REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT

THIRD JUDICIAL REGION
Branch 31
Guimba, Nueva Ecija

THE PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES
Plaintiff,

Crim. Case No. 3262-G

For: Viol. of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165

Crim. Case No. 3263-G

– versus – For: Viol. of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165

RICHARD ESQUIVEL @ “RITCHIE”

Accused,
x--------------------x

DECISION

Herein accused RICHARD ESQUIVEL @ “RITCHIE” stands charged of Viol. of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA
9165 and Viol. of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165 under the twin information which read:

Criminal Case No. 3262-G

“That on or about the 2nd day of November 2012 at Sta. Veronica

District, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above named accused, not being licensed or
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
sell and deliver to other person METHAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHOLORIDE (sic) (or shabu), a dangerous drug weighing .05
gram in violation of the aforestated law.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”

Criminal Case No. 3263-G

“That on or about the 2nd day of November 2012 at Sta. Veronica

District, Guimba, Nueva Ecija, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
this Honorable Court, the above named accused, not being licensed or
authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously
found in his possession METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHOLORIDE
(or shabu), a dangerous drug weighing .03 gram in violation of the
aforestated law.

“CONTRARY TO LAW.”

When arraigned, Esquivel pleaded not guilty in the two cases. During the pre-trial1, the parties admitted
the following:

1. The identity of the accused;

2. That on November 2, 2012 at 7:30 in the evening, the accused was at Barangay Sta. Veronica,
Guimba, Nueva Ecija;
3. That the accused was not authorized to possess illegal drugs on November 2, 2012;
4. That the accused was arrested through warrantless arrest.

To prove the allegations in the two (2) Information, the prosecution presented and offered in evidence
the testimonies of PO2 Gerwin T. Miranda (Miranda for brevity), PO1 Victor A. Galaitez (Galaitez) and PO2
Dennis M. Paulo (Paulo).

1
Records, p. 48, 49, 50.
 DECISION
Criminal Case Nos. 3262-G & 3263-G
Page 2 of 7

VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION:

To sum up the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, on October 31, 2012, a certain asset told Paulo
and their Team Leader PSI Romeo Gamis that the accused is one of the active drug pushers in the area of Sta.
Veronica so they planned a test buy against the accused to be conducted on November 1, 2012 and the asset
acted as poseur buyer. When the specimen from the test buy against the accused yielded positive for shabu
they formed a team to conduct a buy bust operation at Sta. Veronica, Guimba, Nueva Ecija on November 2,
2012. Galaitez was designated as poseur buyer. At around 7:30 in the evening, Galaitez met with the accused
in front of the residence of the latter and was able to buy a sachet of shabu from him. After frisking the accused,
another sachet was recovered from his possession. Thereafter, the team arrested the accused and brought him
to the police station. The inventory of the confiscated items as well as the placing the markings on the
confiscated sachets were conducted in the police station in the presence of the media, the barangay and the
DOJ. Thereafter, the confiscated items were brought to the Crime Laboratory for testing and the same yielded
positive for shabu.

Meanwhile, the prosecution on December 10, 2015 were able to stipulate and agree only as to the
authenticity and due execution of Chemistry Report No. D-285-2012 (NEPCLO).2

VERSION OF THE DEFENSE:

Esquivel in his defense3denied the allegations of the prosecution witnesses against him about the test
buy on November 1, 2012 and the buy bust on November 2, 2012. He asserted that he stayed on his house at
Sta. Veronica, Guimba, Nueva Ecija the whole day of November 1, 2012. On November 2, 2012 at around 7:00
o’ clock in the evening, he was also in his house at Sta. Veronica, Guimba, Nueva Ecija when his son told him
that their missing dog was seen at the 7-11 store so he, together with his son and wife went to the 7-11 store to
meet the person who was holding his dog. When the person refused to return the dog, the accused alone went
back to his house to get the picture of the dog. Upon reaching his house, Paulo and Miranda suddenly arrived,
grabbed his two hands, handcuffed and Miranda frisked him but found nothing from his pocket but his own
money. The two officers then boarded him in a motorcycle and brought him in the police station. At the police
station, Miranda was able to take from his pocket his cellphone and his money. He testified that Miranda kept
his money but placed the cellphone on top of the table. He denied the two (2) plastic sachets and the money
that were seen in the pictures. He said that the representatives from the media, barangay and the DOJ arrived
one hour after the items were placed on top of the table. After that, he was brought to the NEPCLO and was
asked to urinate in a small bottle. He was also brought to a dark room and focused a light in his hand and he
noticed that there were sparkling substance on his palm. He denied that he was involved in drugs before the
alleged incident. He also denied knowing Paulo, Miranda and Galaitez.

The accused’s father, Ponciano Esquivel4 only corroborated his son’s testimony that on November 2,
2012, he alighted from his vehicle and was able to talk to the accused who arrived coming from 7/11. The
accused was able to enter his residence when two persons wearing civilian clothes riding in a motorcycle
arrived. One of the persons handcuffed his son while the other frisked him (Esquivel) but found nothing. He
asked the persons why are they frisking his son but they just ignored him. The two persons boarded his son in
the motorcycle and told him that they will bring his son to the police station. He went to his mother’s house and
asked his brother to follow his son to the police station. He testified that he do not know his son’s activities only
that he work as a driver.

After a careful evaluation of the evidence presented together with the testimonies of the
witnesses, the Court finds that the guilt of the accused for the charged of Violation of Sections 5 and
11, Article II of R.A. 9165 were not proven by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

The testimonies of Miranda and Galaitez about what transpired before the buy bust were already
reeking with inconsistencies when Galaitez on direct and cross examination testified that there were only two
(2) police officers who accompanied him in the conduct of the buy bust, namely PO2 Paulo and PO2 Gerwin
Miranda. On the other hand, Miranda on direct examination, testified that the team was composed of six (6)
members, namely: PO1 Victor Galaitez as the poseur buyer, PO2 Dennis Paulo, PO3 Alfonso, SPO1 Estrella
and SPO1 de Gracia5and on his cross-examination, five (5) members composed of the preceeding names,
except SPO1 de Gracia.

With respect to the asset, Miranda testified that the asset never talked to Galaitez:6

2
Records, p. 190.
3 TSN-October 9, 2017.
4 TSN-November 13, 2017.
5 TSN-September 26, 2013, p. 2, par. 11.
6 TSN-November 23, 2014, p. 4, par. 7, 8, & 9.
 DECISION
Criminal Case Nos. 3262-G & 3263-G
Page 3 of 7

ATTY. ESPERA:
xxx
Q : How long did he wait for your asset?
A : More or less, ten (10) minutes.

Q : So after ten (10) minutes, your asset arrived?

A : He only passed by.

Q : This asset never talked with Galaitez?

A : No, sir.

In contrast, Galaitez on direct examination testified that he was introduced by his asset to Esquivel7
and after that they already had an exchange of money and shabu: 8

FISCAL APOLONIO:
xxx
Q : How did the buy bust operation you are referring to progress?
A : I was introduced by my asset to our target that I will be the one to buy.

xxx
Q : When your asset introduced you to the accused, what happened next?
A : My asset told Richard that I am buying shabu and that’s it, we already had
exchange of money and shabu.

which he later contradicted during cross examination9 when he testified that the asset only pointed Esquivel
and never introduced the latter to him:

ATTY. ESPERA:
xxx
Q : So after your asset pointed you to the target your asset left?
A : Yes,sir.

Q : So, when you approached the accused in this case and you are about to
buy illegal drugs you were then alone?
A : Yes, Sir.

Q : Your asset never introduced you to the accused because he only pointed
to the accused?
A : He only pointed to whom I am going to buy, Sir.

