Title
People vs. Mark Anthony Paguinto
Case
G.R. No. 256242
Decision Date
Jan 18, 2023
Accused Mark Anthony Paguinto convicted for illegal sale and possession of methamphetamine; chain of custody and prosecution's presentation upheld; life imprisonment and fines imposed.
illegal sale
illegal possession
dangerous drugs

Case Summary (G.R. No. 256242)

Factual Background

The charges stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted on August 23, 2014 in Marikina City. Police Officer 2 Ronel P. Agsawa (PO2 Agsawa) of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group received information from a confidential informant that a person with the alias “Bornok” was selling illegal drugs along H. Bautista Street. PO2 Agsawa relayed the information to Police Inspector Jerry Flores (P/Insp. Flores), who formed an entrapment team and designated PO2 Agsawa as the poseur-buyer. The buy-bust money, pre-operation report, and coordination documents were prepared with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and the relevant anti-illegal drugs unit.

At around 7:40 p.m., the target arrived on a black motorcycle. The informant told PO2 Agsawa that the rider was Bornok. The informant introduced PO2 Agsawa to Mark Anthony as a “scorer ng shabu.” When Bornok asked how much PO2 Agsawa wanted to buy, PO2 Agsawa replied “one-fourth lang.” Bornok requested the buy-bust money, placed it in his right pocket, then took from his left pocket a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance and handed it to PO2 Agsawa. After PO2 Agsawa received the sachet and placed it in his pocket, he held Mark Anthony’s arm and arrested him.

On arrest, the back-up team assisted PO2 Agsawa, and Mark Anthony was identified as the suspect. PO2 Agsawa frisked Mark Anthony and recovered the buy-bust money from his right pocket and a big sachet containing three small sachets of white crystalline substance from his left pocket. At the place of arrest, PO2 Agsawa marked the sachet subject of the sale with “MAP-BUYBUST 8/23/14” and marked the three small sachets with “MAP-1 8/23/14,” “MAP-2 8/23/14,” and “MAP-3 8/23/14,” respectively. PO2 Agsawa prepared the inventory of evidence and non-drug evidence and completed the chain of custody forms. The marking, inventory, and photography were witnessed by Vice Mayor Jose Cadiz, Councilor Ronnie Acuna, Barangay Kagawad Enrique Cruz, and Cesar Barquilla.

Thereafter, PO2 Agsawa delivered the confiscated sachets and the request letter to the Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory at 10:20 p.m. Police Chief Inspector Margarita Libres (PC/Insp. Libres) received the specimens, and forensic examination produced positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride. PC/Insp. Libres sealed and marked each specimen, placed them inside a larger plastic sachet, and surrendered them to the evidence custodian. On October 21, 2014, she withdrew the specimens and submitted them to the RTC. During trial, PO2 Agsawa identified the specimens presented in court as the same drugs seized from Mark Anthony. PC/Insp. Libres likewise testified on her receipt, examination, and submission of the specimens to the court.

Defense Version

Mark Anthony denied the accusations. He asserted that on August 23, 2014, he was driving his motorcycle with his common-law wife, Nicole Dela Sierra Sarmiento (Nicole), when five men blocked their way and ordered him to alight. He claimed that the men frisked him, allegedly found illegal drugs on his person, beat him, and took him to the police station for incarceration. Nicole corroborated that armed men accosted Mark Anthony, left her by the roadside, and took Mark Anthony to the Philippine National Police headquarters. She also testified that Officer Opelac demanded PHP 150,000.00 to settle the case, which they allegedly did not have.

Trial Court Proceedings

On May 9, 2017, the RTC found Mark Anthony guilty in both cases. In Criminal Case No. 2014-4420-D-MK for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs), the RTC sentenced him to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of PHP 500,000.00. In Criminal Case No. 2014-4421-D-MK for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs), the RTC imposed an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum, and a fine of PHP 300,000.00. The RTC ordered the simultaneous service of the penalties in both cases and directed turnover of the illegal drugs to the PDEA for proper disposition, including the return of the motorcycle described in the inventory of non-drug evidence.

