People v. Regie Breis (GR No. 205823) PDF
People v. Regie Breis (GR No. 205823) PDF
People v. Regie Breis (GR No. 205823) PDF
$upreme Qtourt
;!$1anila
SECOND DIVISION
- versus -
Promulgated:
nl
AUG 2015~
:x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~~
DECISION
CARPIO, J.:
The Case
This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated 26 June 2012 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04916, affirming the Decision2 dated
14 February 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 61, Baguio City (trial
court) in Criminal Case No. 30409-R.
The Facts
Appellants Regie Breis y Alvarado (Breis) and Gary Yumol y
Tuazon (Yumol) were charged with violation of Section 11 of Republic Act
No. 9165 (RA 9165) as follows:
4------
Decision
Rollo, p. 3.
Decision
Upon reaching the bus terminal, Mangili asked the bus conductor
to identify the bus which would leave at 5:00 oclock PM. Mangili was
directed to Genesis bus with plate number TXX 890. Thus, pretending to
be passengers, Mangili and Peralta boarded the bus and they observed two
male individuals whose physical appearances fitted the descriptions given
by the informant. Both agents likewise saw a box placed in between the
legs of accused Breis.
Mangili sat behind the accused while Peralta, stood near where the
accused were seated. In order to have a clearer view of the box tucked in
between the feet of accused Breis if the same fit the box described by
informant, Mangili took the seat opposite where the accused were seated
and saw that the box was with the markings Ginebra San Miguel and
which was described by the informant. Mangili then casually asked
accused Yumol who owned the Ginebra San Miguel box, the accused
replied that it was theirs.
Accused Yumol suddenly stood up and tried to leave but before he
could do so, Peralta blocked his way while Mangili confronted accused
Breis and asked what was contained in the box. Instead of answering,
Breis shoved Mangili and tried to flee but Mangili was able to block his
way as he was much larger than the accused Yumol (sic). Mangili ordered
him to sit down.
Agent Peralta then summoned the back-up officers to help secure
the bus and subdue the accused. After introducing themselves as PDEA
agents, Mangili asked the accused Breis to open the box but Breis ignored
the request which made Mangili lift and open the box. He took one brick
and discovered it was marijuana. The Ginebra San Miguel box yielded
three more bricks of marijuana. Mangili then marked the items on site.
Agent Peralta then informed the accused that they were being
arrested for violation of Rep. Act No. 9165 and then he read their
constitutional rights in Pilipino to them.
Thereafter, the team returned to the PDEA-CAR office of Melvin
Jones, Baguio City for documentation such as the preparation of the
affidavits of Agents Mangili and Peralta, Booking Sheet and Arrest
Report of both accused, Request for Physical Exam and Request for
Laboratory Exam. Inventory likewise was done around 7:43 oclock PM
on February 10, 2010 at the said PDEA-CAR office.
After the documentation and inventory, the accused were brought
to the Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC) and
Medico-Legal Certificates were issued showing that the accused had no
external signs of physical injuries at the time of their examination.
Chemistry Report No. D-08-2010 indicates that the confiscated items
from the accused yielded positive to (sic) the presence of marijuana, a
dangerous drugs (sic).4
Decision
Id. at 180-181.
CA rollo, p. 19.
Decision
In their appeal, appellants argued that the PDEA agents did not
comply with Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165, and that the
prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody over the seized items.
The Court of Appeals Ruling
The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court, holding
that the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 were satisfied.
Further, the Court of Appeals found no break in the custody of the seized
items that might compromise their evidentiary integrity. The appellate court
also upheld the legality of the warrantless search and arrest of appellants.
The dispositive portion of the decision of the Court of Appeals reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the appealed
Decision dated February 14, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Baguio City, Branch 61, in Criminal Case No. 30409-R, is AFFIRMED
in toto.
SO ORDERED.9
Records, p. 185.
CA rollo, p. 34.
Id. at 101.
Id. at 32-45, 59-84.
Rollo, pp. 39-40.
Decision
Appellants insist that the PDEA agents should have conducted the
inventory at the place where the drugs were seized. However, the IRR
clearly provides that in case of warrantless seizures, the physical inventory
and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or at the
12
13
Decision
Decision
venue rather than at the place of arrest. Consistency with the chain of
custody rule requires that the marking of the seized items to truly
ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually
the ones offered in evidence -- should be done (1) in the presence of the
apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation.