Q : So your asset never introduced you to the accused because he only pointed
to the accused?
A : Yes, Sir,

The discrepancies in the testimonies of Miranda continued when he testified that they cover themselves
in a tricycle parked in the place where the exchange between Galaitez and Esquivel: 10

FISCAL APOLONIO:
xxx
Q : What happened to the buy bust operation?
A : We posted ourselves near the place where the buy bust operation is to be
conducted and we covered ourselves in the tricycle parked in the said
place and when the transaction is ongoing, we went near them, Ma’am.

which he refuted on cross-examination when he testified that he alone positioned himself behind an owner-
type jeep parked in front of the house of Esquivel:11

ATTY. ESPERA:
xxx
Q : When Galaitez reached the house of Richard Esquivel, where did you
position yourself?

7 TSN-April 23, 2015, p. 5, par. 10.

8 TSN-April 23, 2015, p. 7, par. 6.
9
TSN-April 23, 2015, p. 4, par. 7, 8, 9 & 10.
10 TSN-September 26, 2013, p. 5, par. 7.
11 TSN-November 23, 2014, p. 6, par. 1.
 DECISION
Criminal Case Nos. 3262-G & 3263-G
Page 4 of 7

A : There is an owner-type jeep parked in front of the house of Richard

Esquivel and I positioned myself behind the said jeep.

When the exchange was completed, Miranda testified, on direct examianation, that he and SPO1 de
Gracia grabbed Esquivel:12

FISCAL APOLONIO:
xxx
Q : And what happened to the operation?
A : When the buy bust operation was completed and Richard Esquivel was
about to turn his back, SPO1 de Gracia and I grabbed the accused and
PO2 Dennis Paulo frisked him, Ma’am.

However, during his cross-examination, Miranda testified that after the exchange, he alone approached
Galaitez to help him arrest Esquivel who was then resisting.13 It is worth noticing that SPO1 de Gracia is already
missing from the scene:

ATTY. ESPERA:
xxx
Q : So after Galaitez held the hands of the accused, Richard Esquivel, what
did you do?
A : I approached them to held Galaitez because Richard Esquivel was
resisting.

Q : So, when you saw Galaitez holding the hands of Richard Esquivel that you
went there?
A : Yes, Sir.

Q : You mentioned that you were all alone with PO2 Paulo, am I right?
A : Yes, sir.

With regard to the specimen subject of Criminal Case No. 3263-G, Miranda likewise contradicted his
earlier testimony that it was PO2 Paulo who frisked Esquivel.14 when he testified that a sachet was recovered
from the pocket of Esquivel as a result of frisking made by Galaitez during the buy bust.15

ATTY. ESPERA:
xxx
Q : After holding the right hand of Richard Esquivel, what did you do, Mr.
Witness?
A : I was holding his hand while PO2 Galaitez was frisking him.

xxx
Q : And this PO2 Paulo, he never frisked Richard Esquivel because he was
then on board his motorcycle?
A : Yes, Sir.

xxx
Q : And what was the left hand of the accused doing while you were holding
the right hand?
A : Galaitez was holding his left hand while his other hand was frisking.

Q : And what was the result of the frisking by Galaitez?

A : A sachet and money were recovered from the pocket.

PO2 Miranda further testified that he was not sure how many sachets and what are the denominations
of the money taken by Galaitez from frisking Esquivel.16

ATTY. ESPERA:
xxx
Q : Oh, there are two (2) now? So you are not sure how many sachets were
frisked by Galaitez from Richard Esquivel?

12 TSN-September 26, 2013, p. 5, par. 8.

13 TSN-November 23, 2014, p. 9, par. 1, 2 & 3.
14
TSN-November 23, 2014, p. 9, par. 7; p. 10, par. 9.
15 TSN-November 23, 2014, p. 10, par. 6.
16 TSN-November 23, 2014, p. 16, par. 1 & 2.
 DECISION
Criminal Case Nos. 3262-G & 3263-G
Page 5 of 7

A : No, sir.

Q : You did not also see the denominations of the money when it was frisked
from Richard Esquivel?
A : No, sir.

The testimonies of Miranda with regard to the second sachet were later contradicted by Galaitez when
he testified that a sachet was retrieved by his companions when they frisked Esquivel in front of the
media but later changed his answer that the other sachet was seized after the exchange. 17

ATTY. ESPERA:
Q : Where did you companions able to retrieve another item?
A : In front of the media, sir.

