Arbuis y Comprado v. People

SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 195079. July 14, 2021.]

DENNIS ARBUIS y COMPRADO, petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 14, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 195079 (Dennis Arbuis y Comprado v. People of the Philippines). — This Court resolves a motion for reconsideration assailing the Resolution 1 dated February 5, 2020, rendered by the Court which affirmed the Decision 2 dated September 30, 2010 and the Resolution 3 dated December 9, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 32517 convicting Dennis Arbuis y Comprado (petitioner) of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

Facts of the Case

In an Information dated June 20, 2003, petitioner was charged with violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 or the illegal possession of dangerous drugs weighing 0.29 gram. The accusatory portion of which, reads:

That on or about 12:00 noon of June 19, 2003, in the City of Naga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession, custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "RMM" containing 0.29 [gram] of white crystalline substance, tested and found out to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride popularly known as shabu, which is a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

When arraigned, petitioner, assisted by his counsel, pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, pre-trial and trial then ensued. 5

The prosecution presented Police Officer III Rodel Maravilla (PO3 Maravilla), Police Office III Edmundo Sto. Domingo (PO3 Sto. Domingo), Police Officer 3 Feliciano Aguilar, Jr. (PO3 Aguilar) and Police Inspector Cirox Omero (PInsp. Omero) as witnesses. Their testimonies are summarized as follows:

In the morning of June 19, 2003, PO3 Maravilla, PO3 Sto. Domingo, and PO3 Aguilar were among the 22 personnel of the Naga City Police Station who were briefed to implement four search warrants, particularly Search Warrants Nos. 2003-021, 2003-022, 2003-023, and 2003-024. These search warrants were issued by the trial court against persons believed to be in possession of sizeable quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, either in their persons or inside their respective residences. Search Warrant No. 2003-22 was specifically issued against petitioner. The three police officers were accompanied by a civilian volunteer, Jorge Martin (Martin), in implementing the search warrant. 6 The group arrived at the residence of petitioner at about 12:00 noon of the same day and saw petitioner in the sala with his girlfriend, Melissa Jose (Melissa), and his younger brother. The group introduced themselves as police officers and informed petitioner of the contents of the search warrants. 7 In order to facilitate the search easily, the police officers encouraged petitioner to voluntarily turn over any shabu in his possession. Petitioner hesitated but later acceded to the request, went to his room, and took a plastic sachet containing shabu from a torn wallpaper. He surrendered the same to PO3 Maravilla in the presence of Melissa, Barangay Tanod Rodolfo Narciso (Barangay Tanod Narciso), and the younger brother of petitioner. The group conducted further search of the house which yielded shabu paraphernalia including a disposable lighter and several aluminum foil. 8

The shabu surrendered by petitioner was turned over by PO3 Maravilla to PO3 Sto. Domingo, who placed the same on top of the table for marking and inventory. For identification of the shabu, PO3 Maravilla placed his initials "RMM" in the plastic and prepared a Receipt for Property Seized and a Certification thereof which was signed by Narciso, Melissa, Police Officer III Roderick Balce (PO3 Balce), and Martin. Petitioner himself signed the certification. PO3 Sto. Domingo also took photographs of the marking and inventory of shabu. 9

PO3 Maravilla took the shabu and together with PO3 Aguilar, prepared a return to the trial court which issued the search warrant. They also simultaneously filed a motion to withdraw the seized shabu for submission to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for examination. The trial court granted the motion to withdraw, thus, PO3 Maravilla and PO3 Aguilar turned over the shabu to the investigator handling the case, Police Officer 2 Joey Corre (PO2 Corre). At around 4:00 p.m. of the same day, Inspector Rosemarie Pineda (Insp. Pineda) received the shabu from PO2 Corre. The specimen was later indorsed to P/Insp. Omero who conducted the laboratory examination. The examination showed that the plastic sachet containing 0.29 gram of white crystalline substance was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. P/Insp. Omero explained that the discrepancy in the weight as indicated in the request for laboratory examination (0.6 gram) was probably because the latter was just an approximation made by the requesting party. 10

Petitioner, on the other hand, denied the charge against him and insisted that he did not voluntarily surrender the shabu to the police officers. According to him, after being informed of the contents of the search warrant, he saw PO3 Sto. Domingo enter his room together with Martin. PO3 Sto. Domingo and Martin allegedly conducted a search thereat without his presence. He also claimed that Barangay Tanod Narciso only arrived at the place of search about an hour after the actual search of his residence. 11

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

On January 20, 2009, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) convicted petitioner of violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 and sentenced him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from 12 years and 1 day as minimum, to 13 years as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. 12 The RTC discussed that the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs — namely: (1) that the accused is in possession of the dangerous drugs; (2) that such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drugs — were all present in the case. 13

