and that the prosecution miserably failed to establish
over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses found to be more credible. the type of gun used in the commission of the crime.

The appellate court upheld petitioner’s conviction, as well as the award of damages. In The Court’s Ruling
addition, it awarded actual damages representing unearned income.
The Petition is unmeritorious.
Hence, this Petition.11
First Main Issue:
The Issues
Credibility of the Prosecution Evidence
In his Memorandum, petitioner submits the following issues for the Court’s consideration:
According to petitioner, the charge of homicide should be dismissed, because the
"I inherent weakness of the prosecution’s case against him was revealed by the evidence
presented. He submits that any doubt as to who really perpetrated the crime should be
The Court of Appeals committed a reversible error when it gave credence to the claim of resolved in his favor.
the solicitor general that the prosecution’s witnesses positively identified petitioner as the
alleged triggerman We do not agree. This Court has judiciously reviewed the findings and records of this case
and finds no reversible error in the CA’s ruling affirming petitioner’s conviction for
"II homicide.

The Court of Appeals was in serious error when it affirmed the trial court’s blunder in Basic is the rule that this Court accords great weight and a high degree of respect to factual
literally passing the blame on petitioner for the lapses in the investigation conducted by findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, as in the present
the police thereby shifting on him the burden of proving his innocence case.13 Here, the RTC was unequivocally upheld by the CA, which was clothed with the
power to review whether the trial court’s conclusions were in accord with the facts and
the relevant laws.14 Indeed, the findings of the trial court are not to be disturbed on appeal,
"III unless it has overlooked or misinterpreted some facts or circumstances of weight and
substance.15 Although there are recognized exceptions16 to the conclusiveness of the
The Court of Appeals committed a serious and palpable error when it failed to consider findings of fact of the trial and the appellate courts, petitioner has not convinced this Court
that the deceased was cut off by death before he could convey a complete or sensible of the existence of any.
communication to whoever heard such declaration assuming there was any
Having laid that basic premise, the Court disposes seriatim the arguments proffered by
"IV petitioner under the first main issue.

Petit[i]oner’s alibi assumed significance considering that evidence and testimonies of the Positive Identification
prosecution’s witnesses arrayed against petitioner failed to prove that he was responsible
for the commission of the crime."12 Petitioner contends that it was inconceivable for Prosecution Witness Ernita Pantinople -
- the victim’s wife -- to have identified him as the assassin. According to him, her house
In sum, petitioner raises two main issues: 1) whether the prosecution’s evidence is was "a good fifty (50) meters away from the crime scene,"17 which was "enveloped in
credible; and 2) whether it is sufficient to convict him of homicide. Under the first main pitch darkness."18 Because of the alleged improbability, he insists that her testimony
issue, he questions the positive identification made by the prosecution witnesses; the materially contradicted her Affidavit. The Affidavit supposedly proved that she had not
alleged inconsistencies between their Affidavits and court testimonies; and the recognized her husband from where she was standing during the shooting. If she had
failed to identify the victim, petitioner asks, "how was it possible for her to conclude that photographs gave a clear picture of the place where Artemio was shot. Admittedly, there
it was [p]etitioner whom she claims she saw fleeing from the scene?"19 are some trees and plants growing in between the place where the house of Ernita was
located and the spot where Artemio was shot. Notably, however, there is only one gemilina
All these doubts raised by petitioner are sufficiently addressed by the clear, direct and tree, some coconut trees and young banana plants growing in the place where Artemio
convincing testimony of the witness. She positively identified him as the one "running was shot. The trees and banana plants have slender trunks which could not have posed an
away" immediately after the sound of a gunshot. Certain that she had seen him, she even obstacle to Ernita’s view of the crime scene from the kitchen window of her house
described what he was wearing, the firearm he was carrying, and the direction towards especially so that she was in an elevated position."24
which he was running. She also clarified that she had heard the statement, "Help me p’re,
I was shot by the captain," uttered after the shooting incident. Accepting her testimony, This Court has consistently held that -- given the proper conditions -- the illumination
the CA ruled thus: produced by a kerosene lamp, a flashlight, a wick lamp, moonlight, or starlight is
considered sufficient to allow the identification of persons. 25 In this case, the full moon and
"Ernita’s testimony that she saw [petitioner] at the crime scene is credible because the the light coming from two fluorescent lamps of a nearby store were sufficient to illumine
spot where Artemio was shot was only 30 meters away from her house. Undoubtedly, the place where petitioner was; and to enable the eyewitness to identify him as the person
Ernita is familiar with [petitioner], who is her neighbor, and a long-time barangay captain who was present at the crime scene. Settled is the rule that when conditions of visibility
of Barangay Gatungan, Bunawan District, Davao City when the incident took place. Ernita are favorable and the witnesses do not appear to be biased, their assertion as to the
was also able to see his face while he was running away from the crime scene. The identity of the malefactor should normally be accepted.26
identification of a person can be established through familiarity with one’s physical
features. Once a person has gained familiarity with one another, identification becomes But even where the circumstances were less favorable, the familiarity of Ernita with the
quite an easy task even from a considerable distance. Judicial notice can also be taken of face of petitioner considerably reduced any error in her identification of him.27 Since the
the fact that people in rural communities generally know each other both by face and circumstances in this case were reasonably sufficient for the identification of persons, this
name, and can be expected to know each other’s distinct and particular features and fact of her familiarity with him erases any doubt that she could have erred in identifying
characteristics."20 him. Those related to the victim of a crime have a natural tendency to remember the faces
of those involved in it. These relatives, more than anybody else, would be concerned with
This holding confirms the findings of fact of the RTC. Settled is the rule that on questions seeking justice for the victim and bringing the malefactor before the law.28
of the credibility of witnesses and the veracity of their testimonies, findings of the trial
court are given the highest degree of respect.21 It was the trial court that had the Neither was there any indication that Ernita was impelled by ill motives in positively
opportunity to observe the manner in which the witnesses had testified; as well as their identifying petitioner. The CA was correct in observing that it would be "unnatural for a
furtive glances, calmness, sighs, and scant or full realization of their oaths. 22 It had the relative who is interested in vindicating the crime to accuse somebody else other than the
better opportunity to observe them firsthand; and to note their demeanor, conduct and real culprit. For her to do so is to let the guilty go free."29 Where there is nothing to indicate
attitude under grueling examination.23 that witnesses were actuated by improper motives on the witness stand, their positive
declarations made under solemn oath deserve full faith and credence.30
Petitioner doubts whether Ernita could have accurately identified him at the scene of the
crime, considering that it was dark at that time; that there were trees obstructing her view; Inconsistency Between Affidavit and Testimony
and that her house was fifty (50) meters away from where the crime was committed.
Petitioner contends that the testimony of Ernita materially contradicted her Affidavit.
These assertions are easily belied by the findings of the courts below, as borne by the According to him, she said in her testimony that she had immediately recognized her
records. Ernita testified on the crime scene conditions that had enabled her to make a husband as the victim of the shooting; but in her Affidavit she stated that it was only when
positive identification of petitioner. Her testimony was even corroborated by other she had approached the body that she came to know that he was the victim.
prosecution witnesses, who bolstered the truth and veracity of those declarations.
Consequently, the CA ruled as follows: We find no inconsistency. Although Ernita stated in her testimony that she had recognized
the victim as her husband through his voice, it cannot necessarily be inferred that she did
"x x x Ernita’s recognition of the assailant was made possible by the lighted two fluorescent not see him. Although she recognized him as the victim, she was still hoping that it was not
lamps in their store and by the full moon. x x x. In corroboration, Lito testified that the really he. Thus, the statement in her Affidavit that she was surprised to see that her
place where the shooting occurred was bright. husband was the victim of the shooting.