Appellate Court Ruling

Mark Anthony appealed to the Court of Appeals, docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09860. He reiterated that he should be acquitted because (a) the prosecution failed to present the confidential informant, and (b) there was a break in the chain of custody. He argued that the informant, not PO2 Agsawa, personally transacted with the seller. He also pointed to an alleged inconsistency where PO2 Agsawa claimed endorsement of the request and specimens for laboratory examination, while PC/Insp. Libres allegedly stated she was unfamiliar with PO2 Agsawa as the requesting party.

On October 14, 2020, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal. It held that the prosecution proved all elements of illegal sale and illegal possession beyond reasonable doubt. It also found that the prosecution preserved the integrity of the confiscated drugs and established an unbroken chain of custody, emphasizing that the markings on the letter-requests indicated delivery by PO2 Agsawa to PC/Insp. Libres on August 23, 2014 at 10:20 p.m. The Court of Appeals, however, modified the RTC disposition by deleting the RTC directive for the simultaneous service of penalties in the two cases.

Issues Raised on Appeal

Mark Anthony maintained before the Supreme Court that acquittal was warranted due to the non-presentation of the confidential informant and alleged defects in the chain of custody. Implicitly, the Court also addressed the effect of the omission in the information for illegal possession of dangerous drugs of the quantity or weight of the seized items on the determination of penalty.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs as: the identities of buyer and seller, the transaction or sale of the illegal drug, and the existence of the corpus delicti. It held that PO2 Agsawa’s testimony satisfied these elements. As the poseur-buyer, PO2 Agsawa identified Mark Anthony as the seller and recounted in detail how the exchange occurred: PO2 Agsawa handed the buy-bust money to Mark Anthony, Mark Anthony took a sachet from his left pocket, and delivered it to PO2 Agsawa, after which PO2 Agsawa arrested him. The Court emphasized that the substance received and seized yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride, confirming the corpus delicti. The Court also stated that the delivery of the illicit drug to PO2 Agsawa and Mark Anthony’s receipt of the buy-bust money consummated the sale.

On the claim that the confidential informant’s testimony was required, the Court held that presentation of the informant was not a requisite in prosecutions for drug offenses. It explained that the testimony of the informant is generally corroborative of the poseur-buyer who testifies on the sale. It further reasoned that informants are typically not presented because of the need to protect their identity and preserve their usefulness to law enforcement. The Court recognized that dispensation from presenting an informant is not absolute; it must yield to exceptions, such as when the accused vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs with material inconsistencies in arresting officers’ testimonies, when there are reasons to believe arresting officers were motivated to falsely testify, or when only the informant was the poseur-buyer who actually witnessed the entire transaction. The Court found that none of these exceptions applied because PO2 Agsawa provided a first-hand account of the transaction as poseur-buyer, and the informant’s role was limited to introducing PO2 Agsawa as “scorer ng shabu” to Mark Anthony.

With respect to illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the Court restated the elements: possession of an item identified as a prohibited drug, lack of legal authority, and the accused’s free and conscious possession. It held that the prosecution established these elements through the frisk and recovery after the sale. PO2 Agsawa recovered from Mark Anthony’s left pocket one big sachet containing three small sachets of a white crystalline substance. The forensic results later confirmed the substance as methamphetamine hydrochloride. The Court also noted that Mark Anthony offered no satisfactory explanation for why he possessed the drugs, which supported prima facie evidence of intent to possess the seized items.

The Court then addressed the requirement to establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the key links: (1) confiscation and marking by the apprehending officer, (2) turnover to the investigating officer, (3) turnover to the forensic chemist for examination, and (4) submission to the court by the forensic chemist. It invoked Article II, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, which sets post-seizure custody and disposition rules. It stressed that the mandatory physical inventory and photograph must be conducted immediately after seizure and in the presence of specified persons. It also acknowledged the post-amendment relaxation that allowed inventory and photography to be conducted at the nearest police station or the office of the apprehending team when practicable in warrantless seizures, and a saving clause that noncompliance under justifiable grounds would not void the seizure if integrity and evidentiary value were properly preserved.

The Court found that the prosecution sufficiently established movement and custody. It observed that at the place of arrest PO2 Agsawa marked the sale sachet and the other sachets with their respective markings, and that he accomplished inventories and the chain of custody forms. It noted that elected public officials and a media representative witnessed the marking, inventory, and photography. The team pre

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms