People v. Velasco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Rodel Velasco y Luzon was charged with violation of Section 3 of Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1866, as amended by Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9516, for allegedly possessing one (1) MK-2 Fragmentation Hand Grenade without the necessary license or permit. The prosecution alleged that on March 20, 2012, at around 1:40 in the morning, police officers conducting "OPLAN SITA" along G. Araneta Avenue, corner Maria Clara Street, Brgy. Sto. Domingo, Quezon City, signaled a Daewoo Racer car with no plate number to stop. Upon noticing a gun tucked at the waistline of a passenger, Roberto Alegre y Apat, they ordered the passengers to alight. PO3 Jason A. Taguba then frisked the accused-appellant and found one (1) MK2 fragmentation grenade in his possession. The accused-appellant and his companions were arrested. PO3 Robert F. Rodillas of the Explosives Ordinance Disposal Division testified that the grenade was live and capable of exploding within a ten-meter radius. The defense, however, claimed that the accused-appellant was merely invited by friends to attend a birthday party and was inside his house in Malabon City when his friends arrived. They were allegedly stopped by a mobile car, asked to lie face down, and frisked, but no hand grenade was found. The accused-appellant and his companion were allegedly asked for money, and upon refusal, were brought to the police station where he learned he was being charged. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 87, found accused-appellant Velasco guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating P.D. No. 1866, as amended by R.A. No. 9516, and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua. The Court of Appeals (CA), Special Fifth (5th) Division, affirmed the RTC's decision. Accused-appellant Velasco filed an ordinary appeal to the Supreme Court. The Petition: The accused-appellant assailed the decision of the CA, arguing that the RTC and CA erred in convicting him of the crime charged.
Issue(s)
Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal possession of an explosive device, considering the chain of custody and markings on the grenade. Whether the prosecution's inconsistent testimonies and the presumption of innocence warrant the accused-appellant's acquittal.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the appeal, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and acquitted accused-appellant Rodel Velasco y Luzon of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. He was ordered immediately released from detention unless lawfully held for another cause.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellant for illegal possession of an explosive device, considering the chain of custody and markings on the grenade: The Court held that to convict an accused for illegal possession of an explosive device under P.D. No. 1866, as amended, two essential elements must be indubitably established: (a) the existence of the subject explosive, and (b) the negative fact that the accused had no license or permit to possess it. While the second requisite was satisfied, the Court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish that the MK-2 fragmentation hand grenade identified and admitted into evidence during the trial was the same object allegedly retrieved from the person of accused-appellant Velasco. This failure created serious doubt as to the corpus delicti of the crime charged, warranting acquittal. The Court emphasized that the chain of custody rule requires testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it was offered in evidence. In this case, the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses and the documentary evidence were silent as to how the investigator handled and stored the evidence, and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity. PO3 Jason A. Taguba admitted on cross-examination that no chain of custody form was executed when the grenade was turned over to the investigator. Furthermore, an inventory of the seized item was not conducted, and a confiscation or seizure receipt was not executed by the apprehending officers, which are mandatory requirements. The Court found that the Letter dated March 20, 2012, was merely a referral letter, not a confiscation receipt, and the Certification dated March 20, 2012, issued by PO3 Rodillas, merely evidenced the referral of a grenade and did not contain findings of any examination conducted by him. Thus, the chain of custody was unclear and the integrity of the evidence was compromised. The Court noted a significant discrepancy regarding the markings on the grenade. PO3 Taguba testified that he put his initials on the grenade, while PO3 Rodillas testified that the grenade he examined had the marking "R.V. - J.D.," standing for "Rodel Velasco - Jason Dagupan," and that an officer from Police Station 1 marked it. This inconsistency seriously cast doubt on whether the grenade specimen allegedly retrieved by PO3 Taguba was the same specimen examined and offered into evidence by PO3 Rodillas. On the issue of whether the prosecution's inconsistent testimonies and the presumption of innocence warrant the accused-appellant's acquittal: The Court found patent inconsistencies in the testimonies of PO3 Taguba and PO1 Romualdo C. Bacani regarding the location of the accused-appellant when he was frisked. PO1 Bacani testified that the accused-appellant and his companions were still inside the vehicle, while PO3 Taguba stated they were already out of the vehicle. The CA downplayed this inconsistency as trivial, but the Supreme Court held that these accounts went into the very criminal act charged, as they sharply differed on how the apprehending team acquired custody over the alleged explosive device. These inconsistencies were not trivial and created reasonable doubt. The Court reiterated the elementary principle that in a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Where there is reasonable doubt, the constitutionally enshrined presumption of innocence must be favored, and the accused must be exonerated as a matter of right, even though his innocence may not have been established.
Main Doctrine
The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the allegedly confiscated fragmentation hand grenade, creating serious doubt as to the corpus delicti of the crime charged, thus warranting acquittal on the ground of reasonable doubt.