Agcong y Balimbingan v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. Nos. 244550-51 & 247711. June 23, 2021.]

SUKARNO AGCONG y BALIMBINGAN A.K.A. "PONGKI" AND ALMA AGCONG y ECHAVEZ, petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 23, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. Nos. 244550-51 & 247711 (Sukarno Agcong y Balimbingan a.k.a. "Pongki" and Alma Agcong y Echavez v. People of the Philippines). — Before Us are consolidated Petitions for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Resolutions dated September 4, 2018 2 and January 16, 2019 3 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01939-MIN and Resolutions dated November 21, 2018 4 and May 8, 2019 5 in CA-G.R. CR No. 01660-MIN of the Court of Appeals (CA) filed by petitioners Sukarno Agcong y Balimbingan a.k.a. Pongki (Sukarno) and Alma Agcong y Echavez (Alma; collectively, Spouses Agcong). In CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01939-MIN, the CA deemed Spouses Agcong's appeal of the Decision 6 dated December 1, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tangub City, Branch 16 in Criminal Case No. TC-2017-129 as abandoned and dismissed it. The RTC ruled:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal, of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, an offense that is defined and penalized under paragraph 1, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," each accused, Sukarno Agcong y Balimbingan and Alma Agcong y Echavez, is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT, to pay a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), to suffer all the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the costs.

Pursuant to Section 21, no. (7) of Republic Act No. 9165, the subject one (1) piece rectangular small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance is hereby ordered turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same.

SO ORDERED. 7 (Emphasis in the original.)

In CA-G.R. CR No. 01660-MIN, the CA dismissed Sukarno's appeal of the Decision 8 dated December 1, 2017 of the RTC of Tangub City, Branch 16 in Criminal Case No. TC-2017-130. The RTC held:

WHEREFORE, finding accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of Illegal Possession of 1.0406 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," without any attendant mitigating or aggravating circumstance and applying the provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law, accused Sukarno Agcong y Balimbingan is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of indeterminate imprisonment which ranges from FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY to SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and FOUR (4) MONTHS, to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P350,000.00), to suffer all the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the costs.

Pursuant to Section 21, no. (7) of Republic Act No. 9165, the subject two (2) pieces of rectangular heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances are hereby ordered turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition and destruction within twenty-four (24) hours from receipt of the same.

SO ORDERED. 9 (Emphasis in the original)

Spouses Agcong were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," in an Information 10 dated September 26, 2017, which states:

That on or about the 25th day of September, 2017 at about 3:30 o'clock in the morning, more or less, in barangay Liloan, municipality of Bonifacio, province of Misamis Occidental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while inside at Mitsubishi Montero with temporary plate number 130105, colored lithium silver and its key without permit or license from the appropriate government agency, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did then and there knowingly, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously engage in illegal sale of one (1) piece rectangular small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as "shabu," a dangerous drug with a net weight of 0.2596 gram (thereafter marked as "BB-MBA 9-25-17 with signature") with Sukarno Agcong y Balimbingan directly transacting sale of one (1) sachet of shabu with PDEA Agent Marjorie B. Aenlle acting as poseur buyer for P1,00.00 n with serial number AQ540612, received the latter's money and accused Sukarno Agcong produce and hand over one (1) sachet of shabu to said Agent Marjorie B. Aenlle and the buy bust money was directly received by co-accused Alma Agcong y Echavez.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 11 (Emphasis in the original)

Sukarno was also charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 in an Information likewise dated September 26, 2017:

That on or about the 25th day of September 2017, at about 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon, more or less, in barangay Lilo-an, municipality of Bonifacio, province of Misamis Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without permit or license from the appropriate government agency, did then and here wilfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly possessed the following:

a) Two (2) pieces rectangular heat-sealed transparent plastic of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as "shabu" a dangerous drug with a total net weight of 1.0406 gram (thereafter marked as JV-R1 and JV-R2 with signatures).

b) Two (2) pieces cellular phone (thereafter marked as JV-CP, 9-25-17 and JV-CP-9-25-2017 with signature).

c) One (1) piece sling bag color black marked as JV-SB 9-25-17 with signature).

d) Cash amounting to P11,000.00 pesos. 12 (Emphasis omitted.)

Spouses Agcong were arraigned on October 10, 2017 and entered a plea of not guilty in their respective cases. 13 The parties stipulated on the following during the pre-trial conference for both cases on October 10, 2017:

1. Identity of accused;

2. Jurisdiction of the Court over the subject matter of these cases;

3. That the accused were arrested without any warrant on September 25, 2017 at 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon at Liloan, Bonifacio, Mis. Occ.;

4. That Engr. Aileen U. Bernido, Forensic Chemical Officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory, is an expert in forensic chemistry;

5. The due execution and existence of the laboratory request for drugs examination that was received by Engr. Aileen Bernido;

6. That Engr. Aileen Bernido received on September 25, 2017 at 10:10 P.M. a request for laboratory examination which is prosecution's Exhibit "B";

7. That along with the letter-request, marked as Exhibit "B" were specimen which were submitted and were listed in that letter-request consisting of one rectangular shape medium sized heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, containing white crystalline substance believed to be shabu marked as BB-MBA 9-25-17 with signature, which is prosecution's Exhibit "F" and two rectangular medium sized heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, containing white crystalline substance believed to be shabu marked as JV-R1 9-25-17 with signature and JV-R2 9-25-17 with signature, which are prosecution's Exhibits "G" to "G-1", and

8. That the laboratory examination was conducted by Engr. Aileen Bernido on the submitted specimen and that her findings are indicated in Chemistry Report No. D-327-2017MO, which is prosecution's Exhibit "C". 14

The pre-trial order was amended on October 27, 2017 to include the following stipulation:

9. That the Forensic Chemist does not know the source of the three sachets of shabu and that the two accused did not undergo drug tests. 15

The witnesses for respondent were: (1) Agent Marjorie Aenlle (Agent Aenlle) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA); (2) PO2 Joseph Lumayag (PO2 Lumayag) of the Philippine National Police (PNP); and (3) Engineer Aileen Bernido (Eng. Bernido). Respondent alleged that on September 25, 2017, Agent Aenlle attended a briefing conducted by Agent Neil C. Pabilona regarding the buy-bust operation against Sukarno. She was assigned as the poseur-buyer and was given P1,000.00 with serial no. AQ 540612 16 to use in the operation. PO2 Lumayag was assigned as the arresting officer. At 3:00 p.m. of the same day, Agent Aenlle and the confidential informant proceeded to the target area in Liloan, Bonifacio, Misamis Occidental where she noticed a silver motor vehicle with plate no. 130105 which, according to the informant, was owned by Sukarno. 17 PO2 Lumayag stayed within Liloan. 18 Agent Aenlle and the informant approached the driver's side of the vehicle. Upon recognizing the informant, the driver, who turned out to be Sukarno, invited them to get inside the vehicle. Once inside, Agent Aenlle negotiated to purchase shabu for P1,000.00. Following Sukarno's instruction, she gave the P1,000.00 bill to his wife Alma who was seated in front. Sukarno opened the compartment beside the driver's seat and retrieved three sachets of shabu. He showed one sachet to Alma who nodded. He then gave that sachet to Agent Aenlle who placed it in the right pocket of her pants while he kept the other two sachets in the left front pocket of his pants. Thereafter, Agent Aenlle made the pre-arranged signal of a missed call for the arresting team. 19

Once the vehicle of the arresting team arrived, Agent Aenlle and the informant alighted from Sukarno's vehicle. Spouses Agcong were arrested and informed of the nature of their offense. PO2 Lumayag frisked Sukarno and confiscated from him two sachets of white crystalline substance, which is believed to be shabu. The P1,000 paid by Agent Aenlle was found in Alma's bag. Agent Aenlle marked the sachet subject of the sale as "BB-MBA 9-25-17." PO2 Lumayag marked the two sachets he confiscated as "JV-R1 9-25-17" and "JV-R2 925-17." Agent Aenlle conducted an inventory in the presence of Barangay Chairman Peregrenio Delos Reyes (Brgy. Chairman Peregrenio) and Barangay Kagawad Alicia Delos Reyes (Brgy. Kgwd. Alicia). She prepared an inventory receipt. PO2 Lumayag likewise conducted an inventory of the items he confiscated from Sukarno and those found in Alma's bag. Spouses Agcong and the items were then brought to the police station where a laboratory request was prepared. 20 It was at the police station where media representative Bethser D. Mabuang (Mabuang) arrived and signed the inventory. 21 Agent Aenlle and PO2 Lumayag then submitted the drug specimens to Eng. Bernido of the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. 22 The specimens were confirmed to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, as stated in Chemistry Report No. D-327-2017MO 23 prepared by Engr. Aileen U. Bernido (Engr. Bernido). She turned over the seized items to the Evidence Custodian. She retrieved the items from the Evidence Custodian when she was required to appear before the RTC. 24

The following were the witnesses for Spouses Agcong in Criminal Case No. TC-2017-129 and Sukarno in Criminal Case No. TC-2017-130: (1) Ariel Gomez (Gomez); (2) Roel Bualat (Bualat); (3) Godofredo Sintos (Sintos); and 4) Alma. Gomez is the mechanic/driver of Spouses Agcong's harvester machine and motor vehicle while Bualat is a mechanic. According to Spouses Agcong, they were inside their silver Montero together with Gomez and Bualat on September 25, 2017. Sukarno was the driver while Alma was seated in front beside him. Gomez was sitting behind Sukarno and Bualat was sitting behind Alma. Spouses Agcong's vehicle was parked near their house in Abaga, Liloan, Bonifacio, Misamis Occidental. They were about to leave when a black Innova blocked their way. Two persons alighted from the Innova and pointed long firearms at them. They were told to disembark and raise their hands. Two other persons alighted from the Innova together with its driver. One of these persons wore a shirt marked "PDEA." Sukarno opened the window and asked "sir, what is this, we are civilians." 25 He alighted from his vehicle and dropped to the ground while placing his hands on his nape. Gomez and Bualat likewise alighted from the vehicles and dropped to the ground. Alma alighted and a female PDEA agent aimed a gun at her. She was brought to the shanty where their harvester machine is placed. Alma saw the PDEA agents search their vehicle. Sukarno kept calling to her for help because the agents might plant evidence in their vehicle. 26

Gomez and Bualat were brought to the back of the Montero while Sukarno was brought to the back of Spouses Agcong's house. One of the PDEA agents called someone through a mobile phone while another asked Alma if they had CCTV in the area. After Alma said no, the agent approached a female agent and instructed her to go back to the Innova. The female agent complied and returned with a black plastic folder. She took two pieces of paper from the folder and put it on top of a table. The female agent also held two sachets and P1,000.00 in her right hand. She wrote something on the paper and called over a policeman to sign it. When the barangay officials arrived, they were instructed to sign the papers. Photographs were taken. Alma refused to sign the paper. Thereafter, Gomez and Bualat were released on the condition that they would declare that they were not present at the incident. Sintos, the neighbor of Spouses Agcong, confirmed that they were about to leave when their vehicle was blocked by a black Innova. Sintos also said that Sukarno was not frisked. 27

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On December 1, 2017, in Criminal Case No. TC-2017-129, the RTC found Spouses Agcong guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs penalized under paragraph 1, Section 5 of R.A. 9165, and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, to pay a fine of P500,000.00, to suffer all the accessory penalties provided for by law and to pay the costs. 28 On the same day, the RTC found Sukarno guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of 1.0406 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, penalized under Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 in Criminal Case No. TC-2017-130 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day as minimum to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months as maximum, to pay a fine of P350,000.00, to suffer all the accessory penalties provided for by law, and to pay the costs. 29