"The trees and plants growing in between Ernita’s house and the place where Artemio was To be sure, ex parte affidavits are usually incomplete, as these are frequently prepared by
shot to death did not impede her view of the assailant. To be sure, the prosecution administering officers and cast in their language and understanding of what affiants have
presented photographs of the scene of the crime and its immediate vicinities. These said.31 Almost always, the latter would simply sign the documents after being read to them.
Basic is the rule that, taken ex parte, affidavits are considered incomplete and often The two witnesses unequivocally declared and corroborated each other on the fact that
inaccurate. They are products sometimes of partial suggestions and at other times of want the plea, "Help me p’re, I was shot by the captain," had been uttered by the victim.
of suggestions and inquiries, without the aid of which witnesses may be unable to recall Nevertheless, petitioner contends that it was highly probable that the deceased died
the connected circumstances necessary for accurate recollection. 32 instantly and was consequently unable to shout for help. We do not discount this
possibility, which petitioner himself admits to be a probability. In the face of the positive
Nevertheless, the alleged inconsistency is inconsequential to the ascertainment of the declaration of two witnesses that the words were actually uttered, we need not concern
presence of petitioner at the crime scene. Ruled the CA: ourselves with speculations, probabilities or possibilities. Said the CA:

"x x x. They referred only to that point wherein Ernita x x x ascertained the identity of "x x x. Thus, as between the positive and categorical declarations of the prosecution
Artemio as the victim. They did not relate to Ernita’s identification of [petitioner] as the witnesses and the mere opinion of the medical doctor, the former must necessarily prevail.
person running away from the crime scene immediately after she heard a gunshot."33
"Moreover, it must be stressed that the post-mortem examination of the cadaver of
Statements Uttered Contemporaneous with the Crime Artemio was conducted by Dr. Ledesma only about 9:30 in the morning of November 5,
1998 or the day following the fatal shooting of Artemio. Evidently, several hours had
elapsed prior to the examination. Thus, Dr. Ledesma could not have determined Artemio’s
Ernita positively testified that immediately after the shooting, she had heard her husband physical condition a few seconds after the man was shot."36
say, "Help me p’re, I was shot by the captain." This statement was corroborated by another
witness, Lito Santos, who testified on the events immediately preceding and subsequent
to the shooting. Dying Declaration

