Case Summary (G.R. No. 246461)
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
Appellant sought reversal of the Court of Appeals decision that affirmed his conviction for unauthorized sale (Section 5, Article II of RA 9165) and possession (Section 11, in relation to Section 25, Article II of RA 9165) of dangerous drugs. The appeal to the Supreme Court challenged procedural lapses in the buy-bust operation and alleged breaches in the chain of custody affecting the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
Charged Offenses and Trial Pleas
Two Informations charged appellant with: (1) sale of one heat-sealed sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride (0.0628 g) and positive drug testing (Criminal Case No. 16058), and (2) possession of two heat-sealed sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride (0.0951 g) and positive drug testing (Criminal Case No. 16059). Appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges.
Evidence Stipulations and Trial Witnesses
Parties stipulated to PCI Santiago’s expertise and qualifications, PO1 Pajarin’s delivery of specimens to PO2 Dorigo and PCI Santiago, the crime laboratory’s receipt of laboratory requests and specimens, the turnover of appellant for drug testing, existence of Chemistry Reports D-358-16-Bataan and DT-286-16-Bataan, and that the specimens tested by PCI Santiago were the same ones submitted. Trial testimony was presented by PO1 Pajarin and PO1 Berdonar for the prosecution; appellant testified for the defense.
Prosecution’s Version of the Buy-Bust Operation
PO1 Pajarin testified that, based on information from a confidential informant, a buy-bust targeting appellant (“Totong”) was organized. Pajarin acted as the poseur-buyer with P500 marked money. At the meeting place he paid appellant the marked bill and received a sachet of white crystalline substance; he signaled arrest, and PO1 Berdonar apprehended appellant. A frisk allegedly revealed the marked money and a Marlboro cigarette box containing two additional sachets. Pajarin marked the purchased sachet “PMP” and the two recovered sachets “PMP-1” and “PMP-2,” placed the two sachets back into the cigarette box, and temporarily slid the box and sachet into his pockets. Items were inventoried and photographed at the police station in the presence of appellant, a DOJ representative, and a barangay kagawad. Forensic testing by PCI Santiago yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride; appellant’s urine test was also positive.
Defense Version
Appellant testified that he was in Balanga to buy vitamins and food, parked near the Petron station, and upon returning was accosted by four men who handcuffed, blindfolded, beat, and robbed him. He alleged they forced him to produce drugs and that the police planted the sachets, cash, and cigarette box on him. He denied ownership of the seized items and claimed injuries from the alleged beatings but did not present medical proof or file complaints against the officers.
Trial Court Disposition
The Regional Trial Court (Branch 92, Balanga City) convicted appellant on both counts. Sentences imposed: for Section 5 (sale) — life imprisonment without eligibility for parole and a P500,000 fine; for Section 11 (possession) — imprisonment of 15 years and 1 day to 20 years without eligibility for parole and a P300,000 fine.
Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, finding compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165. It accepted inventory and photographing at the police station (rather than at the scene) given in flagrante delicto circumstances, deemed the presence of a barangay kagawad and DOJ representative an acceptable substitute for a media representative, and concluded that temporary handling of items by PO1 Pajarin (sliding sachets into his pockets) did not diminish integrity. The CA held that the marked sachets submitted to the laboratory and offered in court were the same items seized from appellant.
Issue Before the Supreme Court
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the convictions despite procedural deficiencies in the handling of the seized drugs that allegedly breached the chain of custody and compromised the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti.
Legal Standard: Chain of Custody and Section 21, RA 9165
The Supreme Court reiterated that in illegal drug cases the drug itself is the corpus delicti, and the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance presented in court is the same substance seized from the accused. Section 21 of RA 9165 prescribes procedures to preserve the corpus delicti: immediate marking, physical inventory, and photographing of seized items in the presence of the accused (or representative/counsel), an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media; submission to the PDEA forensic laboratory within 24 hours; and issuance of laboratory certification. Noncompliance may be excused only for justifiable grounds if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are nevertheless preserved.
Required Links in Chain of Custody
The Court restated the four essential links the prosecution must account for: (1) seizure and marking at the place of arrest; (2) turnover from apprehending officer to investigating officer; (3) turnover from investigating officer to forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) turnover and submission by the forensic chemist to the court. Each link must be satisfactorily established to remove doubts about identity, tampering, or substitution.
Supreme Court’s Analysis of First Link (Seizure/Marking, Inventory, Photographs)
The Court found multiple deficiencies in the first link: markings were made but without the required insulating witnesses at the scene (no elected official and no media representative present at the time of marking and seizure); physical inventory and photographing were conducted at the police station, not immediately at the place of arrest; and the prosecution failed to provide justification for these deviations. The Court cited authorities emphasizing that the presence of insulating witnesses at the time and place of seizure is essential to prevent or rebut claims of planting and to protect both the accused and the operatives.
Supreme Court’s Analysis of Handling and Temporary Custody
The Court highlighted PO1 Pajarin’s admission that he slid the sachets into his pockets and kept them until turnover, finding this practice suspect. Relying on precedent, the Court described a single officer’s bodily keeping of seized drugs (particularly in separate pockets) as “doubtful and suspicious,” fraught with risk of tampering, and not a proper means to ensure integrity. The Court found no acceptable justification for such handling in this case.
Analysis of Second and Third Links (Turnovers)
The Court observed gaps in testimony regarding the transfer
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 246461)
Case Caption and Decision Reference
- Full citation as shown in the source: 878 Phil. 526 FIRST DIVISION [ G.R. No. 246461, July 28, 2020 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. ROSENDO LEAAO Y LEAAO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
- Decision authored by Justice Lazaro-Javier.
- Appeal seeks reversal of the Court of Appeals Decision dated September 14, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09528, which affirmed appellant Rosendo LeaAo y LeaAo’s conviction for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) and imposed corresponding penalties.
Procedural Posture and Relief Sought
- Appellant filed Notice of Appeal dated October 9, 2018 following the Court of Appeals’ affirmation of conviction.
- On appeal to the Supreme Court, counsel for appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General manifested adoption of their respective briefs submitted to the Court of Appeals (per Resolution dated September 25, 2019).
- Relief sought by appellant: reversal of the conviction and acquittal on the basis of procedural lapses, particularly breaches in the chain of custody and other buy-bust procedural deficiencies.
- Relief argued by the OSG: affirmation of convictions due to sufficiency of evidence, proper preservation of evidentiary integrity despite minor lapses.
Charges and Informations
- Two Informations were filed against Rosendo LeaAo y LeaAo (alias “Totong”):
- Criminal Case No. 16058: Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal sale) — alleged sale on or about July 1, 2016 in Balanga City, Bataan of one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 0.0628 gram; alleged positive urine screening and confirmatory tests for methamphetamine.
- Criminal Case No. 16059: Violation of Section 11, in relation to Section 25, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal possession) — alleged possession on or about July 1, 2016 in Balanga City, Bataan of two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 0.0951 gram; alleged positive urine screening and confirmatory tests for methamphetamine.
- Cases raffled to Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 92, Balanga City, Bataan.
- Appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges at arraignment.
Trial Participants, Stipulations, and Witnesses
- Prosecution witnesses: PO1 Paul Nemen M. Pajarin and PO1 Elton P. Berdonar.
- Defense witness: Appellant Rosendo LeaAo y LeaAo testified on his own behalf.
- Parties stipulated to the following points regarding laboratory and handling:
- Forensic chemist PCI Vernon Rey Santiago’s expertise and qualifications.
- PO1 Pajarin’s delivery of the specimens to PO2 Dorigo and PCI Santiago of the Bataan Provincial Crime Laboratory.
- The crime laboratory’s receipt of the request for laboratory examination and the specimens to be tested.
- The turnover of appellant for drug testing.
- The existence of Chemistry Report Nos. D-358-16-Bataan and DT-286-16-Bataan.
- That the specimens brought for examination were the same ones tested by PCI Santiago.
Prosecution’s Narrative of Events (Buy-Bust Operation)
- Date/time/place: July 1, 2016; meeting at Petron gasoline station near Shell gasoline station in Barangay Poblacion, Balanga City, Bataan.
- Initiation:
- A confidential informant informed PO1 Pajarin that a person known as “Totong” of Barangay Sibacan was selling illegal drugs.
- PO1 Pajarin relayed information to Police Chief Inspector Tampis, who ordered a buy-bust operation.
- Confidential informant called the appellant; parties agreed to a P500.00 buy.
