617 Phil. 997
VELASCO JR., J.:
Criminal Case No. Q-02-110988
That on or about the 31st of July 2002 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess or use any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess, sniff and/or use and under [her] control zero point zero seven (0.07) gram of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[1]Criminal Case No. Q-02-110989
That on or about the 31st day of July 2002, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, ZERO POINT ZERO SIX (0.06) grams of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.[2]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
a) In Criminal Case No. Q-02-110989, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. Accordingly, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00; and
b) In Criminal Case No. Q-02-110988. Accused is ACQUITTED of the crime for insufficiency of evidence.
x x x x
SO ORDERED.[8]
I
WHETHER THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT OF THE CRIME CHARGEDII
WHETHER THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROCEDURE FOR THE CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF PROHIBITED DRUGS WAS COMPLIED WITH
(a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied.)
We do not wish to speculate as to why PO1 Reyes contradicted her own testimony during the three separate hearings where she was on the witness stand. Generally, little inconsistencies serve to even strengthen the credibility of a witness. To our mind, however, these inconsistencies must be seen together with the unjustified lapses in the handling of the illegal drugs subject of the buy-bust operation. These lapses could have been explained by the prosecution but its lone witness could not accurately recall the reasons for the lapses. Worse, SPO2 Nebres, who had found two of the four sachets of shabu on accused-appellant's person during the buy-bust, was already dead and could not testify to clarify SPO1 Reyes' contradictory statements. When asked why no photographs of the illegal drugs were taken, SPO1 Reyes answered that the photographer was absent.[14] But during her cross-examination she was asked the same question and she replied that they did not take a photograph because the camera was broken.[15] When asked why the buy-bust team did not make an inventory, PO1 Reyes simply stated, "Because our team leader did not bother to make the inventory."[16] (Emphasis supplied.) SPO1 Arcoy could have clarified PO1 Reyes' testimony but he too was already deceased at the time of the trial. Evidence could have been presented showing a justifiable reason why the evidence was not marked immediately after the buy-bust and in front of accused-appellant, but again, SPO1 Reyes' testimony was lacking in this regard.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SPO1 REYES Q When you said that you were interested to buy two hundred pesos worth of shabu, what did alyas Marie do? A She took my money. Q And what did she do after getting your money? A After that she handed to me two pieces of [a] small plastic sachet. Q What were contained in those two small pieces of plastic sachet? A The one I bought from her. Q And after you received those two (2) plastic [sachets], what else did you do? A After that I gave my [pre-arranged] signal by raising my hand. Q And what happened after you raised your right hand as your [pre-arranged] signal? A My companions arrived. Q What happened after they arrived? A We were able to arrest Marie. Q Who took hold of Marie? A SPO2 Nebres. Q And what happened to the buy bust money you gave? A Nebres [was] able to recover the [buy bust] money from Marie.[11] x x x x CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SPO1 REYES Q But prior to that, Madam witness, did you coordinate with the Barangay Captain or Brgy. Operation of Sto. Domingo before you went there? A No, sir. Q And is it not a fact that it is an SOP in the conduct of buy-bust operation[s] to have a coordination before you conduct a buy bust operation[?] [P]lease answer it by yes or no. It is SOP in the conduct of buy-bust operation[s] that there has to be [c]oordination first? A It was the TOC who dispatch[ed] [us] and who made the call to hold on to the police station. x x x x CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SPO1 REYES Q Madam Witness, when you allegedly recovered these sachets from the accused, did you submit your inventory report to the PDEA? A No, sir. x x x x RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SPO1 REYES Q Why did you not make an inventory and [take] pictures of the shabu that you recovered? A Because our photographer at [the] time was absent. Q And how about the inventory, why did you not make an inventory? A Because our team leader did not bother to make [an] inventory. Q So it is the team leader who will make the inventory? A Yes, sir.[12] DIRECT EXAMINATION OF SPO1 REYES x x x x Q So, there were only two pieces of sachet that you [recovered]? A Yes, sir. Q You don't have any participation in the recovery of the other two? A None, sir. Q [Who] was in charge of the recovery of the other two? A PO2 Nebres. Q And where is she now? A Dead already.[13] x x x x CROSS EXAMINATION OF SPO1 REYES Q And you are very much experience[d] in conducting buy bust operation, am I correct? A Yes, sir. Q And in fact you can no longer recall the number of times that you appeared in court where you were call[ed] to testify as a government witness in cases of violation of drug law? A Yes, sir. Q So am I correct in saying that you were well aware on the requirement of law in view of your length of service in the PNP in conducting buy bust operation? A Yes, sir. Q Madam Witness, on July 30, 2002 before you and SPO4 Arcoy and SPO2 Nebres proceeded with the buy bust operation, what procedural requirement did you do? A SPO2 Arcoy coordinated with the PDEA. Q How did you know that SPO2 Arcoy coordinated with the PDEA? A He has a copy of the coordination paper. Q When did you see that coordination paper with the PDEA, Madam Witness? A I was at the office at that time. Q When was the last time that you saw that coordination paper with the PDEA? A Last 2002. Q Where is Arcoy now, Madam Witness? A Dead already. Q In other words, that coordination report can no longer [be] produce[d] anymore considering the death of Arcoy? A Yes, sir. x x x x Q Madam Witness, I asked you a while ago whether you are familiar with the requirement of law in conducting buy bust operation and you answered in the affirmative. Madam witness, under RA 9165 there are certain legal safeguard[s] which should be followed by the police officer and some of the requirements are photographs to be taken of the alleged confiscated items, did you take photograph[s] of the alleged shabu that you [allegedly] recovered? A We did not take a picture because the camera [was broken]. Q Madam Witness, considering that you were very much familiar with the requirement of law, did you not submit a post operation report with the PDEA informing them regarding the result of your buy bust operation where a certain alias Marie later on identified as Rosemarie Salonga was caught for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165? A No sir, but Arcoy [did].
PO3 Tougan did not mark the seized drugs immediately after he arrested appellant in the latter's presence. Neither did he make an inventory and take a photograph of the confiscated items in the presence of appellant. There was no representative from the media and the Department of Justice, or any elected public official who participated in the operation and who were supposed to sign an inventory of seized items and be given copies thereof. None of these statutory safeguards were observed.