People v. Pagala y Cajag

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 251870. September 13, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.EDGAR PAGALA y CAJAG, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 September 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 251870 (People of the Philippines v. Edgar Pagala y Cajag). — This is an Appeal 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated April 18, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Manila in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08730 which affirmed the Judgment 3 dated August 25, 2016 of Branch 14, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Laoag City, finding Edgar Pagala y Cajag (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Explosive penalized under Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1866, 4 as amended by Republic Act No. (RA) 9516. 5

The Antecedents

The instant case stemmed from an Information 6 charging accused-appellant with the offense of Illegal Possession of Explosive the accusatory portion of which reads:

"That on or about the 16th day of February 2015, in the City of Laoag, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody one (1) fragmentation hand grenade, without first having secured the necessary license to possess or carry the same, in violation of the aforecited law. AHDacC

CONTRARY TO LAW." 7

During his arraignment, accused-appellant entered the plea of not guilty. At the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the following: (1) that accused-appellant is the same person charged in the Information; and (2) that accused-appellant has no license to possess firearms, explosives, or ammunition. 8

Trial ensued.

The prosecution alleged that at around 11:00 p.m. on February 16, 2015, members of the Laoag City Police Station organized an entrapment operation against accused-appellant after they received a complaint from Norma Fayloga (Norma) and Lorna Pelegrino (Lorna). According to Norma and Lorna, accused-appellant was extorting P10,000.00 from them in exchange for important documents and valuable items that were stolen from their house. The Chief of the Police Station formed a team with Police Officer III Lawrence Ganir (PO3 Ganir), Senior Police Officer II Harold Nicolas, Senior Police Officer II Jonathan Alonzo (SPO2 Alonzo) and Police Officer II Julius Peralta as its members. 9

After the final briefing, the team proceeded to Camella Homes Subdivision where the house of Norma and Lorna is located and where accused-appellant agreed to meet Norma. The team coordinated with the security guard of the subdivision and positioned themselves near the target area. After a few minutes, accused-appellant appeared and approached Norma. Accused-appellant then handed a bag to Norma after receiving the marked money. Thereafter, PO3 Ganir and SPO2 Alonzo rushed towards accused-appellant and arrested him. In the process of apprehending accused-appellant, PO3 Ganir felt a hard object at the back pocket of accused-appellant. Thus, he inserted his hand into the back pocket of accused-appellant's shorts and pulled out the hard object, which turned out to be a fragmentation subject hand grenade. 10

In his defense, accused-appellant denied the accusations against him. While he admitted that he committed robbery/extortion against Norma and Lorna, he denied having in his possession the subject hand grenade. 11

He insisted that on the night of February 16, 2015, he was near Norma's house which is adjacent to the kitchen of the house he was overseeing. While holding his flashlight, he saw a man pointing a gun at him who then ordered him to lie face down on the ground. 12

Thereafter, the man and his companions brought accused-appellant to the police station. In the police station, an inventory receipt was given to accused-appellant which enumerated the items that were recovered from the latter, particularly, the subject hand grenade and a list of stolen items which he refused to sign. 13

The RTC Ruling

In the Judgment 14 dated August 25, 2016, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of Illegal Possession of an Explosive. The dispositive portion of the Judgment 15 reads: IDSEAH

WHEREFORE, the accused EDGAR PAGALA y CAJAG a.k.a. GADO is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of an explosive penalized under Section 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as amended by Republic Act No. 9516 and is hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The hand grenade subject of this case is hereby FORFEITED and CONFISCATED in favor of the Government. Costs against the accused.

