Case Digest (G.R. No. 62641)
Facts:
Johnny Pagal y Lavarias was charged in two Informations with violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (Sections 11 and 12, Article II) based on drugs and drug paraphernalia allegedly seized from his residence in Basing, Lingayen, Pangasinan on October 17, 2016, pursuant to Search Warrant No. 33-2016-L issued on October 14, 2016. After trial, the Regional Trial Court convicted him of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 (acquitting him under Section 12), and the Court of Appeals affirmed.The Supreme Court found that although the prosecution relied on constructive possession and substantial compliance, significant lapses were shown in the conduct of inventory and witnessing requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165, the marking and photographing of the items, the chain of custody links, and the testimony needed to establish preservation of the corpus delicti.
Issues:
- Was the Search Warrant valid despite petitioner’s claim that the issuing executive judge allegedly d
Case Digest (G.R. No. 62641)
Facts:
- Charges against petitioner
- Petitioner Johnny Pagal y Lavarias (Pagal) was charged in two separate Informations for violations of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. 9165.
- Crim. Case No. L-11269 charged Pagal with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, alleging that on October 17, 2016, in Basing, Lingayen, Pangasinan, he willfully and unlawfully had in his possession, control, and custody methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu seized from his residence during a search and seizure conducted pursuant to a Search Warrant.
- The Information alleged multiple quantities of shabu, specified as 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.03 gram, and 0.03 gram.
- Crim. Case No. L-11270 charged Pagal with violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, alleging that on October 17, 2016, he willfully and unlawfully had in his possession, control, and custody one open small transparent sachet containing shabu residue; an improvised lamp; two improvised scoopers; and two improvised tooters, described as paraphernalia for introducing shabu into the human body system, all seized from his residence pursuant to a Search Warrant.
- Pagal pleaded not guilty at arraignment.
- Search warrant issuance and execution
- The prosecution alleged that on October 14, 2016, Executive Judge Maria Laarni Parayno issued Search Warrant No. 33-2016-L.
- At 4:00 a.m. on October 17, 2016, the team implementing the Search Warrant conducted a briefing at the Lingayen Police Station.
- Chief Inspector Pagaduan was the team leader; Police Officer 2 Eusebio G. Soriano, Jr. and PO1 Saringan were assigned as searchers; PO3 Rodolfo Naungayan was assigned as investigating officer; PO1 Jonalyn Rosario was assigned as photographer; and the rest provided perimeter security.
- Around 5:00 a.m., the team arrived at Pagal’s house.
- When Chief Inspector Pagaduan announced their presence, Pagal came out of the house.
- PO3 Naungayan showed Pagal the Search Warrant and explained its contents.
- Upon the arrival of Barangay Kagawad Manolo Manuel (Kagawad Manuel), the search of the house commenced.
- Items found, marking, inventory, and laboratory examination
- In the living room, PO1 Saringan found atop the television a Marlboro cigarette pack containing four small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with white crystalline substances.
- PO1 Saringan also found an improvised lamp, two lighters, a rectangular plastic box containing a small open transparent plastic sachet with white crystalline residue, 15 aluminum foil strips, two improvised scoops, and two improvised tooters on top of a small table inside the nephew’s room of Pagal.
- As the search was ongoing, Police Officer 1 Oliver Sinaban contacted Emil Toledo (Toledo) of Northwest Sun News and a representative from the Department of Justice; only Toledo arrived.
- PO1 Saringan marked the items seized in the presence of Pagal, Kagawad Manuel, and Toledo.
- The four sachets were marked “JLP1” to “JLP4”, while the drug paraphernalia were marked “JLP5” to “JLP27.”
- Still in the presence of the witnesses, PO1 Saringan proceeded to conduct the inventory.
- Pagal was then brought to the police station.
- PO1 Saringan later presented the seized items before the court that issued the Search Warrant, then brought the items to the Pangasinan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office in Lingayen for chemical analysis.
- Upon examination by Chief Inspector Todeno, the specimens marked “JPL1” to “JP4” and those found on drug paraphernalia marked “JLP5,” “JLP24,” and “JLP25” tested positive for shabu.
- Chief Inspector Todeno placed the items in a brown envelope, signed the envelope, and turned it over to the evidence custodian for safekeeping.
- Defense theory
- Pagal denied the charges and testified that he did not own the seized items.
- Pagal stated that at around 5:00 a.m. on October 17, 2016, he was sleeping on the first floor when three police officers knocked on the door of his nephew’s room on the second floor.
- Pagal alleged that at gunpoint, he, his nephew, and his niece were ordered to go out of the house.
- Pagal alleged he was handcuffed and asked to sign a paper, and the police officers remained in the house until Kagawad Manuel arrived.
- Pagal stated that in a cabinet in the living room, PO1 Saringan and two other police officers found a Marlboro cigarette case containing shabu, which Pagal denied was his, although he admitted smoking but claimed he used a different cigarette brand.
- Pagal alleged he was made to sit in the living room while the search team checked other rooms, and eventually drug paraphernalia was found in his nephew’s room.
- Pagal alleged the officers asked him to go inside and witness the taking of photographs of the seized items.
- Pagal was later detained at the police station.
- Court dispositions
- Regional Trial Court (RTC)
- The RTC issued a Joint Decision convicting Pagal only for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and acquitting him in the case for drug paraphernalia.
- The RTC found that all elements of illegal possession were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- The RTC applied constructive possession, holding that exclusive possession or control was not necessary because Pagal did not deny ownership and dominion over the house where the illegal drugs were found.
- The RTC dismissed Pagal’s defense of denial, planting of evidence, and frame-up for lack of substantiation, and it relied on the presumption of regularity in police performance.
- The RTC found substantial compliance with chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and held that the integrity of the confiscated illegal drugs was preserved.
- The RTC, however, invalidated the search of the nephew’s room and seizure of drug paraphernalia due to failure to comply with the two-witness requirement in executing a search warrant under Rule 126, Section 8 of the Rules of Court.
- Applying the exclusionary rule, the RTC acquitted Pagal of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
- Court of Appeals (CA)
- The CA affirmed the RTC’s conviction in an August 19, 2019 Decision and denied Pagal’s appeal.
- The CA held that, absent contrary evidence, Pagal was presumed to have knowledge and “full control and dominion over the seized items retrieved from his house.”
- The CA dismissed Pagal’s denial and frame-up defense for lack of clear and convincing evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity.
- The CA disagreed with Pagal’s contention that the illegal search of the nephew’s room tainted the search of the living room where the shabu sachets were found, noting that Pagal was in the living room when the police found the four sachets.
- The CA held that Pagal waived objections to the validity of the Search Warrant because he did not question it before the trial court.
- The CA affirmed the RTC’s finding of no significant break in the chain of custody.
- The CA did not deem fatal the marking of seized drugs outside the house and the failure to indicate date, time, and place.
- The CA dispensed with testimony of the fourth link in the chain of custody from chemical analysis to presentation in court, finding the Chain of Custody Form sufficient since it recorded movement of the drugs.
- The CA considered inventory signed without Pagal’s counsel inadmissible but held it did not affect the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti.
- The CA denied reconsideration in a February 10, 2020 Resolution.
- Petition before the Supreme Court
- Pagal, out on bail, filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing his conviction.
- Pagal asserted that the prosec...(Subscriber-Only)