Castillo y Sandoval v. People

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 249738. April 28, 2021.]

ALONA CASTILLO y SANDOVAL, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 28, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 249738(Alona Castillo y Sandoval, Petitioner, v.People of the Philippines, Respondent). — In this petition for review (petition), petitioner Alona Castillo y Sandoval (petitioner) seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 03 April 2019 and Resolution 2 dated 01 October 2019 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39788 affirming the Judgment dated 13 July 2016 3 rendered by Branch 7, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City.

Antecedents

Petitioner was charged with separate Informations for violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, which read:

Criminal Case No. 17671

That on or about the 27th day of September, 2012, at about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, at #132, Barangay Balayong, Municipality of Bauan, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in her possession, custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu," having a total weight of 0.14 gram, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

Criminal Case No. 17672

That on or about the 27th day of September, 2012, at about 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, at #132 Barangay Balayong, Municipality of Bauan, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-accused, without authority of law, did then and there knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully have in her possession, custody and control four (4) pieces of aluminum foil and one (1) plastic box with disassembled tooter, drug paraphernalia fit or intended to be used for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

The CA summarized the factual and procedural antecedents of this case in the following manner:

Upon arraignment on November 14, 2012, accused-appellant, assisted by a counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not guilty to each of the charges filed against her. After the preliminary conference before the Branch Clerk of Court, Provincial Prosecutor Alexander Sandoval, Atty. Alexanderwerk E. Fabillan and the accused-appellant appeared before the trial court on April 17, 2013 for pre-trial conference and stipulated on the following: 1) That Alona Castillo @ "Jaya" who is now in Court is the same accused in this case — Admitted by the counsel for the accused; (2) That she is a resident of Barangay Balayong, Bauan, Batangas — DENIED by the counsel for the accused; (3) That on September 27, 2012 at 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, her house has been the subject of the search warrant issued by Judge Ruben A. Galvez — DENIED by the counsel for the accused. Also, the prosecution presented documents and marked them in evidence as Exhibits "A" to "M", inclusive. On the other hand, the defense presented no documentary exhibits. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented the testimonies of three (3) members of the PNP, Bauan Municipal Police Station who participated in the apprehension of appellant Alona Castillo y Sandoval @ "Jaya"/"Kid", namely: PO3 Rolan R. Ramos (Ramos), PO3 Josephine M. Magnaye (Magnaye) and PO2 Citas G. Landicho (Landicho). The evidence of the prosecution may be summed up as follows:

On September 27, at around 12:00 noon, while Ramos, Magnaye and Landicho were at the Bauan Municipal Police Station, they were summoned by their Chief Investigator SPO4 Nestor Panganiban and informed them that they are going to serve Search Warrant No. 12-21 issued by Executive Judge Ruben A. Galvez in the house of appellant located at Barangay Balayong, Batangas City. After receiving instruction, PO3 Ma[g]naye, PO3 Ramos, PO2 Landicho and SPO4 Panganiban proceeded to appellant's house. The team arrived at appellant's house around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon. They were accompanied by two barangay officials.

Upon reaching appellant's house, the team introduced themselves as police officers and informed her that they were there, together with the barangay officials, armed with a search warrant to search her house. Appellant did not pose any objection and she accompanied the team to her bedroom. As soon as they reached appellant's bedroom, Magnaye immediately searched appellant's bed. She checked the pillows and opened the pillow cases which had zippers but she found nothing. Thereafter, Magnaye with the assistance of Landicho lifted appellant's bed and, thereupon, Magnaye saw two (2) plastic sachets containing suspected shabu. Also, during the search, Landicho found a disassembled tooter and pieces of aluminum foil inside appellant's room. CAIHTE

After the search, Magnaye immediately marked the seized items in front of the appellant and in the presence of the Barangay officials and the media representative, Mr. Boy Grino. She marked the two (2) plastic sachets with "JMM-1" and "JMM-2" while the pieces of aluminum foil were marked with "JMM-3" to "JMM-7." After the marking and photographing of the seized items, Magnaye kept them. Thereafter, Magnaye prepared the Certificate of Good Conduct Search, and the Receipt of Property Seized, while the Certificate of Inventory was prepared by SPO4 Panganiban.