It should be clear that Santos never testified that petitioner was the one who had actually Having established that the victim indeed uttered those words, the question to be resolved
shot the victim. Still, the testimony of this witness is valuable, because it validates the is whether they can be considered as part of the dying declaration of the victim.
statements made by Ernita. He confirms that after hearing the gunshot, he saw the victim
and heard the latter cry out those same words. Rule 130, Section 37 of the Rules of Court, provides:

Petitioner insinuates that it was incredible for Santos to have seen the victim, but not the "The declaration of a dying person, made under the consciousness of impending death,
assailant. The CA dismissed this argument thus: may be received in any case wherein his death is the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the
cause and surrounding circumstances of such death."
"x x x. The natural reaction of a person who hears a loud or startling command is to turn
towards the speaker. Moreover, witnessing a crime is an unusual experience that elicits Generally, witnesses can testify only to those facts derived from their own perception. A
different reactions from witnesses, for which no clear-cut standard of behavior can be recognized exception, though, is a report in open court of a dying person’s declaration
prescribed. Lito’s reaction is not unnatural. He was more concerned about Artemio’s made under the consciousness of an impending death that is the subject of inquiry in the
condition than the need to ascertain the identity of Artemio’s assailant."34 case.37

It was to be expected that, after seeing the victim stagger and hearing the cry for help, Statements identifying the assailant, if uttered by a victim on the verge of death, are
Santos would shift his attention to the person who had uttered the plea quoted earlier. A entitled to the highest degree of credence and respect. 38 Persons aware of an impending
shift in his focus of attention would sufficiently explain why Santos was not able to see the death have been known to be genuinely truthful in their words and extremely scrupulous
assailant. Petitioner then accuses this witness of harboring "a deep-seated in their accusations.39 The dying declaration is given credence, on the premise that no one
grudge,"35 which would explain why the latter allegedly fabricated a serious accusation. who knows of one’s impending death will make a careless and false accusation.40 Hence,
not infrequently, pronouncements of guilt have been allowed to rest solely on the dying
This contention obviously has no basis. No serious accusation against petitioner was ever declaration of the deceased victim.41
made by Santos. What the latter did was merely to recount what he heard the victim utter
immediately after the shooting. Santos never pointed to petitioner as the perpetrator of To be admissible, a dying declaration must 1) refer to the cause and circumstances
the crime. The statements of the former corroborated those of Ernita and therefore simply surrounding the declarant’s death; 2) be made under the consciousness of an impending
added credence to the prosecution’s version of the facts. If it were true that he had an death; 3) be made freely and voluntarily without coercion or suggestions of improper
ulterior motive, it would have been very easy for him to say that he had seen petitioner influence; 4) be offered in a criminal case, in which the death of the declarant is the subject
shoot the victim. of inquiry; and 5) have been made by a declarant competent to testify as a witness, had
that person been called upon to testify.42
The statement of the deceased certainly concerned the cause and circumstances A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception
surrounding his death. He pointed to the person who had shot him. As established by the to the hearsay rule, when the following requisites concur: 1) the principal act, the res
prosecution, petitioner was the only person referred to as kapitan in their place. 43 It was gestae, is a startling occurrence; 2) the statements were made before the declarant had
also established that the declarant, at the time he had given the dying declaration, was time to contrive or devise; and 3) the statements concerned the occurrence in question
under a consciousness of his impending death. and its immediately attending circumstances.52

True, he made no express statement showing that he was conscious of his impending All these requisites are present in this case. The principal act, the shooting, was a startling
death. The law, however, does not require the declarant to state explicitly a perception of occurrence. Immediately after, while he was still under the exciting influence of the
the inevitability of death.44 The perception may be established from surrounding startling occurrence, the victim made the declaration without any prior opportunity to
circumstances, such as the nature of the declarant’s injury and conduct that would justify contrive a story implicating petitioner. Also, the declaration concerned the one who shot
a conclusion that there was a consciousness of impending death. 45 Even if the declarant the victim. Thus, the latter’s statement was correctly appreciated as part of the res gestae.
did not make an explicit statement of that realization, the degree and seriousness of the
words and the fact that death occurred shortly afterwards may be considered as sufficient Aside from the victim’s statement, which is part of the res gestae, that of Ernita -- "Kapitan,
evidence that the declaration was made by the victim with full consciousness of being in a ngano nimo gipatay ang akong bana?" ("Captain, why did you shoot my husband?") -- may
dying condition.46 be considered to be in the same category. Her statement was about the same startling
occurrence; it was uttered spontaneously, right after the shooting, while she had no
Also, the statement was made freely and voluntarily, without coercion or suggestion, and opportunity to concoct a story against petitioner; and it related to the circumstances of the
was offered as evidence in a criminal case for homicide. In this case, the declarant was the shooting.
victim who, at the time he uttered the dying declaration, was competent as a witness.
Second Main Issue:
As found by the CA, the dying declaration of the victim was complete, as it was "a full
expression of all that he intended to say as conveying his meaning. It [was] complete and Sufficiency of Evidence
[was] not merely fragmentary."47 Testified to by his wife and neighbor, his dying
declaration was not only admissible in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule, but
was also a weighty and telling piece of evidence. Having established the evidence for the prosecution, we now address the argument of
petitioner that the appellate court had effectively shifted the burden of proof to him. He
asserts that the prosecution should never rely on the weakness of the defense, but on the
Res Gestae strength of its evidence, implying that there was no sufficient evidence to convict him.