SO ORDERED. 16

The RTC upheld the credibility of PO3 Ganir as a prosecution witness. The RTC likewise concluded that: (a) there was no evidence of ill motive on the part of PO3 Ganir in testifying against accused-appellant; (b) the police officers who apprehended accused-appellant enjoyed the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties; (c) the search and seizure conducted against accused-appellant is valid; and (d) all the elements of the offense were proven beyond reasonable doubt. 17

The CA Ruling

In the assailed Decision, 18 the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision. It disposed of the case as follows:

FOR THESE REASONS, the instant appeal is hereby ordered DISMISSED, and the appealed Judgment dated 25 August 2016 rendered by Branch 14 of the First Judicial Region of the Regional Trial Court of Laoag City in Criminal Case No. 16387-14 is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED. 19

The CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. It gave weight to the RTC's findings on the credibility of PO3 Ganir as a witness and sustained the RTC's finding that all the elements of the offense of Illegal Possession of Explosive were proven. Moreover, the CA ruled that the warrantless arrest was lawful. 20

Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the Court.

In a Manifestation 21 dated October 23, 2020, accused-appellant averred that he is adopting as his brief the Appellant's Brief 22 which he filed in the CA. Similarly, in a Manifestation 23 dated December 15, 2020, the People, through the OSG, stated that it will no longer file a Supplemental Brief because it had already thoroughly discussed its arguments in its Brief for the Appellee 24 filed before the CA.

The following allegations were raised by accused-appellant in his Appellant's Brief: (1) the RTC and the CA erred in relying on the statements of PO3 Ganir; 25 (2) PO3 Ganir's testimony is riddled with inconsistencies, i.e., whether accused-appellant was wearing maong short pants with three pockets or cargo short pants with six pockets; (3) the identity of the subject hand grenade was not proven beyond reasonable doubt; (4) the subject hand grenade was not properly marked; and (5) no proof that the evidentiary value of the fragmentation grenade was preserved in accordance with the chain of custody rule. 26

On the other hand, the People, through the OSG, asserted that all the elements of the crime of Illegal Possession of Explosive were proven beyond reasonable doubt. 27 Further, it echoed the lower courts' findings that accused-appellant's warrantless arrest was valid and that the determination of the credibility of witnesses is within the domain of the RTC. 28

Issue

Whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction.

Our Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

In criminal cases, the Constitution 29 guarantees that an accused is presumed innocent until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. 30 This guilt must be founded on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. 31 To prove guilt, courts must evaluate the evidence presented in relation to the elements of the crime charged. 32

It must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review. The reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned, in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 33

In other words, the Court may still review the factual findings of the trial court "if it is not convinced that [such findings] are conformable to the evidence of record and to its own impressions of the credibility of the witnesses." 34 Significant facts and circumstances may have been overlooked, which, if properly considered, could affect the result of the case. 35

In this case, both the RTC and the CA overlooked the fact that the police officers failed to comply with the chain of custody rule in handling the subject hand grenade.

Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Section 3 of PD 1866, as amended by RA 9516, which provides: AHCETa

SEC. 3. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales, Acquisition, Disposition, Importation or Possession of an Explosive or Incendiary Device. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall willfully and unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose, import or possess any explosive or incendiary device, with knowledge of its existence and its explosive or incendiary character, where the explosive or incendiary device is capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or causing injury or death to any person, including but not limited to, hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), 'pillbox bomb,' 'molotov cocktail bomb,' 'fire bomb,' and other similar explosive and incendiary devices.

To convict an accused for illegal possession of an explosive device under PD 1866, as amended, jurisprudence dictates that two (2) essential elements must be indubitably established: first, the existence of the subject firearm or explosive which may be proved by its presentation or by the testimony of witnesses who saw accused in possession of the same; and second, the negative fact that the accused had no license or permit to own or possess the firearm or explosive which may be established by the testimony or certification of a representative of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosives Unit. 36

While there is no doubt that accused-appellant has no license or permit to possess any firearm or explosive, 37 the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the hand grenade identified and admitted into evidence during trial is the same hand grenade recovered from accused-appellant. The prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody of the subject hand grenade means that the first essential element of the offense, i.e., the existence of subject explosive, is not present.