Immediate confiscation has no exact definition. Indeed, marking
upon immediate confiscation has been interpreted as to even include
marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team.
In this case, the dangerous drugs taken from accused-appellants were
marked in his presence immediately upon confiscation at the very venue
of his arrest.21 (Citations omitted)
The links that the prosecution must endeavor to establish with respect
to the chain of custody are the following: first, the seizure and marking, if
practicable, 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 by the
21
22
23
24
People v. Somoza, G.R. No. 197250, 13 July 2013, 701 SCRA 525, 545-546.
People v. Cervantes, 600 Phil. 819 (2009).
People v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 191753, 17 September 2012, 680 SCRA 680, 690-691, citing People v.
Bautista, 665 Phil. 815, 833 (2011).
CA rollo, p. 43.
Decision
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 from the forensic chemist to the court.25
In this case, the prosecution adequately established the unbroken chain
of custody over the marijuana seized from appellants.
The records show that the seized drugs were marked immediately
upon confiscation by IO1 Mangili with his initials and signature, the date,
and the letters A, B, C or D to distinguish the bricks, in the presence of
appellants.26
The seized drugs were brought, together with appellants, to the
PDEA-CAR field office. IO1 Mangili acted in both capacities of
apprehending officer and investigating officer. IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta
testified that they conducted the investigation and the inventory.27
IO1 Mangili and IO1 Peralta also testified that it was their evidence
custodian, Senior Police Officer 4 Abordo (SPO4 Abordo), who brought the
seized drugs to the Crime Laboratory for examination.28 A thorough review
of the records reveals that the Request for Laboratory Exam29 shows that the
seized drugs were delivered on 10 February 2010 by SPO4 Abordo and
received by Police Officer 2 Florendo and Police Senior Inspector Rowena
Fajardo Canlas (PSI Canlas). PSI Canlas was the forensic chemist who
conducted the examination on the seized drugs and signed Chemistry Report
No. D-08-201030 (chemistry report).
The chemistry report indicates that the specimen submitted are
retained in this laboratory for future reference.31 Through subpoena32 upon
PSI Canlas, the marijuana was brought to court and marked during the
preliminary conference held on 7 April 2010.33
Appellants contend that the prosecutions failure to discuss in detail
each link in the chain of custody negated the integrity of the evidence. This
is misplaced:
x x x It must be remembered that testimony about a perfect
chain is not always the standard as it is almost always impossible to
obtain an unbroken chain. As such, what is of importance is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
The integrity of the evidence is presumed to be preserved, unless there is a
showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Decision
10
In this case, the prosecution was able to show that the same drugs
seized and marked by IO1 Mangili were the same ones he identified at the
trial.37 Further, the records consistently show that the markings on the bricks
of marijuana consisted of the initials and signature of IO1 Mangili, the date
and A, B, C, or D, as evidenced by the photograph38 taken during the
inventory and the chemistry report describing the submitted specimen as
follows:
A-One (1) carton knot tied with gray plastic straw labeled
GINEBRA SAN MIGUEL with markings 02-10-2010 ELM and
signature, containing four (4) bricks of dried suspected marijuana fruiting
tops each wrapped with plastic and further wrapped with brown
packaging tape with the following markings and recorded net weights:
A-1 = [02-10-2010-A ELM and signature] = 2000.1 grams
A-2 = [02-10-2010-B ELM and signature] = 2158.3 grams
A-3 = [02-10-2010-C ELM and signature] = 2051.1 grams
A-4 = [02-10-2010-D ELM and signature] = 1971.5 grams39
(Emphasis supplied)
Decision
11
It is well settled that no arrest, search and seizure can be made without
a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. No less than the
Constitution guarantees this right
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.40
Decision
12
Q
A
And Gary Yumol, of course, did not give you any answer?
He said that it is theirs.
Q
A
Q
A
xxxx
Q
47
48
49
50
The description given was the height and the built (sic) only, correct?
And also the clothes they are wearing and the description of the box. (TSN, 7
July 2010, p. 13)
Decision
13
When I asked him who owns the box, I then identified myself.