The RTC gave credence to the evidence presented by respondent. The evidence duly established that Spouses Agcong were caught in flagrante delicto selling dangerous drugs to Agent Aenlle. 30 This justified their subsequent warrantless arrest by PO2 Lumayag, who had personal knowledge that an offense has been committed by Spouses Agcong. Prior to the buy-bust operation, PO2 Lumayag was aware that Agent Aenlle's missed call would signal the consummation of the transaction. Agent Aenlle's conduct of the pre-arranged signal provided PO2 Lumayag with the personal knowledge of the commission of the offense. 31 After arresting Spouses Agcong, PO2 Lumayag found two sachets of shabu in Sukarno's possession. R.A. 9165 prohibits the possession of these items. Sukarno has not presented evidence to rebut the existence of animus possidendi over these items. 32

The RTC held that Spouses Agcong's denial must fail in light of the positive testimonies of respondent's witnesses who were not shown to have any ill-motive against the former. Moreover, the testimonies of Spouses Agcong's witnesses suffered from serious and irreconcilable inconsistencies. Bualat's claim that he went to Spouses Agcong's house for lunch was not corroborated by Gomez. Sintos, who is a relative of Alma, failed to see the motor vehicle of Spouses Agcong's visitor despite claiming that he was on his porch for a long time. Spouses Agcong's witnesses also claimed that they were told by the PDEA agents not to look and yet averred that they witnessed what transpired during the incident. Bualat's claim that he was asked to box Gomez is doubtful because the RTC found no reason for the PDEA agents to give so much attention to them. 33

The RTC found that respondent was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items. Agent Aenlle and PO2 Lumayag respectively marked the sachet subject of the sale and the sachets seized from Sukarno. The absence of a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the belated appearance from the media in the police station are of no moment. Brgy. Captain Peregrenio and Brgy. Kgwd. Alicia were present when the inventory was conducted. More importantly, Agent Aenlle and PO2 Lumayag were in possession of the drug specimens from the time they obtained it until they turned it over to Eng. Bernido, who in turn brought the specimens to court. 34

Spouses Agcong appealed the two decisions which were then assigned to two separate divisions of the CA. Criminal Case No. TC-2017-129 was assigned to the 21st Division as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 019390-MIN while Criminal Case No. TC-2017-130 was assigned to the Special 23rd Division as CA-G.R. CR No. 01660-MIN. 35

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On June 14, 2018, Spouses Agcong, through counsel, received the notices to file brief within 30 days from receipt or until July 14, 2018 in both cases pending before the CA. 36 In CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01939-MIN, they filed their brief only on August 23, 2018. 37 On September 4, 2018, the 21st Division of the CA deemed the appeal abandoned due to Spouses Agcong's failure to file an appellant's brief and dismissed it. 38 Spouses Agcong filed a manifestation with prayer to consolidate and recall resolution. The 21st Division of the CA denied it in its Resolution 39 dated January 16, 2019. The CA held that the filing of the brief beyond the given period, without moving for an extension, is a willful disregard of the Court's order. The fact that CA-G.R. CR No. 01660-MIN is still pending is of no moment because it is a separate case. 40 On October 18, 2018, the 21st Division of the CA merely noted without action the appellant's brief filed by Spouses Agcong. 41

In CA-G.R. CR No. 01660-MIN, the Special 23rd Division of the CA issued an Order on September 5, 2018 to Sukarno to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file an appellant's brief within the given period. 42 Sukarno manifested that he already submitted a brief on August 23, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01939-MIN. 43 Spouses Agcong filed a Manifestation with Prayer to Consolidate and Recall Resolution dated November 20, 2018 praying for the recall of the September 4, 2018 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01939-MIN and the consolidation of the two cases pending before the CA. But the Special 23rd Division of the CA deemed Sukarno's appeal abandoned and dismissed it on November 21, 2018 due to his failure to submit a copy of his brief. 44