The fact that the victim’s statement constituted a dying declaration does not preclude it We disagree. The totality of the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficient to
from being admitted as part of the res gestae, if the elements of both are present. 48 sustain the conviction of petitioner. The dying declaration made by the victim immediately
prior to his death constitutes evidence of the highest order as to the cause of his death and
Section 42 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court provides: of the identity of the assailant.53 This damning evidence, coupled with the proven facts
presented by the prosecution, leads to the logical conclusion that petitioner is guilty of the
"Part of the res gestae. -- Statements made by a person while a startling occurrence is crime charged.
taking place or immediately prior or subsequent thereto with respect to the circumstances
thereof, may be given in evidence as part of the res gestae. So, also, statements The following circumstances proven by the prosecution produce a conviction beyond
accompanying an equivocal act material to the issue, and giving it a legal significance, may reasonable doubt:
be received as part of the res gestae."
First. Santos testified that he had heard a gunshot; and seen smoke coming from the
Res gestae refers to statements made by the participants or the victims of, or the muzzle of a gun, as well as the victim staggering backwards while shouting, "Help me p’re,
spectators to, a crime immediately before, during, or after its commission. 49 These I was shot by the captain." This statement was duly established, and the testimony of
statements are a spontaneous reaction or utterance inspired by the excitement of the Santos confirmed the events that had occurred. It should be understandable that "p’re"
occasion, without any opportunity for the declarant to fabricate a false statement. 50 An referred to Santos, considering that he and the victim were conversing just before the
important consideration is whether there intervened, between the occurrence and the shooting took place. It was also established that the two called each other "p’re," because
statement, any circumstance calculated to divert the mind and thus restore the mental Santos was the godfather of the victim’s child.54
balance of the declarant; and afford an opportunity for deliberation. 51
Second. Ernita testified that she had heard a gunshot and her husband’s utterance, "Help (c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction
me p’re, I was shot by the captain," then saw petitioner in a black jacket and camouflage beyond reasonable doubt."62
pants running away from the crime scene while carrying a firearm.
Paraffin Test
Third. Ernita’s statement, "Captain, why did you shoot my husband?" was established as
part of the res gestae. Petitioner takes issue with the negative results of the paraffin test done on him. While they
were negative, that fact alone did not ipso facto prove that he was innocent. Time and time
Fourth. The version of the events given by petitioner is simply implausible. As the again, this Court has held that a negative paraffin test result is not a conclusive proof that
incumbent barangay captain, it should have been his responsibility to go immediately to a person has not fired a gun.63 In other words, it is possible to fire a gun and yet be negative
the crime scene and investigate the shooting. Instead, he avers that when he went to the for nitrates, as when culprits wear gloves, wash their hands afterwards, or are bathed in
situs of the crime, the wife of the victim was already shouting and accusing him of being perspiration.64 Besides, the prosecution was able to establish the events during the
the assailant, so he just left. This reaction was very unlikely of an innocent barangay shooting, including the presence of petitioner at the scene of the crime. Hence, all other
captain, who would simply want to investigate a crime. Often have we ruled that the first matters, such as the negative paraffin test result, are of lesser probative value.
impulse of innocent persons when accused of wrongdoing is to express their innocence at
the first opportune time.55 Corpus Delicti

Fifth. The prosecution was able to establish motive on the part of petitioner. The victim’s Petitioner then argues that the prosecution miserably failed to establish the type of gun
wife positively testified that prior to the shooting, her husband was trying to close a real used in the shooting. Suffice it to say that this contention hardly dents the latter’s case. As
estate transaction which petitioner tried to block. This showed petitioner’s antagonism correctly found by the appellate court, the prosecution was able to give sufficient proof of
towards the victim.56 the corpus delicti -- the fact that a crime had actually been committed. Ruled this Court in
another case:
These pieces of evidence indubitably lead to the conclusion that it was petitioner who shot
and killed the victim. This Court has consistently held that, where an eyewitness saw the "[Corpus delicti] is the fact of the commission of the crime that may be proved by the
accused with a gun seconds after the gunshot and the victim’s fall, the reasonable testimony of eyewitnesses. In its legal sense, corpus delicti does not necessarily refer to
conclusion is that the accused had killed the victim. 57 Further establishing petitioner’s the body of the person murdered, to the firearms in the crime of homicide with the use of
guilt was the definitive statement of the victim that he had been shot by the barangay unlicensed firearms, to the ransom money in the crime of kidnapping for ransom, or x x x
captain. to the seized contraband cigarettes."65

