People v. Corpuz y Buscaino

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 254625. October 13, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. GILDA CORPUZ y BUSCAINO a.k.a. "GIGI", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 13, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 254625 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Gilda Corpuz y Buscaino a.k.a. "Gigi," accused-appellant).

This is an ordinary Appeal 1 seeking to reverse the July 28, 2020 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10570. The CA affirmed with modification the November 28, 2017 Joint Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 44 (RTC), by acquitting accused-appellant Gilda Corpuz y Buscaino a.k.a. "Gigi" (Corpuz) of the charge of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, 4 but affirming her conviction in Criminal Case No. 2014-0405-D for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under R.A. No. 10591. 5

Antecedents

Corpuz was charged with violation of Secs. 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165 in two (2) separate informations, the accusatory portions of which read:

Crim. Case No. 2014-0403-D:

That on or about June 19, 2014 in the afternoon at Brgy. Maningding, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, control and custody two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride, marked 'RNN2 6-19-14' and weighing 3.0432 grams [and] 'RNN3 6-19-14' weighing 0.1220 gram in consequence of a buy-bust operation, without any permit or license to do so.

CONTRARY TO Section 11, Art. II of RA 9165. (emphasis supplied)

Crim. Case No. 2014-0404-D:

That on or about June 19, 2014 in the afternoon at Brgy. Maningding, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously SELL, TRADE, and [DELIVER] one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, marked 'RNN 6-19-14' weighing 0.2898 gram to an undercover police officer during buy-bust operation, in exchange for one (1) Five Hundred peso bill with marking 'RNN' without any permit or license to do so.

CONTRARY TO [Section] 5, Art. II, of RA 9165. 6 (emphasis in the original)

An information for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition in violation of R.A. No. 10591 was likewise filed against her which contained the following accusatory allegations: AaCTcI

Crim. Case No. 2014-0405-D:

That on or about June 19, 2014 in the afternoon at Brgy. Maningding, Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, control and custody One (1) homemade cal. 22 revolver and sixteen (16) live ammunitions for cal. 22 firearm, without any permit or license to do so.

CONTRARY TO Section 28(a) of RA 10591 in relation to Sec. 28(g) thereof. 7 ( emphasis supplied)

Joint trial on the merits was conducted. During arraignment, Corpuz entered a plea of not guilty. 8

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution presented the testimonies of Police Officer III Randy N. Nepascua (PO3 Nepascua), the poseur-buyer and one of the arresting officers, and Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector Ma. Theresa Amor Manuel (PSI Manuel). The parties stipulated on the testimonies of PO2 Rolando De Vera and PO3 Jose Bucasas, while the defense admitted the purpose for which Barangay Kagawad Boyet Dela Cruz (Kagawad Dela Cruz) would be presented. 9

According to the prosecution witnesses, the intelligence operatives of the Philippine National Police (PNP) of Sta. Barbara, Pangasinan, received information on June 18, 2018, that Corpuz was involved in the illegal drug trade in Barangay Maningding. The PNP prepared to conduct a surveillance and a buy-bust operation the following day. On June 19, 2014, while on their way to Barangay Maningding, the confidential informant exchanged text messages with Corpuz to confirm the sale. Upon their arrival, PO3 Nepascua approached Corpuz who was outside her rented house. Corpuz then took out one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing suspected shabu from her pocket and handed the same to PO3 Nepascua who, in turn, handed over the buy-bust money. 10

After PO3 Nepascua introduced himself as a police officer, Corpuz ran into her house. However, PO3 Nepascua managed to comer her inside her room where the following items were found on her bed: two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of suspected shabu; one (1) homemade cal. 22 revolver; three (3) live ammunition for cal. 38; one (1) live ammunition for 9mm firearm; two (2) live ammunition for magnum cal. 22 firearm; sixteen (16) live ammunition for cal. 22 firearm; aluminum foil; and a lighter. 11 When she was asked whether she had a permit or license to carry firearms, Corpuz replied in the negative.

Thereafter, the police brought Corpuz to the police station where the confiscation receipt was prepared. Kagawad Dela Cruz signed the said document while photographs were taken by the investigator. PO3 Nepascua delivered the specimen to PSI Manuel, who later on reported that all specimens yielded positive results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Prosecution witnesses likewise alleged that the PNP's Firearms and Explosives Division issued a certification which states that Corpuz was not a licensed/registered firearm holder and had no authority to own or possess firearms and ammunition. 12

Version of the Defense

The defense relied solely on the testimony of Corpuz. 13

Corpuz testified that she was at her rented house with a certain "Jingle" and Robert Bautista when three (3) police officers suddenly arrived and broke open her door. Corpuz heard one of them say, "Positive. Gigi is here." When she refused to be frisked, one of the police officers asked her to bring out something, to which she answered, "What will I bring out?" Thereafter, another officer asked her, "Wala ba, wala ba?" Much to her surprise, she saw the police officer place plastic sachets of shabu, one (1) firearm and live ammunition on top of her bed. Thereafter, Corpuz was brought to the police station. 14

