Reyes vs. People

The acquittal of an accused on a charge of illegal sale or possession of dangerous drugs due to breaks in the chain of custody does not compel the acquittal on a separate charge of illegal possession of firearms arising from the same buy-bust operation, provided the search incidental to the lawful warrantless arrest was valid and the firearm was properly identified and accounted for. The chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165 applies only to narcotic substances and has not been extended to other objects; for unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant-to-change objects like firearms, testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims suffices.

The petitioner, Jeremy Reyes y Collano, also known as "Jer Jer," was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos City, Bulacan, Branch 20, together with Lorenz Christian Alano y Faustino, also known as "Yan Yan," in four separate Informations arising from a buy-bust operation conducted on March 25, 2017 by members of the Sta. Maria Police Station. The charges involved violations of RA 10591, the "Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act," and RA 9165, the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." The prosecution's case against Reyes for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition proceeded independently of the drug charges, which were separately prosecuted against both accused.

On March 25, 2017, pursuant to a tip from a confidential asset that a certain "Jer Jer," later identified as Reyes, was engaged in selling drugs, members of the Sta. Maria Police Station organized a buy-bust operation with PO1 Genesis Tolentino as the poseur buyer and other members of the team as back-up and security. The team proceeded to Reyes' house, where upon arrival, the confidential asset made a "tsk tsk" sound. Reyes peered through the window before opening it wide. After PO1 Tolentino and the confidential asset went inside, Reyes asked PO1 Tolentino how much they were going to buy, to which the latter replied ₱100.00. Reyes then instructed a certain "Yan Yan," later identified as Alano, to get ₱100.00 worth of marijuana from the table. Reyes gave the marijuana to PO1 Tolentino in exchange for a ₱100.00 bill. Thereafter, PO1 Tolentino held Reyes, which was the pre-arranged signal that the sale was already consummated.

When the team arrived, they frisked Reyes and recovered from him the buy-bust money and an improvised gun loaded with ammunition. PO1 Tolentino arrested Alano and recovered from him one plastic sachet of suspected marijuana, which was marked with "GBT-1." PO1 Tolentino then marked the gun with "GBT-7" and the ammunition with "GBT-6" in the presence of Reyes and the barangay officials. Upon subsequent verification with the Firearms and Explosives Office of the National Police Commission, it was discovered that Reyes had no authority to carry or possess any firearms and was not a licensed firearm holder of any kind and caliber.

For his part, Reyes denied the charges and claimed that during that time, he was at the house of Alano to invite him to attend a bible study at the Christ the Living Stone Fellowship Church. Thereafter, five armed men forcibly entered the house and ordered them to lie face down on the ground while they searched for marijuana. The armed men covered Reyes with a bath towel while PO3 Edward Israel kicked him. After stealing several items from the house, the police asset sealed a plastic sachet of marijuana and placed it on a table. Reyes claimed that he heard someone say that a bullet was found, after which the police asset hit him with a belt, cursed him, and asked him if there was a gun in the house. He was asked to sit on the sofa while the pieces of evidence were laid on the table. The police asset then told Reyes to pick up the pen gun so that "he could be killed." Afterwards, pictures were taken with the presence of a barangay councilor. A media representative arrived, after which they were taken to the Sta. Maria Police Station. His testimony was corroborated by the testimonies of Alano and Rodrigo Gaddi, a pastor at the Christ the Living Stone Fellowship Church.

The RTC found Reyes guilty of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition, ruling that the prosecution proved all the elements of the crime since Reyes was found in possession of an improvised gun loaded with ammunition and a Certification dated June 19, 2017 issued by the Firearms and Explosive Office showed he was not a licensed or registered firearm holder of any kind or caliber. The RTC ruled that inconsistencies in PO1 Tolentino's testimony as to the kind of gun recovered did not negate conviction, as the witness was able to successfully identify the subject firearm in court, and gave credence to the positive testimony of PO1 Tolentino over Reyes' defense of denial. The RTC acquitted Reyes and Alano of the drug charges for the prosecution's failure to prove the fourth link in the chain of custody over the seized items.

• Error in Finding Guilt: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition under Section 28(a) in relation to Section 28(e)(l) of RA 10591.
• Inconsistencies in Testimony: Petitioner maintained that the inconsistencies in PO1 Tolentino's testimony as to the nomenclature of the gun recovered should negate his conviction.
• Defense of Denial: Petitioner asserted his defense of denial, claiming that the evidence was planted and that the search was irregular.