Clearly, petitioner’s guilt was established beyond reasonable doubt. To be sure, conviction To undermine the case of the prosecution against him, petitioner depends heavily on its
in a criminal case does not require a degree of proof that, excluding the possibility of error, failure to present the gun used in the shooting and on the negative paraffin test result.
produces absolute certainty.58 Only moral certainty is required or that degree of proof that These pieces of evidence alone, according to him, should exculpate him from the crime. His
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.59 reliance on them is definitely misplaced, however. In a similar case, this Court has ruled as
follows:
That some pieces of the above-mentioned evidence are circumstantial does not diminish
the fact that they are of a nature that would lead the mind intuitively, or by a conscious "Petitioner likewise harps on the prosecution’s failure to present the records from the
process of reasoning, toward the conviction of petitioner. 60 Circumstantial, vis-à-vis direct, Firearms and Explosives Department of the Philippine National Police at Camp Crame of
evidence is not necessarily weaker.61 Moreover, the circumstantial evidence described the .45 caliber Remington pistol owned by petitioner for comparison with the specimen
above satisfies the requirements of the Rules of Court, which we quote: found at the crime scene with the hope that it would exculpate him from the trouble he is
in. Unfortunately for petitioner, we have previously held that ‘the choice of what evidence
"SEC. 4. Circumstantial evidence, when sufficient. -- Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to present, or who should testify as a witness is within the discretionary power of the
for conviction if: prosecutor and definitely not of the courts to dictate.’

(a) There is more than one circumstance; "Anent the failure of the investigators to conduct a paraffin test on petitioner, this Court
has time and again held that such failure is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as
(b) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven; and scientific experts agree that the paraffin test is extremely unreliable and it is not conclusive
as to an accused’s complicity in the crime committed."66
Finally, as regards petitioner’s alibi, we need not belabor the point. It was easily, and G.R. Nos. 118441-42 January 18, 2000
correctly, dismissed by the CA thus:
ARMANDO JOSE y PAZ and MANILA CENTRAL BUS LINES (MCL), represented by its
"[Petitioner’s] alibi is utterly untenable. For alibi to prosper, it must be shown that it was General Manager MR. DANILO T. DE DIOS, petitioners,
physically impossible for the accused to have been at the scene of the crime at the time of vs.
its commission. Here, the locus criminis was only several meters away from [petitioner’s] COURT OF APPEALS, ROMMEL ABRAHAM, represented by his father FELIXBERTO
home. In any event, this defense cannot be given credence in the face of the credible and ABRAHAM, JOSE MACARUBO and MERCEDES MACARUBO, respondents.
positive identification made by Ernita."67
MENDOZA, J.:
Third Issue:
This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision1 of the Court of Appeals,
Damages reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 172, Valenzuela, Metro Manila
and ordering petitioners to pay damages for injuries to persons and damage to property
An appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the whole case open for review.1avvphil.net It as a result of a vehicular accident.
then becomes the duty of this Court to correct any error in the appealed judgment,
whether or not included in the assignment of error. 68 The CA upheld the RTC in the latter’s The facts are as follows:
award of damages, with the modification that unearned income be added.
Petitioner Manila Central Bus Lines Corporation (MCL) is the operator-lessee of a public
We uphold the award of P50,000 indemnity ex delicto69 to the heirs of the victim. When utility bus (hereafter referred to as Bus 203) with plate number NVR-III-TB-PIL and body
death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of the deceased are entitled to this amount as number 203. Bus 203 is owned by the Metro Manila Transit Corporation and is insured
indemnity for the death, without need of any evidence or proof of damages. 70 As to actual with the Government Service Insurance System.1âwphi1.nêt
damages, we note that the prosecution was able to establish sufficiently only P22,200 for
funeral and burial costs. The rest of the expenses, although presented, were not duly On February 22, 1985, at around six o'clock in the morning, Bus 203, then driven by
receipted. We cannot simply accept them as credible evidence. This Court has already petitioner Armando Jose, collided with a red Ford Escort driven by John Macarubo on
ruled, though, that when actual damages proven by receipts during the trial amount to less MacArthur Highway, in Marulas, Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Bus 203 was bound for
than P25,000, the award of P25,000 for temperate damages is justified, in lieu of the actual Muntinlupa, Rizal, while the Ford Escort was headed towards Malanday, Valenzuela on
damages of a lesser amount.71 In effect, the award granted by the lower court is upheld. the opposite lane. As a result of the collision, the left side of the Ford Escort's hood was
severely damaged while its driver, John Macarubo, and its lone passenger, private
As to the award of moral damages, the P500,000 given by the RTC and upheld by the CA respondent Rommel Abraham, were seriously injured. The driver and conductress of Bus
should be reduced to P50,000, consistent with prevailing jurisprudence. 72 We also affirm 203 rushed Macarubo and Abraham to the nearby Fatima Hospital where Macarubo
the award of loss of earning capacity73 in the amount of P312,000; attorney’s fees of lapsed into a coma. Despite surgery, Macarubo failed to recover and died five days later.
P20,000; and payment of the costs. Abraham survived, but he became blind on the left eye which had to be removed. In
addition, he sustained a fracture on the forehead and multiple lacerations on the face,
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision and Resolution are which caused him to be hospitalized for a week.
AFFIRMED, subject to the modification in the award of damages set forth here. Costs
against petitioner. On March 26, 1985, Rommel Abraham, represented by his father, Felixberto, instituted
Civil Case No. 2206-V-85 for damages against petitioners MCL and Armando Jose in the
SO ORDERED. Regional Trial Court, Branch 172, Valenzuela.

