G.R. No. 232487 - People vs. Pagsigan

Case Summary (G.R. No. 232487)

Criminal Charges and Allegations

In Criminal Case No. 15510, the accused-appellant was charged that on or about July 27, 2007, she unlawfully possessed in her custody and control one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.0206 g of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a prohibited drug, found positive upon laboratory examination.

In Criminal Case No. 15511, she was charged that on the same date and place, she unlawfully sold, conveyed, and delivered methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing more or less 0.0221 g to a poseur buyer in exchange for PHP 300.00, and that the substance tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.

Factual Background: The Buy-Bust and Seizure

The prosecution evidence established that it received information from a confidential informant (CI) that the accused-appellant was selling shabu in Barangay San Nicolas. A buy-bust team was organized with Police Officer 2 Jayson Constantino (PO2 Constantino) as the poseur-buyer, Police Officer 2 Gerald Pediglorio (PO2 Pediglorio) as back up, and the CI to facilitate the operation. The team first went to the barangay for coordination and for the buy-bust operation to be “blottered” before proceeding to the target area.

PO2 Constantino and the CI approached the accused-appellant while PO2 Pediglorio positioned himself about three meters away. The CI introduced PO2 Constantino as the buyer. PO2 Constantino gave the marked money to the accused-appellant, and she handed to him one plastic sachet containing shabu. After PO2 Constantino executed the pre-arranged signal—taking off his hat—PO2 Pediglorio rushed to the scene. When the accused-appellant was asked to empty her pockets, another plastic sachet of shabu and the marked money were recovered. The accused-appellant was then brought to the barangay hall.

At the barangay hall, the seized plastic sachets were marked by PO2 Constantino in the presence of barangay officials. The specimens were turned over to PO3 Randy Santos (PO3 Santos), who prepared the request for laboratory examination. PO3 Santos also delivered the plastic sachets to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office for forensic examination, which were received by a certain PO2 Villar. The laboratory examination yielded positive results for methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

Defense Evidence and Theory

On cross-examination, PO2 Constantino testified that the seized items were marked at the barangay hall because the place of arrest was considered critical. He admitted that they did not execute any inventory confiscation receipt and also testified that they did not coordinate with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and media representatives.

For her part, the accused-appellant testified that she accompanied a friend, Ana, to the house of spouses Josie and Vando. She stated that she stayed at the back of the house while Ana talked to the spouses out front. She then claimed that she was arrested by police officers and was brought to a dark place where a gun was pointed at her while she was repeatedly asked about Ana’s whereabouts. She asserted that spouses Josie and Vando were later allowed to go while she was detained.

RTC Ruling: Conviction for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession

The RTC, in its Joint Decision dated August 7, 2015, found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 15510 and Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. 15511. The RTC imposed twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum and a fine of PHP 300,000.00 for the illegal possession case, and life imprisonment with a fine of PHP 500,000.00 for the illegal sale case. The RTC ordered confiscation of the prohibited drugs and directed proper transfer and disposition.

CA Ruling: Affirmance Despite Section 21 Non-Compliance

On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC. It reasoned that non-compliance with Section 21 did not automatically render the evidence inadmissible when there were justifiable grounds and when the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved. The CA held that the integrity of the seized drugs remained unscathed and dismissed the accused-appellant’s denials as unsubstantiated.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The accused-appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt due to substantial chain-of-custody gaps and violations of Section 21. She pointed out that there was no inventory or confiscation receipt and no photographs of the seized drugs allegedly taken, and that the prosecution presented no evidence that they contacted the media and the DOJ to witness the marking. She further emphasized that no justifiable grounds were offered to excuse the non-compliance.

The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that the identity and integrity of the seized illegal drugs had been established, and that the absence of photographs and physical inventory did not compromise the integrity of the drugs.

Supreme Court’s Ruling: Appeal Granted, Acquittal Ordered

The Supreme Court ruled that the appeal was meritorious. It reiterated that jurisprudence treats non-compliance with Section 21 as casting doubt on the integrity of the seized items and creating reasonable doubt on guilt. The Court held that the prosecution’s failure to establish the required safeguards undermined the identity of the corpus delicti, which is an essential element for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.

The Court quoted the statutory requirements under Section 21, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, focusing on custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs. It stressed that compliance with Section 21 is critical and that non-compliance is tantamount to failure in establishing the identity of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal.

Legal Basis and Reasoning: Section 21 Safeguards and Their Non-Compliance

The Court emphasized that Section 21 requires the apprehending team to conduct an immediate physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused (or representative/counsel), with insulating witnesses that include an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, who must sign the inventory copies and be given copies. The statute allows that physical inventory and photograph may be done at the place where a search warrant is served or, in warrantless seizures, at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. The statute also provides that non-compliance under justifiable grounds—so long as integrity and evidentiary value are properly preserved—does not render seizures void. Nonetheless, the Court underscored that the prosecution must prove such justifiable grounds as a fact, not as presumed.