The PNP Criminal Investigation Manual (Revised 2011), Chapter II, 2.2.3 provides the outline of the investigation procedures and the preservation of physical evidence from markings and handling of evidence, to laboratory examination until its presentation in court. The manual provides:

2.2.3 Investigation Procedure at the Crime Scene

xxx xxx xxx.

e. Markings of Evidence

Any physical evidence obtained must be marked or tagged before its submission to the evidence custodian.

These are information to ensure that the items can be identified by the collector at any time in the future. This precaution will help immeasurably to establish the credibility of the collector's report or testimony and will effectively avoid any suggestions that the item has been misidentified.

Markings on the specimen must at least contain the following:

1. Exhibit Case Number.

2. Initials and or signature of the collecting officer.

3. Time and date of collection.

NOTE: It is also important to note the place or location where the evidence was collected.

f. Evaluation of Evidence

Each item of evidence must be evaluated in relation to all the evidence, individually and collectively. If necessary, these pieces of evidence must be subjected to crime laboratory examination. Example: firearms for ballistic examination, hair strands etc.

g. Preservation of Evidence ScHADI

It is the investigator's responsibility to ensure that every precaution is exercised to preserve physical evidence in the state in which it was recovered/obtained until it is released to the evidence custodian.

xxx xxx xxx.

i. Chain of Custody

A list of all persons who came into possession of an item of evidence, continuity of possession, or the chain of custody, must be established whenever evidence is presented in court as an exhibit. Adherence to standard procedures in recording the location of evidence, marking it for identification, and properly completing evidence submission forms for laboratory analysis is critical to chain of custody. Every person who handled or examined the evidence and where it is at all times must be accounted for.

As a rule, all seized evidence must be in the custody of the evidence custodian and deposited in the evidence room or designated place for safekeeping.

xxx xxx xxx.

Proper handling of physical evidence is necessary to obtain the maximum possible information upon which scientific examination shall be based, and to prevent exclusion as evidence in court. Specimens which truly represent the material found at the scene, unaltered, unspoiled or otherwise unchanged in handling will provide more and better information upon examination. Legal requirements make it necessary to account for all physical pieces of evidence from the time it is collected until it is presented in court. With these in mind, the following principles should be observed in handling all types of evidence:

1. The evidence should reach the laboratory in the same condition as when it was found, as much as possible.

2. The quantity of specimen should be adequate. Even with the best equipment available, good results cannot be obtained from insufficient specimens.

3. Submit a known or standard specimen for comparison purposes.

4. Keep each specimen separate from others so there will be no intermingling or mixing of known and unknown material. Wrap and seal in individual packages when necessary.

5. Mark or label each of the evidence for positive identification as the evidence taken from a particular location in connection with the crime under investigation.

6. The chain of custody of evidence must be maintained. Account for evidence from the time it is collected until it is produced in court. Any break in this chain of custody may make the material inadmissible as evidence in court. (Italics supplied.)

In this case, although the subject hand grenade was marked by PO3 Ganir, there is no documentary evidence showing that the police officers complied with the chain of custody rule under the PNP Criminal Investigation Manual (Revised 2011). It was not established by the prosecution that PO3 Ganir properly turned over the subject hand grenade to the investigating officer for investigation, then to the evidence custodian. A perusal of the records reveals that there is no chain of custody form that was accomplished and presented by the police officers. Even for argument's sake that there was a proper turnover of the subject hand grenade to the investigating officer and to the evidence custodian, there is complete absence of proof as to how the hand grenade was turned over by PO3 Ganir to any person or officer until it was turned over to the PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit and identified in court. Hence, there was a break in the chain of custody and the evidentiary value of the subject hand grenade was not preserved. aICcHA

With the blunders committed by the police officers in handling the subject hand grenade and breaking the chain of custody, there is no assurance that the hand grenade identified in court is the same hand grenade allegedly confiscated from accused-appellant. Simply stated, there is no evidence that the police officers kept the subject hand grenade separate from the other hand grenades while it was in their possession to avoid intermingling or substitution.

