674 Phil. 484
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
That on or about the 10th day of February 2003, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without the necessary license or prescription and without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and distribute Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing zero point zero two (0.02) gram, in consideration of P100.00.
On February 10, 2003, a confidential informant relayed information regarding the illegal drug pushing activities of one alias Pudong along Seabird Street, Barangay Rizal, Makati City to Barangay Chairman Dreu, head of the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC, for brevity) Cluster 6 (TSN, Aug. 6, 2003, p. 5).
Consequently, the MADAC Cluster 6, in coordination with the Makati Police Drug Enforcement Unit (Makati DEU, for brevity), met and decided to go to the place of alias Pudong at Seabird Street, Barangay Rizal, Makati City to verify if alias Pudong is indeed selling illegal drugs and to conduct an entrapment operation under the supervision of PO1 Randy Santos. During the briefing, it was agreed that one of the MADAC volunteers, Armando Pol-ot (Pol-ot, for brevity), together with the confidential informant, would act as poseur-buyer and buy illegal drugs from alias Pudong that very same day. The pre-arranged signal for the back-up team to know that the transaction was already consummated would be the poseur-buyer's act of lighting a cigarette. The buy-bust money was then marked and was handed to the poseur-buyer (TSN, Aug. 6, 2003, pp. 6-8, 10; TSN, Aug. 10, 2005, p. 9).
Thus, at about 7:15 p.m. of February 10, 2003, Pol-ot and the confidential informant went to Seabird Street, Barangay Rizal, Makati City on foot while the rest of the team rode a tricycle and followed the two. Upon reaching the place, the members of the back-up team positioned themselves 10 to 15 meters from where Pol-ot and the confidential informant were, so they could see the transaction take pace (TSN, Aug. 10, 2005, pp. 10-12).
Meanwhile, Pol-ot, who was then accompanied by the confidential informant, approached alias Pudong and was introduced by the informant as a buyer in need of shabu. Alias Pudong asked how much and Pol-ot replied "Piso lang naman", meaning One Hundred Pesos only. Thereafter, alias Pudong took the marked money and left. Upon his return, he handed Pol-ot a small plastic sachet containing suspected substance. Pol-ot then gave the pre-arranged signal and lighted a cigarette, signifying that the transaction was consummated (TSN, Aug. 6, 2003, pp. 9-10).
Upon seeing the pre-arranged signal, PO1 Santos and Rogelio Patacsil (Patacsil, for brevity) approached alias Pudong and apprehended him. Pol-ot then identified himself as member of the MADAC. Alias Pudong was then ordered to empty the contents of his pockets and the marked money was recovered. PO1 Santos immediately asked alias Pudong his real name. PO1 Santos then informed him of the nature of his arrest and apprised him of his Constitutional rights in Tagalog. Thereafter, alias Pudong was brought to the barangay hall of Barangay Rizal to have the incident listed in the barangay blotter. The confiscated substance contained in the plastic sachet which Pol-ot bought from alias Pudong was then marked "EUA" (TSN, Aug. 6, 2003, pp. 23-24; TSN, Aug. 10, 2005, pp. 13-15)
Subsequently, alias Pudong was brought to the Makati DEU office for proper investigation. The duty investigator prepared a request for laboratory examination of the specimen (the substance contained in the plastic sachet bought from the accused) marked "EUA" and a drug test for the accused (TSN, Aug. 6, 2005, pp. 15-16).
P/Insp. Richard Allan B. Mangalip conducted the laboratory examination on the contents of the plastic sachet marked "EUA" and it tested positive for Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (TSN, May 6, 2003, pp. 4-9).
The following day, or on 11 February 2003, PO1 Santos and MADAC volunteers Pol-ot and Patacsil executed a sworn statement entitled "Pinagsanib na Salaysay ng Pag-aresto" in connection to the buy-bust operation which led to the arrest of appellant Edwin Ulat y Aguinaldo alias Pudong (TSN, Aug. 10, 2005, pp. 16-18; Records, p. 6).[5]
In the evening of 10 February 2003, at about 7:30 o'clock p.m., the accused, EDWIN ULAT (Ulat for brevity), was at home watching television when he saw five (5) to seven (7) men in front of their door whom he thought were looking for someone. He approached them and asked who they were looking for. Suddenly, a gun was poked at him and he was told to go with them to the barangay hall. Ulat then asked who they were but he was told not to ask question or else he might get hurt. Two (2) of the men forced him out of the house. He resisted but he was punched in the stomach and was dragged towards a blue Revo. The accused was likewise asked if he knew a certain Sandy. He denied knowing the said person. He was brought to the barangay hall and then to the Criminal Investigation Division (CID).[6]
THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the court is of the opinion and so holds accused Edwin Ulat y Aguinaldo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged. He is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and is fined the sum of five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.