Applying these principles, the Court found that, in the case at bar, there was complete failure to conduct the required inventory and photographs before the insulating witnesses. It relied on the testimony of PO2 Constantino admitting that no inventory confiscation receipt was executed and that marking occurred at the barangay hall. It also noted PO2 Pediglorio’s testimony that they had no resources to make an inventory and their admission that they did not coordinate with DOJ or media representatives.

The Court also treated the absence of insulating witnesses as evident in the testimony of PO2 Constantino and the admissions elicited on cross-examination. PO2 Pediglorio further attempted to justify the lapses by claiming that the operation was hurried because of information that the accused would not stay longer. The Court did not accept this as a justifiable ground because both officers had been in the service for more than five years and admitted familiarity with the requirements of R.A. No. 9165. The Court found their explanation inconsistent with what the safeguards are meant to prevent and with the practical steps required—inventory preparation, photography, and ensuring insulating witnesses.

The Court likewise rejected the defense that marking at the barangay hall could cure

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 232487)

The case arose from an appeal by Emma T. Pagsigan (accused-appellant) after the Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165.
The Supreme Court treated the appeal as meritorious and reversed and set aside the lower courts’ judgments due to reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines acted as plaintiff-appellee and defended the conviction on appeal.
Emma T. Pagsigan appeared as the accused-appellant challenging the sufficiency of the prosecution’s proof.
The RTC of San Fernando City, Pampanga, Branch 44, rendered a Joint Decision dated August 7, 2015 in Criminal Case Nos. 15510 and 15511, convicting the accused-appellant.
The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07934, issued a Decision dated January 11, 2017 that affirmed the RTC.
The Supreme Court ultimately granted the appeal, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals and RTC decisions, and acquitted the accused-appellant.

Charged Offenses

In Criminal Case No. 15510, the accused-appellant was charged with possession of a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.0206 gms of methylamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), allegedly found positive upon laboratory examination.
In Criminal Case No. 15511, the accused-appellant was charged with sale of shabu weighing more or less 0.0221 gms to a poseur buyer for P300.00, allegedly confirmed by laboratory examination as methylamphetamine hydrochloride.
The prosecutions were anchored on Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

Prosecution’s Evidence and Buy-Bust Narrative

The prosecution testified that it received information from a confidential informant (CI) that the accused-appellant was selling shabu in Barangay San Nicolas, San Fernando City, Pampanga.
A buy-bust team was formed with PO2 Jayson Constantino as the poseur-buyer and PO2 Gerald Pediglorio as back up, with the buy-bust money marked.
The team initially went to Barangay San Nicolas for coordination and to have the operation “blottered” before proceeding to the target area.
PO2 Constantino and the CI approached the accused-appellant while PO2 Pediglorio positioned himself about three meters away.
The CI introduced PO2 Constantino as interested to buy shabu.
PO2 Constantino handed the marked money, and the accused-appellant allegedly handed a plastic sachet containing shabu.
After PO2 Constantino executed the pre-arranged signal (taking off his hat), PO2 Pediglorio rushed to the scene.
When the accused-appellant was asked to empty her pockets, another plastic sachet and the marked money were reportedly recovered.
The accused-appellant was brought to the barangay hall, where the seized plastic sachets were marked by PO2 Constantino in the presence of barangay officials.
The seized items were turned over to PO3 Randy Santos, who prepared the request for laboratory examination.
PO3 Santos delivered the sachets to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office for forensic examination, which were received by PO2 Villar, and laboratory results confirmed methylamphetamine hydrochloride.

Accused-Appellant’s Defense

The accused-appellant testified that she accompanied her friend Ana to the house of spouses Josie and Vando in Barangay San Nicolas.
She claimed she stayed at the back of the house while Ana talked with the spouses out front.
She stated that police officers suddenly arrested her, took her to a dark place, and repeatedly asked about Ana’s whereabouts while pointing a gun at her.
She alleged that the spouses were later allowed to go while she was left detained.

RTC’s Findings

The RTC found the prosecution’s evidence sufficient to prove the charged offenses beyond reasonable doubt.
The RTC convicted the accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 15510 for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, imposing imprisonment and a fine.
The RTC convicted the accused-appellant in Criminal Case No. 15511 for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, imposing life imprisonment and a fine.
The RTC ordered confiscation of the prohibited drugs and directed the handling of the accused-appellant’s transfer and the turnover of the specimens for proper disposition.

Court of Appeals Ruling

The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC conviction and held that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 did not automatically render the evidence inadmissible.
The Court of Appeals found that there were justifiable grounds for lapses and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the accused-appellant’s denials and unsubstantiated allegations.

Issues on Appeal

The accused-appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti because of substantial gaps in the chain of custody.
She specifically pointed to multiple alleged lapses under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, including:
...continue reading