Spouses Agcong filed a motion for reconsideration. On January 9, 2019, the Special 23rd Division of the CA noted without action Sukarno's Manifestation with Prayer to Consolidate and Recall Resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 01660-MIN. 45 Spouses Agcong's children then wrote a letter dated February 11, 2019 to the CA explaining, among others, that after their lawyer in Pagadian City received the notice to file a brief, they hired a lawyer based in Cagayan de Oro City for convenience. He was the one who filed Spouses Agcong's brief. Their lawyer was not given a copy of the Resolution dated September 4, 2018 of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01939-MIN. They were unaware that their lawyer in Pagadian City received the October 18, 2018 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01939-MIN. 46

Proceedings before this Court

Petitioners' Arguments

Spouses Agcong filed a petition for review on certiorari before this Court to assail the Resolutions of the CA in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01939-MIN. Thereafter, the CA issued a resolution in CA-G.R. CR No. 01660-MIN on May 8, 2019 denying their motion for reconsideration. 47 Spouses Agcong then filed a petition for review on certiorari to assail the ruling of the CA in CA-G.R. CR No. 01660-MIN. On December 11, 2019, the Court resolved to consolidate the two petitions of Spouses Agcong. 48 Respondent filed a Comment 49 to both petitions and Spouses Agcong filed a Reply 50 thereto.

Spouses Agcong insisted that they filed their appellant's brief before the CA. However, since their counsel was not aware that their two cases were separated when they appealed, the appellant's brief only stated CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01939-MIN in its caption. Nonetheless, it can be seen from the brief that it also covers CA-G.R. CR No. 01660-MIN. In any event, the CA should have consolidated the two cases. The similarly-worded Decisions of the RTC in the two cases show their connection. Consolidation of cases is allowed to avoid conflicting decisions and multiplicity of suits. 51

Further, the CA should have decided their case on the merits. Spouses Agcong asserted that no buy-bust operation took place. The PDEA agents did not have a search warrant or warrant of arrest when they arrested them. Both Agent Aenlle and PO2 Lumayag admitted that they did not conduct a surveillance prior to the alleged buy-bust operation. 52

Spouses Agcong argued that even assuming that a buy bust operation took place, their arrest was still illegal. PO2 Lumayag, the arresting officer, was not present when the operation took place or anywhere near it. PO2 Lumayag testified that he had no knowledge of what took place inside the vehicle. Agent Aenlle did not inform him of what happened and who were involved. Accordingly, Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure does not apply. Spouses Agcong's arrest was illegal and any items confiscated as a result thereof are inadmissible in court. 53

Moreover, Spouses Agcong pointed out that Agent Aenlle contradicted PO2 Lumayag's testimony. She claimed that PO2 Lumayag arrested Spouses Agcong immediately after they alighted from the Montero. But PO2 Lumayag said that Spouses Agcong and the other passengers were already outside the vehicle when he arrived. The RTC should not have favored the testimony of Agent Aenlle over the testimonies of Spouses Agcong's witnesses. There were no inconsistencies among the testimonies of Gomez and Bualat. And PO2 Lumayag himself confirmed their presence at the scene of the crime. Sintos corroborated the testimonies of Gomez, Bualat, and Alma. 54

Spouses Agcong averred that the possibility of the occurrence of the illegal transaction is unlikely. Respondent's witnesses did not testify that the confidential informant contacted Spouses Agcong to purchase shabu. It did not establish that the informant was familiar with them or that he or she made arrangements to purchase shabu at the specific time and place of the incident. Also, it is unbelievable that Spouses Agcong permitted Agent Aenlle to transact with them even though they do not know her. It is likewise questionable that they immediately gave her a sachet of shabu. 55

