Você está na página 1de 4

[ G.R. No.

208755, October 05, 2016 ] S/G Rafiola then brought Gumilao near the baggage inspection area
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. MARIA to frisk her. S/G Ranola felt something hard between Gumilao's legs
NATIVIDAD GUMILAO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT. and told her, "Day, ilabas mo na, huwag mo na akong pahirapan. "
Gumilao complied, placed the item, which was a hard transparent
For review is the April 18, 2013 Decision[1] of the Court of Appeals in plastic sachet, on the table, and told S/G Raiiola, "Ate, itago mo na
CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 04560, which affirmed the July 7, 2010 iyan, makukulong ako."[4]
Decision[2] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, Manila, in
Criminal Case No. 09-272137 wherein accused-appellant Maria S/G Ranola thereafter turned over the plastic sachet to ENS Sabas,
Natividad Gumilao (Gumilao) was found guilty beyond reasonable who marked the item with: "012130H NOV 2009 eva macapagal
doubt of violating Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of terminal JRS" to signify the time, date, place, and his initials.
Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Thereafter, Gumilao was brought to their office for proper turn over
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).

On November 9, 2009, an Information was filed against Gumilao, On November 2, 2009, IA1 Lagutan, together with a fellow PDEA
charging her with violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, officer, Ryan Reyes, proceeded to the PCG Office at the Eva
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. The accusatory portion of said Macapagal Terminal after being informed that the PCG officers
Information reads: stationed there apprehended someone for transportation and
The undersigned accuses MARIA NATIVIDAD GUMILAO, of a seizure of suspected drugs. ENS Sabas and SN1 Usman turned over
violation of Section 5, in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic the person of Gumilao, the evidence, and all the supporting
Act [No.] 9165, committed as follows: documents to IA1 Lagutan.

That on or about November 1, 2009, in the City of Manila, Gumilao was thereafter brought to the PDEA office by IA1 Lagutan,
Philippines, the said accused, conspiring and confederating with Officer Reyes, ENS Sabas, and SN1 Usman. Upon reaching the office,
another whose true name, real identity and present whereabouts is IA1 Lagutan wrote a request for laboratory examination[5] and
still unknown and mutually helping each other, not being authorized submitted it together with the marked plastic sachet confiscated
by law to sell, trade, deliver, give away to another or dispatch in from Gumilao to the laboratory of the PDEA.
transit or transport any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly dispatch in transit or transport one (1) Forensic Chemist Santiago received the request and the "knot-tied
knot tied transparent bag sachet containing white crystalline transparent small plastic bag with markings '012130H NOV 2009 eva
substance weighing ninety-eight point one zero one one grams macapagal terminal JRS' containing white crystalline substance with
(98.1011) of methamphetamine hydrochloride known as "shabu", a a net weight of 98.1011 grams" which tested positive for
dangerous drug.[3] methamphetamine hydrochloride upon being subjected to a
qualitative examination.[6]
During her arraignment on December 4, 2009, Gumilao pleaded not
guilty to the crime charged. On the other hand, the defense presented Gumilao as its lone
witness who narrated a different set of circumstances: that she was,
The prosecution established the facts from the testimonies of its indeed, bound for Cebu on that date, but a guard who frisked her
witnesses, i.e., (i) Forensic Chemist Jappeth M. Santiago (Forensic instructed her to stay in a corner, where three to four coastguards
Chemist Santiago); (if) Security Guard (S/G) Josephine Rafiola approached her; that the coastguards asked if she knew a certain
(S/G Ranola); (Hi) S/G Clarence C. Garcia (S/G Garcia); (iv) person whose name she could not remember; that, thereafter, she
Investigation Agent (IA)1 Glenn C. Lagutan (IA1 Lagutan); and (v) was told to go to the comfort room and when she got out, she was
members of the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), namely, Seaman First brought to the office of the head of the security guards, where she
Class (SN1) Feldimar Usman (SN1 Usman) and Ensign (ENS) Janus was again frisked by a guard, who also searched her bag; that after
Robinson Sabas (ENS Sabas). the frisk and search, she was brought to the PCG Office where a man
was escorted inside; that she was asked if she knew him, to which
On November 1, 2009, Gumilao was a passenger bound for Cebu via she replied in the negative; and that they (she and the man) were
the Super Ferry 12 at Pier 15, Eva Macapagal Terminal, South both brought to the PDEA office for inquest proceedings.
Harbor, Manila, where S/Gs Garcia and Rafiola were on duty at the
frisking and baggage inspection areas, respectively. As part of the In a Decision dated July 7, 2010, the RTC found Gumilao guilty
routine security check-up at the gate, Gumilao was subjected to a beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic
body search by S/G Garcia. While frisking Gumilao, S/G Garcia felt Act No. 9165. However, the RTC held that there was nothing to show
something unusual in her brassiere. This prompted Gumilao to that Gumilao was conspiring with someone else to transport illegal
immediately brush away S/G Garcia's hand and flee. As S/G Garcia drugs, in violation of Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
couldn't leave her post, her co-worker, who was the male frisker on The fallo of said Decision reads:
duty, ran after Gumilao and requested assistance from ENS Sabas
and SN1 Usman, who were then in front of the terminal gate. WHEREFORE, from the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered,
finding the accused, Maria Natividad Gumilao, GUILTY, beyond
SN1 Usman, upon instruction from ENS Sabas, went after Gumilao. reasonable doubt of the crime charged, she is hereby sentenced to
SN1 Usman got hold of Gumilao, who requested to go to the life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 without
comfort room. SN1 Usman waited outside the comfort room and subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs.
escorted her over to S/Gs Garcia and Rafiola at the frisking area to
confirm if she was the one who fled after being frisked. S/G Garcia, The specimen is forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch
however, asked for S/G Rafiola's help when upon frisking Gumilao Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to rum
again, felt nothing unusual in Gumilao's brassiere area. over with dispatch and upon receipt the said specimen to the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With increased
accordance with the law and rules.[7] concern over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's judgment security at the nation's airports. Passengers attempting to board an
convicting Gumilao of the crime charged in a Decision dated April aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-on
18, 2013. baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray
scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious
Gumilao is now before this Court, assigning the same errors she objects, physical searches are conducted to determine what the
raised before the Court of Appeals, to wit: objects are. There is little question that such searches are
I reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED- safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy expectations
APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PATENT associated with airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified
ILLEGALITY OF HER ARREST. through airport public address systems, signs, and notices in their
II airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if any prohibited
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED- materials or substances are found, such would be subject to seizure.
APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S These announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary
FAILURE TO ESTABLISH ALL THE ELEMENTS THEREOF. constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures
III do not apply to routine airport procedures.
, THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND
CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE NOTWITHSTANDING Thus, we rule that there was nothing irregular with the search
THE APPREHENDING TEAM'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE INTEGRITY conducted on Gumilao, who was only chased and searched again
AND IDENTITY OF THE ALLEGED CONFISCATED SHABU.[8] after she ran away when S/G Garcia felt something unusual in her
This Court has reviewed the records of the case and has brassiere during the routine frisk at the terminal gates. What was
found no reason to overturn the decision convicting Gumilao of felt unusual in her brassiere during her initial frisk and her action of
violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. running away because of the discovery thereof gave the law
enforcement agents enough probable cause to subject her to a more
thorough body search, which yielded the transparent plastic bag
Warrantless Arrest and Search with crystalline substance that tested positive for shabu.
Gumilao argues that her arrest does not fall within the ambit of a
lawful warrantless arrest since there was no sufficient probable In People v. Mariacos,[13] we defined "probable cause" as follows:
cause to justify searching her person on that day. She insists that the Probable cause is defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion
fact that she ran away while she was being subjected to the routine supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
search done on all the passengers was not enough reason for her to induce a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of
be arrested and searched. the offense charged. It refers to the existence of such facts and
circumstances that can lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man
This Court disagrees. to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the items,
articles or objects sought in connection with said offense or subject
Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides: to seizure and destruction by law are in the place to be searched.
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence of
seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the person
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense is based
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on
be searched and the persons or things to be seized. probable cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace
officers making the arrest. (Citations omitted).
However, one of the instances when a warrantless search is valid is if
it is incidental to a lawful inspection, such as those that are routinely Gumilao's arrest stemmed from the routine frisking she was
done on passengers at airports, ports, or terminals. In other words, subjected to at the Eva Macapagal Terminal when she was about to
frisking done in airports, ports, or terminals is an authorized form of board the ferry bound for Cebu. Since the search conducted on
search and seizure.[9] Gumilao was a valid search pursuant to routine port security
procedure, she was also lawfully arrested without a warrant for
Akin to the case at bar is People v. Johnson,[10] the ruling of which being caught in possession of a contraband, thus, in flagrante
was applied in Sales v. People[11] and People v. Canton.[12] In all these delicto.
cases, this Court sustained the conviction of the accused for
violation of Republic Act No. 9165 when they were found to be Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
hiding in their body illegal drugs which were obtained from them in provides:
the course of a routine frisk at the airport, and were admitted in Section 5. Arrest without warrant, when lawful. — A peace officer or
evidence. We explained in these cases rationale for the validity of a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
the airport frisking, thus:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed,
Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner (b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable
reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped underwear. While it may be argued that she was yet to board the
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final ferry, it cannot be denied that her presence at the port area was
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has specifically for the purpose of transporting or moving the dangerous
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. drugs from one place to another, from Manila to Cebu. The evidence
in this case shows that at the time of her arrest, Gumilao was
In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person caught in flagrante carrying in her person the small transparent bag
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the with white crystalline substance later on identified as shabu.
nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. Chain of Custody of Evidence
The present case falls under paragraph (a) as quoted above. The Gumilao also argues that the apprehending officers failed to comply
authorities had all the reason to suspect that she was hiding with the procedure in handling confiscated dangerous drugs and
something in her person, as S/G Garcia had already felt something that the corpus delicti of the crime was not proven.[15]
unusual in Gumilao's brassiere, which prompted her to push away
S/G Garcia's hand and flee the frisking area in the first place. The Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 outlines
subsequent search conducted on Gumilao resulted in the discovery the procedure on the chain of custody of confiscated, seized, or
and confiscation of a small transparent bag with a white crystalline surrendered dangerous drugs, viz.:
substance suspected to be a dangerous drug. Gumilao was then
apprehended and turned over to the PDEA pending the outcome of Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or
the qualitative examination of the confiscated substance found Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
hidden in her person. Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The
Transportation of Dangerous Drugs PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
Gumilao was charged and convicted for transporting dangerous plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
drugs, in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
The law provides: laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for
proper disposition in the following manner:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery,
Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (PI0,000,000.00) or the ^ person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or
shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from
shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected
distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.]
quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such The foregoing is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the
transactions. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, to
wit:
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or
hundred thousand pesos (PI 00,000.00) to Five hundred thousand Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs,
pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals,
authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The
give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs,
controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
in such transactions. essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for
In the case at bar, Gumilao was caught with dangerous drugs in her proper disposition in the following manner:
possession while trying to board a ferry bound for Cebu. She was
thus caught in flagrante delicto of transporting dangerous drugs. The (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control
Court, in the Mariacos case, has defined transport of drugs in this of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation,
wise: physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the
Jurisprudence defines "transport" as "to carry or convey from one accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated
place to another." There is no definitive moment when an accused and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative
"transports" a prohibited drug. When the circumstances establish from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
the purpose of an accused to transport and the fact of elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
transportation itself, there should be no question as to the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical
perpetration of the criminal act. The fact that there is actual inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the
conveyance suffices to support a finding that the act of transporting search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the
was committed and it is immaterial whether or not the place of nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is
destination is reached.[14] (Citations omitted.) practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that
non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable
Gumilao was apprehended inside the port terminal, as she was grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
intending to board the ferry bound for Cebu with the dangerous seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending
drugs in her person, concealed in a transparent plastic bag inside her
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and This Court has always looked upon the defense of denial with
custody over said items [.] disfavor as such is easily fabricated, and is a standard defense in
prosecutions for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs
This Court elucidated on the concept of "chain of custody" in People Act. Since Gumilao failed to give this Court anything but her bare
v. Llanita,[16] which, quoting People v. Kamad[17], enumerated the assertions and self-serving claims, her defense of denial must
different links that must be proven to establish it: necessarily be rejected.
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements
and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby AFFIRMS the
of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the April 18, 2013 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-
time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to H.C. No. 04560 finding Maria Natividad Gumilao GUILTY beyond
safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No.
movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and 9165. SO ORDERED."
signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized
item, the date and time when such transfer of custody was made in
the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final
disposition.

In the case of People v. Kamad, the Court had the opportunity to


enumerate the different links that the prosecution must prove in
order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation,
namely:

First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug


recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;

Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending


officer to the investigating officer;

Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to


the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and

Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug


seized by the forensic chemist to the court. (Citations omitted.)
In the case at bar, this Court, like the courts a quo, finds that the
continuity in the chain of custody was sufficiently established, to wit:
(a) S/G Rafiola confiscated the dangerous drugs from Gumilao; (b)
S/G Ranola gave the confiscated item to ENS Sabas, who then
marked it with "012130H NOV 2009 eva macapagal terminal JRS,"
signifying the time, date, place, and his initials; (c) ENS Sabas
thereafter turned over the seized item to IA1 Lagutan; (d) IA1
Lagutan, upon reaching the PDEA office, wrote a request for
laboratory examination, which he sent to the PDEA Laboratory
Service together with the seized plastic sachet; (e) Forensic Chemist
Santiago received the request and the small knot-tied transparent
plastic bag containing white crystalline substance with a net weight
of 98.1011 grams; and (f) Forensic Chemist Santiago testified in open
court, that the white crystalline substance tested positive for
methamphetamine hydrochloride after being subjected to a
qualitative examination.

It bears to stress that failure of the prosecution to strictly comply


with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is not fatal and will not
render an arrest illegal or the items seized from the accused
inadmissible in evidence. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized
items to be used in the determination of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.[18] Here, we hold that the prosecution sufficiently
established that the chain of custody was not broken.

Moreover, Gumilao failed to show that there was bad faith or ill will
on the part of the officers who apprehended her or that they had
tampered or meddled with the evidence. Thus, "the presumptions
that the integrity #f such evidence had been preserved and that the
police officers who handled the seized drugs had discharged their
duties properly and with regularity remain."[19]

Você também pode gostar