J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2011-0028: PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. LUIS PAJARIN y DELA CRUZ and EFREN PALLAYA y TUVIERA (G.R. No. 190640, 12 JANUARY 2011, ABAD, J.) SUBJECTS: ILLEGAL DRUGS; FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROCEDURE IN TAKING CUSTODY OF DRUGS; FAILURE TO IDENTIFY SAME SUBSTANCES. BRIEF TITLE: PEOPLE VS. PAJARIN).

x ————————————————————– x

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

          This case is about the need for the prosecution and all law enforcement agencies involved in illegal drugs operations to ensure proper observance of the rules governing entrapment of peddlers of prohibited substances.

The Facts and the Case

The City Prosecutor of Manila charged the accused Luis Pajarin and Efren Pallaya before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in Criminal Cases 05-237756 and 05-237757 with violation of Section 5 in relation to Sections 26 and 11 (3) in relation to Section 13, respectively, of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

          The prosecution presented PO2 Nestor Lehetemas, member of the buy-bust team and PO2 James Nolan Ibañez, the poseur-buyer.  They testified that on June 1, 2005 at around 10:00 p.m., an informant arrived at their Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID) with the report that drugs would be sold on P. Ocampo and Dominga Streets the next day at around 5:00 pm.  As the poseur-buyer, PO2 Ibañez marked a P500.00 bill with SAID on top of its serial number.

          On June 2, 2005 the buy-bust team went to the site of the operation on board a Tamaraw FX which they parked near Dominga Street.  The informant pointed to the two accused, Luis Pajarin and Efren Pallaya.  They stood 10 to 20 steps away beside a red scooter.  PO2 Ibañez and the informant approached them.  After the informant introduced PO2 Ibañez as an interested buyer, the police officer bought shabu from the two, using the marked P500.00 bill.  Pajarin opened the compartment of the red scooter and took from it one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance.  When Pallaya asked for the money, PO2 Ibañez handed it to him.  Then Pajarin gave one plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu to the officer, who raised his right hand as a pre-arranged signal.  PO2 Ibañez’s companions immediately rushed to the group.  PO2 Ibañez grabbed Pallaya.  Pajarin tried to escape but PO2 Lehetemas got hold of him.

          The police searched the red scooter’s compartment and recovered another plastic sachet containing the same substance.  They then brought the accused to their station.  The arresting officers turned over the seized suspected shabu to PO3 Roel Young who marked the plastic sachet seized from the scooter with the letters “ETP,” and the sachet Pajarin handed over with the letters “LDCP.”  Chemistry Report D-369-05 showed that upon examination of the submitted specimen, the same yielded positive result for Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a regulated drug.

          The defense had a completely different version.  Pajarin said that at around 2:00 p.m. of June 2, 2005 he was at Pallaya’s house, repairing the latter’s motor pump.  As he left the house and got into the street, someone hit his helmet, grabbed him, and dragged him into a Tamaraw FX.  They then brought him back to Pallaya’s house where four police officers got in and brought Pallaya out with them after about three minutes.  The officers brought the two accused to the police station where they were investigated.  PO2 Ibañez showed Pajarin a plastic sachet which he supposedly recovered from Pajarin’s scooter.  Pajarin denied owning the sachet.  It was a police officer who drove the scooter to the police station. 

          For his part, Pallaya testified that on June 2, 2005 he was taking a bath at the fourth floor of his four-storey house when he heard knocking at the door.  When he opened it, he was surprised to see four men there, claiming to be police officers.  They broke open the doors of the house from the ground to the third floor.  The officers ordered him to dress up and forced him to go with them.  Pallaya asked for a warrant of arrest or a search warrant but he got no response from them.  They made him board a Tamaraw FX where Pajarin sat.  They then brought the accused to the police station.

          On March 31, 2008 the RTC found both accused guilty of the crime charged and imposed on them the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 in Criminal Case 05-237756.  In Criminal Case 05-237757, the RTC sentenced Pajarin to suffer 12 years and 1 day to 17 years and 4 months of imprisonment and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.  The RTC absolved Pallaya of this second offense. 

          On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03291, the latter rendered a decision dated September 30, 2009, affirming the RTC decision, hence the present appeal to this Court.

The Issues Presented

Accused Pajarin and Pallaya raise two issues:

1.       Whether or not the CA erred in not excluding the evidence of the seized shabu on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove their integrity by establishing the chain of custody of the same until they got to the trial court; and

2.       Whether or not for this reason the CA erred in affirming their conviction.

The Rulings of the Court

          Appellants chiefly argue that the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation failed to comply with Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165, which requires them to take immediate inventory of and photograph the seized item in the presence of the accused or his representative or responsible third persons mentioned but always taking care that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized articles are preserved. 

