DIVISION

[ GR No. 198314, Sep 24, 2014 ]

PEOPLE v. RICHARD GUINTO Y SAN ANDRES +
DECISION

PEREZ, J.:
This is an appeal filed by herein accused Richard Guinto y San Andres
(Guinto) from the Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated 31 January
2011, affirming the decision of conviction rendered by the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Pasig City for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No.
9165.[2]

The Facts

The prosecution presented a buy-bust case.

As narrated by Police Officer 1 Melvin Jesus S. Mendoza (PO1 Mendoza), the

operation was conducted on 20 January 2004 at around 1:00 o'clock in the
morning by the members of Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Task Force (AIDSTF),
Pasig City Police Station. It was prompted by an information given by a
female caller received by AIDSTF's Team Supervisor Senior Police Officer 3
Leneal Matias (SPO3 Matias), who in turn, coordinated with Police Inspector
Melbert Esguerra (P/Insp. Esguerra), the head of AIDSTF. According to the
female caller, a certain "Chard" was selling shabu in a place located at 137
MC Guinto, Barangay Pinagbuhatan, Pasig City. Based on the information,
P/Insp. Esguerra instructed the team to verify the call from their civilian
informant residing also in Barangay Pinagbuhatan. Upon positive
verification, P/Insp. Esguerra formed a buy-bust team composed of SPO3
Matias, SPO2 Braulio Basco (SPO2 Basco), PO1 Michael Familara (PO1
Familara), PO1 Alan Mapula, and PO1 Porferio Bansuelo (PO1 Bansuelo) and
designated PO1 Mendoza to act as the poseur-buyer. In turn, SPO3 Matias
prepared the pre-operation report and coordinated with the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) on the buy-bust operation. PO1 Mendoza, as
the poseur-buyer, was given two (2) pieces of marked P100.00 bills as buy-
bust money by P/Insp. Esguerra.[3]

After the briefing, the team including the informant proceeded to the target
area at around eleven o'clock in the evening of 19 April 2004. Upon arrival,
PO1 Mendoza and the informant positioned themselves outside the house of
this certain "Chard" (later identified as the accused Richard S.A. Guinto) and
waited for him to step out. Meanwhile, the rest of the team stood nearby and
waited for PO1 Mendoza's pre-arranged signal of raising of hand to indicate
that the sale transaction was already consummated. After two hours, Guinto
finally went out of the house. The informant approached Chard and
introduced PO1 Mendoza as a person in need of illegal drugs worth P200.00.
PO1 Mendoza then gave buy-bust money to Guinto as payment. Guinto, in
turn, drew two (2) plastic sachets containing shabu and gave them to PO1
Mendoza. Guinto then put the money on his left pocket. To indicate
consummation of illegal sale, PO1 Mendoza made the pre-arranged signal to
the other members of the team and introduced himself to Guinto as a police
officer. The other members of the team responded and arrested Guinto.
Immediately, PO1 Mendoza confiscated the marked money from the left
pocket of Guinto and marked the plastic sachet containing shabu with the
markings "RSG/MJM."[4]

Afterwards, the buy-bust team brought Guinto to Pasig City Police Station
and turned him over to SPO2 Basco for investigation. PO1 Mendoza turned
over the confiscated drugs to SPO2 Basco. Consequently, SPO2 Basco asked
for a laboratory examination request to determine the chemical composition
of the confiscated drugs.[5] Thereafter, confiscated drug was brought by PO1
Noble to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for
examination.[6]

The prosecution also presented PO1 Familara as its second witness to

corroborate the statements given by PO1 Mendoza. However, several
inconsistencies were apparent in his testimony.

When asked during his direct examination on who gave the buy-bust money
to PO1 Mendoza, PO1 Familara answered that it was SPO3 Matias.[7]
Likewise, the pre-arranged signal was differently described as scratching of
the nape instead of raising of hand.[8] He also testified that their asset
arrived at around one o'clock in the morning to accompany them to
Pinagbuhatan.[9] Another inconsistency which surfaced was when PO1
Familara testified that upon the consummation of illegal sale, he went to the
place of the arrest and saw PO1 Mendoza arresting Guinto. PO1 Mendoza
then positively identified Guinto as the one who sold one (1) plastic sachet of
illegal drug instead of two (2) sachets.[10]

Finally, the last witness presented by the prosecution was Police Officer 2
Richard Noble (PO2 Noble).[11] He corroborated the statements given by
his fellow police officers but again, presented an inconsistency as to the time
of the asset's arrival compared to the one narrated by PO1 Familara. A
conflict came out as to the time of the team's arrival to the target area and as
to how long they waited for the accused to go out. In his direct, he testified
that the asset arrived at the police station before eleven o'clock in the evening
prior to the buy-bust operation.[12] Afterwards, they had a briefing on the
operation. He recalled that they waited for around 15 to 20 minutes before
the accused came out[13] while PO1 Mendoza testified that they waited for
the accused for two hours. When asked again by the Court on the time of
their arrival, he answered that it was at around one o'clock in the
morning.[14]

The defense interposed denial.

