People vs. Breis and Yumol

In warrantless seizures of dangerous drugs, the physical inventory and photograph may be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved; furthermore, a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is valid when based on probable cause, which may consist of reliable information from an informant coupled with suspicious conduct of the accused indicating criminal activity.

Appellants, construction workers from Dau, Mabalacat, Pampanga, traveled to Baguio City on February 9, 2010. An informant provided the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-Cordillera Administrative Region (PDEA-CAR) with information that appellants would transport a box of marijuana from Baguio to Pampanga via public bus on the afternoon of February 10, 2010.

• The Entrapment Operation: On February 10, 2010, around 3:00 PM, a confidential informant reported to PDEA-CAR that appellants would transport marijuana via Genesis Bus from Baguio City to Dau, Pampanga, departing around 5:00 PM. The informant described appellants' physical appearance and clothing (Breis in a white "Starbucks" shirt, Yumol in a black shirt with white print) and the box (marked "Ginebra San Miguel"). PDEA Agent Tacio formed a team comprising IO1 Elizer Mangili and IO1 Ryan Peralta.
• The Arrest and Seizure: At approximately 4:30 PM, the team proceeded to the Genesis Bus terminal on Governor Pack Road without securing a warrant or coordinating with local police. They boarded the bus scheduled for 5:00 PM and identified appellants matching the informant's description with a box between Breis's legs. IO1 Mangili sat opposite appellants and casually asked Yumol who owned the box; Yumol replied it was theirs, then suddenly stood up and attempted to leave. IO1 Peralta blocked him. When Mangili asked Breis what the box contained, Breis shoved Mangili and attempted to flee. Mangili identified himself as a PDEA agent before the attempted flight. The agents subdued appellants and opened the box, discovering four bricks of dried marijuana leaves/fruiting tops with a total net weight of 8,181 grams.
• Inventory and Chain of Custody: IO1 Mangili marked the seized bricks immediately with his initials, signature, date (02-10-2010), and letters A, B, C, and D in the presence of appellants. The team brought appellants and the seized items to the PDEA-CAR field office at Melvin Jones, Baguio City. Physical inventory and photography were conducted at 7:43 PM at the PDEA office in the presence of representatives from the media, the Department of Justice, and an elected barangay official, all of whom signed the inventory. Senior Police Officer 4 Abordo delivered the specimens to the Crime Laboratory. Police Senior Inspector Rowena Fajardo Canlas examined the items and issued Chemistry Report No. D-08-2010 confirming the presence of marijuana. The specimens were retained in the laboratory and later brought to court pursuant to subpoena.
• Defense Version: Appellants claimed they came to Baguio on February 9, 2010, to visit Edwin Garcia regarding upholstery work. Unable to locate Garcia, they decided to return to Pampanga via the 4:30 PM bus on February 10. Yumol alleged he stepped off to buy water and returned to find Mangili accosting Breis. They claimed Mangili pushed Breis, forcibly opened the box, and that they were beaten at the PDEA office to force a confession, including squeezing Yumol's scrotum. They denied ownership of the box and claimed frame-up.

• Non-Compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165: Appellants maintained that the PDEA agents failed to conduct the physical inventory and photograph immediately at the place of seizure (the bus terminal), conducting it instead at the PDEA office. They argued that the presence of media, DOJ, and barangay representatives at the PDEA office could not cure the absence of such witnesses at the actual place of confiscation.
• Break in the Chain of Custody: Appellants argued that the prosecution failed to establish the unbroken chain of custody, specifically the identity of the person who had custody of the marijuana from the place of seizure to the laboratory, and the person who safekept the drugs after examination. They contended that these gaps compromised the integrity of the corpus delicti.

• Compliance with Section 21: Respondent countered that Section 21(a) of the IRR of RA 9165 expressly permits the physical inventory and photograph to be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team in cases of warrantless seizures, provided the integrity and evidentiary value are preserved. The presence of the required witnesses at the PDEA office inventory satisfied the statutory requirements.
• Established Chain of Custody: Respondent argued that the chain of custody was unbroken: IO1 Mangili seized and marked the items immediately in appellants' presence; he acted as both apprehending and investigating officer; SP04 Abordo turned over the items to the forensic chemist; and the items were brought to court. The integrity of the evidence was presumed preserved absent any showing of bad faith or tampering.

• Procedural Compliance under RA 9165: Whether the PDEA agents complied with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR when they conducted the physical inventory and photography at the PDEA office rather than at the place of seizure.
• Chain of Custody Integrity: Whether the prosecution established the requisite unbroken chain of custody over the seized marijuana.
• Validity of Warrantless Search and Arrest: Whether the warrantless search of the bus and the box containing the drugs, and the subsequent warrantless arrest of appellants, were valid under constitutional and procedural rules.

