G.R. No. 240922 - People vs. Honasan y Grafil

Case Summary (G.R. No. 240922)

Factual Background

The prosecution narrated that on July 27, 2010 at 10 o’clock in the evening, I01 Arnel Estrellado (I01 Estrellado), together with composite operatives from the Sorsogon Public Safety Company and the Sorsogon Police Provincial Office, conducted a test-buy operation in Zone 8, Bulan, Sorsogon against appellant, Noel, and Bonifacio. Through a confidential informant, the test-buy was arranged to occur around 11 o’clock in the evening near a tricycle parked near the Tribal Store, where the accused were having a drinking spree. The test-buy yielded a positive result: I01 Estrellado bought one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of suspected shabu for P500.00. He marked the sachet with “AEE 7-27-10.”

After a briefing, I01 Estrellado was designated as the poseur-buyer and I01 Benzon as a back-up arresting officer. The operatives returned to the area, where appellant and his group allegedly continued drinking. I01 Estrellado went to the tricycle and was approached by Noel, who complained that the contents of the earlier sachet got easily burned. Noel then called Bonifacio, who asked I01 Estrellado whether he was still interested in buying. I01 Estrellado said he would still purchase another worth P1,000.00. I01 Estrellado handed two P500.00 bills previously marked with his initials. He then allegedly received two plastic sachets—one described as the responde from Bonifacio and the other from appellant.

After the exchange, I01 Estrellado heard someone shout “Dakop Owie, dakop!” and learned that the buy-bust was underway. Appellant allegedly attempted to escape but was caught by back-up arresting officers. Noel and Bonifacio were able to escape. I01 Estrellado marked the sachets with “AEE-A-7/28/10” and “AEE-B-7/28/10.” Photographs were likewise taken while the sachets were being marked. The operatives brought appellant and the seized items to the Bulan Municipal Police Station. I01 Estrellado took custody of the sachets during the trip and an inventory was conducted at the station, with a certificate of inventory prepared and signed by I01 Estrellado and other witnesses present. I01 Benzon searched appellant and found an additional sachet of suspected shabu, which he marked as “RDB 7/28/10” and included in the certificate of inventory.

The sachets were brought to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office No. 5. I01 Estrellado personally delivered the items and examination requests for the test-buy and buy-bust sachets, while I01 Benzon delivered the sachet allegedly seized from appellant with another letter request. The evidence was received by PO2 Rogelio Loneza at around 12:45 in the afternoon of July 28, 2010, then turned over to PS/Insp. Pabustan, who conducted qualitative examinations. All sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The results were written into chemistry reports D-69-10, D-70-10, and D-71-10, and PS/Insp. Pabustan marked the specimens with his initials before turning them over to their evidence custodian, PO2 Maribel Megato.

Accusations in the Separate Informations

Appellant was charged in two Informations. In Criminal Case No. 10-1193, he was accused of unlawful possession and control of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride with a total weight of 0.019 gram. In Criminal Case No. 10-1195, he was accused of selling, transferring, and delivering two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride with an aggregate weight of 0.015 gram to a poseur-buyer, allegedly through a conspiracy with the other accused who were charged and adjudicated separately in consolidated cases. Appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Defense Version

The defense offered a different narrative through Alfel Golloso (Alfel), appellant’s nephew, and through appellant’s own testimony. Alfel stated that around 12:30 in the morning of July 28, 2010, he and several companions, including appellant, were drinking on a sidewalk in Zone 8. Bonifacio and another person allegedly drank nearby but were not part of Alfel’s group. An altercation arose between Bonifacio and his companion. Bonifacio allegedly grabbed a phone from Alfel’s group, gave it to Remegio to pacify the situation, and the companion left.

A few minutes later, armed PDEA agents arrived and ordered the group to lie face down. Alfel alleged that there was no counsel and no legal representation during the searches at the police station. Bonifacio allegedly ran away and a warning shot was fired. According to the defense, the group was brought to the station and searched by PDEA agents, and appellant denied the charges. Appellant corroborated Alfel’s material points.