Guinto narrated that at the time of the arrest at 10:00 o'clock in the evening
of 19 January 2004, he was in their house cooking with his family. Several
men suddenly entered the house, grabbed his arm and searched the
premises. When asked why the men entered their home, the men did not
give them any reason. Afterwards, Guinto was brought to the police
headquarters and investigated by the police.[15]

Jane P. Guinto (Jane), the wife of the accused Guinto, corroborated the
statements of her husband. She recalled that several armed male persons
entered their house while she and her family were cooking to celebrate fiesta
the next day. The men were not authorized to search nor arrest the person
of his husband and failed to introduce themselves to them. Thereafter, these
male persons frisked her husband, handcuffed him and brought to the police
station. Meanwhile, Jane left her two children under the care of her aunt to
follow her husband. It was there at the station where the police officers tried
to extort money from her in the amount of P50, 000.00.[16]

Finally, John Mark P. Guinto (John Mark), one of the two children of Guinto,
affirmed the narration of his parents on material points. He testified that he
and his younger brother were watching television at the time of the illegal
arrest of his father. His parents were then cooking when some uniformed
police officers arrested his father and brought him to the police station.
However, he testified that he went to their neighbor's house and hid there
out of fear, contrary to the statement of his mother that she brought them to
her aunt.[17]

Guinto was eventually charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs

punishable under Section 5 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165:

On or about January 20, 2004 in Pasig City and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give
away to PO1 Melvin Santos Mendoza, a police poseur buyer, two (2) heat-
sealed transparent plastic bag each containing two centigrams (0.02 gram)
of white crystalline substance, which were found positive to the test for
methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of said
law.[18]

When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.

Based on the Pre-Trial Order,[19] the prosecution and defense stipulated

that Forensic Chemist Annalee R. Forro (Forro) of the PNP Crime Laboratory
conducted an examination on the samples submitted and they yielded
positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as
shabu.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

The trial court on 8 October 2008 rendered a Decision[20] finding Guinto

guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged and imposed upon
him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 for violation
of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 with all the accessory penalties under
the law. It held that all the elements to constitute illegal sale was present to
convict the accused of the offense. Likewise, it affirmed the testimonies of
the police officers on the conducted buy-bust operation and the presumption
of regularity in the performance of their duties as against the claim of
unsubstantiated denial of Guinto.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the trial court. It ruled that all the
elements of illegal sale of dangerous drug were proven as testified by the
police officers PO1 Mendoza and PO1 Familara. It found credible the
straightforward and categorical statements of the prosecution witnesses on
what transpired during the buy-bust operation.[21] Further, it held that the
prosecution has proven as unbroken the chain of custody of evidence and the
regularity of performance of the police officers who conducted the operation.
Finally, it affirmed that the non-compliance of the strict procedure in Section
21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165
did not invalidate the seizure and custody of the seized items as the integrity
and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the
operatives. [22]

Our Ruling

After a careful review of the evidence, we reverse the finding of the trial
courts. We find that the prosecution failed to prove the identity of the corpus
delicti. This is fatal in establishing illegal sale. Moreover, the conflicting
statements of the policemen on material points tarnished the credibility of
the testimony for the prosecution.

Primarily assailed by the accused are the inconsistent statements of the

apprehending police officers with respect to the circumstances of his illegal
arrest and the broken chain of custody which would warrant his acquittal.

We are convinced.

In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the identity
of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale and the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.[23] Hence, to establish
a concrete case, it is an utmost importance to prove the identity of the
narcotic substance itself as it constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense
and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is
therefore imperative for the prosecution to first establish beyond reasonable
doubt the identity of the dangerous drug before asserting other
arguments.[24]

In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that each and every element that
constitutes an illegal sale of dangerous drug was present to convict the
accused. Upon evaluation of the testimonies of PO1 Familara and PO1
Mendoza, it is apparent that there is an inconsistency on the identity and
number of plastic sachets bought from the accused. In his statement, PO1
Familara recalled that upon arrival at the place of arrest, PO1 Mendoza told
him that he was able to buy one plastic sachet of shabu from Guinto. On the
other hand, PO1 Mendoza recalled that he was able to buy two plastic sachets
instead of one. The pointed inconsistency is not a minor one that can be
brushed aside as the discrepancy taints the very corpus deliciti of the crime
of illegal sale. A vital point of contention, the prosecution's evidence places
in reasonable doubt the identification of the dangerous drug that was
presented in court.

We likewise see that the conflicting statements of the police officers defeat
the presumption of the regularity of their performance of duties ordinarily
accorded by the lower courts.

We find several inconsistencies on points material to the credibility of the

buy-bust operation.

Among those are the inconsistencies on the pre-arranged signal, length of

time the police officers spent in waiting for the accused and the exact time of
the arrest.
Aside from those alleged by defense, this Court found several more evident
inconsistencies, which when put together, erodes the presumption of
regularity of performance of duty.

We discuss.

First, as already pointed out, as to identity of the corpus delicti of the crime.

PO1 Mendoza and PO1 Familara fatally contradicted each other's testimony
as to the number of sachets bought from Guinto. In his direct testimony, PO1
Mendoza positively identified that the accused gave two plastic sachets in
exchange of the P200 marked money.[25] However, the same identification
was refuted when PO1 Familara testified that PO1 Mendoza informed him
that he (Mendoza) successfully bought one plastic sachet of shabu from
Guinto.[26]

Second, as to where the marked money was recovered after the buy-bust
operation.

According to PO1 Mendoza, he was able to obtain possession of the buy-bust

money from the left front pocket of Guinto as transcribed in his direct
testimony dated 19 August 2004. However, in his direct testimony dated 18
August 2005, Mendoza testified that he was able to recover the buy-bust
money from the right hand of Guinto, as opposed from his previous narration
that he recovered the money from Guinto's left pocket.[27]

Third, conflicting circumstances before the arrest.

In his first testimony, PO1 Mendoza recalled that upon their arrival at the
target area at around eleven o'clock in the evening, the team waited for
almost two hours for the accused to come out from his house.[28] However,
PO1 Familara testified that they arrived at the target area at around one
o'clock in the morning of 20 January 2004.[29] Witness PO1 Noble, on the
other hand, recalled that they left for the area at around eleven in the
evening[30] and waited for 15 to 20 minutes[31] for Guinto to come out but
contradicted his former statement and testified that they arrived at around
one o'clock in the morning.[32]
Fourth, as to the pre-arranged signal.

PO1 Mendoza testified that the agreed upon signal will be the raising of hand
to signify the consummation of illegal sale.[33] Again, it was contradicted by
PO1 Familara's statement that what was agreed upon during the meeting was
the scratching of the nape as the pre-arranged signal of PO1 Mendoza.[34]

Finally, the source of the buy-bust money.

During his direct examination, PO1 Mendoza was asked on who gave him the
buy-bust money. In his answer, he identified that it was P/Insp.
Esguerra[35] as the source. On the contrary, PO1 Familara identified SPO3
Matias as the one who gave PO1 Mendoza the marked money during their
meeting.[36]

We find support in several jurisprudential rulings.

In People v. Roble,[37] the Court ruled that generally, the evaluation of the
trial court of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimonies is entitled
to great weight and generally not disturbed upon appeal. However, such rule
does not apply when the trial court has overlooked, misapprehended, or
misapplied any fact of weight or substance. In this present case, the
contradictions, numerous and material, warrant the acquittal of accused-
appellant.[38]

Similarly, one of the means used by the Court in determining the credibility
of the prosecution witnesses is the objective test. Following this test, in order
to establish the credibility of prosecution witnesses regarding the conduct of
buy-bust operation, prosecution must be able to present a complete picture
detailing the buy-bust operation from the initial contact between the poseur-
buyer and the pusher, the offer to purchase, the promise or payment of the
consideration, until the consummation of the sale by the delivery of the
illegal subject of sale. The manner by which the initial contact was made, the
offer to purchase the drug, the payment of the buy-bust money, and the
delivery of the illegal drug must be the subject of strict scrutiny by courts to
insure that law-abiding citizens are not unlawfully induced to commit an
offense.[39] In light of these guiding principles, we rule that the prosecution
failed to present a clear picture on what really transpired on the buy-bust
operation.

In People v. Unisa[40] this Court held that "in cases involving violations of
the Dangerous Drug Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are
police officers for they are presumed to have performed their duties in a
regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive
on the part of the police officers."

True, the absence of ill motive or ill will is ordinarily considered by this Court
as proof that the statements of the police officers is credible. As maintained
by the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, in the absence of
any improper motive, presumption of regularity of performance of duty
prevails. However, it must be similarly noted that the presumption of
regularity in the performance of duty of public officers does not outweigh
another recognized presumption - the presumption of innocence of the
accused until proven beyond reasonable doubt.[41]

In several occasions, the Court had declared that the presumption of

regularity of performance of duties must be harmonized with the other
interest of the State which is the interest of adherence to the presumption of
innocence of the accused.