In People v. Velasco (Velasco), 38 the Court explained what kind of evidence would be sufficient under the chain of custody rule to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be:

This would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it was offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.

xxx xxx xxx

[T]he Court has previously held that in the criminal prosecution of violation of P.D. No. 1866, "[r]eceipts for seized items are mandatory on the part of apprehending and seizing police officers." To reiterate, such mandatory requirement was not met by the authorities in the instant case. (Citations omitted.)

It must be highlighted that in Velasco, there were testimonies that the hand grenade was turned over from one officer to the other, but the prosecution evidence was silent on how the hand grenade was handled by the seizing officer to the investigating officer until it reached the hands of the evidence custodian. Yet, this was enough to be deemed as non-compliance with the chain of custody rule.

In the instant case, the evidence for the prosecution is completely silent as to the following matters: (a) the identity of the persons who had the custody of the subject hand grenade; (b) when it was transferred; (c) the condition it was turned over from one hand to the other; and (d) how it was handled and preserved while in the officers' custody.

The police officers' manifest disregard of the rules only shows that they did not perform their duties in a regular manner. The irregularities are clear as daylight. Thus, it is beyond doubt that the RTC's reliance on the presumption of regularity in the police officers' performance of their duties, in giving credence to the testimony of PO3 Ganir, is misplaced.

With the foregoing deficiencies and non-compliance with the rule on chain of custody, it cannot be said that the identity of the hand grenade was duly established. The police officers' deviation from the chain of custody rule and procedure for the preservation of evidence, which was clearly outlined in their own manual, creates extreme doubt as to the evidentiary value of the same, warranting accused-appellant's acquittal.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 18, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08730 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Edgar Pagala y Cajag is ACQUITTED of the offense charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Edgar Pagala y Cajag unless he is being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. EHaASD

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., designated as additional member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021).

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 16-17.

2.Id. at 3-15; penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of the Court) and Pedro B. Corales, concurring.

3. CA rollo, pp. 40-46; penned by Presiding Judge Francisco R. D. Quilala.

4. Entitled ''Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition, of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof and for Relevant Purposes," approved on June 29, 1983.

5. Entitles "An Act Further Amending the Provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as Amended, Entitled Codifying the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition, of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain Violations Thereof, and for Relevant Purposes,'' approved on December 22, 2008.

6.Rollo, pp. 3-4.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 4.

9. CA rollo, p. 40-A.

10.Rollo, p. 5.

11.Rollo, p. 6.

12.Id.

13.Id.

14. CA rollo, pp. 40-46.

15.Id.

16.Id. at 46.

17.Id. at 42-43.

18.Rollo, pp. 3-15.

19.Id. at 14.

20.Id. at 9-13.

21.Id. at 25-26.

22. CA rollo, pp. 23-38.

23.Rollo, pp. 33-34.

24. CA rollo, pp. 57-70.

25.Id. at 29-34.

26.Id. at 34-36.

27.Id. at 61-64.

28.Id. at 64-68.

29. Constitution Article III, Section 14 (2).

30.Constantino v. People, G.R. No. 225696, April 8, 2019.

31.Id., citing People v. Macasinag, 255 Phil. 279, 281 (1989).

32.Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019, citing Macayan, Jr. v. People, 756 Phil. 202 (2015).

33.Casilac v. People, G.R. No. 238436, February 17, 2020, citing Ramos v. People, 803 Phil. 775 (2017).

34.Constantino v. People, supra note 30, citing People v. Macasinag, 255 Phil. 279, 281 (1989).

35.Id. citing People v. Ortiz, 334 Phil. 590, 601 (1997).

36.People v. Velasco, G.R. No. 231787, August 19, 2019, citing People v. Cortez, 381 Phil. 345, 353 (2000).

37.Rollo, p. 11.

38.Supra note 36.