452 Phil. 226
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
This is an appeal from the decision[1] of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 6, in Criminal Case No. 17145-R, finding appellant, Tony Pedronan @ "Totoy", guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by Republic Act 7659, and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
That on or about the 22nd day of October 1999, in the City of Baguio, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to SPO2 FREDERICK LAOANG, a member of the Philippine National Police who acted as poseur-buyer, five (5) bricks of dried flowering tops of marijuana each wrapped in a newsprint paper contained in a plastic bag with markings, all placed in a green backpack with markings weighing 4.026 kilograms, a prohibited drug, well knowing that the sale and delivery of such drug is prohibited without authority of law to do so, in violation of the aforementioned provisions of law.Upon arraignment, appellant entered a plea of not guilty.[3] Thereafter, trial proceeded forthwith.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused Tony Pedronan guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the offense of sale or delivery of 4.026 kilograms of marijuana in violation of Section 4, Article 2 of R.A. 6425 as amended by Rep. Act 7659 as charged in the information and hereby sentences him to Reclusion Perpetua and to pay the fine of P500,000.00 without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the cost.Appellant interposed the instant appeal on the lone assigned error:
The accused, Tony Pedronan, being a detention prisoner is entitled to be credited with 4/5 of his preventive imprisonment in the service of his sentence in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code. The 4.026 kilograms of dried marijuana bricks contained in 5 plastic bags in the green and black backpack are declared confiscated and forfeited in favor of the State being the subject of the offense and instruments thereof to be destroyed immediately in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.[28]
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.Appellant contends that the evidence of the prosecution is full of contradictions and irregularity which to an unbiased mind, leads only to one conclusion, that the police fabricated the case against him. He cited the fact that the prosecution had three different versions with respect to the buy-bust money. According to him, since SPO2 Laoang allegedly went through a lot of trouble in preparing the buy-bust money by having it dusted with fluorescent powder, it is unusual that he did not make use of it. He also points to the fact that the members of the buy-bust team cannot seem to agree on the denominations of the money they allegedly prepared and whether or not the team actually conducted surveillance on the appellant the day before the alleged buy-bust operation.[29]
More importantly, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, an essential requirement in drug-related cases.[35] In People v. Mapa,[36] appellant was acquitted after the prosecution failed to clarify whether the specimen submitted to the NBI for laboratory examination was the same one allegedly taken from him. In People v. Dismuke,[37] we ruled that the failure to prove that the specimen of marijuana examined by the forensic chemist was that seized from the appellant was fatal to the prosecution's case.
Q. You likewise testified, Mr. Witness that at the time you arrested the accused you were in possession of the P4,000.00 buy-bust money, is it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Your prior arrangement, according to you, was for you to pay the accused once he delivers the marijuana to you is it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. But the buy-bust money remained in your possession up to the time that the accused was arrested and in fact, you never gave the money to him, is it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. That money was called buy-bust money purposely for you to entrap the accused, is it not? A. Yes, sir. Q. Of selling marijuana? A. Yes, sir. Q. Where is the buy-bust money now, Mr. Witness?
A. It was used in some other operation, sir. Q. You turned it over to your superior, is that what you are saying? A. To my team leader, sir. Q. Who was team leader? A. At that time it was SPO2 Fernando Fernandez. Q. So you don't know now where is the buy-bust money? A. Yes, sir. COURT: (To witness) Q: You are telling this court that you went to a lot of trouble of having the buy-bust money marked with fluorescent powder by the NBI and yet when it came to the actual transaction you did not use it? A. Because the suspect, sir, brought with him not the exact weight of the marijuana. (Emphasis ours.)[34]
Apparently, not only was Officer Laoang remiss in his duties as arresting officer, he was also careless in handling the evidence. He admitted changing the original wrappings of the marijuana bricks, yet he failed to report such fact when it was his duty to do so in order to preserve the integrity of the chain of custody.
COURT: Did it occur to your mind that what could distinguish one brick of marijuana from another brick of marijuana that may have been previously confiscated; because they are almost always the same is their wrapper, precisely? A. Not actually, sir. Q. It did not occur to your mind? Are you telling us that you would be able to distinguish immediately what particular brick of marijuana was confiscated on what occasion from another occasion without their wrappers? A. No, sir. x x x x x x x xxQ. Are you sure you did not change the marijuana?
A. No, sir. Q. Because this is the first time that the court has come across the placing of a name on the crust of the marijuana, not on the wrapper but on the brick itself. Is that your standard operating procedure? A. Yes, sir. Q. How come it is not done by others? A. I don't know, sir. COURT: You know, for the record, the court will call the attention of your superiors on this matter that you did not use the money that was dusted with fluorescent powder when you took pains and effort to have it dusted and that you changed the wrappers of the marijuana, thereby tampering and affecting the integrity of the evidence you submitted here. (Emphasis ours.)[38]
It is worthy to note that Officer Laoang began his law enforcement career in 1987 and had been a member of the Regional Criminal Investigation and Detection Group-Cordillera Administrative Region (RIDG-CAR) since 1996. The main function of the RIDG-CAR is to investigate dangerous drugs cases and effect arrests in connection with the same. Therefore, officer Laoang is not a green recruit unschooled in dangerous drugs cases and all matters related to it, hence, his errors with respect to the handling of the marijuana are inexcusable. As an officer of the law, SPO2 Laoang is presumed to be aware of his duties and responsibilities in apprehending criminals, securing the evidence related to arrests and protecting the chain of custody, just as it is presumed that in dispensing said duties, he acts with regularity.
Q. When you changed the wrappers, did you write that in your report? A. No, sir. Q. You did not deem it necessary that the wrappers you changed would be needed in court? A. No, sir.[39]
x x x. The government's drive against illegal drugs deserves everybody's support. But it is precisely when the government's purposes are beneficent that we should be most on our guard to protect these rights. As Justice Brandeis warned long ago, "the greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." Our desire to stamp out criminality cannot be achieved at the expense of constitutional rights. x x x.WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 6, finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Tony Pedronan is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. Consequently, he is ordered RELEASED from custody, unless he is being lawfully held for another lawful cause. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.