FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246537. February 15, 2022.]
ROSELIO ANGELES, JR. y CABALLERO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 15, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246537 — ROSELIO ANGELES, JR. y CABALLERO, petitioner,versus PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court REVERSES the Decision 1 dated November 14, 2018 (Decision) of the Court of Appeals, Special Fourth Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09142, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated November 9, 2016 of Branch 227, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. Q-09-159486, convicting petitioner Roselio Angeles, Jr. y Caballero (Angeles) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. 3
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the prosecution has the burden to prove compliance with the chain of custody requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, to wit: (1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same and the seized drugs must be turned over to a forensic laboratory within 24 hours from confiscation for examination. 4 HCSAIa
Strict compliance with the foregoing requirements is mandatory, and any deviation therefrom must be acknowledged and explained or justified by the prosecution. Otherwise, the integrity and credibility of the corpus delicti are tarnished and the claim that a violation of RA 9165 was committed by the accused becomes questionable. 5 Further, it is only by such strict compliance that the grave mischiefs of planting, switching and contamination of evidence may be eradicated and the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation may be proved. In other words, noncompliance with Section 21 is tantamount to a failure to establish an essential element of the crime; and will therefore engender the acquittal of the accused.
In a plethora of cases, 6 the Court has repeatedly stressed that the presence of all the third-party witnesses at the time of the inventory and photography is mandatory and the law imposes said requirement because the presence of said witnesses will guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame-up." 7 The presence of these disinterested witnesses will insulate "the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." 8
While jurisprudence provides that strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 is not always possible given the wide range of varying field conditions, the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 nonetheless state 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 and custody over said items." Thus, for this saving clause to apply, the prosecution still needs to satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for noncompliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 9
In this case, however, it is clear that two of the three mandatory witnesses — the representatives from the media and the DOJ — were not present in the inventory. Even the RTC and the CA both acknowledge that only a barangay kagawad witnessed the inventory. While the lower courts excused the same simply because the buy-bust operation was conducted around 1:00 a.m., the Court finds the explanation to be insufficient. It is important to emphasize that "[e]arnest effort[s] to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven" 10 in order to reach a conviction in cases involving dangerous drugs.
As the Court en banc unanimously held in the case of People v. Lim, 11
[i]t must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 12 CaSAcH
In People v. Umipang, 13 the Court dealt with the same issue where the police officers involved did not show any genuine effort to secure the attendance of the required witness before the buy-bust operation was executed. In the said case, the Court held:
Indeed, the absence of these representatives during the physical inventory and the marking of the seized items does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. However, we take note that, in this case, the SAID-SOTF did not even attempt to contact the barangay chairperson or any member of the barangay council. There is no indication that they contacted other elected public officials. Neither do the records show whether the police officers tried to get in touch with any DOJ representative. Nor does the SAID-SOTF adduce any justifiable reason for failing to do so — especially considering that it had sufficient time from the moment it received information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest.
Thus, we find that there was no genuine and sufficient effort on the part of the apprehending police officers to look for the said representatives pursuant to Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165. A sheer statement that representatives were unavailable — without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances — is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse. We stress that it is the prosecution who has the positive duty to establish that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, or that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so. 14 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) SaIEcA
The Court emphasizes that while it is laudable that police officers exert earnest efforts in catching drug pushers, they must always do so within the bounds of the law. 15 Without the insulating presence of the representatives from the media and the DOJ during the inventory of the seized items, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence would again rear their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti. Thus, this failure adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.
Moreover, it is equally important to point out that the prosecution evidence in this case is anchored in the testimony of just one of the police officers — the poseur-buyer — involved in the entire operation. The other police officers who testified failed to appear in subsequent hearings and were thus not subjected to cross-examination, unlike the poseur-buyer. Because of this, their testimonies were stricken off the record. The entire chain-of-custody of the drugs was, therefore, hinged on the testimony of the poseur-buyer. His testimony, however, was lacking on the details of the fourth link of the chain-of-custody: where and how the seized items were stored prior to their presentation in court. In addition to the lapses in the first link, i.e., on the conduct of inventory in the presence of the required witnesses, there is thus another break in the chain-of-custody, and that is in the fourth link.
Because of the foregoing noncompliance with Section 21, RA 9165, the Court concludes that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the corpus delicti of the offense. Angeles must perforce be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated November 14, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09142 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner ROSELIO ANGELES, JR. y CABALLERO is ACQUITTED of violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director of New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.
The counsel for petitioner is hereby required to COMPLY with A.M. No. 07-6-5-SC dated July 10, 2007 re: statement of contact details (e.g., telephone number, fax number, cellular phone number or e-mail address) of parties or their counsels in all papers and pleadings filed with the Supreme Court. CcSTHI
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. 61-71 Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi concurring.
2.Id. at 143-152. Penned by Presiding Judge Elvira D.C. Panganiban.
3. Titled 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 June 7, 2002.
4.People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 234151, December 5, 2018, 888 SCRA 604, 618-619.
5.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 901 (2018).
6. See People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749 (2014); People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356 (2017); People v. Calibod, 820 Phil. 1225 (2017); People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385 (2018); Hedreyda v. People, G.R. No. 243313, November 27, 2019, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66031>; People v. Sta. Cruz, G.R. No. 244256, November 25, 2019, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65946>; People v. Arellaga, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66340>; and People v. Casilang, G.R. No. 42159, February 5, 2020, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66075>.
7.People v. Sagana, id. at 373.
8.Id.
9.People v. Ceralde, 815 Phil. 711, 721 (2017).
10. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64400>.
11.Id.
12.Id., citing People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018, 866 SCRA 73.
13. 686 Phil. 1024 (2012).
14.Id. at 1052-1053.
15.People v. Ramos, 791 Phil. 162, 175 (2016).