THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239652. September 30, 2020.]
RONALD BRIMUELA y ORIANA, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 30, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239652 (Ronald Brimuela y Oriana, Petitioner, v.People of the Philippines, Respondent). — Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 by petitioner Ronald Brimuela y Oriana (Brimuela) assailing the Decision 2 rendered by the Court of Appeal (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39603 promulgated on 14 February 2018, affirming his conviction for violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as pronounced in the Decision rendered on 25 January 2017 by Branch 65, Regional Trial Court of Makati City in Criminal Case No. R-MKT-16-02660-CR. 3
Antecedents
An Information was filed against Brimuela charging him of illegal possession of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), punishable under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. 4 Petitioner was indicted thusly:
On the 27th day of October 2016, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not being authorized by law to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and control one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero three (0.03) gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug. caITAC
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
During his arraignment, Brimuela pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thus, trial on the merits ensued. 6
The prosecution's version of the facts starts in the early morning of 27 October 2016 when PO1 Marcos Berog (PO1 Berog) and PO1 Christian Quimbo (PO1 Quimbo), while on roving patrol duty, chanced upon Brimuela who was then standing under a street lamp post. PO1 Berog and PO1 Quimbo allegedly approached Brimuela because he was acting suspicious and was holding a plastic sachet containing what appeared to be a white crystalline substance. When Brimuela noticed the presence of the police officers, he allegedly said, "Sir, panggamit ko lang po ito, pasensya na po." Brimuela was then placed under arrest, and the confiscated sachet was marked "BQ." 7
Brimuela was then brought to the nearest barangay hall where the seized contraband was inventoried and photographed in the presence of Barangay Captain Jaime T. Duallo. PO1 Berog and PO1 Quimbo then proceeded to police station where a request for laboratory examination of the confiscated substance was made. PO1 Berog, who was allegedly in possession of the confiscated substance up to that time, turned it over to the forensic chemist. After qualitative examination of the subject specimen, the same was found to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.03 grams. The prosecution alleged that the confiscated drug was the same sample they brought to the court during trial. 8
Meanwhile, Brimuela denied that he was ever in possession of the seized drug. He testified that in the evening of 27 October 2016, he and his wife were inside a parked vehicle when men in plain clothes approached them and asked about the location of a suspected drug pusher named "Sonny." When Brimuela answered that he did not know who they were looking for, the men arrested him instantly. During his cross-examination, Brimuela testified that he did not know the police officers who arrested him and only came to know during trial. He also denied having any grudge with the police officers who arrested him. 9
Ruling of the RTC
As mentioned, the trial court found Brimuela guilty as charged. The dispositive portion of the RTC's judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds the accused, Ronald Brimuela y Oriana, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11 of Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00).
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the plastic sachet containing shabu subject matter of this case to the PDEA for said agency's appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED. 10
The RTC ruled that the testimony of the prosecution's witness that a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, which later on turned out to be shabu, was recovered from Brimuela, coupled with the fact that he did not have any license or prescription to possess the same, established Brimuela's animus possidendi or his free and conscious intention to possess or control a prohibited drug. Moreover, the corpus delicti was proved by the prosecution.
According to the trial court, the drug presented during trial was the same drug recovered from Brimuela considering that the prosecution's evidence were able to establish an unbroken link: from Brimuela, to the arresting officer, to the forensic chemist, then to the court. 11 Finally, the RTC brushed aside the observed failure of the arresting officers to secure representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) and held the same as non-fatal to the prosecution's case. The RTC opines that the police officer's omission could be excused so long as the evidentiary value of the seized drug is preserved. 12 Brimuela appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals. ICHDca
Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed Brimuela's conviction, disposing his appeal in this wise:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed Decision is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 13
In sustaining the RTC's ruling, appellate court reasoned:
1) Brimuela's first time challenge against the legality of his arrest could not be entertained on appeal. The same should have been raised before entering his plea; 14
2) The seized drug is admissible in evidence because the same was recovered during his in flagrante delicto arrest; 15
3) The fact that the arresting officers were not in their uniforms or that the arrest was made after their tour of duty does render said arrest illegal; 16
4) Failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 was not fatal to the prosecution's case so long as the evidentiary value of the seized sample is intact. Moreover, prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody; and,
5) The elements of the crime charged were proven by the prosecution and could not be defeated by Brimuela's unsubstantiated defense of denial and frame-up.
When the CA denied his motion for reconsideration, Brimuela filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari to challenge his conviction.
Issue
The Court is confronted with the task of determining whether or not Brimuela was correctly convicted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Brimuela maintains his innocence by highlighting the police officers' failure to observe Section 21 of RA 9165, specifically their failure to secure the presence of media and DOJ representatives to witness the inventory and photograph-taking of the seized drug, coupled with the prosecution's failure to provide justifiable excuses to explain the lapses. 17
Ruling of the Court
The petition is meritorious.
While the general rule says that factual issues are outside the ambit of a petition for review, an exception could be made when the trial court misconstrued facts and circumstances of substance which if considered would alter the outcome of the case. 18 We find that the trial court, and the CA as well, made a glaring misapprehension of facts, warranting the Court's review of the controversy at hand.
In prosecutions of violation of RA 9165, it is imperative to establish that the drugs seized at the time of arrest, or the corpus delicti, was the same body of evidence presented in court. The State is under strict obligation to establish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drugs by showing that the drugs offered in court as evidence were the same substance recovered from the accused. This requirement is satisfied when the chain of custody mechanism provided under RA 9165, which objective is to remove unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence, 19 are faithfully complied with. The rules on establishing chain of custody is now a mandatory policy. 20 Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, provides:
SEC. 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: TCAScE
(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 person/s 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. x x x (Emphasis supplied)
It is readily apparent that under the present law, the conduct of physical inventory and photographing of the seized drug must be done in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and, (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. Here, it is undisputed that only a barangay official was present when the seized drug was inventoried and photographed. 21 Another violation was committed by the arresting officers when the inventory and photograph-taking was conducted in a barangay hall instead of the nearest police station. 22
Even more damning is the prosecution's failure to give an explanation on why the above-quoted witness requirement was not observed. We have repeatedly held it is the prosecution's duty to give adequate justification for the arresting officers' non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of RA 9165. 23 Moreover, the explanation must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence, and it is not enough that the apprehending officers simply mention a justifiable ground, they must also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. 24
There is nothing on record to show that the arresting officers made any attempt to explain the lapses they committed. Worse, the CA tried to justify the arresting officers' mistake by suggesting that the unavailability of the required witnesses could be explained by the fact that the arrest was made at such an odd hour. 25 Courts should always be reminded not to engage in speculation or estimation of what the prosecution's reasons might be just to sustain a conviction.
We urge our law enforcers to observe Section 21 of RA 9165 to the letter. The Court will not tolerate non-compliance especially when the subject specimen is of minuscule quantity where the probability of planting, tampering, or contaminating evidence is amplified. 26
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39603, affirming the Decision rendered on 25 January 2017 by Branch 65, Regional Trial Court of Makati City, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, petitioner Ronald Brimuela y Oriana is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to CAUSE the IMMEDIATE RELEASE of petitioner Ronald Brimuela y Oriana unless the latter is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately. cTDaEH
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to report to this Court within five (5) working days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-25.
2.Id. at 30-41; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario, (now a Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Ronaldo B. Martin of the Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 69-73, penned by Judge Edgardo M. Caldona.
4. SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof: x x x
5.Rollo, pp. 30-31.
6.Id. at 31.
7.Id. at 31-32.
8.Id. at 32-33.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 73.
11.Id. at 71-72.
12.Id. at 72-73.
13.Id. at 40.
14.Id. at 34.
15.Id. at 35.
16.Id. at 36.
17.Id. at 17-23.
18.Santiago Lighterage Corporation v. Chest of Appeals, 476 Phil. 579 (2004); G.R. No. 139629, 21 June 2004 [Per J. Carpio].
19.People v. Angngao, 755 Phil. 597 (2015); G.R. No. 189296, 11 March 2015 [Per J. Bersamin].
20.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, 04 September 2018 [Per J. Peralta].
21.Id.
22.Id.
23.People v. Roales, G.R. No. 233656, 02 October 2019 [Per J. Carpio].
24.People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, 11 June 2018 [Per J. Peralta].
25.Rollo, p. 38.
26.Veriño v. People, G.R. No. 225710, 19 June 2019 [Per J. Leonen].