• Validity of Search: Respondent argued that there was a valid search incidental to a lawful arrest as it was made following a buy-bust operation, and the police officers were justified in searching Reyes of any concealed weapon that he may use to facilitate his escape.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: Respondent maintained that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition, as it was established that Reyes was in possession of a pistol loaded with ammunition without a license under his name.
• Immaterial Inconsistencies: Respondent contended that the inconsistencies in PO1 Tolentino's testimony as to the name of the gun were immaterial, as it was established that an improvised firearm was recovered from Reyes, corroborated by photographs taken at the time of the commission of the crime.

• Guilt for Illegal Possession of Firearms: Whether the CA erred in finding Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition, as defined and penalized under Section 28(a) in relation to Section 28(e)(l) of RA 10591.
• Effect of Acquittal on Drug Charges: Whether the acquittal on the drug charges due to breaks in the chain of custody should result in the acquittal of Reyes on the firearms charge arising from the same buy-bust operation.
• Applicability of Chain of Custody Rule: Whether the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165 applies to the seized firearm and ammunition.

• Guilt for Illegal Possession of Firearms: Yes. The prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of the crime: (a) Reyes was in possession of an improvised gun loaded with ammunition; and (b) the Certification issued by the Firearms and Explosives Office revealed that Reyes was not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind or caliber.
• Effect of Acquittal on Drug Charges: No. The acquittal on the drug charges grounded on breaks in the chain of custody does not result in acquittal on the firearms charge, as the search incidental to the valid buy-bust operation was lawful and the items seized were admissible.
• Applicability of Chain of Custody Rule: No. The chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165 has not been extended to other objects; for unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant-to-change objects like firearms, testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims suffices.

• Guilt for Illegal Possession of Firearms: The Court applied the elements of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition under Section 28(a) in relation to Section 28(e)(l) of RA 10591: (1) the existence of the subject firearm; and (2) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it. If the firearm is loaded with ammunition, the penalty is increased one degree higher. The prosecution established both elements: PO1 Tolentino immediately marked the seized firearm and ammunition at the place of arrest in the presence of Reyes and the barangay officials; PO1 Tolentino turned over the seized items to the crime laboratory for safekeeping; and he was able to testify and identify the seized items during trial and offer the same as evidence in court. The inconsistencies in PO1 Tolentino's testimony as to the nomenclature of the gun pertained only to trivial matters which do not affect his credibility as a witness.

• Effect of Acquittal on Drug Charges: The Court distinguished the case from Trinidad vs. People, where the basis for the charge of illegal possession of firearm went into the very transaction for which it was discovered, and that transaction was proved to be illegal. In contrast, the instant case presents a situation where the integrity of the corpus delicti was affected because of the failure of the police officers to follow the chain of custody, which prescribes the manner of authentication of the seized drugs. The Court upheld the uniform findings of the RTC and the CA about the absence of any irregularity in the conduct of the buy-bust operation, which led to the seizure of the dangerous drugs and the unlicensed firearm. Hence, it cannot be said that the seized drugs and unlicensed firearm were the result of an unreasonable search. Considering that these are separate crimes committed by the accused, these should be separately examined based on the respective elements needed to be proven by the prosecution. The failure of the prosecution to prove the integrity of the dangerous drugs does not amount to a failure to prove the crime of illegal possession of firearm. As the source by which the items were recovered is not irregular, the acquittal for one charge based on a defect in an inherent characteristic of a crime cannot serve as a bar to the prosecution of another crime.

• Applicability of Chain of Custody Rule: The Court cited People vs. Olarte, which held that the chain of custody rule has not been extended to other substances or objects, as it is only a variation of the principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior to its admission into evidence. The degree of fungibility of amorphous objects without an inherent unique characteristic capable of scientific determination is higher than stably structured objects or those which retain their form. Narcotic substances are relatively easy to source and highly susceptible to being used by corrupt law enforcers to plant evidence, which is why they should undergo the tedious process of authentication in accordance with the chain of custody rule. However, if the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change, that foundation need only consist of testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims. The subject firearm and ammunition in this case were objects made unique; they were not amorphous and their forms were relatively resistant to change, unlike illegal drugs. Thus, a testimony showing the handling of the firearm and ammunition from the moment of their confiscation until they were turned over to the crime laboratory for examination and safekeeping, and their later identification to the court, sufficed, which the prosecution was able to establish.

The Court also addressed the penalty. Under Section 28(a) of RA 10591, the penalty for Illegal Possession of Small Firearm is prision mayor in its medium period, or the penalty of eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years. Under Section 28(e)(l), the penalty one (1) degree higher, or prision mayor in its maximum period ranging from ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, shall be imposed if the small firearm recovered from the accused is loaded with ammunition. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, there being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, the Court modified the sentence to an indeterminate period of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.