Spouses Agcong further argued that the chain of custody was not established in this case. First, the barangay officials, media representative, and DOJ representative were not present in the conduct of the buy-bust operation. The barangay officials arrived after Spouses Agcong were arrested and the evidence was planted by the PDEA agents. Second, it was not explained why the seized items were separately retained by Agent Aenlle and PO2 Lumayag. Third, PO2 Lumayag and Agent Aenlle had no knowledge as to how the seized items were handled after they turned it over to Engr. Bernido. Engr. Bernido herself was unaware of who affixed their signatures on the sachets. 56

Spouses Agcong prayed for the following: (1) consolidation of CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 019390-MIN with CA-G.R. CR No. 01660-MIN; (2) joint determination of the merits of the appeal in both cases; and (3) acquittal of Spouses Agcong for lack of evidence to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 57

Respondent's Arguments

Respondent filed comments on Spouses Agcong's petitions. Respondent argued that the dismissal of Spouses Agcong's appeal was warranted due to their failure to file their brief within the period provided by law without providing sufficient justification in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01939-MIN. 58 In CA-G.R. CR No. 01660-MIN, Sukarno did not file his appellant's brief at all without providing any valid explanation or justification. He lost his right to appeal as a consequence thereof. 59

Respondent opined that the CA was also correct in not consolidating the two cases. Though the two cases were jointly tried by the RTC, they were not consolidated. Besides, Spouses Agcong's appeal in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01939-MIN was already dismissed when they moved for the consolidation of the two cases. 60

Moreover, the issues raised by Spouses Agcong in their petition are factual in nature and are not the proper subject of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. None of the exceptions to the rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition under Rule 45 are present in this case. 61

Respondent argued that warrantless arrest of Spouses Agcong was valid pursuant to a legal buy-bust operation. In any event, they did not assail the legality of their arrest before their arraignment so they are deemed to have waived the alleged defect in the legality of their arrest. 62

According to respondent, all the elements for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 were established in this case through the testimonies of Agent Aenlle, PO2 Lumayag, and Engr. Bernido as well as the object evidence it submitted. 63 The chain of custody was likewise unbroken. Agent Aenlle marked the sachet subject of the sale at the place of arrest. 64 PO2 Lumayag also marked the two sachets he confiscated from Sukarno at the place of arrest. 65 The marking and inventory were witnessed by Spouses Agcong, Brgy. Captain Peregrenio, and Brgy. Kgwd. Alicia. Agent Aenlle and PO2 Lumayag brought the seized items to the police station where Mabuang signed the inventory form. Thereafter, Agent Aenlle and PO2 Lumayag turned over the seized items to Engr. Bernido who examined its contents. Engr. Bernido turned over the seized items to the Evidence Custodian after she examined it and retrieved it from the Evidence Custodian before appearing in court. 66

Respondent argued that the findings of fact of the RTC should be accorded respect. Spouses Agcong's denial and claim of frame-up are not supported by clear and convincing evidence. They did not ascribe ill motives against the PDEA agents and police officers involved in their arrest or file a complaint against them. Therefore, Spouses Agcong's denial should be disregarded. In contrast, the testimonies of respondent's witnesses are entitled to full credit. Respondent thus prayed for the dismissal of Spouses Agcong's petitions. 67

Issue

The sole issue before Us is whether the CA erred in refusing to consolidate the two cases and in dismissing petitioners' appeal.

Ruling of the Court

We grant the petitions.

Under Section 3, 68 Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the appellant must file his or her brief within 30 days from receipt of the notice from the clerk of court of the CA. Section 5 69 allows the extension of time to file the brief for good and sufficient cause and only if the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended. Failure to file the brief within the time provided may result in the dismissal of the appeal under Section 8 70 of Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio. Spouses Agcong undoubtedly failed to file their briefs in both cases pending before the CA within the time provided under the rules. They did not claim to have been represented by a counsel de oficio. Thus, it is understandable why the CA dismissed their appeal. After all, the right to appeal is a mere statutory privilege. It may be lost when there is failure to comply with the requirements under the rules. 71