Let the dangerous drug subject matter of this case be disposed of in the manner provided for by law.[7]
WHEREFORE, premises considered, appeal is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit and EDWIN ULAT y AGUINALDO should be made to suffer the penalty correctly imposed by the trial court.[8]
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY WITH VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF R.A. 9165 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE THE OFFENSE CHARGED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE INCONSISTENT AND CONTRADICTING TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES.[9]
1) 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.
(a) The apprehending officer/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, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; 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.
Q: Why do you say it is the same plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance delivered to you by alias Pudong?
A: Because of the markings, sir.
Q: And who placed these markings?
A: PO1 Santos, sir.
Q: Where were you when PO1 Santos placed these markings in this plastic sheet?
A: In front of him.
Q: Now, can you tell us what is that marking placed by PO1 Santos?
A: Name of the accused.
Q: What is that mark, Mr. Witness?
A: Edwin Ulat Y Aguinaldo.
Q: Can you read these markings?
A: E.U.E. (sic)[14]
Na, ang aking (Madac Armando Pol-ot) nabiling isang sachet na naglalaman ng pinaghihinalaang shabu mula kay @ Pudong ay aking minarkahan sa harapan ng mga akusado ng inisyal na "EUA" (subject of sale) bago ito isinumite sa PNP Crime Laboratory Field Office para sa kaukuilang (sic) pagsisiyasat.[16]
Q: You mentioned that it was Santos who made the markings on the sachet EAU, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You were present when Santos placed these markings?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Are you sure?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Very, very sure.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: I am just wondering Mr. Witness, in your Pinagsanib na Salaysay ng Pag aresto, the second to the last sentence, and I quote; "Na, ang aking (Madac Armando Pol-ot) nabiling isang sachet na naglalaman ng pinaghihinalaang shabu mula ka @ Pudong ay aking minarkahan sa harapan ng mga akusado na inisyal na "EUA" (subject of sale). Mr. Witness, your testimony earlier and your affidavit, is conflicting, which is correct, your testimony or your affidavit?
A: PO1 Santos marked, sir.
Q: So your affidavit is not true?
PROS. SALAZAR:
In so far as the marking is concerned, not all affidavit, your Honor.
PROS. SALAZAR:
Q: This paragraph is not true?
THE COURT:
Read your affidavit.
A: Maybe it's just typographical error, sir.
Q: Who prepared this affidavit, Mr. Witness?
A: At the DEU office, sir.
Q: Did you read this affidavit before you sign?
A: Not any more, sir.
THE COURT:
You did not read?
A: No, your honor.
Q: How did you know if it's right?
A: I reviewed it after several days.
THE COURT:
After you signed, you read it after signing?
A: Yes, sir.[17]
Q: Why do you say this is the same plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance purchased from the accused in this case?
A: Because of the marking EUA, sir.
Q: And who placed this marking, Mr. Witness?
A: Armando Pol-ot, sir.
Q: Where were you when this marking were placed, Mr. Witness?
A: In front of him, sir.
Q: By the way what does that marking EUA represents, Mr. Witness?
A: Edwin Ulat y Aguinaldo, sir.[18]
Q: Did you make any inventory report to the item that was allegedly confiscated from the accused?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Where is your inventory report?
A: With the police, then brought to the Crime Laboratory for examination?
Q: Inventory report, you examine the inventory report to the crime lab?
A: The item that was confiscated.
Q: Were you present when this police made this inventory report?
A: Yes, sir at the Barangay.
Q: Can you tell us the name of the police who made the inventory report?
A: PO1 Santos, sir.
Q: Again, Santos?
A: Yes, sir.[19]
On the other hand, PO1 Santos emphatically denied ever making any inventory report:
Q: Did you make an inventory of those items that were confiscated?
A: None, ma'am.[20]
Q: Did you photograph the item that was confiscated from the accused?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Who was the photographer?
A: Our companion, sir.
Q: Who?
A: Mr. Baisa, sir.
Q: When you took the picture of the item, who were present?
PROS. SALAZAR:
Misleading, your Honor. He was not the one who took the pictures.
THE COURT:
When the pictures were taken who were present?
A: My teammates.
THE COURT:
With the accused?
A: He was present, but they photographed only the items confiscated from him, your Honor.
Q: The items only.
A: Yes, your honor.[21]
Q: Do you take photos of the items that were recovered, Mr. Witness?
A: None, ma'am.[22]
In a string of cases, we declared that the failure of the prosecution to offer the testimony of key witnesses to establish a sufficiently complete chain of custody of a specimen of shabu, and the irregularity which characterized the handling of the evidence before it was finally offered in court, fatally conflicts with every proposition relative to the culpability of the accused.
As in People v. Partoza, this case suffers from the failure of the prosecution witness to provide the details establishing an unbroken chain of custody. In Partoza, the police officer testifying did not relate to whom the custody of the drugs was turned over. The evidence of the prosecution likewise did not disclose the identity of the person who had the custody and safekeeping of the drugs after its examination and pending presentation in court.[26] (Emphases supplied; citations omitted.)