FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236778. April 28, 2021.]
NANETTE AGBUYA y CASTRO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 28, 2021 which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 236778 (Nanette Agbuya y Castro, Petitionerv.People of the Philippines, Respondent.) — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the Decision 2 dated 07 July 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38578, which affirmed the conviction of Nanette Agbuya y Castro (petitioner) for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 3 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Antecedents
Petitioner was charged for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about June 06, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, without being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in her possession and under her custody and control three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings and recorded net weights:
• (SAID) containing ZERO POINT ZERO SEVEN (0.07) gram
• (SAID1) containing ZERO POINT ZERO THREE (0.03) gram
• (SAID2) containing ZERO POINT ZERO THREE (0.03) gram
or with a total net weight of ZERO POINT ONE THREE (0.13) gram of crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. 5 Pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued, thereafter. 6
Evidence for the Prosecution
On 5 June 2013, PO3 Dennis Reyes (PO3 Reyes), SPO2 Rommel Rey (SPO2 Rey) and PO1 Arvin Lucky Elma (PO1 Elma) of the Manila Police District, Sampaloc Police Station received a tip from a confidential informant. Allegedly, a drug transaction was set to transpire the following day somewhere along Vicente Cruz St., near corner España St., Sampaloc, Manila, involving a certain "Weng." Thus, PSI James Jamandre Afalla (PSI Afalla) immediately directed SPO3 Rogelio Abellera (SPO3 Abellara) to mobilize his team, confirm the tip received, and conduct anti-narcotics operation, if possible. 7
Late afternoon the following day, SPO2 Rey, PO3 Reyes, PO1 Elma and the confidential informant surveilled the target area. At around 6:00 o'clock in the evening, the team spotted petitioner with one female companion, later identified as Rosalie Pilande (Pilande). PO1 Elma positioned himself nearer to the two (2) women. Not long after, petitioner approached an unidentified person to whom she handed a small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. Suspecting that what he was seeing was a drug transaction, PO1 Elma approached petitioner and Pilande, and introduced himself as a police officer. He then arrested petitioner upon informing her of her constitutional rights. Afterwards, he ordered petitioner to empty her pocket, which yielded three (3) more heat-sealed sachets containing the same white substance. 8
The team then brought petitioner and Pilande to the barangay hall located more or less ten (10) meters away from the place of the arrest. PO1 Elma marked the sachets in the presence of petitioner and Pilande and prepared an inventory of the seized plastic sachets. The Receipt of Property/Evidence seized was signed by the barangay chairman. Photographs were taken during the inventory. 9
Petitioner was then brought to the police station. The seized items were turned over by PO1 Elma to PO2 Voltaire Yap (PO2 Yap) who prepared the request for laboratory examination. PO2 Yap then brought the sachets to the crime laboratory, which were received by Forensic Chemist PCI Yelah Apostol (PCI Apostol). Upon examination, it turned out that the seized items contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. During trial, the items seized were then presented during trial and was identified as the same as those seized from petitioner. 10
Evidence for the Defense
The defense offered the lone testimony of petitioner who denied the accusation against her. Allegedly, she merely accompanied her kumadre, Pilandre, to meet a friend in Balic-Balic. Thus, she was surprised when six (6) persons in civilian clothes suddenly handcuffed them and brought them to the police station. She became aware of the reason for their arrest only when they were already on board the vehicle going to the station. Moreover, she was separated from Pilandre and later found out that she was the only one charged with the offense. 11
Ruling of the RTC
On 21 March 2016, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and sentenced her to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, as maximum. She was likewise ordered to pay a fine of Php300,000.00. 12
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA agreed with the RTC's findings 13 and held that there was sufficient compliance with Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165. 14 Hence, petitioner filed the present petition for review where she harps on the supposed gaps in the chain of custody, as well as the non-compliance of the police officers with the requirements under RA 9165.
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed petitioner's conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Ruling of the Court
Preliminarily, this Court is cognizant that petitioner questioned the validity of her arrest only on appeal. While the failure to timely question her arrest necessarily renders such objection waived, this Court nonetheless proceeds to determine the validity of her arrest for purposes of resolving the admissibility of the seized sachets. Indeed, waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained during the illegal arrest. 15
The law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made — the process cannot be reversed. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court (Rules) lays down the rules on lawful warrantless arrests, as follows: CAIHTE
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) x x x. 16
For a warrantless arrest under Section 5 (a) to operate, two (2) elements must concur, viz.: (a) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. On the other hand, Section 5 (b) requires for its application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed it. In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge of the fact of the commission of an offense is absolutely required. Under Section 5 (a), the officer himself witnesses the crime; while in Section 5 (b), he knows for a fact that a crime has just been committed. 17
In this case, petitioner's arrest does not fall within the enumeration of valid warrantless arrests under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules. The prosecution failed to establish personal knowledge of the commission of the offense as to justify the in flagrante delicto arrest. It was not clear from the prosecution's evidence how PO1 Elma deemed that petitioner was then engaging in a criminal act. Other than his bare assumption, there was nothing to show how PO1 Elma could have seen and concluded that the contents of the plastic sachet he allegedly saw contained shabu. In Dominguez v. People, 18 this Court similarly opined that even in a close distance of a meter away, and with perfect vision, it is quite improbable for a person to identify with reasonable accuracy the contents of the plastic sachet. This Court further notes that the prosecution did not bother explaining what happened to the unidentified man, as well as the supposed sachet of suspected shabu he allegedly received from petitioner. Interestingly, petitioner was only charged for the three (3) sachets recovered from her pocket.
The records are bereft of evidence to show that PO1 Elma had personal knowledge that a crime had been indisputably committed by petitioner. It is not enough that the police had reasonable ground to believe that the accused had just committed a crime; a crime must, in fact, have been committed first. 19
Given the doubtful circumstances surrounding petitioner's arrest, it follows that the consequent seizure of the sachets of shabu was unlawful, and the seized drugs are, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. In any case, even if this Court ignores the illegality of petitioner's arrest and the ensuing seizure of the alleged sachets of shabu, her acquittal is still inevitable.
For a conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs to prosper, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of said drugs. 20
In addition, the State is also burdened with the responsibility of adducing, identifying, and proving in court the corpus delicti, or the drug subject of the offense. 21 In this regard, Section 21 (a) of the IRR of RA 9165, applicable at the time of the commission of the offense, provides the manner of handling and disposing of the seized drugs, to wit:
(a) 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 or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: 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; Provided, further, that noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.
Proper procedure requires that the apprehending officer must affix his initials or signature or any identifying mark on the dangerous drugs, in the presence of the accused, immediately upon arrest in order to set apart the dangerous drug from the other materials from the moment of seizure until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings. 22 However, the marking of the seized sachets was not done at the place of the arrest but at the barangay hall. Downplaying their departure from the required procedure, PO1 Elma reasoned that the barangay hall was near the place of arrest. This Court sees no merit to such explanation. At the outset, there was no proffered reason to postpone the marking. Moreover, PO1 Elma failed to elaborate how he handled the sachets on the way to the barangay hall. The absence of such testimony engenders doubt on whether the drug may have been switched, tampered with, altered, or substituted. 23
Moreover, RA 9165 further requires that the inventory and photography be conducted in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official.
In this case, the records indubitably show that there were no representatives from the DOJ and the media at the time of the inventory, marking and photographing of the evidence. Only a barangay official was available at that time, and whose presence was secured only after the arrest of petitioner. 24 The prosecution did not even bother to explain whether there were efforts to obtain the presence of the DOJ and media representative.
The exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering — without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not — dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. 25 While the miniscule quantity of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. 26 In this case, considering the amount of the illegal drugs involved, this Court cannot excuse the departure of the police to the requirements under Sec. 21. It is well-settled that the procedure set forth therein is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 27
In conclusion, this Court affirms its commendation of the government's sincere efforts to eradicate the illegal drug problem in the country. However, as the guardian of the Constitution and law, this Court is committed in ensuring that the noble objectives of this policy are not achieved at the expense of our citizen's fundamental rights. Conviction for illegal drug offenses require evidence that is uncontaminated by Constitutional and procedural defects. Anything short of that entitles petitioner to an acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 07 July 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 38578 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner NANETTE AGBUYA y CASTRO is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless she is detained for any other lawful cause.
The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution, and to report to this Court the action taken hereon, within five (5) days from receipt. DETACa
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-32.
2.Id. at 36-46; Penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Leoncia R. Dimagiba of the Fourteenth (14th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 23 January 2002.
4.Rollo, pp. 36-37.
5.Id. at 37.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 37-38.
8.Id. at 38.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 39.
11.Id. at 39-40.
12.Id. at 40.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 43.
15.Villasana v. People, G.R. No. 209078, 04 September 2019 [Per J. Leonen], citing Antiquera v. People, 723 Phil. 425, 432 (2013); G.R. No. 180661, 11 December 2013, [Per J. Abad], and People v. Racho, 640 Phil. 669, 681 (2010); G.R. No. 186529, 03 August 2010 [Per J. Nachura].
16.Comerciante v. People, 764 Phil. 627, 634 (2015); G.R. No. 205926, 22 July 2015 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
17.Id. at 635.
18.See G.R. No. 235898, 13 March 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
19.Supra at note 16 at 639.
20. See People v. Ismael, 806 Phil 21, 29 (2017); G.R. No. 208093, 20 February 2017 [Per J. Del Castillo].
21.SeePeople v. Angeles, G.R. No. 229099, 27 February 2019 [Per J. Del Castillo].
22. See People v. Cupcupin (Resolution), G.R. No. 236454, 05 December 2019.
23.Id.
24.Rollo, pp. 36 & 62.
25.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 588 (2008); G.R. No. 172953, 30 April 2008 [Per J. Tinga].
26.SeePeople v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 99 (2014); G.R. No. 207992, 11 August 2014 [Per J. Leonen].
27.People v. Patacsil, 838 Phil. 320, 335 (2018); G.R. No. 234052, 06 August 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].