Nonetheless, the application of the rules may be relaxed in the interest of justice and equity. In De Guzman v. People, 72 the Court held that the imminent and unjust deprivation of a person's liberty due to a procedural lapse of his counsel is a compelling reason to suspend the rules. Thus, the Court reinstated the appeal of the petitioner in said case. 73 Here, Spouses Agcong were sentenced to life imprisonment for violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165. Sukarno was likewise sentenced to imprisonment of fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4) months for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165. Considering the gravity of the penalties imposed on Spouses Agcong, it would have been best for the CA to rule on the merits of their appeals rather than dismiss it on technicalities. In the interest of justice, and so as to no longer prolong the pendency of these cases, the Court shall proceed to resolve it on its merits. This is in spite of Spouses Agcong's failure to avail of the correct remedy before this Court with respect to CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01939-MIN wherein they were sentenced to a penalty of life imprisonment. Their remedy should have been an ordinary appeal pursuant to Section 13 (c), 74 Rule 124 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Spouses Agcong and Sukarno were respectively charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. The corpus delicti in the case for Section 5 is the sachet weighing 0.2596 marked as "BB-MBA 9-25-17" and offered as Exhibit "F" while in the case for Section 11, it is the sachets weighing 0.4496 gram and 0.5810 gram, marked as "JV-R1 9-25-17" and "JV-R2 9-25-17," and offered as Exhibits "G" and "G-1." To sustain the conviction of Spouses Agcong, it must be shown that the sachets presented in court are the same sachets allegedly taken from them. Pertinent to this is Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640, which provides:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

"(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items." (Italics in the original)

The witnesses required under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended, should be present not only during the inventory but more importantly, at the time of apprehension. Their presence is necessary to prevent the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Hence, the witnesses cannot simply be called in after the conduct of the operation because it would defeat the purpose of requiring their presence. 75

It was not clearly established by respondent through the testimonies of its witnesses that Brgy. Captain Peregrenio and Brgy. Kgwd. Alicia were present when Spouses Agcong were apprehended. Notably, Alma testified that the barangay officials arrived 20 to 30 minutes after the policemen arrived, who in turn arrived two to three minutes after she and Sukarno were apprehended. 76 What is clear from Agent Aenlle's testimony is that only Brgy. Captain Peregrenio and Brgy. Kgwd. Alicia were present when the inventory was conducted. There was no representative from the DOJ or the media. Media representative Mabuang signed the inventory at the police station. 77 PO2 Lumayag affirmed that only the barangay officials were present during the inventory and that Mabuang appeared at the police station. 78 Therefore, the requirement for the presence of a witness from the DOJ or the media under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640, was not complied with. Though Mabuang belatedly signed the inventory at the police station, this is not sufficient compliance with the requirement under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended. Mabuang should have been present when Spouses Agcong were apprehended. It is not enough for the witness to simply read the inventory already prepared beforehand by the government operatives and compare it to the items allegedly seized from the accused because this does not serve the purpose of requiring the witness' presence.

The Court has held that failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 may be excused if there is a justifiable ground for it and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 79 Respondent has not offered any justification for the absence of the required witnesses at the time of apprehension. It has not even shown that a sincere effort was made to secure their presence. It cannot be ignored that what is involved here is a buy-bust operation so there was time to prepare for the requirement of securing the witnesses. As such, the Court cannot disregard non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended, in this case. After all, Section 21 is not a mere procedural technicality but a matter of substantive law that cannot be disregarded as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 80

The unjustified failure to comply with Section 21 renders the integrity and evidentiary value of the items seized from accused-appellants questionable. Accordingly, there is no basis for upholding the conviction of accused-appellants and they should be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, the petitions are GRANTED. The Resolutions dated September 4, 2018 and January 16, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01939-MIN, and Resolutions dated November 21, 2018 and May 8, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR No. 01660-MIN of the Court of Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners Sukarno Agcong y Balimbingan a.k.a. "Pongki" and Alma Agcong y Echavez are ACQUITTED of the crimes charged against them and are ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED, unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to inform this Court of the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.