          The Court has held in numerous cases that the failure of the police to comply with the procedure laid down in R.A. 9165 would not render void the seizure of the prohibited substance for as long as the apprehending officers give justifiable reason for their imperfect conduct^[1][1] and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items had not been compromised.^[2][2] 

Here, the prosecution failed to show that the substances allegedly seized from the accused were the same substances presented in court to prove their guilt.  Usually, the seized article changes hands from the police officer who takes it from the accused, to the supervising officer at their station, to the messenger who brings them to the police crime laboratory, and then to the court where it is adduced as evidence.  Since custody and possession change over time, it has been held indispensable that the officer who seized the article places it in a plastic container unless it is already in one, seals it if yet unsealed, and puts his marking on the cover.  In this way there is assurance, upon inspection, that the substance reaches the laboratory in the same condition it was seized from the accused.^[3][3] 

Here, the police officers did not mark the sealed plastic sachets to show that they were the same things they took from the accused.  Rather, the marking on the items were done by the station investigator who would have no way of knowing that the substances were really seized from the accused.  The marking of captured items immediately after they are seized from the accused is the starting point in the custodial link.   This step is vital because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference.  Failure to place such markings paves the way for swapping, planting, and contamination of the evidence.^[4][4]  These lapses seriously cast doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.^[5][5]

Further, as a rule, the police chemist who examines a seized substance should ordinarily testify that he received the seized article as marked, properly sealed and intact; that he resealed it after examination of the content; and that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial.  In case the parties stipulate to dispense with the attendance of the police chemist, they should stipulate that the latter would have testified that he took the precautionary steps mentioned.  Here, the record fails to show this. 

It is a serious concern that quite often the failure of the police to observe the rules governing buy-bust operations results in acquittals.  Drug enforcement agencies should continually train their officers and agents to observe these rules and transfer out those who would not.  The prosecutors conducting preliminary investigation should not file in court drugs cases where the sworn statements of the police officers, the report of the chemical analyst, and the object evidence do not show compliance with the same.  And trial courts should order the case dismissed and the accused released from detention if on examination the supporting documents are wanting in this respect.  They should not waste their precious time to useless exercise where the police and the prosecution fail to observe the rule of law especially in so serious offenses. 

          WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the decision of the Court of Appeals dated September 30, 2009 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03291 as well as the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, in Criminal Cases 05-237756 and 05-237757, and ACQUITS the accused-appellants Luis Pajarin and Efren Pallaya on the ground of reasonable doubt.  The Court orders their immediate RELEASE from custody unless they are being held for some other lawful cause.

          SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD 

                                                              Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO

Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA      DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

                  Associate Justice                                    Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

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, Second Division                  

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.

                                                             RENATO C. CORONA

                                                            Chief Justice

 CASE 2011-0027: FREDDY H. REYES VS. VIVIAN L. PABILANE, COURT INTERPRETER, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, TAGKAWAYAN, QUEZON (A.M. NO. P-09-2696, 12 JANUARY 2011, CARPIO MORALES, J.) SUBJECT: DUTY OF COURT INTERPRETER. (BRIEF TITLE: REYES VS. PABILANE).

x – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –  x

R E S O L U T I O N

CARPIO MORALES, J.:

Freddy H. Reyes (complainant), by Affidavit^[1][1] of September 16, 2008, charges Vivian L. Pabilane, Court Interpreter of Branch 63 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Calauag, Quezon, now detailed in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tagkawayan, Quezon, with maliciously, intentionally, deliberately and feloniously failing to make an accurate record of the minutes of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1349, a Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction with Prayer for the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order filed by complainant’s wife, Lany Rosas (Lany), before the Calauag RTC. 

In the April 7, 2006 Minutes of the proceedings in Civil Case No. 1349 during the presentation of evidence for the therein plaintiff-wife of complainant, respondent wrote the following:^[2][2]

Witness/es: Clarita Villamayor Mendoza 78 years old, a widow, retired teacher and a resident of Brgy. Pinagtalliwan, Calauag, Quezon.

Marked Documentary Evidence: Exh “C” – Declaration of Real Property “I” – Kasulatan ng Sanglaan ng Lupang Minana Exh “2” – Bilihan Exh “2-B” paragraph mentioning about the Kasulatan ng Sanglaan ng Lupang Minana Exh “I-B” same paragraph as Exh “2-B”  (underscoring supplied)

The transcript of Clarita Mendoza’s testimony on April 7, 2006^[3][3] showed, however, that what she testified on were Exhibits  “A,”  “C” and “E,” inclusive of sub-markings.  

Complainant likewise charges respondent with deliberately failing to enter into the Minutes of the August 4, 2006^[4][4] hearing the correct documentary evidence marked during his testimony as she wrote the following therein:

Witness/es: Freddie Hugo Reyes, 65 years old, married, government pensioner and a resident of Barangay 3, Calauag, Quezon.