Q : So, it was that time, the presence of media and other persons who
witnessed the same that your companions bring the accused and were able
to retrieve another item?
A : Yes, Sir.

With regard to the marked money, Galaitez on direct-examination testified that he was able to buy
P500.00 worth of shabu,18using a P500.00 bill which was rolled like a cigarette.19When asked by the Court, he
even demonstrated how the said bill was rolled. 20

FISCAL APOLONIO:
xxx
Q : How much did you buy?
A : P500.00, Ma’am
xxx
Q : Do you still remember the denomination of the bill you used?
A : Because the money was rolled and I was not able to determined the
denomination but I am sure that it is a P500.00 bill.

However, Galaitez on cross examination, testified that the amount of marked money is a P100 bill: 21

ATTY. ESPERA:
Q : Now Mr. Witness acting as poseur buyer and you bought according to you
P500 is that correct?
A : Sir, I’m not sure of the amount if it is P500 or P1,000 because the money
is a P100 peso bill.

Q : Mr. Witness meaning to say, you are now changing your answer during
you direct testimony wherein you stated that you buy P500?
A : Yes sir because I’m not sure if the money I am holding is P1,000 or 500
because it is in 100 peso bills, Sir.

This Court finds it implausable that Galaitez never inspected the marked money given to him by Paulo
when in fact, he attested that they planned the buy bust the whole day of November 2, 2012 22 at the Guimba
Police Station. Second, the actual marked money was likewise not presented in evidence since the same is in
the possession of Paolo, whose testimonies were stricken off the record for failure to appear. 23 While the non-
presentation of the buy-bust money, as a lone defect, is not indispensable to the prosecution of a drug case,
again it raises doubts regarding the regularity of the buy-bust operation.

Second, the patent inconsistency between the testimonies of Miranda and Galaitez, necessarily leads
this Court to doubt that the two (2) plastic sachets of shabu are the same items that were allegedly seized and
confiscated from the accused. If the version of Galaitez is to be believed, then the most lamentable aspect
pertains to his failure to identify the seized item with certainty. For sure Galaitez, who is the most competent
person to make the proper identification being the officer who confiscated the items from Esquivel, never
actually identified the same. The credibility of Galaitez was put to test on cross-examination but his statements
were inconsistent and unreliable. The pronouncement by the Supreme Court that a few discrepancies and

17 TSN-April 23, 2015, p. 8, par. 2, 3, 4 & 5.

18 TSN-April 23, 2015, p. 7, par. 8.
19 TSN-April 23, 2015, p. 10, par. 4.
20 TSN-April 23, 2015, p. 10, par. 5.
21
TSN-April 23, 2015, p. 4, par. 12 & 13; p. 5, par. 1.
22 TSN-April 23, 2015, p. 6, par. 8.
23 Records, p. 231
 DECISION
Criminal Case Nos. 3262-G & 3263-G
Page 6 of 7

inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details which do not touch the essence of the
crime do not impair their credibility24 is not applicable in this instant case.

The chain of custody of the drugs subject matter of this case was broken. First, the prosecution
failed to clearly show who really frisked, when and where the second sachet was actually confiscated from
Esquivel. Second, Galaitez on cross examination testified that Esquivel handed to him one (1) small sachet of
plastic heat-sealed containing suspected shabu and put the same on his pocket25 but never personally marked
the sachet as it was Miranda who put the markings “RER” and “RER-1”, respectively on the two (2) sachets of
shabu not in the place of the buy bust but in the police station. Miranda on the other hand testified that he only
knew that Galaitez was holding the specimen from the buy bust but he doesn’t know where Galaitez placed the
same and that he never saw the specimen while being transported to the police station 26. In the case of San
Juan y Cruz vs. People of the Philippines, citing People vs. Coreche,27 the following was held:

“Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items
immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the
custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding
handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to
separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time
they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings,
obviating switching, “planting,” or contamination of evidence.

x x x this Court has consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the
seized drugs raises reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti and suffices to rebut the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, the doctrinal fallback of every drug-
related prosecution. Thus, in People v. Laxa and People v. Casimiro, we held that the failure to mark
the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution
evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt.”(underscoring supplied)

According to the testimonies of Miranda and Galaitez, Miranda and Paulo were the ones who delivered
the two (2) sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory Office without Galaitez. The rubber stamp receipt of the said
office in the said request for laboratory examination (Exhibit “E”) shows that it was Paolo who delivered the
specimens. The record also shows that the Request for Laboratory Examination and the shabu confiscated from
the accused were received by the PNP Crime Laboratory Office only at 10:00 o’clock in the morning of
November 3, 2012 per the said Request for Laboratory Examination and the Chemistry Report No. D-285-2012
(Exhibits “E”28 and “E-1”29), which is more than fourteen (14) hours after the seizure of the said two (2)
sachets of shabu at about 7:30 in the evening of November 2, 2012. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to
account for the whereabouts of the seized items considering that Paulo did not testify before the Court to explain
and describe the condition of the subject shabu allegedly taken from accused Esquivel from the time they came
to his possession until they were received by the PNP Crime Laboratory Office.

Verily, there was no actual and effective identification of the subject specimens. Aside from Galaitez,
the only other person who could have identified the subject drugs was Paulo considering that he was the one
who delivered them to the Crime Laboratory. However, we cannot lend credence to his supposed identification,
because there was no showing that this witness actually saw the two (2) sachets of shabu at the time they were
allegedly seized from Esquivel. In fact, Paolo is even incompetent to make the identification since from all
indications, he has never been in possession of them based on the testimony of Miranda that Paolo merely
signed the request for laboratory examination and never held the specimens. It must be noted also that the
testimony of Paolo was stricken off the record. Thus, there is no evidence to prove that those turned over to the
evidence custodian by Paolo and later presented in court were the same substances recovered from accused.
The failure to establish the chain of custody is fatal to the prosecution’s case. There can be no crime of illegal
possession of a prohibited drug when nagging doubts persist on whether the item confiscated was the same
specimen examined and established to be the prohibited drug.

At this juncture, it must be stressed that the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the drug
itself. This means that proof beyond reasonable doubt of the identity of the prohibited drug is essential. The
ruling in People v. Gutierrez36 on chain of custody rule is instructive. Thus:

“As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires the presentation of
the seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that
the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would ideally cover the testimony

24 People vs. Avellaneda, G.R. No. 191360, March 10, 2014

25 TSN-April 23, 2015, p. 6, par. 8, 9 & 10.
26 TSN-May 15, 2014, p. 6, par. 2.
27 G.R. 177191; May 30, 2011
28
Records, p. 212
29 Records, p. 213
 DECISION
Criminal Case Nos. 3262-G & 3263-G
Page 7 of 7

about every link in the chain, from seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in
evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom
it was received, to include, as much as possible, a description of the condition in which it was
delivered to the next in the chain.”

Finally, accused’s defenses of denial is concededly inherently weak and commonly used in drug-related
cases. However, it must be stressed that conviction of the accused must rest not on the weakness of the defense
but on the strength of the evidence of the prosecution.

WHEREFORE, for failure of the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,
the accused RICHARD ESQUIVEL @ “RITCHIE” is hereby found NOT GUILTY for Violation of Sections 5 and
11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002)

Consequently, the District Jail Warden of BJMP Guimba, Nueva Ecija is hereby ordered to release the
aforenamed accused, unless he is being detained for other legal cause. Let the two (2) heat-sealed transparent
plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu allegedly
confiscated from the accused be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) thru the Nueva
Ecija Crime Laboratory Office, Cabanatuan City, to be disposed in accordance with law.

SO ORDERED.

5th day of January, 2018.

Guimba, Nueva Ecija

BRIGANDO P. SALDIVAR
Presiding Judge

BPS /no_ram

copy furnished:

Richard Esquivel;
Atty. Woody John Espera;
Office of the Provincial Prosecutor
NE Provincial Jail