G.R.
No. 146277. June 20, 2002
FACTS: This is an appeal from the decision of the RTC Branch 6, Baguio
City finding accused-appellant Albert
Casimiro guilty of violating Republic Act No. 6425, §4, as amended, and
sentencing him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and
to pay a fine of P500,000.00 and the costs.
The
information against accused-appellant alleged that on or about the 17th day of
August 1999, the accused (Casimiro), did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously sell and/or deliver to SPO2 DOROTHEO SUPA, posing as buyer,
about nine hundred fifty (950) grams of marijuana dried leaves in brick form,
in violation of the aforecited provision of law.
Upon
arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged.
Three
witnesses’ testimonies (PO2
Supa, Alma Margarita D. Villaseñor, and PO3 Juan Piggangay, Jr.), established the following:
On
August 16, 1999, a civilian informer, named Rose, walked into the office of the
14th Regional Narcotics Office in Baguio City and informed Chief Inspector Benson Dagiw-a Leleng and
PO3 Piggangay that a certain Albert Casimiro was engaged in the distribution or
sale of marijuana. Police Chief Inspector Leleng then formed a buy-bust
team with PO2 Supa as poseur-buyer and PO3 Piggangay, Jr. as one of back-up
men.
The
following day, August 17, 1999, Rose again told the Narcotics agents to wait
for a call from Casimiro. True enough, at around 4:00 p.m., the
telephone rang. When PO2 Supa answered the telephone, he found that it was
accused-appellant Casimiro. Rose introduced on the telephone PO2 Supa as
someone who wanted to buy marijuana. Casimiro allegedly agreed to meet PO2 Supa
at around 1:00 p.m. at Anthony’s Wine and Grocery the following day. PO2
Supa said he wanted to buy one kilogram of marijuana and accused-appellant said
it would cost P1,500.00. Accused-appellant said he would
wear white pants and a black leather jacket to their meeting the following day.
On
August 18, 1999, at around 1:00 p.m., PO2 Supa and Rose went to the grocery
store while SPO2 Madlon and PO3 Piggangay waited secretly across the
street, where they could see PO2 Supa and Rose. At around 1:30 p.m., Casimiro
arrived. Rose greeted him, “O Bert, heto na yung sinasabi ko sa
iyong buyer. Bahala na kayong mag-usap. Aalis na ako”.
Rose then left the two men alone.
PO2
Supa said he had P1,500.00 with him and asked for the
marijuana. Casimiro gave the poseur-buyer a paper bag,
which contained an object wrapped in plastic and newspaper. After determining
from its appearance and smell that the object inside was marijuana, PO2 Supa
gave a signal for the back-up team to make an arrest by combing his
hair. He testified that he no
longer gave the marked money to accused-appellant because he placed the latter
under arrest, reciting to him his rights, while the back-up team ran from
across the street.
After
arresting Casimiro, the policemen took him to the Narcom Office, where PO2
Supa, SPO2 Madlon, and PO3 Piggangay wrote their initials on the brick of
marijuana before giving it to the evidence custodian. The policemen
prepared a booking sheet and arrest report, affidavits, and a request for the
laboratory examination of the confiscated marijuana. They also prepared a
“receipt of property seized,” dated August 18, 1999.
Accused-appellant signed the receipt
without the assistance of counsel. The
dried leaves were then examined by forensic chemist Alma Margarita Villaseñor of
the PNP Crime Laboratory Service. The chemistry report dated August 20, 1999,
signed by Villaseñor, stated that the leaves were positive for marijuana.
During
trial, the defense alleged that on August 17, 1999, Casimiro received a call
from Rose, an acquaintance, and offered to help him find a better job and asked
that they meet at Anthony’s Wine and Grocery. In the past, Rose had
offered to sell him shabu or marijuana, but he refused to buy from her as he
had no money. At around 1:00 or 2:00 p.m., he met Rose in front of the
grocery store. While she talked to him about a job opening in a club
in Dagupan City, PO3 Piggangay grabbed his hands from behind even as
he shouted “I-handcuff, i-handcuff. Casimiro was then taken to the
Regional Narcotics Office by the policemen, accompanied by Rose.
At
the Narcotics Office, PO3 Piggangay confronted Casimiro about the marijuana
allegedly seized from him. Casimiro denied having carried the bag of
marijuana, which he had seen Rose carrying earlier. After taking pictures
of him pointing at the bag, the policemen threatened to shoot him if he did not
admit owning the marijuana. After failing to make him admit ownership of the
marijuana, PO3 Piggangay offered to release Casimiro if he gave them money.