After the documents were prepared and duly signed, the police officers together with the barangay officials brought appellant to the police station. At the police station, they interviewed appellant and prepared her sworn statement which she signed. PO3 Magnaye, PO3 Ramos and PO2 Landicho likewise executed their "Magkasanib na Sinumpaang Salaysay." After executing said sworn statements, PO3 Magnaye who remained in custody of the seized items prepared the request for physical examination and laboratory examination. Thereafter, they brought appellant to the Bauan General Hospital for physical examination. On even date, PO3 Magnaye personally delivered the Request for Laboratory Examination on the specimens to the Philippine National Police, Batangas Crime Laboratory. The letter request and the specimens were received by SPO3 Agustin, Jr. at 6:35 P.M. The following day, SPO3 Magnaye, SPO3 Ramos and the appellant went to Judge Galvez to submit the return of the search warrant.

Police Superintendent Herminia Carandang Llacuna, (Forensic Chemist), examined the specimens marked "JMM-1" and "JMM-2" and the contents turned positive to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug.

The defense, on the other hand, presented appellant and offered a different version of what transpired on the day of the arrest. Appellant simply denied the version of the prosecution. She claims that on September 27, 2012, at around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, she was in her bedroom at the second floor of her house eating with her son who was still recovering from an injury when three police officers suddenly barged in. The police officers instructed her to go downstairs. She heard one of the police officers say: "Bumagsak din sa kamay natin ang kaibigan ni Rosie, sir." She was referring to Rosita Perez whom she befriended while they were both detained in jail and whom she helped to be released, thus, earning her the ire of the police ("Nakasama ko po siya dati sa kulungan din, tinulungan ko po siyang makalabas sa kaso niya kaya siguro nagalit sa akin and mga pulis, sir.") Appellant followed the instruction of the police officers to go down to the living room. However, she recounted that she noticed that one of the police officers had something inserted in his underarm and was left in her room upstairs. After less than thirty (30) minutes, the police officer came downstairs but that something in his underarm was no longer there.

Appellant asked for the search warrant and requested that the barangay officials be called so that there could be witnesses to the search and the evidence. Her nephew fetched the barangay officials. When the barangay officials arrived, the police officers showed to her the search warrant. Upon showing to her the search warrant, she then allowed the police officers to conduct the search in her house. While the search was taking place, appellant relayed to Chairman Reynante Reyes that one of the police officers had something in her underarm when he entered her bedroom. And after the search, the police officers told her that they found two (2) plastic sachets. Thereafter, she was brought to the police station together with the evidence allegedly seized from her house.

Appellant insists that the evidence allegedly seized from her house had been planted earlier by the police officer with something in his underarm and who was left in her bedroom. She claims that the reason why they did this to her is because when she was arrested the first time, the police officers were not able to extort money from her. Eventually, she was acquitted of the charge for possession of marijuana.

Despite the alleged irregularities in the execution of the search warrant, appellant did not file any case against them for fear of retaliation ("Takot at pangamba baka lalo nila ako pag-initan, sir."). Notably, however, no other witness was presented by the defense to corroborate the testimony of the appellant. 5

Ruling of the RTC

On 13 July 2016, the RTC rendered a decision convicting petitioner of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, but acquitting her of Section 12 of the same law, viz.:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused ALONA CASTILLO y SANDOVAL GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of 0.14 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride in violation of Section 11, Article II or R.A. No. 9165. She is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and to pay a fine of three hundred pesos (P300,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.

On the other hand, Criminal Case No. 17672 for violation of Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 or illegal possession of drug paraphernalia is hereby DISMISSED for absolute lack of evidence.

The two (2) plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride subject-matter of this case are hereby ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Section 21 of the same Act.

In view of the conviction of the accused in Criminal Case No. 17671, let a mittimus be forthwith issued directing the Provincial Jail Warden of the Batangas Provincial Jail to immediately TRANSFER CUSTODY of the accused to the Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila for the service of her sentence.

SO ORDERED.6

The RTC found all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs present in this case. By implementation of a search warrant, petitioner was found to have in her possession two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a total of 0.14 gram of shabu. There was no significant gap in the chain of custody of the seized evidence to cast reasonable doubt that the evidence seized are not the same evidence submitted to the court. Moreover, most of the witnesses required to be present during the marking, taking of photographs and inventory of the evidence were present.

