Case Digest (G.R. No. 175832)
Facts:
In the case of People of the Philippines vs. Salvador Sanchez y Espiritu, G.R. No. 175832, decided on October 15, 2008, the accused, Salvador Sanchez, was charged with violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The incident arose on April 6, 2003, in Quezon City, Philippines. The prosecution alleged that Sanchez unlawfully sold 0.02 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly referred to as shabu.
SPO2 Levi Sevilla, the prosecution's sole witness, testified that while on duty, a confidential informant reported that Sanchez was engaged in selling shabu. Following this, an entrapment operation was initiated where SPO2 Sevilla acted as the poseur buyer. Sevilla detailed how he approached Sanchez, requested shabu, and subsequently handed him marked money in exchange for a plastic sachet containing the prohibited substance. Upon the transaction's completion, a pre-arranged signal was given
Case Digest (G.R. No. 175832)
Facts:
- Operation and Arrest
- A confidential informant reported to SPO2 Levi Sevilla—then on Station 3 duty at Talipapa, Novaliches, Quezon City—that an individual was selling shabu.
- An entrapment (“buy-bust”) team was formed, composed of:
- SPO2 Levi Sevilla (the poseur buyer),
- SPO1 Brigido An,
- PO3 Virgilio Bernardo,
- PO2 Manny Paulilis, and
- PO1 Cecil Collado.
- A pre-operational report was submitted detailing:
- The type, time, and general area of operation,
- The planned roles of the officers and the operational logistics.
- At approximately 5:00 p.m. on April 6, 2003, the team was dispatched to a target area at the far end of Lualhati Street, Manotok Subdivision, Baesa, Quezon City.
- At the scene:
- SPO2 Sevilla, with his informant, proceeded toward a suspected drug pusher.
- The informant introduced the officer to the pusher.
- Negotiations took place wherein the officer stated he “badly needed shabu para pumayat.”
- A transaction occurred:
- SPO2 Sevilla handed P100.00 (the marked money) to the pusher.
- In return, a plastic sachet allegedly containing shabu was given.
- Immediately following the transaction:
- SPO2 Sevilla signaled his colleagues by scratching his head—a pre-arranged signal.
- His colleagues rushed to the scene.
- The officer then grabbed the right hand of the accused, identified himself as a police officer, and conducted a frisk.
- The marked money was recovered from the accused’s right pants pocket.
- The transparent plastic sachet was noted to have been marked with the initial “LS” (for the officer) and “SS” (for the accused).
- Evidence Handling and Chain of Custody Issues
- The seized items were recorded as follows:
- The plastic sachet was later used as evidence against the accused.
- Several exhibits were introduced during trial:
- Exhibit “A”: Request for laboratory examination of the confiscated specimen.
- Exhibits “B” and “C”: The initial and confirmatory laboratory reports by the forensic chemist.
- Exhibits “E”, “E-1”, “E-2”: Items allegedly taken from the accused along with corresponding initials.
- Exhibit “G” and “G-1”: The marked buy-bust money and its identification.
- Exhibit “H”: The joint affidavit of the entrapment team.
- Notably, the physical inventory and photographic documentation required for proper chain of custody (as mandated by Section 21, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR) were not conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative.
- SPO2 Sevilla’s testimony indicated that the marking of the plastic sachet was done after seizure (upon arrival at the police station) rather than immediately on the scene.
- Defendant’s Version and Testimonies by the Defense
- The accused, Salvador Sanchez y Espiritu, pleaded not guilty.
- In his testimony (delivered on January 30, 2005), the accused stated:
- On the afternoon of April 6, 2003, he was at home putting his children to sleep.
- Three police officers suddenly barged into his house.
- He recognized one officer (“Sir Levi”) as a former colleague of his uncle.
- The officers searched and frisked him before he was forcefully taken away, despite his protests that he had already been frisked at home.
- The defense witness, Nida, testified:
- She was doing laundry in the kitchen between 2:00 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. on the day of the alleged incident.
- She heard loud knocks and witnessed the accused being forcibly removed from the house.
- The timeline she presented (2:00–3:00 p.m.) conflicted with the accused’s statement (approximately 5:25 p.m.).
- Additional Evidentiary and Procedural Points
- The defense raised objections regarding key exhibits:
- Contending that the evidence (specifically Exhibits “E”, “E-1”, “E-2”, “G”, and “H”) either did not prove the connection to the accused or resulted from an allegedly illegal arrest.
- Arguing that no evidence confirmed that the sachet presented in court was indeed the one subjected to the forensic analysis.
- The prosecution underscored:
- The longstanding credibility of SPO2 Sevilla, a recurrent witness in drugs cases.
- That despite procedural lapses in the chain of custody, the forensic laboratory examination stabilized the evidentiary value of the seized specimen.
Issues:
- Whether the prosecution established the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt in light of:
- Procedural deficiencies, particularly the failure to comply with the mandatory chain of custody requirements under Section 21, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 9165.
- Inconsistencies and conflicting testimonies between the police witness (SPO2 Sevilla) and the defense witnesses.
- Whether the lapses in the physical inventory, immediate marking, and photographing of the seized drugs—specifically in the context of a warrantless buy-bust operation—compromised the integrity of the evidence (corpus delicti).
- Whether the presumption of regularity afforded to law enforcement officers could override the constitutional presumption of innocence when faced with evidentiary gaps.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)