People vs. Togon, Jr.

A conviction for illegal possession of an explosive requires proof of an unbroken chain of custody from seizure to court presentation, and the prosecution's complete failure to account for the handling, storage, and turnover of the seized explosive renders it inadmissible and warrants acquittal on reasonable doubt.

The accused, Romeo Carcueva Togon, Jr., was charged with two offenses arising from events on August 8, 2014 in Davao City: (1) illegal possession of a fragmentation hand grenade under Section 3 of PD 1866, as amended by RA 9516, and (2) Robbery with Violence Against or Intimidation of a Person under Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code. The private complainant, Maria Lourdes Depeña, operated a junk shop in Toril, Davao City. The charges were filed before Branch 16 of the Regional Trial Court of Davao City under Criminal Case Nos. 79,351-14 and 79,352-14.

On August 8, 2014, at around 8:00 a.m., Maria Lourdes Depeña was working at her junk shop when six persons riding motorcycles suddenly arrived. One of them pointed a gun at her and forcibly took her bag, which contained ₱60,000.00, two ATM cards, one postal ID, and a Samsung cellular phone worth ₱1,500.00. At around 9:00 a.m. that same morning, Depeña reported the incident to Police Station 8 in Toril, Davao City. The police officers presented to her an array of pictures of possible suspects, and she identified the photograph of the person who had pointed a gun at her. The police identified the person in the picture as accused-appellant Romeo Carcueva Togon, Jr.

The police then conducted an immediate follow-up operation. At around 9:00 p.m. of the same day, they spotted accused-appellant. When he noticed the police officers' presence, he brought out something from his pocket. PO3 Adlawan quickly grabbed his hand and discovered that he was holding a fragmentation grenade. The police confiscated the hand grenade and brought accused-appellant to the police station for investigation.

For his defense, accused-appellant presented Barangay Kagawad Elsie Amad, who testified that on August 8, 2014 at around 9:00 a.m., she issued a Barangay Clearance and a Community Tax Certificate to accused-appellant. Accused-appellant himself insisted that it was impossible for him to have committed the crimes because on the date of the incident he went to the barangay hall to secure a clearance. He asserted that on the evening of the same day, he was on his way to buy cellular phone load when police officers arrested him and struck him on the head. The RTC found the prosecution's evidence sufficient to convict on both charges, crediting Depeña's positive identification and finding that the hand grenade was genuinely confiscated from accused-appellant. The CA affirmed these findings in full.

• Sufficiency of Evidence for Robbery: Accused-appellant argued that the crime of robbery was not proven beyond reasonable doubt and that Depeña's statements were self-serving and uncorroborated by any other evidence.
• Validity of Arrest: Accused-appellant contended that he was illegally arrested without a warrant, rendering the subsequent search on his person unreasonable.
• Planting of Evidence: Accused-appellant maintained that he was a victim of planting of evidence by the police officers and that the subject hand grenade was merely planted, as he had no means of securing or possessing a hand grenade.

• Validity of Arrest: The OSG contended that accused-appellant was validly arrested during a hot pursuit operation conducted by the police officers.
• Absence of Planting or Torture: The OSG argued that there was no planting of evidence, torture, or mauling committed against accused-appellant.
• Identity of Perpetrator: The OSG maintained that accused-appellant's identity as the perpetrator of the crimes charged was proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Robbery Conviction: Whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction for Robbery with Violence Against or Intimidation of a Person under Article 293 of the RPC.
• Illegal Possession of Explosive: Whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Section 3 of PD 1866, as amended by RA 9516, for illegal possession of a fragmentation hand grenade.
• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: Whether the warrantless arrest of accused-appellant during the hot pursuit operation was valid.

• Robbery Conviction: No. The conviction for robbery was affirmed, all elements — intent to gain, unlawful taking, personal property belonging to another, and violence or intimidation — having been proven beyond reasonable doubt through Depeña's positive identification.
• Illegal Possession of Explosive: Yes. The conviction was reversed and the accused acquitted on reasonable doubt, the prosecution having failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody over the seized hand grenade.
• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: No error. The warrantless arrest was valid under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, as the offense had just been committed and the police officers had probable cause based on personal knowledge.

• Robbery Conviction: The four elements of robbery under Article 293 of the RPC — intent to gain, unlawful taking, personal property belonging to another, and violence against or intimidation of a person — were all established. Depeña positively identified accused-appellant as the person who pointed a gun at her and took her belongings, testifying that she stared at his face long enough to remember him and noting a tattoo on his right arm. Intent to gain was presumed from the unlawful taking. Accused-appellant's defense of denial and alibi was rejected because the barangay hall where he claimed to have been was in the same locality (Toril) as the victim's junk shop, making it not physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. A conviction based on the testimony of a single credible witness is permissible, and accused-appellant failed to impute any improper motive to Depeña. The non-recovery of the stolen items was immaterial, as conviction is justified once asportation is proven beyond reasonable doubt.

• Illegal Possession of Explosive: Two essential elements must be established for illegal possession of an explosive under PD 1866, as amended: (a) the existence of the subject explosive, provable by presentation or testimony of witnesses, and (b) the negative fact that the accused had no license or permit to possess it. The prosecution failed to prove the first element because it did not establish compliance with the chain of custody rule under the PNP Criminal Investigation Manual (Revised 2011). No chain of custody form was accomplished or presented in court. There was no evidence showing how the hand grenade was handled from one person to another, how it was turned over to the investigating officer or evidence custodian, or what precautions were taken to prevent substitution or intermingling. Without an unbroken chain of custody, there was no assurance that the hand grenade identified in court was the same one allegedly confiscated from accused-appellant. Following People vs. Velasco, the break in the chain rendered the evidence inadmissible and warranted acquittal.