The trial court, however, acquitted petitioner for violation of Section 12, RA 9165 or illegal possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs. There was no chemistry report showing the four (4) pieces of aluminum foil, a common household item, and the bits and pieces of plastic claimed to be a disassembled tooter were subjected to a chemical analysis showing the presence of shabu. 7

Decision of the CA

In the assailed Decision dated 03 April 2019, the CA affirmed the conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 11, RA 9165, thus: aScITE

WHEREFORE, the present appeal is hereby DISMISSED. Consequently, the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Batangas City, in Criminal Case No. 17671 is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.8

The appellate court agreed with the trial court in giving credence to the version of the prosecution especially on the implementation of the search warrant. It also found an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items despite failure of the prosecution to show perfect adherence with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were nonetheless preserved. 9

Issue

The issue raised for this Court's consideration is whether the CA erred in affirming the conviction of petitioner for violation of Section 11, RA 9165.

Ruling of the Court

The petition is meritorious.

For a successful prosecution of an offense for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, RA 9165, the State bears not only the burden of proving the elements of the crime charged, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. The illicit drugs confiscated from the accused comprise the corpus delicti of the charges. Accordingly, the State must present the seized drugs, together with proof that there were no substantial gaps in the chain of custody thereof as to raise doubts about the legitimacy of the evidence presented in court. The State and its agents are therefore mandated to strictly comply with procedures laid down by the law even if they carry out a legally effective buy-bust operation 10 or implement a search warrant over the premises controlled by the accused.

Section 21 of RA 9165 established the procedural safeguards covering the seizure, custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, to wit:

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 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; 11 (Emphasis supplied)

xxx xxx xxx

The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 has reiterated the statutory safeguards, hence:

(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 non-compliance 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; 12 (Emphasis supplied)

The presence of the three (3) witnesses is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Their presence must be secured not only during the inventory of the confiscated drugs but at the time of seizure and confiscation to belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drugs. It is at this time when the presence of the three (3) witnesses is most needed to insulate against the police practices of planting evidence. 13 Moreso in this case where the police had sufficient time to secure the presence of the required witnesses before implementing the search warrant.

PO3 Josephine M. Magnaye (Magnaye) narrated the procedures they followed in the implementation of the search warrant and confiscation of the seized evidence, to wit:

Q When you arrive (sic) in the place of Alona Castillo, what happened next?

A Upon arrival in their home, Alona was there and Florante Reyes was also with us and Salvacion, the barangay officials, ma'am.

Q Aside from [these] officers of Bauan including you when you arrived [at] the place of Alona, Alona was present and two other barangay officials? DETACa

A Yes, ma'am.

Q When you reached the place and saw Alona Castillo, what happened next?

A We talked to her and told her the reason why we were there, ma'am.

Q At the time you talked to Alona Castillo, where exactly was Alona Castillo?

A She was inside her house, ma'am.

Q What did you tell her?

A That we are armed with search warrant to search her home, ma'am.

Q What was Alana's reaction?

A She accompanied us going to her bedroom upstairs, ma' am.

xxx xxx xxx

Q Aside from you and Alona Castillo, who else went to the room of Alona?

A PO3 Roland Ramos, Citas Landicho, Salvacion Castillo, barangay officials and Barangay Captain Florante Reyes.

Q When you reached the room of Alona Castillo, what happened next?

A We conducted our search in her bedroom, ma'am. 14 (Emphasis supplied)

As can be gleaned from the above testimony, the marking, inventory and photograph-taking of the seized evidence were done without the witnesses required by the law. To be specific, the seizure of the illicit drugs was done without a media representative and the Department of Justice (DOJ) representative. Further, the established facts reveal only two (2) of the required witnesses — an elected public official and a media representative — were present during the marking, inventory and photograph-taking. While there were two (2) barangay officials present during the seizure and subsequent marking, inventory and photograph-taking, this does not substitute nor satisfy the clear letter of the law.