• Independent prosecution of separate crimes arising from the same buy-bust operation — When criminal charges for violations of anti-drugs laws and illegal possession of firearms arose from the same factual circumstances, the acquittal in the former charge, grounded only on breaks in the chain of custody and not on the illegality of the search which led to the seizure of both drugs and firearms, shall not result in a consequent acquittal in the latter charge. Each crime has its respective corpus delicti, which is inherent in the crime itself, and should be separately examined based on the respective elements needed to be proven by the prosecution.

• Non-application of the chain of custody rule to unique objects — The chain of custody rule under Section 21 of RA 9165 has not been extended to other substances or objects, as it is only a variation of the principle that real evidence must be authenticated prior to its admission into evidence. If the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change, that foundation need only consist of testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims; otherwise, the chain of custody rule has to be resorted to and complied with by the proponent to satisfy the evidentiary requirement of relevancy. At all times, the source of amorphous as well as firmly structured objects being offered as evidence must be tethered to and supported by a testimony.

• Elements of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition — To convict the accused of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition under Section 28(a) in relation to Section 28(e)(l) of RA 10591, the prosecution must establish: (1) the existence of the subject firearm; and (2) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it. If the firearm is loaded with ammunition, the penalty is increased one degree higher.

• "The instant case must be distinguished from Trinidad v. People. In the said case, this Court held that when the basis for the charge of the illegal possession of firearm goes into the very transaction for which it was discovered, and this transaction was proved to be illegal, then acquittal for illegal possession of firearms must likewise follow x x x[.]" — This passage from People v. Alcira, quoted by the Court, establishes the distinction between cases where the firearms charge is tied to the illegality of the transaction itself versus cases where the charge is independent and the search was valid.

• "In contrast, the instant case presents a situation where the integrity of the corpus delicti was affected because of the failure of the police officers to follow the chain of custody, which prescribes the manner of authentication of the seized drugs." — This passage clarifies that the acquittal on drug charges was grounded on chain of custody breaks, not on the illegality of the search, which is the controlling distinction in this case.

• "if the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change, that foundation need only consist of testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims; otherwise, the chain of custody rule has to be resorted to and complied with by the proponent to satisfy the evidentiary requirement of relevancy." — This passage from People v. Olarte, quoted by the Court, articulates the canonical formulation of the authentication rule for unique objects, which the Court applied to the firearm and ammunition in this case.

• People vs. Alcira, G.R. No. 242831, June 22, 2022 — Controlling precedent cited by the Court for the proposition that the failure of the prosecution to prove compliance with the chain of custody rule for illegal drugs under Section 21 of RA 9165 does not amount to failure to prove the crime of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition, if the latter charge does not go into the very transaction for which it was discovered, i.e., the buy-bust operation.

• Trinidad vs. People, 847 Phil. 305 (2019) — Distinguished by the Court; in that case, when the basis for the charge of illegal possession of firearm goes into the very transaction for which it was discovered, and this transaction was proved to be illegal, then acquittal for illegal possession of firearms must likewise follow.

• People vs. Olarte, 848 Phil. 821 (2019) — Followed by the Court for the principle that the chain of custody rule has not been extended to other substances or objects, and that if the proffered evidence is unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change, that foundation need only consist of testimony by a witness with knowledge that the evidence is what the proponent claims.

• Castil vs. People, G.R. No. 253930, July 13, 2022 — Cited for the elements of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition.

• People vs. Mamaruncas, 680 Phil. 192 (2012) — Cited for the proposition that inconsistencies in testimony pertaining to trivial matters do not affect the credibility of a witness.

• People vs. Marcelino, 639 Phil. 643 (2010) — Cited in support of the validity of a search incidental to a lawful arrest following a buy-bust operation.

• Cahulogan vs. People, 828 Phil. 742 (2018) — Cited for the principle that the trial court is in the best position to assess and determine the credibility of witnesses.

• Section 28(a), RA 10591 — The unlawful acquisition or possession of a small arm is penalized with prision mayor in its medium period. Applied to impose the base penalty for Reyes' possession of the improvised gun.
• Section 28(e)(l), RA 10591 — The penalty of one (1) degree higher than that provided in paragraphs (a) to (c) shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine. Applied to increase the penalty because the firearm recovered from Reyes was loaded with ammunition.
• Section 21, RA 9165 — The chain of custody rule for illegal drugs. The Court held that this rule has not been extended to other objects, such as firearms and ammunition, which are unique, readily identifiable, and relatively resistant to change.
• Indeterminate Sentence Law — Applied to modify the penalty imposed on Reyes, there being no mitigating and aggravating circumstance, resulting in an indeterminate sentence of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor, as maximum.

Gesmundo, C.J., Leonen, SAJ., Caguioa, Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, M. Lopez, Gaerlan, Rosario, J. Lopez, Dimaampao, Marquez, and Singh, JJ., concurred. Hernando, J., was on leave.