People Vs Almodiel

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 201109
October 2, 2013
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE,

vs.
JOVI PORNILLOS Y HALLARE, APPELLANT.
DECISION
ABAD, J.:
The main issue in this drugs case centers on the wide discrepancy between the weight of the
substance seized from the accused and the weight of the substance subject of forensic test.
The facts and the Case
The Provincial Prosecutor of Camarines Sur charged Jovi Hallare Pornillos (Pornillos) before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City in Criminal Case IR-6733 with selling 0.2204 gram of shabu
in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165.
The prosecutions version is that on May 14, 2004 Capt. Dennis Vargas briefed his police team on a
buy-bust operation it was to carry out against Pornillos. He handed two P500.00 bills to PO2
Leonardo Garcia, whom he designated as poseur buyer. PO2 Garcia marked the bills with his
initials, "LMG," and recorded their serial numbers in their logbook.1
Arriving at Nabua, Camarines Sur, on May 15, 2004, the team cased the area. The police informant,
with PO2 Garcia in tow, approached Pornillos house then knocked on the door. Pornillos opened it
and asked the informant if he was there for shabu. PO2 Garcia replied that he wanted to
buy P1,000.00 worth of shabu. Pornillos handed over the shabu and got the money. PO2 Garcia
then identified himself and arrested Pornillos. The rest of the team converged on them. After
apprising Pornillos of his rights, Capt. Vargas frisked him and seized the marked money in his
pocket. PO2 Garcia marked the shabu in the plastic sachet with his initials "LMG" and turned over
the same to the evidence custodian, PO1 Danilo Prianes.2
The arresting team brought Pornillos to the PDEA office. 3 Capt. Vargas and PO2 Garcia prepared the
inventory in the presence of Pornillos, the media representative from DZGB, and the Barangay
Chairman of Ems Barrio, Legaspi City, Irma Trivianes.4 PO1 Prianes took pictures of the
proceedings.5 PSI Vargas then made a request for the laboratory examination of the seized
substance.6 The examination yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 7
Pornillos version, on the other hand, is that he was sleeping in his room on May 15, 2004 when his
wife woke him up. When he went out into the dining room, he there saw PO2 Aldea, PO2 Garcia,
and another man. They asked him for his source of shabu. When he could not give them a name,
PO2 Garcia handcuffed him. Capt. Vargas entered the dining room from the back door and frisked
Pornillos. He got his wallet that had P6,000.00 in it. He took out two P500.00 bills and handed these
to PO2 Garcia. The officers took his cellphone and flashlight. 8
The police brought Pornillos, along with his wife and child, to Camp Simeon Ola. Along the way, they
asked him again to name a shabu seller but he denied knowing any seller. At the police camp,
Pornillos denied ownership of the small plastic sachet shown him. 9 Later, Capt. Vargas
demanded P80,000.00 in exchange for his release.10
Celestino Taamor testified that on May 15, 2004, he was drinking with his uncles about five meters
from Pornillos house when two men arrived looking for Pornillos. One of Taamors companion
accompanied them to Pornillos house. A little while later, Taamor saw a handcuffed Pornillos
emerge from his house with the others. Three more men arrived and they all left with Pornillos. 11
On September 12, 2007 the RTC found Pornillos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling 0.2204
grams of shabu in Violation of Sec. 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and
ordered him to pay a fine ofP500,000.00.12
The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed13 the RTC Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03027. It found, like the
RTC, the testimonies of PO2 Garcia, PO2 Aldea, and PI Clemen worthy of belief. The prosecution,
said the CA, established all the elements of the offense. Pornillos denial and claim of frame-up could
not overcome the positive testimonies of the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. The
police immediately marked the seized items for proper identification and had these inventoried in the
presence of Pornillos, a representative of the media, and an elective official as required by Section
21. It has been held that conducting the inventory at the nearest police station constitutes
compliance with the law.14
1wphi1
But the CA is in error in one important point. It said that the chain of custody of the seized drugs
does not appear to be unbroken. But the PDEA report to the Provincial Prosecutors Office, 15 the
booking sheet and arrest report,16 the Certificate of Inventory,17 and the laboratory examination
request18 all put down the seized shabu as weighing 0.4 gram. The forensic chemist reported and
testified, however, that the police actually submitted only 0.2204 gram of shabu for laboratory
testing, short by 0.1796 gram from what the police inventoried.
In People v. Aneslag,19 the Information alleged that the accused sold 240 grams of shabu but the
forensic test showed that the drugs weighed only 230 grams, short by 10 grams. The prosecution
offered a sound explanation for the 4.16% loss. The trial court ordered two separate tests of the
subject shabu packs. As a consequence the two chemists took out separate samples from each of
the seized packs of shabu, resulting in the weight loss.
Here, however, the percentage of loss was not that small. The content of the sachet was inventoried
at 0.4 gram but yielded only 0.2204 gram during the laboratory test, short by 0.1796 gram. It suffered
a loss of 45% or nearly half of the original weight. The prosecution has three theories: only two
chemists served the entire region giving rise to possible error; the police and the crime laboratory
used different weighing scales; and the failure of the laboratory to take into account the weight of the
sachet container.20 But these are mere speculations since none of those involved was willing to admit
having committed weighing error. Speculations cannot overcome the concrete evidence that what
was seized was not what was forensically tested. This implies tampering with the prosecution
evidence. The Court cannot affirm the conviction of Pornillos on compromised evidence.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the appeal, SETS ASIDE the Decision of the Court of Appeals
dated November 18, 2010 in CA-G.R. CR-HC 03027 as well as the Decision of the Regional Trial
Court of Iriga City, Branch 35 in Criminal Case IR-6733, and ACQUITS the accused-appellant Jovi
Pornillos y Hallare of the crime charged on ground of reasonable doubt.
The Court orders his immediate RELEASE from custody unless he is being held for some other
lawful cause and ORDERS the Director of the Bureau of Corrections to immediately implement this
Decision and to inform the Court within five days from its receipt of the date appellant was actually
released from confinement. Costs de oficio.
SO ORDERED.
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES*
Associate Justice
MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN

Associate Justice
ATT E S TATI O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts Division.
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
C E R TI F I C ATI O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I
certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case
was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO
Chief Justice

People Vs Almodiel

Uploaded by

People Vs Almodiel

Uploaded by

Republic of the Philippines

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE,

MARVIC MARIO VICTOR F. LEONEN

You might also like