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 [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 19-69; rollo [G.R. No. 247711], pp. 8-58.

2. CA rollo, p. 14.

3. Penned by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan; rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 131-132.

4. Penned by Associate Justice Walter S. Ong, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Oscar V. Badelles and Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales; id. at 247-249.

5.Id. at 267-270.

6. Penned by Presiding Judge Sylvia A. Singidas-Machacon; rollo [G.R. No. 247711], pp. 122-143.

7.Id. at 142-143.

8.Id. at 144-165.

9.Id. at 164-165.

10. Records, pp. 1-2.

11.Id. at 1.

12.Rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 168-169.

13. Records, pp. 28-31.

14.Id. at 28-29.

15.Id. at 43-44.

16.Id. at 46.

17.Rollo [G.R. No. 247711], pp. 124-125.

18. TSN dated November 3, 2017, pp. 5-6.

19.Rollo [G.R. No. 247711], p. 125.

20.Id. at 125-127.

21. Records, p. 5.

22.Rollo [G.R. No. 247711], pp. 126-127.

23. Records, p. 12.

24.Rollo [G.R. No. 247711], p. 128.

25.Id. at 130.

26.Id. at 128-131.

27.Id. at 129-131.

28.Id. at 142-143.

29.Id. at 164-165.

30.Id. at 132, 138, 154.

31.Id. at 133-134, 156.

32.Id. at 162-164.

33.Id. at 135-136, 157-158.

34.Id. at 138-142, 161-162.

35. CA rollo, p. 87.

36.Rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 81, 247.

37.Id. at 131.

38. CA rollo, p. 14.

39.Supra note 3.

40.Rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], p. 132.

41.Id. at 74.

42.Id. at 73.

43.Rollo [G.R. No. 247711], pp. 244-245.

44.Id. at 245-246.

45.Id. at 247.

46.Rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 142-145.

47.Rollo [G.R. No. 247711], p. 248.

48.Id. at 248-249.

49.Id. at 183-228; rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 199-240.

50.Rollo [G.R. No. 247711], pp. 279-333.

51.Id. at 22-25; rollo [G.R. No. 244550-51], pp. 31-34.

52.Rollo [G.R. No. 247711], pp. 25-33; rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 35-44.

53.Id.

54.Id. at 38-41; rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 49-51.

55.Id. at 42-44; rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 52-55.

56.Id. at 49-50; rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 60-61.

57.Id. at 57; rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], p. 68.

58.Rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 217-219.

59.Rollo [G.R. No. 247711], pp. 203-205.

60.Id. at 208-209; rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 221-222.

61.Id. at 212-213; rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 225-226.

62.Id. at 214; rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 226-227.

63.Id. at 219-220 & 223; rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 231-232.

64.Rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], p. 234.

65.Rollo [G.R. No. 247711], p. 222.

66.Id. at 222; rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 234-235.

67.Id. at 225-227; rollo [G.R. Nos. 244550-51], pp. 237-239.

68. Section 3. When brief for appellant to be filed. — Within thirty (30) days from receipt by the appellant or his counsel of the notice from the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals that the evidence, oral and documentary, is already attached to the record, the appellant shall file seven (7) copies of his brief with the clerk of court which shall be accompanied by proof of service of two (2) copies thereof upon the appellee.

69. Section 5. Extension of time for filing briefs. — Extension of time for the filing of briefs will not be allowed except for good and sufficient cause and only if the motion for extension is filed before the expiration of the time sought to be extended.

70. Section 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to prosecute. — The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.

xxx xxx xxx

71.De Guzman v. People, 547 Phil. 654, 659 (2007).

72. 547 Phil. 654 (2007).

73.Id. at 660-661.

74. Section 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme Court. — x x x

xxx xxx xxx

(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter judgment imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.

75.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018).

76. TSN dated November 17, 2017, p. 12.

77. TSN dated October 27, 2017, p. 35.

78. TSN dated November 3, 2017, p. 31.

79.Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019.

80.People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1059 (2018).

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.