Ruling of the RTC

In its November 28, 2017 Joint Decision, the RTC found Corpuz guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Secs. 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9165 and of R.A. No. 10591, thus:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in:

1. Crim. Case No. 2014-0403 finding accused GILDA CORPUZ y Buscaino @ Gigi GUILTY beyond reasonable [doubt] with Viol. of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and One (1) day to Twenty (20) years and to pay a fine in the amount of Three hundred thousand (P300,000.00) pesos;

2. CRIM. CASE NO. 2014-0404-D finding accused GILDA CORPUZ y Buscaino @ Gigi GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt with Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of Five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) pesos; and,

3. CRIM. CASE NO. 2014-0405-D finding accused GILDA CORPUZ y Buscaino @ Gigi GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt with Violation of R.A. No. 10591 and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Eight (8) years and One (1) day to Ten (10) years.

The subject plastic sachets of shabu, One (1) cal. 22 revolver and the subject sixteen (16) live ammunitions are hereby ordered disposed of in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED. 15

The RTC found credence in the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly, the testimony of PO3 Nepascua, the poseur-buyer. It further ruled that aside from the bare testimony of Corpuz that the two (2) sachets of shabu, the firearm and the live ammunition found on top of her bed were in fact planted by the police officers, the defense failed to present other witnesses to corroborate her testimony. 16

Ruling of the CA

In its July 28, 2020 Decision, the CA reversed the RTC's joint decision, acquitting Corpuz of the charges of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. However, the CA affirmed the RTC's joint decision insofar as the charge for violating R.A. No. 10591 is concerned. The dispositive portion of said decision reads: EcTCAD

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Joint Decision dated November 28, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 44 in Crim. Case Nos. 2014-0403-D, 2014-0404-D and 2014-0405-D is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Gilda Corpuz y Buscaino a.k.a. "Gigi" is ACQUITTED in Crim. Case Nos. 2014-0403-D and 2014-0404-D for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In Crim. Case No. 2014-0405-D, accused-appellant is hereby SENTENCED to suffer seven (7) years of prision mayor as minimum, to nine (9) years of prision mayor as maximum.

SO ORDERED. 17

The CA ruled that the procedural lapses committed by the apprehending officers militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against Corpuz, and, ultimately, compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. 18 As regards the charge of violating R.A. No. 10591, the CA ruled that the bare allegation made by Corpuz that the subject firearm and ammunition were placed on top of her bed by the arresting police officers cannot be given credence without evidence to substantiate the same. 19

Issue

The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed Corpuz's conviction for illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under R.A. No. 10591, amidst her acquittal for charges under R.A. No. 9165.

The Court's Ruling

We grant the appeal.

We are one with the CA in ruling that PO3 Nepascua and his team committed unjustified deviations from the chain of custody rule, compromising the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs allegedly seized from Corpuz. Notably, the apprehending team failed to mark the seized items immediately after confiscation, and waited 20 to 25 minutes after the confiscation to do so. 20 The inventory of the items was also belatedly conducted at the police station without the presence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice. 21 Furthermore, the prosecution failed to sufficiently account for the proper turnover of the seized items by PO3 Nepascua to the assigned investigator, as he merely alleged that the items were in his custody from the time of its confiscation until its turnover to the forensic chemist. 22 Ultimately, these breaks in the chain of custody and noncompliance with the required procedure under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, cast doubt upon the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.

However, while We agree with the CA that the procedural infractions committed during the buy-bust operation warrant Corpuz's acquittal for charges against her for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165, this Court holds that the same circumstances likewise warrant her acquittal for the charge of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition under R.A. No. 10591.

To recall, the charge of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition filed against Corpuz arose from the search that followed the purported buy-bust operation conducted against her. However, the legitimacy of a buy-bust operation is so necessarily related to the strict compliance with the procedures laid down by law that any deviation in its conduct will result in a conclusion that the same was a mere pretense or sham. 23

By their deliberate disregard of the requirements of the law, PO3 Nepascua and his team cannot be presumed to have regularly exercised their duties during the conduct of the buy-bust operation. 24 This casts reasonable doubt that a legitimate buy-bust operation was indeed conducted. This seed of doubt leads this Court to further question the validity of the subsequent search and, more importantly, the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition allegedly found in Corpuz's possession.

To sustain a conviction for unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition, the following elements must concur: (a) the firearm subject of the offense exists; and (b) the accused who possessed or owned that firearm had no corresponding license for it. 25 As regards the second element, the prosecution offered as evidence a Certification dated September 30, 2014, issued by the PNP-Civil Security Group, Firearms and Explosives Office stating that Corpuz was not a licensed or registered firearm holder. However, to satisfy the first element, the prosecution merely relied on the testimony of PO3 Nepascua to establish the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition. HSAcaE