Q
A
Did you ask them if you can see the contents of the box?
I told Regie to open the box but he did not want thats why I was
the one who opened it.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
A
Before you told him to sit down did you introduce yourself as a
PDEA agent?
Yes, sir.51 (Emphasis supplied)
Decision
14
55
56
57
58
59
Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. The
penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not
being included in the provisions of the preceding articles shall resist or seriously disobey any person in
authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.
When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature, the penalty
of arresto menor or a fine ranging from 10 to 100 pesos shall be imposed upon the offender.
Vytiaco v. Court of Appeals, 126 Phil. 48, 59 (1967).
United States v. Taylor, 6 Phil. 162 (1906).
Republic Act No. 9165, provides in part:
Sec. 82. Creation of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). To carry out the provisions of
this Act, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), which serves as the implementing arm of
the Board, and shall be responsible for the efficient and effective law enforcement of all the provisions
on any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in this Act.
xxxx
Sec. 84. Powers and Duties of the PDEA. The PDEA shall:
xxxx
b) Undertake the enforcement of the provisions of Article II of this Act relative to the unlawful acts and
penalties involving any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical and
investigate all violators and other matters involved in the commission of any crime relative to the use,
abuse or trafficking of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical x x x;
xxxx
d) Arrest and apprehend as well as search all violators and seize or confiscate, the effects or proceeds of
the crimes as provided by law and take custody thereof, for this purpose the prosecutors and
enforcement agents are authorized to possess firearms, in accordance with existing laws;
xxxx
United States v. Taylor, supra.
People v. Chan Fook, 42 Phil. 230 (1921).
Decision
15
nonetheless.
The Court has held justified resistance to illegal or abusive acts of
agents of persons in authority. In Chan Fook,60 the Court quoted Groizard:
A person in authority, his agent or a public officer who exceeds his
power can not be said to be in the exercise of the functions of his office.
The law that defines and establishes his powers does not protect him for
anything that has not been provided for.
The scope of the respective powers of public officers and their
agents is fixed. If they go beyond it and they violate any recognized rights
of the citizens, then the latter may resist the invasion, specially when it is
clear and manifest. The resistance must be coextensive with the excess, and
should not be greater than what is necessary to repel the aggression.
The invasion of the prerogatives or rights of another and the excess
in the functions of an office, are the sources that make for legitimate
resistance, especially, in so far as it is necessary for the defense of the
persons or their rights in the manner provided for in article 8 of the Penal
Code.61
Unlike the officer in Chan Fook, IO1 Mangili did not exceed his
authority in the performance of his duty. Prior to Breis resistance, IO1
Mangili laid nary a finger on Breis or Yumol. Neither did his presence in the
bus constitute an excess of authority. The bus is public transportation, and is
open to the public. The expectation of privacy in relation to the
constitutional right against unreasonable searches in a public bus is not the
same as that in a persons dwelling. In fact, at that point in time, only the bus
was being searched, not Yumol, Breis, or their belongings, and the search of
moving vehicles has been upheld.
Moreover, appellants are not in any position to claim protection of the
right against unreasonable searches as to the warrantless search of the bus.
The pronouncement of the United States Supreme Court (USSC) in Rakas v.
Illinois62 regarding the Fourth Amendment rights63 is instructive:
Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights, which, like some
other constitutional rights, may not be vicariously asserted. A person who
is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction
of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third persons premises or
property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed. And
since the exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the
60
61
62
63
Id.
Id. at 233-234; citing 3 Groizard, p. 456, et seq.
439 U.S. 128, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978).
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, similar to Section 2 of our Bill of Rights,
states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched,
and the persons or things to be seized.
Decision
16
Id.
Domalsin v. Sps. Valenciano, 515 Phil. 745, 764 (2006).
Yu v. De Lara, 116 Phil. 1105 (1962).
Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217 (1960).
Id.
Id.
265 U.S. 57 (1924).
Id.
499 U.S. 621 (1991).
Id.
Decision
17
18
Decision
xx xx
7) 500 grams or more of marijuana;
xx xx
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
l2
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
Decision
19
~t:?
ND OZA
Asso~iate Ju~tice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the
Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the
above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.