Proceedings Before the RTC

The RTC found that the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were proven beyond reasonable doubt. It ruled that the prosecution established a valid buy-bust operation and that appellant’s denial failed to overthrow the operation’s legitimacy. It further held that the chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were substantially complied with, even though no DOJ representative was present during the inventory and photographs. The RTC accepted the explanation that the operation happened during an “unholy hour,” and it characterized the absence of the DOJ representative as not fatal. The RTC also ruled that the prosecution’s failure to accomplish the chain of custody form was not decisive because testimonies of prosecution witnesses sufficiently established the chain of custody. Appellant was convicted for illegal possession under Section 11 in Criminal Case No. 10-1193, and for illegal sale under Section 5 in Criminal Case No. 10-1195. Noel and Bonifacio were acquitted in Criminal Case No. 10-1195 and Criminal Case No. 10-1194, while an alias warrant was issued for Bonifacio.

The RTC’s convictions were based on its findings that appellant and Bonifacio were positively identified as the persons who sold the shabu in the buy-bust.

Appellate Review by the Court of Appeals

The CA denied appellant’s appeal and affirmed the RTC with modification. It held that appellant was estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest because he was allegedly caught in flagrante delicto during a valid buy-bust operation. It also held that the elements of illegal sale and possession were sufficiently established and that the integrity of the seized drugs was preserved.

The CA modified the RTC’s penalties by ordering appellant to pay P300,000.00 fine in Criminal Case No. 10-1193, while leaving the other aspects of the RTC decision intact.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Appellant maintained that the prosecution failed to establish all elements of illegal sale, specifically his identity as the seller. He argued that the testimony of I01 Estrellado indicated that Bonifacio offered the drugs and that appellant did not receive or accept the buy-bust money. He also argued that there was doubt as to whether the drugs presented in court were the same sachets seized from him, pointing out that I01 Estrellado allegedly failed to properly mark and identify in open court which sachets were obtained from appellant. Finally, appellant asserted that the arresting officers failed to comply with the chain of custody procedures required by law and the rules, especially the presence of DOJ representatives during inventory and photographs and the proper execution of the chain of custody form.

The Court’s Legal Framework Under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165

The Court held that the acts were committed in 2010 or prior to the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, so the controlling law was the original Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR. Under that provision, the apprehending team with initial custody and control of the drugs had to immediately conduct a physical inventory of, and photograph, the confiscated and/or seized items. The inventory and photograph had to be made in the presence of: (1) the accused or the persons from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media; (3) a representative from the DOJ; and (4) an elected public official. The four required witnesses had to sign the copies of the inventory and receive copies thereof.

The Court emphasized that the presence of third-party representatives served as a safeguard against planting of evidence and framing. It also held that such witnesses were necessary to insulate the apprehension and incriminating proceedings from taint of irregularity.

Ruling on Chain of Custody and Corpus Delicti

The Court found procedural lapses affecting chain of custody that put into question the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. It noted that, while I01 Estrellado narrated the incident on July 28, 2010 at about 12:30 in the morning, the records raised doubts that the drugs marked in court were the same drugs received and seized from appellant. The Court focused on the manner by which I01 Estrellado marked the sachets and the documentation and third-party witness requirements that were allegedly not met.

First, the Court found that I01 Estrellado failed to distinguish the two sachets separately received from Bonifacio and appellant at the time of marking. Although he claimed that the sachet given as responde came from Bonifacio and the other sachet came from appellant, he marked both sachets at the area with his initials without identifying which was received from appellant and which was received from Bonifacio. When the evidence was presented to the court, I01 Estrellado identified sachets by reference to markings but the Court held that it could no longer identify which sachet came from Bonifacio and which came from appellant. The Court treated this as a serious defect in separating the marked evidence from similar items, because marking should serve to separate and prevent switching, planting, or contamination.

Second, the Court

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 240922)

The case involved an appeal by Patricio Honasan y Grafil (appellant) from a February 22, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09014.
The CA decision affirmed with modification the December 9, 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sorsogon City, Branch 65.
The RTC convicted the appellant for violation of Sections 11 and 5 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in separate criminal cases.
The RTC acquitted the appellant’s co-accused Noel Carpio @ "OWIE" and ordered the release of Noel unless held for another lawful cause.
The appellant’s guilt was challenged on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the integrity of the evidence and, specifically, the identity of the corpus delicti.
The Supreme Court ultimately reversed and set aside the CA and RTC rulings and acquitted the appellant due to evidentiary lapses that impaired the chain of custody.