The prosecution claims that PO3 Nepascua seized the subject drugs, firearm and ammunition during a singular instance — through the sham buy-bust operation. Consequently, as the prosecution's factual allegations were unreliable to warrant a finding of guilt for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, jurisprudence provides that the same should be applied to the charge of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. In Trinidad v. People, 26 the Court ruled:

x x x [A]n examination of the ruling in the drugs cases (which Trinidad offered as evidence and the RTC admitted as part of his testimony) confirms that the drugs cases and this case are so interwoven and interdependent of each other since, as mentioned, the drugs, as well as the subject firearms and ammunition, were illegally seized in a singular instance, i.e., the buy-bust operation. Hence, the Court may take judicial notice of the circumstances attendant to the buy-bust operation as found by the court which resolved the drugs cases. To recall, in the drugs cases, the finding of unreasonableness of search and seizure of the drugs was mainly based on the failure of PO1 Sanoy's testimony to establish the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation against Trinidad as said testimony was found to be highly doubtful and incredible. The circumstance similarly obtains here as in fact, the testimonies of both PO1 Nidoy and PO1 Sanoy in this case essentially just mirror on all material points the latter's implausible narration in the drugs cases. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the subject firearms and ammunition are also inadmissible in evidence for being recovered from the same unreasonable search and seizure as in the drugs cases. (emphases supplied)

It bears emphasis here that the alleged firearm and ammunition seized from Corpuz were the result of the alleged buy-bust operation conducted against her. Hence, the procedural infractions committed during the sham buy-bust operation also compromised the identity of the firearm and ammunition seized on the same occasion.

Furthermore, as the prosecution failed to prove the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation, it necessarily follows that Corpuz's warrantless arrest was illegal. Consequently, the subsequent warrantless search resulting in the recovery of the firearm and ammunition from Corpuz's possession is invalid, and the seized items must be considered inadmissible in evidence being under the rule of "fruit of the poisonous tree." 27 In the case of People v. Alicando, 28 the Court explained:

According to this rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same illegal act. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained." (emphasis supplied)

The law clearly demands that only proof beyond reasonable doubt can justify a verdict of guilt. As the Court has often reiterated, it would be better to set free ten men who might probably be guilty of the crime charged, than to convict one innocent man for a crime he did not commit. 29 Suffice it to say, the slightest doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. 30 Accordingly, the subject firearm and ammunition are similarly inadmissible in evidence for being seized during a sham buy-bust operation.

Verily, the failure by the prosecution to establish the propriety of the buy-bust operation also affects the identity and integrity of the firearm and ammunition seized. The procedural lapses that compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from Corpuz, equally compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the firearm and ammunition seized during the same instance. For failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt and the existence of the subject firearm and ammunition beyond reasonable doubt, she must likewise be acquitted of the charge of violating R.A. No. 10591.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The July 28, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10570, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Accused-appellant Gilda Corpuz y Buscaino a.k.a. "Gigi" is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. 2014-0403-D, 2014-0404-D, and 2014-0405-D for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE her from custody unless she is being held for some other lawful cause, and to SUBMIT a report on the action taken thereon within five (5) days from notice.

Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., on official leave. HESIcT

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 17-19.

2.Id. at 4-16; penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, with Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Alfredo D. Ampuan, concurring.

3. CA rollo, pp. 82-90; penned by Judge Genoveva Coching-Maramba.

4. Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

5. Otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act."

6.Rollo, pp. 4-5.

7.Id. at 5.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 5-6.

10. CA rollo, pp. 61-62.

11.Id. at 62.

12.Id. at 62-63.

13.Rollo, p. 7.

14.Id.

15. CA rollo, p. 90.

16.Id.

17.Rollo, p. 15.

18.Id. at 13.

19.Id. at 14.

20. CA rollo, p. 85; TSN, March 7, 2016, p. 17.

21. Records, p. 16; TSN, August 4, 2015, p. 11. In People v. Paz (G.R. No. 233466, August 7, 2019) and People v. Vistro (G.R. No. 225744, March 6, 2019), this Court resolved to acquit the accused charged of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs because only one insulating witness, a barangay official, was present during the inventory.

22.Rollo, pp. 85-86; TSN, August 4, 2015, pp. 13-14. In People v. Bangcola (G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019), the Court held that the apprehending officer's act of keeping the seized evidence until its transfer to the forensic chemist and his failure to transfer the same to the investigating officer, are considered breaks in the chain of custody.

23. See People v. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019; People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018.

24.People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 224223, November 20, 2019.

25.De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. 240475, July 24, 2019.

26. G.R. No. 239957, February 18, 2019. See also People v. Javier, G.R. No. 231799, September 22, 2020, where the alleged illegal drugs and firearms were similarly seized in the same buy-bust operation. Citing Trinidad v. People, the Court ruled that because the factual allegations were insufficient to prove the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, the same should likewise be applied to the charge for unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition.

27.People v. Retada, G.R. No. 239331, July 10, 2019; People v. Espejo, G.R. No. 240914, March 18, 2019.

28. 321 Phil. 656, 690 (1995); see also: People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 237355, November 21, 2018.

29.Lanuzo v. People, G.R. No. 205950, January 12, 2021; People v. De la Cruz, 666 Phil. 593, 618 (2011).

30.People v. Salcena, 676 Phil. 357, 383-384 (2011); People v. Ong, 568 Phil. 114, 131 (2008).