• Procedural Compliance under RA 9165: The inventory conducted at the PDEA office was proper. Section 21(a) of the IRR of RA 9165 provides that in cases of warrantless seizures, the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. The presence of representatives from the media, the DOJ, and an elected public official at the PDEA office inventory, as evidenced by their signatures on the inventory sheet and photographs, satisfied the requirements of Section 21. Non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds does not render the seizure void and invalid as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.
• Chain of Custody Integrity: The chain of custody was sufficiently established. The four links were proven: (1) IO1 Mangili seized and marked the drugs immediately upon confiscation in appellants' presence; (2) Mangili, acting as investigating officer, retained custody; (3) SP04 Abordo turned over the items to forensic chemist PSI Canlas who examined them and issued the chemistry report; and (4) the marked items were presented in court. The markings (initials, signature, date, and letters A-D) were consistent from seizure through laboratory examination to court presentation. Absent any showing of bad faith, ill will, or tampering, the integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved.
• Validity of Warrantless Search: The warrantless search was valid. The search of a moving vehicle is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement, provided it is based on probable cause—that is, a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a cautious man's belief that the vehicle contains items subject to seizure. Here, probable cause existed based on the detailed information from the confidential informant (describing appellants' appearance and the box) coupled with appellants' suspicious behavior. When IO1 Mangili identified himself as a PDEA agent and inquired about the box, Yumol attempted to flee, and Breis shoved Mangili and also attempted to flee. Flight in the face of lawful authority indicates guilt and constitutes probable cause. Furthermore, appellants abandoned the box when they attempted to flee from the departing bus without it, leaving behind the spes recuperandi and animus revertendi; abandoned property may be lawfully seized without a warrant.
• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: The warrantless arrest was lawful under Section 5(a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, which permits a peace officer to arrest a person without a warrant when the person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the officer's presence. Appellants were committing the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and resistance to an agent of a person in authority (Article 151 of the RPC) when they attempted to flee and Breis pushed IO1 Mangili after the latter identified himself as a PDEA agent.
• Defenses of Denial and Frame-Up: The defenses of denial and frame-up cannot prevail over the positive and categorical assertions of the PDEA agents, who were strangers to appellants and against whom no ill-motive was established. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility is accorded great weight.

• Inventory Procedure for Warrantless Seizures: In warrantless seizures of dangerous drugs, the physical inventory and photograph required by Section 21 of RA 9165 may be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
• Chain of Custody Requirements: The prosecution must establish four links in the chain of custody: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. The integrity of the evidence is presumed preserved unless there is a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence has been tampered.
• Marking as Initial Stage of Chain of Custody: Marking is the placing by the apprehending officer of distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on the items seized, done in the presence of the apprehended violator and immediately upon confiscation. It is an initial stage in the chain of custody that ensures the dangerous drugs seized are the same ones subjected to inventory and offered in evidence.
• Search of Moving Vehicles: Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are allowed when conducted upon probable cause—that is, a belief reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer that the vehicle contains items subject to seizure and destruction. Peace officers are limited to routine checks where the examination is limited to visual inspection unless there is probable cause for an extensive search.
• Abandonment Doctrine: A thing is considered abandoned and possession thereof lost if the spes recuperandi (the hope of recovery) is gone and the animus revertendi (the intention of returning) is finally given up. Abandoned property may be lawfully searched and seized without a warrant.
• Resistance vs. Direct Assault: The laying of hands or using physical force against agents of persons in authority when not serious in nature constitutes resistance or disobedience under Article 151 of the Revised Penal Code, and not direct assault under Article 148.

• "The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused... Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures..."
• "Marking is the placing by the apprehending officer of some distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on the items seized... Consistency with the 'chain of custody' rule requires that the 'marking' of the seized items... should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation."
• "Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights... A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed."
• "A thing is considered abandoned and possession thereof lost if the spes recuperandi (the hope of recovery) is gone and the animus revertendi (the intention of returning) is finally given up."

• People v. Libnao, G.R. No. 136860, 20 January 2003, 395 SCRA 407: Cited as authority for the rule that warrantless search of moving vehicles is allowed upon probable cause.
• People v. Mariacos, 635 Phil. 315 (2010): Followed regarding the principle that tipped information from an informant may constitute sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search.
• People v. Aminnudin, 246 Phil. 424 (1988): Distinguished; held that warrantless arrest based solely on an informant's tip without outward indication of criminal activity is unconstitutional, unlike the instant case where appellants exhibited suspicious behavior.
• Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978): Cited for the principle that Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights that may not be vicariously asserted.

• Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002): Defines the crime of possession of dangerous drugs and prescribes the penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from ₱500,000.00 to ₱10,000,000.00 for possession of 500 grams or more of marijuana.
• Section 21, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 and Section 21(a), Article II of its Implementing Rules and Regulations: Prescribe the procedure for the seizure and custody of dangerous drugs, including the physical inventory and photography requirements.
• Article III, Section 2, 1987 Constitution: Guarantees the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Section 5(a), Rule 113, Rules of Court: Provides for warrantless arrest when the person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer.
• Article 151, Revised Penal Code: Penalizes resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person.

Brion, Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Leonen, JJ.