CRIMPRO RULE 120

Title GR No. 199087

PEOPLE V. PUNZALAN Date: November 11, 2015
Ponente: VILLARAMA, JR., J.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Plaintiff-Appellee JERRY PUNZALAN and PATRICIA PUNZALAN
Accused-Appellants
Nature of the case: Accused-appellants Jerry Punzalan and Patricia Punzalan seek the reversal of
the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated October 28, 2011 in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04557
which affirmed the Joint Decision dated March 29, 2010 and the Order dated June 21, 2010 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 116 in Crim. Case No. R-PSY-09-01162-CR
convicting them of violation of Section 11, Article II of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 (R.A. No. 9165).
FACTS
The prosecution established that on November 3, 2009, at around 4:30 in the morning,
Intelligence Agent 1 Liwanag Sandaan (IA1 Sandaan) and her team implemented a search warrant
issued on October 28, 2009 by then Manila RTC Judge Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. to: (i) make an
immediate search of the premises/house of accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan, Vima
Punzalan, Jaime Punzalan, Arlene Punzalan-Razon and Felix Razon who are all residents of 704
Apelo Cruz Compound, Barangay 175, Malibay, Pasay City; and (ii) to seize and take possession of
an undetermined quantity of assorted dangerous drugs, including the proceeds or fruits and bring
said property to the court.

Since there are three houses or structures inside the compound believed to be occupied by the
accused-appellants, a sketch of the compound describing the house to be searched was prepared
and attached to the search warrant.

Before proceeding to the target area, they passed by the barangay hall to coordinate with
Barangay Chairman Reynaldo Flores, Kagawad Larry Fabella and Kagawad Edwin Razon. The team
likewise brought with them a media representative affiliated with "Sunshine Radio" to cover the
operation. From the barangay hall, they walked toward the target place using as a guide the
sketch they prepared.

When they were already outside the house of Jerry and Patricia Punzalan, which is a three-storey
structure, IA1 Sandaan knocked on the door. A woman, later identified as accused-appellant
Patricia Punzalan, slightly opened the door. When they introduced themselves as PDEA agents and
informed the occupant that they have a search warrant, Patricia immediately tried to close the
door but was not successful since the PDEA agents pushed the door open. The team was able to
enter the house of Jerry and Patricia Punzalan who were both surprised when found inside the
house. IO1 Pagaragan showed and read the search warrant in front of accused-appellants.

Inside the house, the team immediately saw plastic sachets placed on top of the table.
Intelligence Officer 1 Pagaragan (IO1 Pagaragan) was able to seize 9 heat-sealed plastic sachets,
2 square-shaped transparent plastic containers and a small round plastic container. All 3 plastic
containers contained smaller heat-sealed plastic sachets of white crystalline substance of
suspected shabu. There were also other paraphernalia, guns, money and a digital weighing scale.
Accordingly, Special Investigator 2 Esteban (SI2 Esteban) and Intelligence Officer 2 Alvarado (IO2
Alvarado) effected the arrest of accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan after informing
them of their constitutional rights. IO1 Pagaragan immediately marked the seized items by
placing the marking "ADP". After searching and marking the evidence found on the first floor, the
team, together with the barangay officials and accused-appellants, proceeded to, and conducted
the search on the second and third floors but found nothing. They went downstairs where they
conducted the inventory of recovered items. IO1 Pagaragan prepared the Receipt/Inventory of
Property Seized and a Certification of Orderly Search which were later signed by the barangay
officials.

After their arrest, accused-appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan were brought to the PDEA Office
in Quezon City for investigation. IO1 Pagaragan presented the seized evidence to Atty. Benjamin
Gaspe, who prepared the Booking Sheet and Arrest Report, Request for Drug Test/Physical and
Medical Examination. Laboratory examination of the seized pieces of drug evidence gave positive
results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu, a
dangerous drug.

Thereafter, the accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 for illegal possession of 40.78 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known
as shabu, a dangerous drug.

On March 29, 2010, the trial court convicted accused-appellants for violation of Section 11, Article
II, R.A. No. 9165. The trial court held that the issuance of a search warrant against the premises of
different persons named therein is valid as there is no requirement that only one search warrant
for one premise to be searched is necessary for its validity. Also, the address of the accused-
appellants Jerry and Patricia Punzalan was clearly and adequately described. A sketch that
specifically identifies the places to be searched was attached to the records and such description
of the place was unquestionably accurate that the PDEA agents were led to, and were able to
successfully conduct their operation in the premises described in the search warrant.

In its findings, the trial court observed that there were actually two phases of the search done in
the Punzalan house. The first or initial search was done at the ground floor of the house,
immediately after the PDEA agents gained entry and was beyond doubt made in the presence of
both accused. This is where the bulk of illegal drugs were found, confiscated and consequently
marked. It is of no moment that the barangay officials were not able to witness the said initial
search and their failure to arrive on time to witness the first or initial search at the ground floor of
the Punzalan house, or even their total absence thereat, will not render the subject search invalid
and unlawful inasmuch as their presence is not required.

The second phase of the search was conducted at the upper floors of the house after the
markings on the 293 sachets of confiscated specimens were completed by 101 Pagaragan. This
was witnessed and participated in by the barangay officials. Finally, after the search of the entire
house was concluded, it is not disputed that an inventory of all the items seized was conducted by
IO1 Pagaragan in compliance with the provisions of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

On appeal, the CA affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants. The CA held that there was a
valid search and seizure conducted and the seized items are admissible in evidence. The
prosecution was able to prove all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs: (1) the
accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
said drug.
ISSUE/S
1. Whether or not the search conducted was valid YES.
2. Whether or not the chain of custody rule has been complied with YES.
RATIO
I. Section 8, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. -

No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall be made except in the
presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence
of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same
locality.

As correctly ruled by the CA, even if the barangay officials were not present during the initial
search, the search was witnessed by accused-appellants themselves, hence, the search was valid
since the rule that "two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality"
must be present applies only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any
member of his family.

To successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements
must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be
a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and
consciously possessed the said drug. In the case at bench, the prosecution was able to establish
with moral certainty the guilt of the accused-appellants for the crime of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs. Accused-appellants were caught in actual possession of the prohibited drugs
during a valid search of their house. It bears stressing that aside from assailing the validity of the
search, accused-appellants did not deny ownership of the illegal drugs seized. They have not
proffered any valid defense in the offense charged for violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002.

II. This Court has time and again adopted the chain of custody rule, a method of authenticating
evidence which requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient 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 is 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.

It is essential for the prosecution to prove that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from
the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit. Its identity must be established
with unwavering exactitude for it to lead to a finding of guilt. In this case, the chain of custody of
the seized illegal drugs was duly established from the time the heat-sealed plastic sachets were
seized and marked by IO1 Pagaragan to its subsequent turnover to Atty. Gaspe of the PDEA Office
in Quezon City. IO1 Pagaragan was also the one who personally delivered and submitted the
specimens composed of 293 sachets of shabu to the PNP Crime Laboratory for laboratory
examination. The specimens were kept in custody until they were presented as evidence before
the trial court and positively identified by IO1 Pagaragan as the very same specimens he marked
during the inventory.

The fact that the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized was not signed by Atty. Gaspe does not
undermine the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs seized from accused-appellants.
The failure to strictly comply with the prescribed procedures in the inventory of seized drugs does
not render an arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible.
What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the
accused.
RULING
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated
October 28, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 04557 is hereby AFFIRMED.
2-S 2016-17 (ELMIDO)
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015novemberdecisions.php?id=1019