However in case of conflict between the presumption of regularity of police

officers and the presumption of innocence of the accused, the latter must
prevail as the law imposes upon the prosecution the highest degree of proof
of evidence to sustain conviction.[42]

In conclusion, this case exemplifies the doctrine that conviction must stand
on the strength of the Prosecution's evidence, not on the weakness of the
defense. Evidence proving the guilt of the accused must always be beyond
reasonable doubt. If the evidence of guilt falls short of this requirement, the
Court will not allow the accused to be deprived of his liberty. His acquittal
should come as a matter of course.[43]

The present case shows that the prosecution fell short in proving with
certainty the culpability of the accused and engendered a doubt on the true
circumstances of the buy-bust operation. In dubio pro reo. When moral
certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt
inevitably becomes a matter of right.[44]

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The 31 January 2011 Decision of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03844 affirming the judgment
of conviction dated 8 October 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 164
of Pasig City is hereby REVERSEDand SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant
RICHARD GUINTO y SAN ANDRES is hereby ACQUITTED and
ordered immediately released from detention unless his continued
confinement is warranted for some other cause or ground.

SO ORDERED.

Sereno, CJ., (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin, Perez, and

Perlas-Bernabe, JJ., concur.

[1] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with Associate Justices
Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr. and Florito S. Macalino, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 108-
119.

[2] An Act Instituting The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,

Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known As The Dangerous
Drugs Act Of 1972, As Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, And For Other
Purposes.

[3] TSN, PO1 Melvin Mendoza, 19 August 2004, pp. 2-8.

[4] Id. at 9-13.

[5] TSN Mendoza, 18 August 2005, pp. 6-7.

[6] Id. at 7 and 16.

[7] TSN Familara, 5 December 2005, p. 4.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.
[10] Id. at 6.

[11] Referred to as PO1 Noble in 18 August 2005 TSN.

[12] TSN Noble, 23 January 2006, p. 4.

[13] Id. at 5.

[14] Id. at 12.

[15] TSN, Direct of Richard S.A. Guinto, 8 February 2007, pp. 2-5.

[16] TSN, Jane Guinto, 5 July 2007, pp. 2-7.

[17] TSN, John Mark P. Guinto, 22 November 2007, pp. 2-5.

[18] Records p. 1.

[19] Id. at 17-18.

[20] Id. at 164-170.

[21] CA Decision; CA rollo, pp. 108-119.

[22] Id. at 114-118.

[23] People v. Unisa, G.R. No. 185721, 28 September 2011, 658 SCRA 305,
324; People v. Manlangit, G.R. No. 189806, 12 January 2011, 639 SCRA 455,
463.

[24] People v. Gatlabayan, G.R. No. 186467, 13 July 2011, 653 SCRA 803,
815, citing People v. Frondozo, G.R. No. 177164, 30 June 2009, 591 SCRA
407, 417.

[25] TSN Mendoza, 19 August 2004, pp. 11-12.

[26] TSN Familara, 5 December 2005, p. 6.

[27] TSN Mendoza, 18 August 2005, p. 4,

[28] TSN Mendoza, 19 August 2004, p. 9.

[29] TSN Familara, 5 December 2005, p. 5.

[30] TSN Noble, 23 January 2006, p. 3

[31] Id. at 5.

[32] Id. at 12.

[33] TSN Mendoza, 19 August 2004, p. 10

[34] TSN Familara, 5 December 2005, p. 4.

[35] TSN Mendoza, 19 August 2004, p. 6.

[36] TSN Familara, 5 December 2005, p. 4.

[37] G.R. No. 192188, 11 April 2011, 647 SCRA 593.

[38] Id. at 602-603, citing People v. Casimiro, 432 Phil. 966, 974-975
(2002).

[39] People v. Clara, G.R. No. 195528, 4 July 2013, 702 SCRA 273, 292, citing
People v. Ong, 568 Phil. 114, 122 (2008); People v. Doria,361 Phil. 595, 621
(1999).

[40] G.R. No. 185721, 28 September 2011, 658 SCRA 305, 336, citing People
v. Gaspar, G.R. No. 192816, 6 July 2011, 653 SCRA 673, 688; People v. De
Guzman, 564 Phil. 282, 293 (2007).

[41] People v. Clara, supra note 38, at 295, citing People v. Robelo, G.R. No.
184181, 26 November 2012, 686 SCRA 417, 428; Dimacuha v. People, 545
Phil. 406, 420 (2007); People v. Serrano, G.R. No. 179038, 6 May 2010, 620
SCRA 327, 338.

[42] Id.

[43] Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 180177, 18 April 2012, 670 SCRA
148, 164-165.
[44] Zafra v. People, G.R. No. 190749, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 396, 409,
citing Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008).