Case Digest (G.R. No. 130805)
Facts:
The case involved the respondents Tomohisa Kimura and Akira Kizaki, who appealed a decision rendered on June 27, 1997, by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 66, Makati City. The RTC found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended by R.A. No. 7659, the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, and sentenced each to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00. The information against the accused, filed on August 8, 1994, alleged that on June 27, 1994, in Makati, Metro Manila, they unlawfully transported and delivered approximately 40,768 grams of Indian hemp (marijuana) without legal authority. Upon their arraignment on October 10, 1994, both accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution presented multiple witnesses, including police operatives who conducted a buy-bust operation based on a tip-off regarding illegal drug activity at Cash and Carry Supermarket.
During the operation on the evening of June 27, 1994, the police o
Case Digest (G.R. No. 130805)
Facts:
- Background of the Case
- Appellants Tomohisa Kimura and Akira Kizaki were charged with violating Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended by R.A. No. 7659).
- The crime alleged involved the transportation and delivery of approximately 40,768 grams of Indian hemp (marijuana) during a buy-bust operation in Makati City.
- Alleged Incident and Buy-Bust Operation
- On or about June 27, 1994, a confidential informant tipped off Major Nilo Anso of NARCOM about suspects allegedly selling drugs at the Cash and Carry Supermarket in Makati City.
- A police team composed of SPO4 Juan Baldovino, Jr., SPO1 Rolando Cabato, SPO1 Edmundo Badua, and other operatives was dispatched to surveil the area.
- A buy-bust operation was quickly organized:
- PO3 Alfredo Cadoy was designated as the poseur-buyer with pre-arranged marked money for the transaction.
- The informant coordinated with the targets (Koichi Kishi and Rey Plantilla), indicating they would appear later that day at the supermarket’s parking area.
- At around 8:00 p.m. on June 27, 1994, the informant and PO3 Cadoy made contact with the suspects, who executed the delivery of money in exchange for what was later identified as marijuana.
- Following the transaction, additional events unfolded:
- The police apprehended one suspect (Koichi) at the scene and subsequently interrogated him, learning that connections would come to fetch him.
- A white Nissan Sentra driven by appellant Kimura and accompanied by co-appellant Kizaki was observed; further movements involved a man known as Boy, a stainless jeep, and an attempted escape.
- Appellant Kimura was observed retrieving a package wrapped in a newspaper from the car trunk, which was handed to Boy.
- The operatives later secured and inspected the vehicle, discovering packages of marijuana.
- After the incident at Cash and Carry:
- Kimura was apprehended on the scene, while Kizaki’s arrest occurred two days later (June 29, 1994) at a restaurant.
- The confiscated drugs, contained in three sacks, were subjected to laboratory examination which confirmed their identity as marijuana weighing 40,768 grams.
- Testimonies and Defense
- Prosecution Witnesses
- Several police personnel testified, including Maj. Anso and various SPOs, detailing the sequence of events, the buy-bust operation, and the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
- Key testimonies included the establishment of a link between the accused and the marijuana-package recovery, despite the arrested items undergoing procedural irregularities.
- Accused’s Testimonies
- Appellant Kimura testified that on the day of the operation, he was at his co-appellant Kizaki’s residence and later used Kizaki’s car for personal errands (retrieving his broken television). He asserted that he witnessed the drug being placed in the car trunk only the following day.
- Appellant Kizaki provided an alibi, testifying that he was at his house with friends and household staff during the time the alleged transaction took place.
- Both accused maintained that their respective defenses—denial of involvement and alibi—refuted the prosecution’s narrative.
- Procedural and Evidentiary Concerns
- Discrepancies in the Chain of Custody
- The police operatives failed to mark the marijuana packages at the scene of the arrest; markings were only affixed later at the police headquarters or upon transport to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
- Testimonies from SPO1 Badua and Maj. Anso highlighted that standard procedures for immediate inventory and photographic documentation were not strictly observed, generating doubts as to the connection between the drugs in court and those seized on the scene.
- Warrantless Arrest of Appellant Kizaki
- Kizaki was arrested two days after the incident (June 29, 1994) while he was having dinner at a restaurant.
- The arresting officers admitted to lacking a warrant during his arrest, raising issues concerning the legality of his apprehension.
- Trial Court Decision
- Despite the weak nature of the alibi and denial defenses, the trial court convicted the accused, basing its findings primarily on the identification by police witnesses.
- The trial court sentenced each to reclusion perpetua and a fine of P500,000.00, along with an order for deportation and proper disposition of the marijuana.
Issues:
- Legality of the Arrest of Appellant Kizaki
- Whether the warrantless arrest of Akira Kizaki on June 29, 1994, was justified under the provisions of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.
- Whether the exceptions provided for execution of a warrantless arrest were applicable in the context of the alleged offense.
- Sufficiency and Integrity of the Evidence
- Whether the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt the chain of custody for the seized marijuana, thereby proving that the drugs presented in court were indeed the items seized from the accused.
- Whether the failure to immediately mark or inventory the confiscated drugs compromised the integrity of the evidence and the corpus delicti element in a drug-related case.
- Credibility and Weight of the Prosecution Versus Defense Testimonies
- Whether the positive identification by the police witnesses was sufficient to counter the inherent weaknesses of the alibi and denial defenses raised by the appellants.
- Whether the inconsistencies in the narrative provided by the prosecution undermined the overall evidence required to convict the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- Impact of Procedural Irregularities on the Prosecution’s Case
- Whether deviations from the proper procedure in the initial seizure, custody, and documentation of the drugs created reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused.
- Whether the failure to observe standard protocols in marking the seized items affected the prosecution’s obligation to establish the indispensable corpus delicti.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)