Atty. Julius Gregory Delgado
“CARLO VILLAMOR VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. NO. 243811 (04 JULY 2022):
SUPREME COURT COMMENDS POLICE OFFICERS FOR STRICTLY COMPLYING WITH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY
On the strength of the intelligence gathered through careful surveillance of the subject, SP01 Ernesto Cabrera (“SPO1 Cabrera”) applied a Search Warrant from the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Batangas City against the accused, petitioner Carlo Villamor (“petitioner Villamor”). After the Search Warrant was issued, SPO1 Rivero Reyes (“SPO1 Reyes”) prepared the coordination form and the pre-operation report for the implementation of the Search Warrant against petitioner Villamor and sent the same to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency where an Agent Belansing received these documents.
On June 12, 2012, Team Leader, SPO2 Reynaldo Salazar, conducted a briefing with members of the team given their respective assignments. According to the Search Warrant, the subject matter of the search is an unestimated amount of methamphetamine hydrochloride, some drug paraphernalia, and equipment. Upon arrival at the area, the designated person coordinated with Barangay Councilor Mario Ginhawa (“Councilor Ginhawa”) who accompanied the team to the place. Media representative Lito Rendora (“Rendora”) and Department of Justice Representative, Prosecutor Evelyn Jovellanos (“Prosecutor Jovellanos”) eventually joined them. At the area, the police secured the perimeter and looked at the target house. A Barangay Tanod pointed to the house of petitioner. In the presence of Councilor Ginhawa, SPO1 Cabrera knocked on the door. A woman, later identified to be Lizalyn Magadia, wife of petitioner Villamor, permitted them to enter the house. Petitioner Villamor was also present inside the house at the time the police arrived, signed the Search Warrant after it was read to them.
PO1 Jeffrey Falcutila (“PO1 Falcutila”), PO1 Earl Malibiran (“PO1 Malibiran”), Rendora, Prosecutor Jovellanos and Councilor Ginhawa all entered the house. While these witnesses were observing him, PO1 Falcutila first searched the only bedroom in the house but did not find anything. He then continued searching in the living room and discovered beneath the mantle on top of the refrigerator three (3) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu, one (1) transparent plastic sachet with suspected shabu residue and one (1) small aluminum foil. Upon discovery, petitioner Villamor attempted to flee but was accosted since the policy secured the perimeter of the house. Petitioner Villamor was brought back inside the house and in the presence of the witnesses – Rendora, Prosecutor Jovellanos and Councilor Ginhawa – PO1 Falcutila immediately placed identification markings on the items seized. PO1 Falcutila then put them inside a safety-sealed plastic container.
Afterwards, in the presence of petitioner Villamor and his wife, SPO1 Cabrera prepared the Certificate of Inventory and requested the witnesses to affix their signatures thereon. While Rendora, Prosecutor Jovellanos and Councilor Ginhawa were affixing their signatures on the said document, SPO1 Reyes took pictures. SPO1 Cabrera prepared the Receipt of Property Seized and the Certificate of Good Conduct Search. After the preparation of the said documents and conduct of the inventory, PO1 Falcutila placed them inside an evidence kit and kept the same in his custody from the house of petitioner Villamor to their office. They gave a copy of the Receipt of Property Seized to the wife of petitioner. They told the petitioner that he violated RA 9165, apprised him of his constitutional rights, and brought him to the office.
Back to the office, SPO1 Reyes prepared the Return of Search Warrant and submitted the same to the issuing court while SPO1 Cabrera prepared the Letter-Request for Laboratory Examination, Letter-Request for Drug Test, and Request for Medical Examination of Petitioner. PO1 Malibiran prepared the Arrest Report. Shortly thereafter, SPO1 Cabrera, PO1 Falcutila, PO1 Malibiran and SPO1 Reyes went to the Provincial Crime Laboratory to deliver the evidence for laboratory examination. PO1 Falcutila personally handed over the request together with the specimens to the Forensic Chemist, Police Senior Inspector Herminia Carandang Llacuna (“P/SI Llacuna”) who signed the Letter-Request, and recorded the turn-over of the evidence in the Crime Laboratory’s General Logbook and Chain of Custody Form. Immediately thereafter, P/SI Llacuna conducted a qualitative examination of the specimens. After the examination, she sealed each of the four (4) sachets, marked each of them, and put them all inside a bigger plastic sachet, reduced her findings (positive for the presence of the methamphetamine hydrochloride) into writing, and turned over the evidence and the original copy of the chemistry report to Evidence Custodian, SPO3 Lito Vargas (“SPO3 Vargas”) for safekeeping.
On October 2, 2012, on the strength of the Subpoena Duces Tecum issued by the court, P/SI Llacuna withdrew the evidence from the custody of SPO3 Vargas, as shown in the Crime Laboratory’s Turnover of Evidence Logbook and Chain of Custody Form. One the same day, she turned over the evidence to the Branch Clerk of Court, as shown in the Acknowledgment Receipt which bears the printed name of P/SI Llacuna and that of the BCOC. In open court, PO1 Falcutila affirmed that from the time he seized the pieces of evidence from the house of petitioner Villamor until he was confronted with them, there is no difference in the appearance and condition of said specimens. Likewise, when she was shown the pieces of evidence, P/SI Llacuna categorically declared that there is no difference and no sign of alteration in the four (4) specimens, except for the additional markings in red pen.
For his defense, petitioner Villamor denied the charge against him. He narrated that he was supposedly sleeping at home with his wife, when they heard police officers knocking at the door and window calling his name. Without opening the door yet, his wife supposedly asked them why they were looking for her husband. Suddenly, the police officers purportedly kicked their door. As they successfully entered their house, the police officers supposedly brought the petitioner, his wife and their children outside the house and they were supposedly guarded by two (2) police officers while the other police officers started searching their house and they heard things were being thrown. Petitioner Villamor claims that police officers were supposedly coming in and out of their house. Petitioner also alleged that witnesses supposedly arrived only after one and a half (1 ½) hours. Petitioner Villamor claims that the seized items were not found inside the house and they were planted by the police officers.
In a Decision dated February 23, 2015, the Regional Trial Court convicted accused Villamor ruling that: 1) the accused was lawfully arrested when sachets of suspected methamphetamine hydrochloride were found in his possession; 2) the prosecution was able to established a continuous and unbroken chain of custody from the time the seized drugs were confiscated until the same was delivered to the trial court; and 3) all the required witnesses were present during the marking, taking of photographs and inventory of evidence. The Court of Appeals affirmed in toto the ruling of the trial court convicting the accused of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Accused Villamor filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court alleging that: (1) the records supposedly do not show that during the implementation of the search warrant, the same was witnessed by himself, or any of his family members, claiming that he and his family members were supposedly outside the house when the search was made in violation of Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court; (2) both SPO1 Cabrera and PO1 Falcutila were supposedly claiming responsibility in possessing the seized drugs, thus creating confusion and uncertainty in the handling of the same, hence, purportedly creating material gap in the chain of custody; and (3) search was supposedly already conducted when Councilor Ginhawa, Prosecutor Jovellanos and media representative arrived.
On the first issue raised by accused Villamor, the Supreme Court held that PO1 Falcutila discovered the drugs on the top of the refrigerator when they were conducting the search. The refrigerator is in accused Villamor’s sala where he was present the whole time when the search was being made. The Court also held that the prosecution was also able to present photographs illustrating the narrowness of the house and accused Villamor’s proximity from the same refrigerator where the subject plastic sachets were found. It can be seen from the pictures, the location where accused Villamor was seated was actually just front of and within the viewing distance from where the refrigerator stood.
On the second issue, the Supreme Court held that for a successful prosecution and conviction of violation of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti – the dangerous drug itself. The Court held that there must be an accounting of the following links in its chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover of the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. The Court then restated Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 on the following steps that the buy-bust team needs to strictly adhere or comply: 1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure and confiscation; and 2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel; (b) an elected public official; (c) a representative from the media; and (d) a representative from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The Court held that the police officers were able to follow to the letter the strict requirements of Section 21. The Court held that the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the sachets of shabu and drug paraphernalia, that is, from the seizure, confiscation, and marking of the sachets of shabu and drug paraphernalia up to the delivery of the same to the crime laboratory, and presentation before the court.
As to the third issue, the Court held that it agrees with the OSG that it must be pointed out that both PO1 Falcutila and SPO1 Cabrera were together and present during the entire operation, from the actual search to the turnover of the same to the Crime Laboratory. In addition, PO1 Falcutila categorically testified that he was the one who kept the illegal drugs in an evidence kit and that he alone was in possession of the kit. Also, although it was SPO1 Cabrera who prepared the Letter-Request for Laboratory Examination, Letter-Request for Drug Test, and Request for Medical Examination of the Petitioner, it was PO1 Falcutila who personally handed over the request together with the specimens to Forensic Chemist, P/SI Llacuna who signed the Letter-Request, and recorded the turn-over of the evidence in the Crime Laboratory’s General Logbook and Chain of Custody Form. Thus, PO1 Falcutila remained in custody of the illegal drugs from the moment of seizure at the house of petitioner Villamor until he submitted it to the Crime Laboratory. Moreover, the presence of both officers even safeguarded the evidence further, as the trial court correctly found that their integrity and evidentiary value were properly preserved.
Finally, the Supreme Court ended by commending the police officers, to wit:
“This case therefore belies any claim that the requirements of R.A. 9165 are difficult to comply with. It is an exemplar of how the law can be easily followed if the police officers are thorough enough. More importantly, it shows that if police officers diligently perform their duties and obligations, justice would be rightfully served. The Court thus commends the police officers involved in this case for upholding the law and enforcing it as it is.”