Charges and Consolidation

The appellant faced two separate Informations dated August 23, 2010, each charging violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
In Criminal Case No. 10-1193, the appellant was charged with illegal possession of one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, with a total weight of 0.019 gram.
In Criminal Case No. 10-1195, the appellant was charged with illegal sale of two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, with an aggregate weight of 0.015 gram.
The cases were consolidated with Criminal Case No. 10-1194, where the co-accused Noel Carpio @ "OWIE" and Bonifacio Oseo @ "YAKOY" were charged in relation to an illegal sale alleged to have occurred in the evening of July 27, 2010.
At arraignment, the appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges.
During pre-trial, the parties stipulated the appellant’s identity as the same person arraigned in Criminal Case No. 10-1193, and the existence of a Motion for Production of Evidence and an order for its submission for laboratory examination.

Prosecution Evidence

The prosecution’s material witnesses included PS/Insp. Wilfredo L Pabustan, Jr. (forensic chemist), and PDEA operatives I01 Arnel Estrellado, I01 Reynaldo Benzon, and I01 Arnel Ditan Lasay.
The prosecution narrated that July 27, 2010 operations involved a test-buy arranged through a confidential informant against the appellant, Noel, and Bonifacio.
The test-buy allegedly occurred around 11:00 p.m. while the accused were having a drinking spree near a parked tricycle.
I01 Estrellado claimed that he successfully bought one (1) sachet of suspected shabu for P500.00 from Noel and Bonifacio during the test-buy.
After returning to the safehouse, the operatives reportedly marked the sachet with "AEE 7-27-10" and then briefed for a buy-bust operation.
The prosecution’s buy-bust version placed I01 Estrellado as the poseur-buyer and I01 Benzon as one of the back-up arresting officers.
During the buy-bust, the prosecution stated that Noel called Bonifacio to ask whether he still had responde or surplus left, and Bonifacio offered additional items for another buy.
The prosecution alleged that after the exchange of marked money, I01 Estrellado received two (2) plastic sachets, one from Bonifacio (the responde) and the other from the appellant.
When the transaction concluded, the prosecution claimed that back-up officers arrived after a shout indicating arrest, and the appellant was caught while Noel and Bonifacio escaped.
The prosecution testified that after apprehension, I01 Estrellado marked the sachets with "AEE-A-7/28/10" and "AEE-B-7/28/10", and photographs were taken while marking occurred.
The prosecution asserted that an inventory was conducted at the Bulan Municipal Police Station and a certificate of inventory was prepared and signed by witnesses.
I01 Benzon allegedly searched the appellant and found another sachet of suspected shabu on his body, marked it with "RDB 7/28/10", and included it in the inventory.
The sachets were delivered for laboratory examination, and positive qualitative results for methamphetamine hydrochloride were documented in Chemistry Report Nos. D-69-10, D-70-10, and D-71-10.
The prosecution maintained that the witnesses established the chain of custody through testimonies even though the records allegedly did not show a complete chain of custody form.

Defense Evidence

The defense presented Alfel Golloso as a key witness and also the appellant as a witness.
The defense version placed the drinking incident in Zone 8, Bulan, Sorsogon City at around 12:30 a.m. of July 28, 2010.
The defense claimed that Bonifacio and another person had an altercation with Alfel’s companion, and Bonifacio allegedly grabbed and turned over a phone to Remegio.
The defense narrated that armed PDEA agents later arrived, ordered the group to lie face down, and then brought them to the police station.
The defense asserted that the search at the station occurred without the assistance of counsel or legal representation.
The defense stated that on August 1, 2010, the incident was blottered at the barangay level.
The appellant denied the charges and corroborated material points in Alfel’s account.

RTC Decision

The RTC found that the prosecution established the elements of both illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu.
The RTC ruled that the buy-bust operation was legitimate and that the defense failed to overturn its validity.
On chain of custody, the RTC held that the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were substantially complied with.
The RTC acknowledged that no DOJ representative was present during inventory and photographs, but it accepted the explanation that the operation occurred during an “unholy hour.”
The RTC treated the lack of DOJ presence as non-fatal, reasoning that it did not undermine the prosecution’s evidence.
The RTC also held that failure to accomplish a chain of custody form was immaterial because the chain of custody was sufficiently shown by testimonies.
The RTC declared that the appellant and Bonifacio were positively identified by the PDEA operatives as the sellers in the buy-bust operation.
The RTC sentenced the appellant differently across th