When Casimiro replied that he had no money, PO3 Piggangay said, “If you have no
money, then we will work on your papers so that you will go to Muntinlupa.” The
policemen then took accused-appellant to a hospital for a physical examination and afterwards asked him to sign a receipt
of property, a booking sheet, and an arrest report without explaining their
contents or allowing him to read them.
On
October 17, 2000, the trial court rendered a decision finding accused-appellant
guilty of the crime charged. Hence, this appeal.
ISSUE: WON the evidence against accused-appellant is
insufficient to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
RULING: We find the appeal meritorious. Although the trial
court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is
entitled to great respect, the rule does not apply where it is shown that any
fact of weight and substance has been overlooked, misapprehended, or misapplied
by the trial court. In this case, several such circumstances stand out as
having been overlooked or misapprehended by the lower court which entitle
accused-appellant to an acquittal.
First. With
respect to the receipt of property seized from accused-appellant, the lower
court declared:
The fact that there was a receipt of
property seized issued by the police which was signed by the accused does not
affect the liability of the accused. The receipt of property
seized was issued by the police in accordance with their standard operating
procedure in a buy-bust operation to show what property was seized. The
receipt should not be treated as an admission or confession.
Indeed, the receipt could not be
considered evidence against accused-appellant because it was signed by him
without the assistance of counsel. The
receipt states that a brick of dried marijuana leaves was delivered by the
suspect to a poseur buyer and signed by accused-appellant Albert Casimiro as
“suspect/ owner.” In effect, accused-appellant admitted that he delivered a
prohibited drug to another, which is an offense under the
law. Having been made without the assistance of counsel, it
cannot be accepted as proof that marijuana was seized from him. It
is inadmissible in evidence.
In People
v. Obrero, this Court held that an uncounseled statement is
presumed by the Constitution to be psychologically coerced. Swept
into an unfamiliar environment and surrounded by intimidating figures typical
of the atmosphere of a police interrogation, the suspect needs the guiding hand
of counsel.
PO2
Supa testified that he informed accused-appellant of his Miranda rights while
he was being arrested outside the grocery:
Q: What
else happened after the two members of the team rushed to your place?
A: We
apprised the suspect of his constitutional rights and brought him to our
Narcotics office.
Q: How did
you apprise the suspect of his rights as you said?
A: Sir, we
informed him of his constitutional rights by saying, “You are under arrest for
violation of 6425. You have the right to remain silent. You
have the rights to call for a lawyer of your own choice. Anything
you say may be used as evidence in favor or against you.” And we
brought him to the office, sir.
The
warning was incomplete. It did not include a statement that, if
accused-appellant could not afford counsel, one would be assigned to him. The warning was perfunctory, made
without any effort to find out if he understood it. It was
merely ceremonial and inadequate in transmitting meaningful
information to the suspect. We cannot say that, in signing the receipt
without a lawyer, accused-appellant acted willingly, intelligently, and
freely. What is more, the police investigators did not pause long enough and wait for Casimiro to say whether he
was willing to answer their questions even without the assistance of counsel or
whether he was waiving his right to remain silent at all.
Second. Nor
is there other credible evidence against accused-appellant. As he
points out, he could not have been so careless as to call the telephone
number of the 14th Regional Narcotics Office and offer marijuana to the
policemen there. Nor can we believe that when accused-appellant finally
showed up at the appointed place, Rose could simply introduce PO2 Supa as the
one who wanted to buy marijuana as if the latter were buying something not
prohibited or illegal. While drugs may indeed be sold to police officers, these
transactions are usually done face-to face.
Third. The
prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug which
constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, an essential
requirement in a drug-related case.
In
this case, the prosecution failed to prove the crucial first link in the chain
of custody. The prosecution witnesses PO2 Supa, SPO2 Madlon, and PO3
Piggangay admitted they did not write their initials on the brick of marijuana
immediately after allegedly seizing it from accused-appellant outside the
grocery store but only did so in their headquarters. The narcotics field
test, which initially identified the seized item as marijuana, was likewise not
conducted at the scene of the crime, but only at the narcotics office. There is
thus reasonable doubt as to whether the item allegedly seized from
accused-appellant is the same brick of marijuana marked by the policemen in
their headquarters and given by them to the crime laboratory for examination.
Indeed,
there is failure in this case to observe standard operating procedure for a
buy-bust operation. The government’s drive against illegal drugs deserves
everybody’s support. But it is precisely when the government’s
purposes are beneficent that we should be most on our guard to protect these
rights. As Justice Brandeis warned long ago, “the greatest dangers
to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but
without understanding.” Our desire to stamp out criminality cannot be achieved
at the expense of constitutional rights. For these reasons, we
cannot uphold the conviction of accused-appellant.
The
decision of the RTC Branch 6, Baguio City is REVERSED and accused-appellant
Albert Casimiro is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment