G.R. No.

190749 April 25, 2012

VALENTIN ZAFRA y DECHOSA AND EROLL MARCELINO y REYES, petitioners,

vs.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

Ponente: Perez, J.

FACTS

On January 12, 2003, at 4:30 in the afternoon, SPO4 Apolinario Menadoza, Chief of the
Investigation and Drug Enforcement Unit of the Philippine National Police of Balagtas, Bulacan conducted
a surveillance in front of a sari-sari store at the corner of Miraflor Subdivision and P. Castro Street in
Balagtas, Bulacan due to a reported drug trafficking in the area. He saw the petitioners Valentin Zafra and
Eroll Marcelino, together with Marlon Daluz, standing and facing each other. In his position, he saw Zafra
and Marcelino holding a shabu while Daluz was holding an aluminum foil and disposable lighter. Seeing
this illegal activity, SPO4 Mendoza single-handedly apprehended them and brought them to the Balagtas
Police Station. He personally marked the confiscated two sachets of shabu, one with VSD initials of
Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and the other with EMR, the initials of Eroll Marcelino y Reyes. The accused
and the confiscated items where brought by SPO4 Mendoza to the crime laboratory for urine sampling
and laboratory examination, respectively. The results came out to be positive, implying that the accused
were using shabu. The Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan ruled that the accused Zafra and Reyes
were guilty of possession of sachets of shabu with a weight of 0.31 gram and 0.30 gram, respectively
which are classified as dangerous drugs in violation of RA 9165 otherwise known as “Comprehensive
Drugs Act of 2002”. As for the accused Daluz, he pleaded guilty for the possession of the drug
paraphernalia, hence, he was released after serving his sentence for 8 months.
Zafra and Marcelino appealed to the Court of Appeals, but it was denied. Hence the present
Petition to the Supreme Court. They contended that their arrest was unlawful; that the prohibited drugs
are inadmissible in evidence, and that Section 21 of RA 9165 was not complied, and that prosecution
failed to prove the petitioner’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE
Whether or not the petitioner should be acquitted.

RULING

Yes, the Court ruled that the Petitioners Zafra and Marcelino should be acquitted and immediately
released. The Court ruled that:

First, the lone witness, SPO4 Mendoza’s statement, upon cross examination changed compared
to his first testimony. He initially testified that he saw Zafra and Marcelino holding sachet of shabu
while Daluz was holding an aluminum foil and a disposable lighter, however, upon cross
examination, he said that it was Zafra, not Daluz, who was holding the aluminum foil, that Daluz
and Marcelino were holding handkerchiefs and on top of them were shabu. It is a hornbook
doctrine in the evaluation of the trial court on the credibility of the witness and the testimony is
entitled to a great weight and generally not disturbed upon appeal. The testimony of SPO4
Marcelino, the lone witness, is not credible enough due to these inconsistencies.

Second, the decision of the RTC does not prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt since they only rely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of Mendoza’s
official duty.

Third, SPO4 Mendoza is the lone officer who brought the petitioner to the police, who himself
marked and confiscated pieces of evidence sans witnesses, photographs, media, and in the
absence of the petitioners. And worse, he was the same person who took custody of the same
 pieces of evidence, then, brought them on his own to the crime laboratory for testing. No
inventory was done, no inventory was presented in Court. The actions of SPO4 Mendoza causes
to raise significant doubts as to the identity of the sachets of the allegedly seized from Zafra and
Marcelino. The jurisprudence has refined the enumerated duties of an apprehending officer in a
drug case and has thus described the equivalent requirements for a proper chain of custody of
the corpus delicti, still, the case at bar cannot pass the constitutional requirement of proof beyond
reasonable doubt.

Hence presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution
which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. In the
Doctrine of Pro Reo, penal laws should always be construed liberally in favor of the accused and strictly
against the state, thus, whenever a penal law or a provision of penal law is susceptible of 2
interpretations, the one lenient to the accused which will bring about acquittal and the other one strictly
against the accused which will bring about conviction, the lenient interpretation shall prevail.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision of the Court of
Appeals. Petitioners Valentin Zafra y Dechosa and Eroll Marcelino y Reyes are hereby ACQUITTED for
the failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately
RELEASED from detention unless they are confined for another awful cause.