108 OG No. 2, 133 (January 9, 2012)
[ G.R. No. 191061, February 09, 2011 ]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VS. ROSELLE SANTIAGO Y PABALINAS, APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
The Facts and the Case
The public prosecutor of Makati charged the accused Roselle Santiago y Pabalinas alias Tisay (Roselle) with violation of Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165[1]
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in Criminal Case
05-792. Roselle was also charged with violation of Section 15 of the
same law in Criminal Case 05-1101.[2]
Initially,
Roselle pleaded not guilty in Criminal Case 05-1101 (violation of
Section 15) but she later changed her plea to guilty[3]
and was so found by the court. The latter, however, deferred her
sentencing until the termination of the case for violation of Section 5.
The
parties stipulated at the pre-trial (1) that PO3 Leo Gabang
investigated the case; (2) that, although the latter prepared the
investigation report, he had no personal knowledge of what happened; (3)
that the police made a request, through P/Supt. Marietto Mendoza, for
laboratory examination; (4) that P/Insp. Richard Allan Mangalip, a
forensic chemist of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime
Laboratory, examined the submitted specimen, not knowing from whom the
same was taken; (5) that the PNP Crime Laboratory Office issued Physical
Science Report D-090-05S; and (6) that the forensic chemist was
qualified. With these stipulations, the prosecution dispensed with
Mangalip's testimony.[4]
PO1
Voltaire Esguerra (Esguerra) testified that on April 4, 2005, they
received information that Roselle was selling illegal drugs at her house
at Pipit Extension, Barangay Rizal, Makati City. Esguerra
conducted a test buy and received from her one heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachet that presumably contained shabu. When he returned to his office, Esguerra marked the sachet with "@ Tisay" then sent it to the laboratory for testing.[5]
Before receiving the results of the test buy, an asset told the police
that Roselle was going to leave her house, prompting Esguerra's team to
conduct a buy-bust operation.
Esguerra met Roselle again and told her that it was he who bought shabu
from her earlier that day. She thus let him enter the front yard of her
house where he told her that he wanted to buy another pack for
P300.00. Roselle took his marked money and entered the house. While
waiting and looking in, Esguerra spotted two women[6] inside using shabu
with the asset by their side, apparently waiting for his turn.
Subsequently, Roselle returned with one heat-sealed transparent plastic
sachet presumably containing shabu. Upon receipt of the sachet,
Esguerra signaled his team. They arrested Roselle and appraised her of
her rights. Esguerra immediately marked the sachet with "RPS".
After
returning to the station, he turned over Roselle and the seized sachet
to the investigator. When the contents of the first and second sachets
(with "@ Tisay" and "RPS" markings) were examined, these were confirmed to be Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu). A confirmatory test also found Roselle positive for the use of shabu.
For her defense, Roselle denies that she sold shabu to Esguerra. She claims that the case was a product of a mistaken identity, as she was not known as Tisay in the area but Roselle. She narrated how she was forcibly taken from her house and into custody.
In
its decision dated June 11, 2008, the RTC found Roselle guilty of
violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, and sentenced her to
life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. The RTC also
sentenced her to undergo rehabilitation for not less than six months at a
government drug rehabilitation center subject to the provisions of R.A.
9165 for her violation of Section 15, Article II of R.A. 9165.
Roselle
appealed from both judgments to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R.
CR-HC 03451 but the latter court affirmed the two convictions. She
looks for her acquittal from this Court.
The Issues Presented to the Court
The
issues presented to the Court are (1) whether or not the police
conducted a valid arrest in Roselle's case; and (2) whether or not the
CA erred in affirming the RTC's finding that the prosecution evidence
established her guilt of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court's Ruling
One.
Roselle claims that the police did not make a valid arrest in her case
since they arrested her without proper warrant and did not apprise her
of the rights of a person taken into custody as the Constitution and
R.A. 7438 provide.[7] But
Roselle raised this issue only during appeal, not before she was
arraigned. For this reason, she should be deemed to have waived any
question as to the legality of her arrest.[8]
Two. Although the prosecution established through Esguerra the acts constituting the crime[9]
charged in the drug-pushing case (Section 5), it failed to provide
proper identity of the allegedly prohibited substance that the police
seized from Roselle.