Marked Documentary Evidence: Exh “A” – Receipt,

whereas the documentary evidence introduced consisted of Exhibits “G,” “H,” “I” and “J,” inclusive of submarkings.^[5][5]

In her December 18, 2008^[6][6] Comment to the complaint, respondent stated as follows:   

x x x x

With regards [to] the fourth paragraph of the affidavit-complaint, when an individual testifies in court, what appears in the interpreter’s minutes is the witness’ name, the data about him and the markings which had been caused by him, not the name of the plaintiff or the defendant for whom he testifies.  In this case, though the word plaintiff does not appear in the space provided for it, still it could easily be told that this hearing was for plaintiff by simply reading the first part of the transcript of stenographic notes of the date wherein the prosecutor introduced plaintiff’s witness.  This would not mislead the Judge in [the] decision making because testimonies appearing on the minutes were really said by witness, Clarita Villamayor Mendoza, who as public knowledge, was then testifying on behalf of the plaintiff.

x x x x

How could the interpreter’s minutes mislead a judge in the latter’s judgment as what the complainant alleges?  The transcript of stenographic notes is intact and very much complete and the formal offer of evidence is also easily and readily available.  The two bear all the evidence that may be needed by the judge and these are what he refers to when preparing decisions.  Besides, a judge listens so attentively to every case being heard and weighs every argument and any important detail that is being presented.  Let it be cited for clarity, that the interpreter’s minutes is just a brief summary of what transpired during a day’s session.  (underscoring supplied)

By Memorandum of August 6, 2009,^[7][7] the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), passing on the duties of court interpreters in this wise:

x x x Among the duties of court interpreters is to prepare and sign “all Minutes of the session” (Manual for Clerks of Court).  After every session, they must prepare the Minutes and attach to it the record.  It will not take an hour to prepare it.  The Minutes is a very important document because it gives a brief summary of the events that took place at the session or hearing of a case.  It is, in fact, a capsulized history of the case at a given session or a hearing, for it states the date and time of session;  the  names  of the  judge, clerk of court, court stenographer and
court interpreter who were present; the names of the counsel for parties who appeared; the party presenting evidence marked; and the date of then next hearing.  In criminal cases, the Minutes also includes data concerning the number of pages of the stenographic notes.  (underscoring supplied),

concluded that respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty for failure to enter into the minutes of the hearings of April 7, 2006 and August 4, 2006 the accurate and complete documentary evidence marked, and accordingly recommended that she be fined in the amount of P3,000.00.

The Court finds the recommendation of the OCA well taken.

A court interpreter is duty-bound to prepare and sign the minutes of court sessions^[8][8] which is an important document, for it gives a brief summary of the events that take place thereat including a statement of the date and time of the session; the name of the judge, clerk of court, court stenographer, and court interpreter who are present; the names of the counsel for the parties who appear; the parties presenting evidence; the names of the witnesses who testified; the documentary evidence marked; and the date of the next hearing.^[9][9]

In the present case, respondent failed to reflect in the minutes of the April 7 and August 4, 2006 hearings in Civil Case No. 1349 the correct documentary evidence offered in evidence.  Such failure constitutes simple neglect of duty, defined as the failure to give attention to a task expected of him and signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.^[10][10]

Simple neglect of duty is, under Section 52 (B) (1) of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service,^[11][11] classified as a less grave offense punishable by one month and one day to six months suspension for the first offense.

Under Section 19, Rule XIV of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations, a fine may be imposed in the alternative.^[12][12]

Considering that this appears to be respondent’s first infraction, the Court finds in order the OCA recommendation to impose on her a fine in the amount of P3,000.00, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

WHEREFORE, respondent Vivian L. Pabilane, Court Interpreter of Branch 63 of the Regional Trial Court of Calauag, Quezon, presently on detail at the Municipal Trial Court of Tagkawayan, Quezon, is found GUILTY of Simple Neglect of Duty and is FINED the amount of Three Thousand (P3,000.00) Pesos, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

                                                       CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES

                                                                                  Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

CASE  2011-0026: CHINA BANKING CORPORATION VS.  ARMI S. ABEL (G.R. NO. 182547, 10 JANUARY 2011, ABAD, J.) SUBJECTS: WRIT OF EXECUTION; WRIT OF POSSESSION. (BRIEF TITLE: CHINA BANK VS. ABEL)

x —————————————————————– x

DECISION

ABAD, J.:

This case is about the trial court’s grant of a petition for the issuance of a writ of possession before the possessor of the property could be heard on her opposition and its subsequent denial of her motion for reconsideration.

The Facts and the Case

In a foreclosure sale, petitioner China Banking Corporation (China Bank) acquired title^[1][1] over respondent Armi S. Abel’s property at La Vista Subdivision, Quezon City, she having failed to pay her loan.  To enforce its ownership, in January 2003 China Bank filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in LRC Case Q-16014(03) an ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession in its favor.

On October 2, 2003 the RTC rendered a decision, granting China Bank’s petition and directing the issuance of a writ of possession over the property in its favor.  Abel appealed from this decision but lost her appeal^[2][2] in the Court of Appeals (CA).  She filed a petition for review before this Court in G.R. 169229 but this, too, failed.  She filed a motion for reconsideration and a second similar motion without success.  The Court’s judgment became final and executory and, eventually, the record of her case was remanded to the RTC for execution.

China Bank filed a motion for execution with the RTC, setting it for hearing on June 8, 2007.  On June 7, 2007 Abel filed a motion to cancel and reset the hearing on the ground that she needed more time to comment on or oppose the bank’s motion.  On June 8, 2007 the RTC granted her the 10-day period she asked but “from notice.”

On June 19, 2007, noting Abel’s failure to file her opposition to or comment on the motion for execution, the RTC issued an Order granting China Bank’s motion.  After being served with the notice to vacate, Abel filed on June 21, 2007 an omnibus urgent motion for reconsideration and to admit her opposition to the bank’s motion for execution.  She set her urgent motion for hearing on June 29, 2007.  On June 22, 2007, however, the day after receiving her motion, the RTC denied the same for lack of merit.

On June 25, 2007 the sheriff implemented the writ against Abel and placed China Bank in possession of the subject property.  On even date, Abel filed a petition for certiorari with the CA in CA-G.R. SP 99413, assailing the RTC’s June 19 and 22, 2007 Orders.  On July 2, 2007, a Saturday, Abel took back possession of the premises on the strength of a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) that the CA issued on June 29, 2007.

On January 3, 2008 the CA rendered a decision,^[3][3] setting aside the assailed orders of the RTC.  China Bank moved for its reconsideration but the CA denied this in an April 9, 2008 Resolution.^[4][4]  The CA ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the bank’s motion for execution, noting that the latter court gave Abel 10 days from notice of its order, not 10 days from the issuance of such order, within which to file her opposition.  Parenthetically, the shorter period was what she asked for in her motion for postponement.  But there was no proof, said the CA, as to when Abel had notice of the RTC’s June 8, 2007 Order as to determine when the 10-day period actually began to run.

China Bank thus filed this petition for review on certiorari against the CA decision and resolution denying its motion for reconsideration. 

The Issue Presented

The issue in this case is whether or not the CA erred in setting aside the assailed RTC’s June 19 and 22, 2007 Orders on the ground of failure to observe due process respecting Abel’s right to be heard on the bank’s motion for execution.

The Court’s Ruling

The CA erred in attributing grave abuse of discretion to the RTC.  Although the RTC caused the issuance of the writ of execution before it could establish that Abel’s 10 days “from notice” within which to file her opposition had lapsed, she filed with that court on June 21, 2007 an urgent motion for reconsideration with her opposition to the motion for execution attached.  The Court, acting on her motion, denied it on the following day, June 22, 2007.  Any perceived denial of her right to be heard on the bank’s motion for execution had been cured by her motion for reconsideration and the RTC’s action on the same. 

True, Abel gave notice to China Bank that she would submit her motion for reconsideration for the RTC’s consideration on June 29, 2007 but that notice is for the benefit of the bank, not for her, that it may be heard on the matter.  She cannot complain that the court acted on her motion more promptly than she expected especially since she actually offered no legitimate reason for opposing the issuance of a writ of possession in the bank’s favor. 

Orders for the issuance of a writ of possession are issued as a matter of course upon the filing of the proper motion and approval of the corresponding bond since no discretion is left to the court to deny it.^[5][5]  The RTC’s issuance of such writ conformably with the express provisions of law cannot be regarded as done without jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion.  Such issuance being ministerial, its execution by the sheriff is likewise ministerial.^[6][6]  In truth, the bank has failed to take possession of the property after more than seven years on account of Abel’s legal maneuverings.

ACCORDINGLY, the Court GRANTS the petition of China Banking Corporation, REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Court of Appeals decision dated January 3, 2008 and resolution dated April 9, 2008 in CA-G.R. SP 99413, and REINSTATES the orders of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 220) in LRC Case Q-16014(03) dated June 19 and 22, 2007.  With costs against respondent Armi S. Abel.

SO ORDERED.

ROBERTO A. ABAD 

                                                              Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO 

Associate Justice

ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA      DIOSDADO M. PERALTA

                  Associate Justice                                    Associate Justice

JOSE CATRAL MENDOZA

Associate Justice

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, Second Division                  

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.

                                                             RENATO C. CORONA

                                                            Chief Justice