G.R. No. 172971 - People vs. Domado

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172971)

Factual Background: The Entrapment and Arrest

The Information alleged that on or about December 31, 2003, in Santo Tomas, La Union, the appellant—conspiring, confederating, and mutually aiding with co-accused Jehan Sarangani y Calaw—willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly delivered or transported twelve (12) grams of shabu, without lawful authority, in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165.

At trial, Police Senior Inspector Reynaldo L. Lizardo (PSI Lizardo) testified that around 2:30 p.m. on December 31, 2003, a group from the Second Ranger Company in Tagudin, Ilocos Sur referred Augustus D’Vince Castro (Augustus) to him for the filing of a case. Augustus had been arrested earlier that day at a checkpoint for violation of RA No. 9165. During the investigation, Augustus disclosed he could order shabu from his source in Dagupan City. PSI Lizardo asked Augustus to contact the source. Augustus then reported that the source agreed to meet him at Damortis, Sto. Tomas, La Union for delivery.

Based on this information, PSI Lizardo conducted a briefing and ordered an entrapment operation. The entrapment team proceeded to Damortis in two vehicles: PSI Lizardo and Augustus were in a Besta van, while a back-up team from the Second Ranger Company used a Toyota Revo. They arrived at 7:30 p.m. on December 31, 2003. PSI Lizardo and Augustus parked the van at a Petron station, and the back-up vehicle parked strategically nearby.

At about 8:00 p.m., Augustus received a cell phone message from his source that three persons would deliver shabu. Augustus relayed this to PSI Lizardo. A little past 8:00 p.m., three women alighted from a mini-bus and approached the van. Augustus waved them over, and they boarded. The appellant sat in the front beside Augustus; Jehan and Violeta Fernandez (Violeta) occupied the row immediately behind. Augustus asked if they brought the shabu he ordered. The appellant then instructed one of the two women behind to show the “items.” Jehan responded by showing and handing over an envelope containing three plastic sachets to Augustus. Augustus gave these items to PSI Lizardo, who locked the van’s door after confirming the sachets contained shabu. PSI Lizardo announced his identity as a PDEA agent, arrested the appellant and the other suspects, apprised them of their constitutional rights, and directed their return with the back-up team to Camp Diego Silang, arriving at around 9:00 p.m.

At the camp and station, PSI Lizardo conducted an investigation and prepared an affidavit of arrest and related documentation. He marked each sachet with his initials “RLL,” created a marking sheet, conducted an inventory, and prepared a certificate of inventory signed by a barangay kagawad and two media representatives. He prepared requests for laboratory examination and for medical and physical examination of the accused. The seized items were turned over the next day to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Camp Florendo, La Union. The turnover and laboratory receipt were documented through the laboratory examination request, which bore relevant timestamps and acknowledgments. The accused remained in custody and, as the records reflected, had access to counsel during the proceedings.

Forensically, Police Inspector Valeriano P. Laya II (PI Laya), a forensic chemist, testified that on January 1, 2004, he conducted chemical and confirmatory tests on the three heat-sealed plastic sachets submitted for examination and found them positive for shabu, reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-001-2004.

The defense portrayed a different narrative. The appellant admitted bringing an envelope to Augustus at Damortis, but claimed she did not know the contents. She testified that Augustus was her former husband’s friend and that she had hidden a scotch tape-sealed mailing envelope. On December 31, 2003, Augustus called her to bring the envelope to Damortis, where she was accompanied by Jehan and Violeta. She stated that Augustus opened the door and instructed them to board the van. She claimed that after Violeta handed the envelope to Augustus, Augustus raised it, and then PSI Lizardo allegedly emerged and shouted “Freeze, do not move. This is PDEA.”

Jehan’s testimony similarly framed the events as involving an envelope. Jehan claimed that she was at home and was brought to Damortis to deliver the envelope. She maintained that Violeta handed the envelope to Augustus, and denied executing a sworn statement to the contrary.

Trial Court Conviction and CA Affirmance

The RTC, in its July 28, 2004 decision, found the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 for “transporting shabu (12 grams)” and imposed life imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

The appellant appealed to the CA. In its February 28, 2006 decision, the CA affirmed in toto. It reiterated the principle that the trial court’s factual findings, assessment of credibility, and evaluation of testimonial weight are accorded high respect and are generally conclusive on appellate review. The CA also held that any alleged failure of apprehending officers to comply with the requirements under RA No. 9165 was a matter between PDEA and the arresting officers and was irrelevant to the prosecution’s criminal case. It reasoned that the illegal delivery or transport of prohibited drugs is consummated upon proof of delivery or transport, and that absent any reason, law enforcement officers enjoy the presumption of regularity. Hence, the CA sustained the conviction.

Issues Raised on Appeal

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the RTC and CA erred in convicting her despite the prosecution’s alleged failure to establish the identity of the prohibited drugs. Her principal objections focused on alleged breaches in the chain of custody and related safeguards, namely: (a) that PSI Lizardo did not mark the evidence immediately after seizure; (b) that there was no showing that the inventory was conducted in the presence of the appellant and her counsel, a media representative, the Department of Justice, and any elected public official; and (c) that it was unclear who received the seized shabu at the police station.

The Office of the Solicitor General countered that the records did not show any irregularity in the handling of the seized items and that RA No. 9165 allows the inventory to be conducted at the nearest police station. It also argued that the inventory was witnessed by representatives from the barangay and the media.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Delivery, Corpus Delicti, and Chain of Custody

The Court held that in prosecutions under Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 for illegal sale or delivery, what was material was proof that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The Supreme Court found that the prosecution had clearly shown that the delivery of the illicit drugs (shabu) actually occurred in the entrapment operation and that the seized shabu passed through the proper investigatory and custodial chain until it was identified and submitted as evidence.

The appellant did not deny the physical act of delivering the envelope to Augustus in the course of the operation. Instead, she claimed lack of knowledge of the contents. The Court sustained the lower courts’ findings on the entrapment sequence, arrest, seizure, and the chain of custody—especially the handling of the sachets from seizure, to marking and inventory, to laboratory examination, and ultimately to court presentation.

On the appellant’s chain-of-custody objections, the Court ruled that they lacked merit. It emphasized the operation’s careful handling that purportedly protected the accused’s rights from arrest through evidence handling at trial, as reflected by exhibits that were marked and offered without objection from the accused. The Court also stressed that the defense failed to contest admissibility of the seized items during trial, and later could not raise questions for the first time on appeal. In that regard, it cited People v. Hernandez for the proposition that objections to admissibility cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, and that if a party seeks rejection of evidence offered, the objection must be made in the form required during trial.

The Court then addressed evidentiary integrity under Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules, particularly Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165, which requires immediate inventory and photograph in the presence of specified witnesses, but provides that non-compliance for justifiable grounds does not invalidate custody if integrity and evidentiary value are properly preserved. The Court treated the overriding concern as preservation of integrity and evidentiary value, rather than rigid procedural compliance. It reiterated jurisprudential doctrine that mere lapses do not automatically negate a seizure where integrity and evidentiary value are shown to have been preserved, and that the issue becomes one of evidentiary weight rather than admissibility in the absence of a rule that forbids reception.

Applying the framework to the facts, the Court noted that after PSI Lizardo confirmed the sachets contained shabu, he locked the van and arrested the suspects, brought them to the police station, marked each sachet with his initials “RLL,” completed a marking sheet, and conducted an inventory. The inventory was witnessed and supported by a barangay kagawad and two media representatives, and was embodied in a certificate of inventory. The Court considered it significant that during the marking and inventory, the accused were already at the police station in custody, and that custody was documented. It found that the seized items were forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory, that PO1 Avelino received the items, and that a turnover document (Exhibit “F”

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 172971)

People of the Philippines prosecuted Sitti Domado y Sarangani for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 involving methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
The appeal challenged the Court of Appeals decision dated February 28, 2006 affirming the Regional Trial Court conviction dated July 28, 2004.
The Court denied the appeal for lack of merit and affirmed the penalty of life imprisonment.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The appellant, Sitti Domado y Sarangani, appealed the RTC judgment of conviction to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision in toto, leading the appellant to elevate the case to the Court.
The prosecution in the trial court presented police witnesses to establish the entrapment operation, the seizure, and the custody and handling of the seized drugs.
The Court reviewed the challenge primarily directed at the evidentiary sufficiency of the prosecution’s proof regarding the identity and chain of custody of the seized shabu.

Key Factual Allegations

The Information alleged that on or about December 31, 2003, in Santo Tomas, La Union, the accused conspired and mutually aided each other in willfully, unlawfully and knowingly delivering or transporting twelve (12) grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) without lawful authority.
The Information framed the act as delivery or transport of prohibited drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, punishing not only sale but also the mere acts of delivering or transporting dangerous drugs.
The prosecution’s version was that an entrapment operation was set in motion after an arrested person disclosed a source of shabu and arranged a meeting for delivery at Damortis, Santo Tomas, La Union.
The transaction was narrated as occurring when three women boarded the van, one of whom handed an envelope containing three plastic sachets to Augustus, who then delivered the sachets to PSI Lizardo.
The appellant did not deny that she brought an envelope to Augustus at the meeting place, but claimed she did not know the contents of the envelope.

Entrapment Operation Timeline

Around 2:30 p.m. on December 31, 2003, PSI Reynaldo L. Lizardo testified that a group referred Augustus D’Vince Castro to him for filing of a case after Augustus had been arrested earlier at a checkpoint for R.A. No. 9165 violation.
During the investigation, Augustus disclosed that he could order shabu from his source in Dagupan City, and Augustus contacted the source by cell phone to arrange meeting for delivery at Damortis, Santo Tomas, La Union.
The team conducted a briefing and undertook an entrapment operation, with the entrapment team traveling in a Besta van and a backup group traveling in a Toyota Revo.
The team reached Damortis at 7:30 p.m. on December 31, 2003, with the van parked at a Petron station and the backup vehicle parked nearby.
Slightly past 8:00 p.m., the source signaled that the shabu delivery would be made by three (3) persons, and three women boarded the van.
The appellant sat in the front beside Augustus, while Jehan and Violeta Fernandez occupied the row immediately behind.
The prosecution testified that the appellant ordered one of the women to show the items, and Jehan handed an envelope containing three plastic sachets to Augustus.
After PSI Lizardo received the envelope and confirmed the contents as shabu, he marked the sachets and placed the suspects under arrest, then brought them to the police station.
The Court noted that the entrapment and seizure occurred inside a vehicle where all actors were together, and the records did not indicate that the van went elsewhere after arrest and seizure.

Evidence and Chain of Custody

PSI Lizardo testified that after receiving the sachets, he locked the van’s door, introduced himself as a PDEA agent, arrested the suspects, and apprised them of their constitutional rights.
At the police station, PSI Lizardo conducted an investigation, prepared an affidavit of arrest, marked each plastic sachet with his initials “RLL”, and produced the corresponding marking sheet report.
The inventory was documented through a certificate of inventory signed by a barangay kagawad and two media representatives, and the seized items were subsequently forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
The request for laboratory examination was documented through Exhibit “F”, and the turnover to the laboratory was shown through the stamped proof of delivery and PSI Lizardo’s initials indicating receipt by PO1 Avelino.
PI Laya, a forensic chemist, testified that he conducted chemical and confirmatory testing on the three heat-sealed plastic sachets and found them positive for shabu, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-001-2004.
The prosecution presented the seized specimens in court and established their identity through testimonial identification by PSI Lizardo and PI Laya, grounded on the presence of PSI Lizardo’s markings.
The Court found that the operation from seizure to submission to the laboratory was overseen and under the immediate charge of PSI Lizardo, who testified in court and identified the evidence.

Defense Theory and Contradictions

The appellant testified that she delivered an envelope to Augustus at the meeting place but denied knowing its contents.
The appellant claimed that on December 26, 2003, Augustus stayed in their house and that she saw a scotch tape-sealed mailing envelope left where Augustus slept, which she hid without informing him.
On December 31, 2003, the appellant testified that Augustus called her by cell phone and requested her to bring the envelope to him at Damortis.
The appellant alleged that when they approached the van, Augustus opened the door, instructed them to board, and later demanded the envelope.
The appellant testified that when PSI Lizardo appeared, he shouted instructions to freeze and announced, “This is PDEA,” and the defense was that the appellant lacked knowledge of the envelope’s contents.
Jehan testified for the defense that she was at home in Dagupan City when the appellant asked to be accompanied to Damortis, and she narrated that immediately after boarding the van, A