Further, even the DOJ and the Philippine National Police (PNP) recognize that the requirements under Sec. 21 of RA 9165, including the presence of the required witnesses, must be applied in both confiscation of seized drugs in the implementation of a search warrant or a buy-bust operation. The 2011 PNP Criminal Investigation Manual states: 15

5.2.3. INVESTIGATION OF CASES INVOLVING PLANNED [OPERATIONS]

a. Buy-Bust Operation

xxx xxx xxx

3. The following shall be strictly observed by the Arresting Officers/Investigator-on-Case during the conduct of Buy-Bust Operations:

a) Arrested person shall be informed of the nature of his arrest and be apprised of his constitutional rights (Miranda Doctrine);

b) The dangerous drugs, CPECs, paraphernalia and equipment as the case may be, shall be immediately seized and taken into custody of the apprehending team;

c) The seizing officer shall, as far as practicable, conduct the actual physical inventory, take photographs and properly mark the items or articles seized or confiscated in the place of seizure and in the presence of the arrested person/or his counsel or representative and representatives from the Department of Justice, MEDIA and any elected government officials who shall be required to sign on the inventory and given each a copy thereof. (Observed the rule on chain of custody and DOJ Department Circular No. 3 in compliance with Prescribed Procedures on the Seizure and Custody of Dangerous Drugs.)

NOTE: DOJ Department Circular No. 3 paragraphs 2 and 3 stated that:

xxx xxx xxx

Paragraph 2. All anti-drug operations require physical inventory and photography of seized and confiscated drugs. — The mandatory nature of the requirements under Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR does not distinguish between warrantless seizures and those made by virtue of a warrant. The difference merely lies in the venues of the physical inventory and photography of the seized items. Thus:

xxx xxx xxx

k) Search and Seizure by Virtue of Warrant

The following rules and procedures shall govern the responsibility of anti-drug units in the application and implementation of a Search Warrant (SW).

(a) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel;

(b) a representative from the media;

(c) a representative from the Department of Justice (must be Prosecutor); and

(d) any elected public official who shall sign, and shall be given copies of the inventory. (Emphasis in the original) 16

The Court recognizes there is a saving clause in Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 allowing non-compliance with the required procedure but only for justifiable grounds and as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must first recognize any lapses on the part of the apprehending officers and thereafter explain the cited justifiable grounds. The justifiable explanation must also be credible. Thereafter, the prosecution must show all the links in the chain of custody. Hence, to successfully trigger the saving clause, the prosecution must satisfy its two-pronged requirement: first, acknowledge and credibly justify the non-compliance, and second, show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were properly preserved. 17

Here, the prosecution neither acknowledged the lapses of the police officers nor offered any credible and justifiable ground for their failure to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165. What further militates against the prosecution's case is the fact that petitioner was apprehended pursuant to a search warrant thereby bearing a presumption on the sufficiency of the police officers' preparedness to conduct the operation. In other words, they had every opportunity to secure the presence of all the insulating witnesses in compliance with Section 21.

It also bears stressing the amount of seized drugs in this case is but a meager 0.14 gram of shabu. Courts are expected to employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving minuscule amounts of drugs as the can be easily compromised. If initially there were already significant lapses on the marking, inventory and photographing of the alleged seized items, a doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti concomitantly exists. 18 Breaches of the procedure contained in Section 21, RA 9165 left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity of the corpus delicti would have been compromised. 19

WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 03 April 2019 and Resolution dated 01 October 2019 promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39788 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Alona Castillo y Sandoval is ACQUITTED of the crime charged and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED unless she is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.

The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action taken pursuant to this Resolution. HEITAD

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. 35-47; penned by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and concurred in by Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.

2.Id. at 49-50.

3.Id. at 77-97; penned by Presiding Judge Aida C. Santos.

4.Id. at 36, 77-78.

5.Id. at 36-40.

6.Id. at 96-97.

7.Id. at 88-96.

8.Id. at 46.

9.Id. at 41-46.

10.People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 234273, 18 September 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].

11. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Republic Act No. 9165, 07 June 2002.

12. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, IRR of RA 9165, 30 August 2002.

13.People v. Adobar, G.R. No. 222559, 06 June 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].

14.Rollo, pp. 42-43.

15. See Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, 19 February 2020 [Per J. Gesmundo].

16.Id.

17.Supra at note 13.

18.Id.

19.People v. Peromingan, G.R. No. 218401, 24 September 2018 [Per J. Bersamin].