People vs Ladip

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. FREDDIE LADIP Y RUBIO, Accused–

Appellant.
G.R. No. 196146, March 12, 2014

FACTS:

The Prosecution’s Version of Facts

The prosecution presented Police Officer (PO) 1 Marcelino Sibal (PO1 Sibal) and PO1 Romeo
Tayag (PO1 Tayag), who both testified that while on duty in the morning of 7 December 2006,
together with other police operatives namely: PO2 Zamora, PO1 Almario, and PO2 Salas, at the
Station Anti–Illegal Drugs (SAID) – Station Operation Task Group, Quirino Police Station (PS–09),
Anonas Road, Project 2, Quezon City, a male confidential informant came to the station and
provided them with the information that a certain Freddie Ladip was selling illegal drugs in Area
1, Barangay Batasan, Quezon City.  Consequently, a buy–bust operation was conducted on the
same day whereupon the accused was arrested for selling methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu.5

As narrated during the trial, PO1 Sibal, who acted as poseur–buyer, and the informant went to
a house located in the abovementioned area around 1 o’clock in the afternoon of 7 December
2006, wherein the accused was already waiting for them outside the said house.  The informant
introduced PO1 Sibal to the accused as a buyer of shabu. Accused immediately inquired as to
the quantity of shabu that he intends to purchase by asking, “magkano?”  PO1 Sibal replied that
he wanted to buy P300.00 worth of shabu.  Accused then asked for the payment, for which PO1
Sibal readily gave him the marked money consisting of three 100–peso bills.  In return, accused
handed to PO1 Sibal a transparent heat–sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline
granules.  Upon the exchange and conveyance of shabu and the marked money having been
completed, PO1 Sibal gave the pre–arranged signal by removing the cap from his head to
signify to his back–up team, strategically stationed near the scene of the crime, that the
transaction was consummated.  Afterwards, the accused was arrested by the team.6

It was further stated under oath that, prior to the turnover of the evidence to the investigator–
on–duty in said station, PO1 Sibal and PO1 Tayag revealed that they placed their respective
markings on the two (2) small heat sealed transparent plastic sachets, 8 denominated as MS–FL–
12–07–06 and RT–PU–12–07–06.  Subsequently, an inventory of the seized items was made in
the presence of the police operatives and the arrested persons. Photographs of the arrested
persons, the marked money, and the seized items were likewise taken, followed by various
requests for laboratory examination of said specimens, and for drug dependency examination
of the arrested persons.Later on, the subject sachets were brought to the Quezon City Police
District (QCPD) Crime Laboratory.

The Defense’s Version of the Facts

Accused testified that at around 1 o’clock in the afternoon of 7 December 2006, he was
engaged in a drinking session inside the house of his live–in partner’s (Perlyn) friend (a certain
Wilma) at BarangayBotocan, Quezon City.11  Suddenly, three men in civilian clothes arrived and
searched the house but found nothing illegal.  Nevertheless, the three men grabbed and
handcuffed him and Perlyn,boarded them in a vehicle and brought them to a police station to
show them the shabu without explaining where it came from.To corroborate the testimony of
the accused, Lerma testified that she was in the house of her friend Wilma having a drinking
spree with them when the accused was unexpectedly and swiftly arrested by a group of three
male individuals clad in civilian clothes for no apparent reason. 
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a Decision finding the accused guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (for drug pushing).  The
dispositive portion of which is hereunder quoted

 CA:On appeal, the accused contended that the confiscated drugs were not marked
immediately at the time and place of its seizure, and that the subsequent physical inventory
thereof was not made in the presence of representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ),
the media, and any elected public official, in violation of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, thus,
destroying the identity and integrity of the evidence against him; that there were
inconsistencies in the testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution; and that ultimately,
the prosecution miserably failed to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 17The CA
affirmed in toto the decision of the RTC and dismissed the appeal.18  The case was then elevated
to the Supreme Court

ISSUE:           

Whether or not the RTC and the CA erred in finding that the evidence of the prosecution was
sufficient to convict the accused of the alleged sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu, in violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.

RULING:

The Court finds no merit in the appeal.

It has been consistently ruled that for the successful prosecution of offenses involving the illegal
sale of drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be
proven: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, object and consideration; and (2) the delivery of
the thing sold and the payment therefor. In other words, there is a need to establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused actually sold and delivered a prohibited drug to another,
and that the former indeed knew that what he had sold and delivered to the latter was a
prohibited drug.  To reiterate, what is material to the prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous
drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, plus the presentation in court
of corpus delicti as evidence.

The point, understandably, of the accused is noncompliance by the arresting officers with
Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 regarding
the chain of custody of  seized drugs, particularly as to the following:
We are not persuaded by these arguments.
This Court has time and again spoken on the chain of custody rule,a method of authenticating
evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to
support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be.  This would
include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to
the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit
would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it
while in the witness’ possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in
which it was delivered to the next link in the chain.  These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no
opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

As often as there are occasions to apply the chain of custody rule, the Court has pronounced
that the requirements under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR are not inflexible.  What is essential is
“the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same
would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused.”  Thus
from the point of view of jurisprudence, we are not beating any new path by holding that the
failure to undertake the required photography and immediate marking of seized items may be
excused by the unique circumstances of a case.  In People v. Resurreccion, we already stated
that “marking upon immediate confiscation” does not exclude the possibility that marking can
be at the police station or office of the apprehending team.  In the cases of People v. Rusiana,
People v. Hernandez, andPeople v. Gum–Oyen, the apprehending team marked the
confiscated items at the police station and not at the place of seizure. Nevertheless, we
sustained the conviction because the evidence showed that the integrity and evidentiary value
of the items seized had been preserved.  To reiterate what we have held in past cases, we are
not always looking for the strict step–by–step adherence to the procedural requirements;
what is important is to ensure the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items, as these would determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. We
succinctly explained this in People v. Del Monte when we held:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
We would like to add that non–compliance with Section 21 of said law, particularly the
making of the inventory and the photographing of the drugs confiscated and/or seized, will
not render the drugs inadmissible in evidence.  Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of
Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or
these rules.  For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its
reception.  If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the
evidentiary weight that will [be] accorded it by the courts. x x x

We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the
non–admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non–compliance with Section
21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non–compliance with said section,
is not of admissibility, but of weight — evidentiary merit or probative value — to be given the
evidence.The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances
obtaining in each case.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED.  The Court of Appeals Decision in CA–G.R. CR–H.C. No.
03635 dated 22 September 2010, is AFFIRMED in all respects.

De vera vs Aguilar

Facts:

Marcosa Bernabe owned a parcel of land in Bulacan. His children are Basilio, Luis, Felipe,
Eustaquia, Maria ( Petitioners), and Leona-married to Mariano Aguilar(Respondents)

Basilio and Felipe mortgaged the parcel of land to Atty. Bordador.

When the mortgage matured, spouses Maria and Mariano Aguilar redeemed the property and
in turn Marcosa Bernabe sold the same to them as evidenced by a deed of absolute sale and
was registered at the Registry of Deeds in Bulacan. Since then, the spouses paid the taxes of the
land.

Marcosa Bernabe died.

On 1980, petitioners demanded to respondents that as children of Marcosa Bernabe, they were
co-owners of the property and demanded the partition thereof. They claimed that the
respondents had resold the property to their father Bernabe.

Petitioners filed a case of Reconveyance against respondent spouses.

The evidence presented by the plaintiff are the following:

• Exhibit A- A xerox copy of a Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the respondents selling,
transferring, and conveying the parcel of land in favor of Marcos Bernabe.
• Testimony of the notary public before whom it was acknowledged
• Testimony of Luis who was present during its execution
• Testimony of the representatives of the offices of the National Archives and the Provincial
Assessor of Bulacan regarding the loss of the original document.

Issue:

Whether petitioners have satisfactorily proven the loss of the original deed of sale so as to
allow the presentation of the secondary evidence (xeroxed copy).

Ruling:

No. Although the petitioners established the existence of the alleged document, however it
failed to establish the facts and circumstances surrounding the loss or destruction of the same.

Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost or destroyed.
But prior to the introduction of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the
former existence of the instrument. The correct order of proof is as follows: Existence;
execution; loss; contents although this order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of
the court.

Loss may be shown by any person who knew the fact of its loss, or by anyone who had made, in
the judgment of the court, a sufficient examination in the place or places where the document
or papers of similar character are usually kept by the person in whose custody the document
lost was, and has been unable to find it; or who has made any other investigation which is
sufficient to satisfy the court that the instrument is indeed lost.

However, all duplicates or counterparts must be accounted for before using copies. For, since
all the duplicates or multiplicates are parts of the writing itself to be proved, no excuse for non-
production of the writing itself can be regarded as established until it appears that all of its
parts are unavailable.

In the instance case petitioner Luis even claimed during the trial that an original of the
document existed and was submitted to the Office of the Register of Deeds of Malolos for
registration. The appellees, therefore, should have asked the office to produce it in court and if
it could not be produced for one reason or another should have called the Register of Deeds or
his representative to explain why. That they failed to do. The loss or destruction of the original
of the document in question has not, therefore, been established. Hence, secondary evidence
of it is inadmissible.

Hence, all originals must be accounted for before secondary evidence can be given of anyone.
This petitioners failed to do. Records show that petitioners merely accounted for three out of
four or five original copies.