On July 17, 1986, the spouses Jose and Mercedes Macarubo, parents of the deceased John
Macarubo, filed their own suit for damages in the same trial court, where it was docketed
as Civil Case No. 2428-V-86, against MCL alone. On the other hand, MCL filed a third-
party complaint against Juanita Macarubo, registered owner of the Ford Escort on the
theory that John Macarubo was negligent and that he was the "authorized driver" of
Juanita Macarubo. The latter, in turn, filed a counterclaim for damages against MCL for
the damage to her car. Civil Case No. 2206-V-85 and Civil Case No. 2428-V-86 were
consolidated and later tried jointly. The facts, as found by the trial court, are as follows:
In Civil Case No. 2206-V-85, the Court heard the testimonies that during the night 1. Rommel Abraham, represented by his father Felixberto Abraham:
previous to the accident of February 22, 1985 at 6:15 a.m., Rommel Abraham and John
Macarubo were at a party. There was therefore, no sleep for them, notwithstanding (a) P37,576.47 as actual damages;
testimony to the contrary and the service of drinks cannot be totally discounted. After
the party at 11 p.m., while both Rommel and John were enroute home to Valenzuela from
La Loma, the car encountered mechanical trouble and had to be repaired as its cross- (b) P50,000.00 as compensatory damages;
joint was detached. The defect of a cross-joint is not minor and repair thereof would as
testified to by Rommel lasted up to early dawn and the car started to run only after five (c) P15,000.00 as moral damages;
o'clock in the morning. With lack of sleep, the strains of a party still on their bodies, and
the attention to the repair coupled with the wait until the car was ready to run, are (d) P5,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
potentials in a driver for possible accident. The accident happened at 6:15 a.m. when the
physical and mental condition of the driver John Macarubo was as expected not too fit for
the driving as he could not anymore control the car. The desire to be home quick for the (e) P10,000.00 as attorney's fees.
much needed sleep could have prompted him to overtake the preceding vehicle.
2. The heirs of John Macarubo:
Indeed the pictures taken of the two vehicles (Exh. 1, 2 and 3) will clearly show that the
MCL bus was at its proper lane and not in an overtaking position while the car driven by (a) P50,000.00 as indemnity for his death;
John Macarubo was positioned in a diagonal manner and crossed the line of the MCL,
which is an indication of an overtaking act. If it were the bus that was overtaking at the (b) P50,000.00 as moral damages;
time, the car would have been thrown farther away from the point of the impact.
(c) P10,000.00 as exemplary damages; and
The court is convinced of the close supervision and control of MCL over their drivers, and
its exercise of due diligence in seeing to it that no recklessness is committed by its
employees, drivers especially, from the unrebutted testimonies of Cesar Cainglet. (d) P10,000.00 as attorney's fees.