The first element was proven by petitioner's surrender of the shabu to the police officers after some persuasion. The said claim was supported by the Receipt for Property Seized signed by Barangay Tanod Narciso and Melissa. The RTC noted that Melissa, who testified for petitioner, never disputed such fact despite having the chance to do so. 14 The second element was likewise established since petitioner has not shown any authority to possess the dangerous drugs. The third element was also present because at the time of the service of the search warrant, petitioner was already in possession of the shabu. 15

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

Aggrieved, petitioner elevated the case to the CA. The CA affirmed petitioner's conviction through its Decision 16 dated September 30, 2010 and Resolution 17 dated December 9, 2010. The CA agreed with how the RTC found the testimonies of prosecution witnesses to be more credible than the mere denial and alibi professed by petitioner. 18 Anent the allegation by petitioner that the evidence must be excluded because he was not informed of his rights when he surrendered the shabu, the CA held that petitioner's rights were not violated because he was not coerced, intimidated, or forced into surrendering the shabu. 19 The CA also reiterated that the prosecution has sufficiently established the unbroken chain of custody from the time of the dangerous drugs' seizure; to its turn-over to the investigating officer, PO2 Corre, who forwarded it to the crime laboratory for examination; and to the examination of the dangerous drugs by P/Insp. Omero. The non-presentation of PO2 Corre as witness by the prosecution did not affect the ruling because the unbroken chain of custody was adequately established. 20

Undaunted, petitioner filed his Petition for Review on Certiorari21 reiterating the issue of inadmissibility of the seized dangerous drugs and the failure to sufficiently establish the chain of custody. 22 The Office of the Solicitor General filed a Comment 23 on October 19, 2011, arguing that the RTC and the CA did not err in concluding that all the elements of the crime are present in this case. 24

On February 5, 2020, the Court rendered its Resolution 25 adopting the findings of the RTC and CA and affirming the conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 beyond reasonable doubt. 26

Undaunted, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. 27

Ruling of the Court

After a second hard look at the facts of the case, the Court grants the motion for reconsideration.

In both illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs, conviction cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt on the identity of the drug. The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty. Apart from showing that the elements of possession or sale are present, the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict. 28 In order to establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, there must be observance of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9156.

In People v. Tumabini, 29 the Court ruled that Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 applies whether the drugs were seized either in a buy-bust operation or pursuant to a search warrant. In this case, the drugs were seized from petitioner through a search warrant. Since the search was conducted prior to the amendment of R.A. No. 9165, the apprehending team is mandated, immediately after seizure and confiscation of the dangerous drugs, to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items 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: (1) a representative from the media; (2) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (3) any elected public official. 30

However, here, the seized drugs were inventoried and photographed only in the presence of petitioner and Barangay Tanod Narciso who is not an elected public official. There was no one from the media, from the DOJ, and not even an elected public official.

The Court has explained in a number of cases that the presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Without the insulating presence of these witnesses, the evils of switching, planting or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted will negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the drug that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affect the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. 31

Additionally, the Court already held that the presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest because it is at this point in which their presence is most needed. Their attendance at the time of seizure and confiscation would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. 32 Since the same doctrine is applied in search and seizure by virtue of search warrants, the presence of the two or three required witnesses should be at the time of the implementation of the search warrant and not merely during the inventory of the seized dangerous drugs.

If the presence of the insulating witnesses and compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 are strictly enforced in buy-bust operations, this should all the more be required in the search and arrest of persons in possession of dangerous drugs by virtue of a search warrant. The reason for this is that, in implementing the search warrant, the police officers are better prepared and have more time in making sure that the requirements of Section 21 are complied with. Hence, in this case, the absence of the required witnesses during the implementation of the search warrant is fatal to the prosecution's case.

The glaring non-compliance of the provisions of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 rendered the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items to be highly compromised, consequently warranting petitioner's acquittal.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The Resolution dated February 5, 2020 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Dennis Arbuis y Comprado is ACQUITTED of the crime charged against him and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken five (5) days from notice. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 171-175.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Michael P. Elbinaias; id. at 38-52.

3. Id. at 66-68.

4. Id. at 53.

5. Id.

6. Id. at 54.

7. Id. at 54-55.

8. Id. at 55.

9. Id.

10. Id. at 56.

11. Id. at 57-58.

12. Id. at 63.

13. Id. at 58.

14. Id. at 60.

15. Id. at 61-62.

16. Supra note 2.

17. Supra note 3.

18. Rollo, p. 46.

19. Id. at 48.

20. Id. at 50-51.

21. Id. at 10-32.

22. Id. at 21-22.

23. Id. at 154-164.

24. Id. at 159.

25. Id. at 171-175.

26. Id. at 174-175.

27. Id. at 176-183.

28. People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816, 830 (2014).

29. G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.

30. Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165.

31. People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).

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