• Validity of Warrantless Arrest: Under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, a peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant when an offense has just been committed and the officer has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge, that the person committed it. Depeña reported the robbery an hour after it occurred and identified the perpetrator through a photograph. The police officers conducted a follow-up operation the same day and spotted accused-appellant at 9:00 p.m. — approximately 13 hours after the crime. The officers had personal knowledge that a crime had just been committed and probable cause to believe accused-appellant was the perpetrator, satisfying the requirements for a valid hot pursuit arrest.

• Chain of Custody Rule — The chain of custody requires testimony about every link from the moment an item is seized to the time it is offered in evidence, describing how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in each witness's possession, the condition in which it was received and delivered, and the precautions taken to ensure no change in condition or opportunity for unauthorized possession. A break in the chain may render the evidence inadmissible. The Court applied this doctrine to require the prosecution to account for the handling, storage, and turnover of the seized hand grenade; the complete absence of any chain of custody form or testimony about these links resulted in acquittal.

• Elements of Illegal Possession of Explosive — To convict under PD 1866, as amended by RA 9516, two elements must be indubitably established: (a) the existence of the subject explosive, provable by presentation of the item or testimony of witnesses, and (b) the negative fact that the accused had no license or permit to possess it, establishable by testimony or certification from a PNP Firearms and Explosives Unit representative. The prosecution's failure to prove the first element due to the broken chain of custody was fatal to the charge.

• Hot Pursuit Arrest (Section 5(b), Rule 113) — A warrantless arrest is valid when an offense has just been committed and the peace officer has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances, that the person to be arrested committed it. The word "just" connotes immediacy. The Court found the arrest valid because the robbery was reported within an hour of its commission and the police acted on personal knowledge obtained from the complainant's report and photographic identification.

• Positive Identification vs. Denial and Alibi — Positive and affirmative testimony of a credible witness prevails over bare denial and alibi. For alibi to prosper, the accused must prove not only that he was elsewhere but that it was physically impossible for him to be at the crime scene. The Court found that accused-appellant's presence at the barangay hall in the same locality did not foreclose the possibility that he was at the victim's junk shop before or after.

• Conviction on Testimony of a Single Witness — Conviction can be had on the credible and positive testimony of a single witness; corroborative evidence is necessary only when there is reason to suspect falsification or inaccurate observation. The Court sustained the robbery conviction on Depeña's lone but credible testimony, she being free from any imputed improper motive.

• "With the blunders committed by the police officers in the handling of the subject hand grenade, there is no assurance that the hand grenade identified in court was the same hand grenade allegedly confiscated from accused-appellant." — This passage articulates the core rationale for acquittal on the illegal possession charge: the broken chain of custody destroyed the evidentiary link between the accused and the seized item.

• "In sum, accused-appellant should be acquitted of the charge for illegal possession of explosive for failure of the police officers to comply with the chain of custody rule." — This is the dispositive reasoning on the explosive charge, directly tying acquittal to the procedural failure of the arresting officers.

• "When the fact of asportation has been established beyond reasonable doubt, conviction of the accused is justified even if the property subject of the robbery is not presented in court." — Quoted from People vs. Ebet, this passage establishes that non-recovery of stolen property is not a bar to robbery conviction once unlawful taking is proven.

• "Any break in this chain of custody may make the material inadmissible as evidence in court." — Drawn from the PNP Criminal Investigation Manual as quoted in the decision, this formulation underscores the evidentiary consequence of a broken chain and was applied to require strict accounting of the seized grenade.

• People vs. Velasco, G.R. No. 231787, August 19, 2019 — Controlling precedent followed. The Court relied on Velasco for the proposition that failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of a seized fragmentation grenade warrants acquittal. In Velasco, as here, the authorities failed to execute a chain of custody form and could not account for how the evidence was handled and stored.

• People vs. Ebet, 649 Phil. 181 (2010) — Followed for the rule that conviction for robbery is justified even if the stolen property is not presented in court, provided the fact of asportation is established beyond reasonable doubt.

• People vs. Basao, 697 Phil. 193 (2012) — Cited for the enumeration of the elements of robbery under Article 293 of the RPC.

• Pestilos vs. Generoso, 746 Phil. 301 (2014) — Cited for the standards governing valid warrantless arrests under Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.

• Article 293, Revised Penal Code — Defines robbery as the taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or using force upon things. Applied to establish the elements of the robbery charge.

• Article 294, paragraph 5, Revised Penal Code — Prescribes the penalty for robbery with violence or intimidation of persons in cases not specifically enumerated in paragraphs 1–4: prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period. Applied to fix the modified indeterminate penalty.

• Section 3, PD 1866, as amended by RA 9516 — Penalizes unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition, disposition, importation, or possession of explosives or incendiary devices, including hand grenades, with reclusion perpetua. Provides that mere possession is prima facie evidence of knowledge. The accused was charged under this provision but acquitted due to failure of proof.

• Section 5(b), Rule 113, Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure — Authorizes warrantless arrest when an offense has just been committed and the peace officer has probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge, that the person to be arrested committed it. Applied to uphold the validity of the hot pursuit arrest.

• PNP Criminal Investigation Manual (Revised 2011), Chapter II, 2.2.3 — Provides the outline for investigation procedures and preservation of physical evidence, including the chain of custody requirement. Applied as the standard against which the police officers' handling of the seized hand grenade was measured and found deficient.

Hernando, J. (Acting Chairperson), Gaerlan, J., and Dimaampao, J., concurred. Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J. (Chairperson), was on official leave.