The Court noted the respective damages of the two vehicles especially the point of the Costs against the appellees.
impact. From these damages as shown by the picture, it can be clearly deduced which
vehicle did the bumping. It was the car driven by John Macarubo that hit the MCL which SO ORDERED.
was on its right and correct lane.2
Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. Petitioners MCL and Armando Jose raise
Based on the foregoing facts, the trial court rendered judgment on September 28, 1989, four issues which boil down to the question whether it was the driver of Bus 203 or that
dismissing both civil cases against MCL and ruling favorably on its third-party complaint of the Ford Escort who was at fault for the collision of the two vehicles.
against Juanita Macarubo, ordering the latter to pay MCL P54,232.12 as actual damages,
P24,000.00 for lost income, and P10,000.00 as attorney's fees. It is well-settled that a question of fact is to be determined by the evidence offered to
support the particular contention.3 In the proceedings below, petitioners relied mainly
Rommel Abraham, the Macarubo spouses, and third-party defendant Juanita Macarubo on photographs, identified in evidence as Exhibits 1 to 3, showing the position of the two
then appealed to the Court of Appeals which, on December 21, 1994, rendered a decision vehicles after the collision. On the other hand, private respondents offered the testimony
reversing the decision of the trial court. It held (1) that the trial court erred in of Rommel Abraham to the effect that the collision took place because Bus 203 invaded
disregarding Rommel Abraham's uncontroverted testimony that the collision was due to their lane.4
the fault of the driver of Bus 203; (2) that the trial court erred in relying on photographs
(Exhs. 1-3) which had been taken an hour after the collision as within that span of time, The trial court was justified in relying on the photographs rather than on Rommel
the positions of the vehicles could have been changed; (3) that the photographs do not Abraham's testimony which was obviously biased and unsupported by any other
show that the Ford Escort was overtaking another vehicle when the accident happened evidence. Physical evidence is a mute but an eloquent manifestation of truth, and it ranks
and that John Macarubo, its driver, was negligent; and (4) that MCL failed to make a high in our hierarchy of trustworthy evidence.5 In criminal cases such as murder or rape
satisfactory showing that it exercised due diligence in the selection and supervision of its where the accused stands to lose his liberty if found guilty, this Court has, in many
driver Armando Jose. The dispositive portion of the decision reads: occasions, relied principally upon physical evidence in ascertaining the truth. In People
v. Vasquez,6 where the physical evidence on record ran counter to the testimonial
WHEREFORE, the appealed decision is hereby REVERSED and the defendants-appellees evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we ruled that the physical evidence should
MCL and Armando Jose are adjudged to pay jointly and severally: prevail.7
In this case, the positions of the two vehicles, as shown in the photographs (Exhs. 1 to 3) A: We proceeded in going home, sir.
taken by MCL line inspector Jesus Custodio about an hour and fifteen minutes after the
collision, disputes Abraham's self-serving testimony that the two vehicles collided Q: You were on your way home?
because Bus 203 invaded the lane of the Ford Escort and clearly shows that the case is
exactly the opposite of what he claimed happened. Contrary to Abraham's testimony, the
photographs show quite clearly that Bus 203 was in its proper lane and that it was the A: Yes, sir.
Ford Escort which usurped a portion of the opposite lane. The three photographs show
the Ford Escort positioned diagonally on the highway, with its two front wheels Q: What time did you . . . I will reform the question. You met the accident at about 6:00
occupying Bus 203's lane. As shown by the photograph marked Exhibit 3, the portion of o'clock the next day, 6:00 o'clock in the morning the next day, did it take you long to
MacArthur Highway where the collision took place is marked by a groove which serves reach BBB?
as the center line separating the right from the left lanes. The photograph shows that the
left side of Bus 203 is about a few feet from the center line and that the bus is positioned A: Our car had a mechanical trouble somewhere at 2nd Avenue, sir.
parallel thereto. This negates the claim that Bus 203 was overtaking another vehicle and,
in so doing, encroached on the opposite lane occupied by the Ford Escort.
Q: What kind of trouble?
Indeed, Bus 203 could not have been overtaking another vehicle when the collision
happened. It was filled with passengers,8 and it was considerably heavier and larger than A: The cross-joint were detached, sir.
the Ford Escort. If it was overtaking another vehicle, it necessarily had to accelerate. The
acceleration of its speed and its heavy load would have greatly increased its momentum Q: Are you familiar with cars?
so that the impact of the collision would have thrown the smaller and lighter Ford Escort
to a considerable distance from the point of impact. Exhibit 1, however, shows that the A: A little, sir.
Ford Escort's smashed hood was only about one or two meters from Bus 203's damaged
left front. If there had been a great impact, such as would be the case if Bus 203 had been
running at a high speed, the two vehicles should have ended up far from each other. COURT:

In discrediting the physical evidence, the appellate court made following observations: Q: What time was that when you have this cross-joint problem?

We cannot believe that it the car which overtook another vehicle and proceeded to the A: About 12:00 o'clock perhaps, sir.
lane occupied by the bus. There was a traffic jam on the "bus lane" while traffic was light
on the "car lane." Indeed, we find it inconceivable that the car, occupying the lane without Q: What happened to the cross joint?
any traffic, would overtake and traverse a heavy traffic lane.9 (Emphasis supplied.)
A: It was cut, ma'am.
This is correct. However, the fact remains that when the Ford Escort finally came to a
stop, it encroached on the opposite lane occupied by Bus 203. Q: You were able to repair that cross-joint 12:00 o'clock and you were able to run and
reached this place of accident at 6:00 o'clock?
Significantly, Rommel Abraham testified that on February 21, 1985, the night before the
accident, he and John Macarubo went to a friend's house in La Loma where they stayed A: No, we we're not able to get spare parts, ma'am.
until 11 p.m.10 Abraham's explanation as to why they did not reach Valenzuela until six
o'clock in the morning of the next day when the accident happened indicates that the
Ford Escort careened and slammed against Bus 203 because of a mechanical defect. Q: Why were you able to reach this place at 6:00 o'clock?
Abraham told the court.11
A: We went home and look for the spare parts in their house, ma'am.
ATTY. RESPICIO:
Q: House of Macarubo?
Q: I am sorry, Your honor. After leaving Arnel's place where did you go?
A: Yes, ma'am.
ROMMEL ABRAHAM
Q: So you were able to repair the car?
A: Yes, ma'am. Finally, the appellate court also ruled that MCL failed to make a satisfactory showing that
it exercised the diligence of a good father of a family in the selection and supervision of
Q: What time were you able to repair the car? its bus driver, Armando Jose.13 Under the circumstances of this case, we hold that proof
of due diligence in the selection and supervision of employees is not required.
A: Around 5:00 o'clock in the morning, sir.
The Civil Code provides in pertinent parts:
Q: You were able to replace the cross-joint or what?
Art. 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no
A: Ginawaan ng paraan, ma'am. pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this chapter.
Q: How?
Art. 2180 The obligation imposed in Art. 2176 is demandable not only for one's own acts
A: The cross-joint were welded in order to enable us to go home, ma'am. or omissions, but also for those of persons for whom one is responsible.