- Poseur-buyer and marked money:
- PCInsp. Tampis designated PO1 Pajarin as the poseur-buyer.
- PO1 Pajarin was given a marked P500.00 bill (serial no. FG366755) on which he wrote “BCPS.”
- Coordination with PDEA:
- PO2 Abelardo Tacto coordinated with PDEA-Region III and submitted Coordination Form and Pre-Operation Report.
- PDEA-Region III issued Certificate of Coordination (control no. 10004-072016-0059).
- The transaction and arrest:
- Around 8:00 PM, appellant arrived at the meeting place; PO1 Pajarin handed marked P500.00 to appellant; appellant handed one sachet allegedly containing shabu and instructed “Iabot mo na ang pera, boss.”
- PO1 Pajarin placed purchased sachet in his right pocket; he removed his cap as a prearranged signal; PO1 Berdonar approached, identified himself as police, and arrested appellant.
- Appellant identified himself as Rosendo L. LeaAo, alias “Totong.”
- Frisk and recovery:
- PO1 Pajarin frisked appellant and recovered the marked P500.00 bill and a Marlboro cigarette box containing two more heat-sealed plastic sachets of suspected shabu.
- PO1 Pajarin marked sachet purchased “PMP” and the two confiscated sachets “PMP-1” and “PMP-2” in the presence of appellant and PO1 Berdonar.
- The two sachets were placed back into the Marlboro box and the box was slid into PO1 Pajarin’s left pocket; the purchased sachet was in his right pocket.
- Inventory and turnover:
- Appellant was brought to Balanga City Police Station.
- Inventory and photographs of the confiscated items were done at the station in the presence of appellant, PO1 Berdonar, DOJ representative Villamor Sanchez, and Barangay Kagawad Armando Zabala, who signed the inventory.
- After inventory, PO1 Pajarin brought items to the Bataan Crime Laboratory for examination and submitted a request for appellant’s drug test.
- Items and appellant were turned over to PO2 Dorigo and PCI Vernon Rey Santiago.
- Laboratory results:
- Forensic chemist PCI Vernon Rey Santiago performed chemical tests on the specimens and yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
- Appellant’s urine test likewise yielded positive results for methamphetamine.
- Prosecution documentary and physical exhibits offered:
- Sinumpaang Salaysay of PO1 Pajarin and PO1 Berdonar.
- Certificate of Coordination; Coordination Form; Pre-Operation Report.
- Inventory Receipt of property seized; photographs taken during inventory.
- Request for Laboratory Examination; Chemistry Report No. D-358-16 Bataan.
- Request for Drug Testing; Chemistry Report No. DT-286-16 Bataan.
- Spot Report of the buy-bust operation and seizure.
- The marked P500.00 bill; specimen marked “PMP”; specimens marked “PMP-1” and “PMP-2”; one box of Marlboro cigarettes marked “PMP-3.”
Defense’s Version (Appellant’s Testimony)
- Appellant’s narrative of events on July 1, 2016:
- Around 5:00 PM, appellant said he went to Balanga City to buy vitamins for his two children and decided to buy food at a store called Vercons.
- He parked near the Petron gasoline station due to full parking at the store.
- Upon returning, he alleged a silver Toyota Innova blocked his path; four men got out, accosted, handcuffed, covered his head, forced him into the car, took his belongings (cellphone, ID, box of cigarettes, P3,000.00 cash), and repeatedly beat him to coerce him to produce drugs.
- He claimed the men forced him to produce drugs until 9:00 PM; at 9:00 AM (source states “9 o'clock in the morning,” likely an evidentiary recounting), he was brought to Balanga City Police Station where he was shown three sachets and other items allegedly recovered from him; he denied ownership and claimed police planted the items.
- Cross-examination responses:
- Admitted he did not park at the food store’s parking area but crossed the main street to park.
- Claimed a foot injury from alleged beatings; acknowledged examination at Bataan General Hospital but did not present proof of foot injury.
- Stated he did not file a complaint against the officers due to alleged threats.
- Admitted he had not met the police officers prior to the alleged incident.
Trial Court Ruling (RTC Joint Decision, July 12, 2017)
- Verdict: Appellant found guilty beyond reasonable doubt on both Informations.
- Sentences imposed:
- Criminal Case No. 16058 (Section 5, Article II, RA 9165 — sale): Life imprisonment without eligibility for parole and fine of Php5