People v. Cabriole
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Accused-appellant Gabriel Campugan Cabriole and co-accused Daniel Gumanit Abad were charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. The Information for Criminal Case No. 2016-6622 alleged that on October 16, 2016, at around 1:57 PM, in Purok 4, Barangay 18-A, Gingoog City, the accused conspired to sell one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance known as shabu, weighing 0.0686 gram, for P500.00 to a police poseur-buyer, PO1 Arman Lenard Latayada Doño. The Information for Criminal Case No. 2016-6623 alleged that on the same date and time, the accused unlawfully possessed three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing shabu, with a total net weight of 0.1523 gram. Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 43, Gingoog City, in a Joint Judgment dated March 7, 2018, found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for both offenses. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for illegal sale, and an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to sixteen (16) years and a fine of P300,000.00 for illegal possession. The Court of Appeals (CA), in its Decision dated May 23, 2019, affirmed the RTC ruling in toto. The Petition: Accused-appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, raising issues on the validity of the warrantless arrest based on a pre-arranged signal and the alleged errors of the CA in affirming his conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the removal of the poseur-buyer's sunglasses is a reasonable ground to make a valid warrantless arrest; and whether the accused-appellant's conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Section 11, R.A. No. 9165) should be affirmed. Whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs).
Ruling
The Supreme Court modified the decision of the Court of Appeals. It acquitted the accused-appellant for violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal sale) due to the prosecution's failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the drug allegedly bought. However, it affirmed the conviction for violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 (illegal possession), finding that the chain of custody for the three sachets of shabu seized from the accused-appellant was sufficiently established, and the warrantless arrest and subsequent search were valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the warrantless arrest and search; and on the conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs (Section 11, R.A. No. 9165): The Court held that the removal of the poseur-buyer's sunglasses, as a pre-arranged signal, is a recognized method to communicate the completion of a buy-bust transaction, justifying a warrantless arrest. Such an arrest is lawful under Section 5(a) of Rule 113 of the Rules of Court when the person to be arrested has committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officers. Consequently, a search incident to a lawful arrest is also valid. The Court found that the accused-appellant committed the crime in flagrante delicto by selling shabu in the presence of PO1 Doño and the confidential informant, making the arrest and subsequent search legal. The recovery of three additional sachets of shabu during the search incident to the lawful arrest was thus deemed valid. The Court affirmed the conviction for illegal possession. The three sachets of shabu found in the accused-appellant's pocket during the search incident to a lawful arrest were properly handled. The Court found that the police officers sufficiently complied with the chain of custody rule for these items. PO3 Javier marked and inventoried the items in the presence of the accused-appellant, a media representative, and a barangay kagawad, conforming to the requirements of R.A. No. 10640. The items were then transmitted to PCI Esber for laboratory examination, which confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. The subsequent handling, safekeeping by PO3 Dagatan, and retrieval by PCI Esber were also sufficiently accounted for, preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The Court reiterated that it is not necessary to present every person who handled the evidence, as long as the chain of custody is clearly established and unbroken. On the conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs (Section 5, R.A. No. 9165): The Court acquitted the accused-appellant for illegal sale. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the single sachet of shabu allegedly bought from the accused-appellant. Specifically, PO1 Doño admitted that he did not immediately mark the sachet after seizure. He placed it in his pocket and kept it for several minutes, even bringing it to another location before handing it over to PO3 Javier. This delay and improper handling cast reasonable doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, as it was susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution. The Court emphasized that immediate marking is the first and most crucial step in proving an unbroken chain of custody, and the prosecution offered no justifiable explanation for the non-compliance.
Main Doctrine
The failure to immediately mark the seized drug subject of a buy-bust operation, and the subsequent handling of the item without adequate precautions to preserve its integrity and evidentiary value, creates reasonable doubt as to the identity of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal for illegal sale. However, compliance with chain of custody for other seized items, coupled with a valid warrantless arrest, can sustain conviction for illegal possession.