Q: No spare parts was replaced? xxx xxx xxx

A: No, ma'am. Employers shall be liable for the damages caused by their employees and household
helpers acting within the scope of their assigned tasks, even though the former are not
Thus, as Rommel Abraham himself admitted, the Ford Escort's rear cross-joint was engaged in any business or industry.
cut/detached. This mechanism controls the movement of the rear tires. Since trouble in
the cross-joint affects a car's maneuverability, the matter should have been treated as a xxx xxx xxx
serious mechanical problem. In this case, when asked if they were able to repair the
cross-joint, Abraham said "Ginawaan ng paraan, ma'am," by simply welding them just so The responsibility treated of in this article shall cease when the persons herein
they could reach home. His testimony indicates that the rear cross-joint was hastily mentioned prove that they observed all the diligence of a good father of a family to
repaired and that, at most, the kind of repairs made thereon were merely temporary; just prevent damage.
enough to enable Abraham and Macarubo to reach home. Given such fact, the likelihood
is that while the Ford Escort might not have been overtaking another vehicle, it actually
strayed into the bus' lane because of the defective cross-joint, causing its driver to lose Thus, the responsibility of employers is premised upon the presumption of negligence of
control of the vehicle. their employees. As held in Poblete v. Fabros:14

The appellate court refused to give credence to the physical evidence on the ground that [I]t is such a firmly established principle, as to have virtually formed part of the law itself,
the photographs were taken an hour after the collision and that within such span of time that the negligence of the employee gives rise to the presumption of negligence on the
the bus could have been moved because there was no showing that the driver left the part of the employer. This is the presumed negligence in the selection and supervision of
scene of the accident. This is not correct. Constancia Gerolada, Bus 203's conductress, the employee. The theory of presumed negligence, in contrast with the American
testified that, immediately after the collision, she and bus driver, petitioner Armando doctrine of respondent superior, where the negligence of the employee is conclusively
Jose, took the injured driver and passenger of the Ford Escort to the Fatima presumed to be the negligence of the employer, is clearly deducible from the last
Hospital.12 This fact is not disputed by private respondents. paragraph of Article 2180 of the Civil Code which provides that the responsibility therein
mentioned shall cease if the employers prove that they observed all the diligence of a
good father of a family to prevent damages (12 Manresa, 657; Balica vs. Litonjua and
Rommel Abraham mentioned in his appellant's brief in the appellate court a sketch of the Leynes, 30 Phil. 624; Cangco vs. Manila Railroad Co., 30 Phil. 768), as observed in the
scene of the accident allegedly prepared by one Patrolman Kalale, which shows Bus 203 same cases just cited.
to be occupying the Ford Escort's lane. However, the records of this case do not show
that such a sketch was ever presented in evidence in the trial court or that Patrolman
Kalale was ever presented as a witness to testify on the sketch allegedly prepared by Therefore, before the presumption of the employer's negligence in the selection and
him. Under Rule 132, §3 of the Rules on Evidence, courts cannot consider any evidence supervision of its employees can arise, the negligence of the employee must first be
unless formally offered by a party. established. While the allegations of negligence against the employee and that of an
employer-employee relation in the complaint are enough to make out a case of quasi-
delict under Art. 2180 of the Civil Code, the failure to prove the employee's negligence
during the trial is fatal to proving the employer's vicarious liability. In this case, private
respondents failed to prove their allegation of negligence against driver Armando Jose
who, in fact, was acquitted in the case for criminal negligence arising from the same
incident.15

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the appellate court erred in holding petitioners
liable to private respondents. The next question then is whether, as the trial court held,
private respondent Juanita Macarubo is liable to petitioners.

Art. 2180 of the Civil Code makes the persons specified therein responsible for the quasi-
delicts of others. The burden is upon MCL to prove that Juanita Macarubo is one of those
specified persons who are vicariously liable for the negligence of the deceased John
Macarubo.

In its third-party complaint, MCL alleged that Juanita Macarubo was the registered owner
of the Ford Escort car and that John Macarubo was the "authorized driver" of the
car.16 Nowhere was it alleged that John Macarubo was the son, ward, employee or pupil
of private respondent Juanita Macarubo so as to make the latter vicariously liable for the
negligence of John Macarubo. The allegation that John Macarubo was "the authorized
driver" of the Ford Escort is not equivalent to an allegation that he was an employee of
Juanita Macarubo. That John Macarubo was the "authorized driver" of the car simply
means that he drove the Ford Escort with the permission of Juanita Macarubo.

Nor did MCL present any evidence to prove that Juanita Macarubo was the employer of
John Macarubo or that she is in any way liable for John Macarubo's negligence under Art.
2180 of the Civil Code. For failure to discharge its burden, MCL's third-party complaint
should be dismissed.

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and the complaints filed
in Civil Cases Nos. 2206-V-85 and 24428-V-86 against Manila Central Bus Lines and
Armando Jose, as well as the third-party complaint filed in Civil Case No. 2206-V-85
against Juanita Macarubo, are hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.