Esguerra testified that he seized a heat-sealed sachet of white substance from Roselle and marked the sachet with "RPS"
right in her presence. He claimed that he then immediately submitted
the specimen to the police crime laboratory for examination. But the
request for laboratory exam reveals that it was not Esguerra who
delivered the specimen to the crime laboratory.[10]
It appears that Esguerra gave it to a certain SPO3 Puno who in turn
forwarded it to a certain PO2 Santos. No testimony covers the movement
of the specimen among these other persons. Consequently, the
prosecution was unable to establish the chain of custody of the seized
item and its preservation from possible tampering.
Since the
seized substance was heat-sealed in plastic sachet and properly marked
by the officer who seized the same, it would have also been sufficient,
despite intervening changes in its custody and possession, if the
prosecution had presented the forensic chemist to attest to the fact a)
that the sachet of substance was handed to him for examination in the
same condition that Esguerra last held it: still heat-sealed, marked,
and not tampered with; b) that he (the chemist) opened the sachet and
examined its content; c) that he afterwards resealed the sachet and what
is left of its content and placed his own marking on the cover; and d)
that the specimen remained in the same condition when it is being
presented in court. In this way, the court would have been assured of
the integrity of the specimen as presented before it. If the finding of
the chemist is challenged, there may be opportunity for the court to
require a retest so long as sufficient remnants of the same are left.
What
is more, the prosecution failed to account for the whereabouts of the
seized specimen after the crime laboratory conducted its tests. This
omission is fatal since the chain of custody should be established from
the time the seized drugs were confiscated and eventually marked until
the same is presented during trial.[11]
Taking
into account the above reasons, the Court finds it difficult to sustain
the conviction of Roselle for violation of Section 5. The presumption
of her innocence of the charge must prevail.
As for the other
offense, her and " to account the whereabouts of both specimens (those
marked with @f those identified as members of the buy bust team.
laboviolation of Section 15 (Use of Illegal Drugs), it is curious that
the CA still entertained her appeal from it despite the fact that she
pleaded guilty to the charge and did not ask the trial court to allow
her to change her plea. At any rate, since she had been under detention
at the Correctional Institute for Women since 2005 and presumably
deprived of the use of illegal substance during her entire stay there,
she should be deemed to have served the mandatory rehabilitation period
that the RTC imposed on her.
WHEREFORE, for failure of the
prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the alleged
violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the Court REVERSES the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03451 dated October 30, 2009 and ACQUITS the accused Roselle Santiago y Pabalinas of the charge against her for that crime.
The Court DIRECTS
the warden of the Correctional Institute for Women to release the
accused from custody immediately upon receipt of this decision unless
she is validly detained for some other reason.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio, (Chairperson), Nachura, Peralta, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
[1] Also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
[2] Criminal Cases 05-792 and 05-1101 were tried jointly with Criminal Case 05-793 entitled "People v. Marilou Sapico y Pili and Betsyrose Cabase y Saguirre" for violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165 and Criminal Cases 05-1102 to 05-1103 entitled "People v. Marilou Sapico y Pili" and "People v. Betsyrose Cabase y Saguirre", respectively for violation of Section 15 of the same law.
[3] Records, Vol. I, pp. 54-57.
[4] Pre-trial Order dated June 28, 2005, id. at 43-46.
[5] See Request for Laboratory Experiment, id. at 223.
[6] Later identified as Marilou Sapico and Betsyrose Cabase.
[7] An
Act Defining Certain Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under
Custodial Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting,
Detaining and Investigating Officers, and providing Penalties for
violations thereof.
[8] Rebellion v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 175700, July 5, 2010.
[9]
(1) The identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment
therefor. See People v. Pagaduan, G.R. No. 179029, August 12, 2010.
[10] Request for Laboratory Examination, records, Vol. I, p. 226.
[11] People v. Cervantes, G.R. No. 181494, March 17, 2009, 581 SCRA 762, 777.
Source: Supreme Court E-Library
This page was dynamically generated
by the E-Library Content Management System (E-LibCMS)