THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 230522. February 20, 2019.]
REMEDIOS IGNACIO y REYES, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 20, 2019, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 230522 (Remedios Ignacio y Reyes vs. People of the Philippines). — This is a petition for review on certiorari1 seeking to set aside the October 21, 2016 Decision 2 and March 8, 2017 Resolution 3 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37388, which affirmed the December 1, 2014 Joint Decision 4 of Branch 88 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cavite City in Criminal Case Nos. 13-11 and 14-11, finding Remedios R. Ignacio (petitioner) guilty of violating Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
The Antecedent Facts
On January 6, 2011, Police Inspector Jonathan Estrada (P/Insp. Estrada) of the Cavite Component City Police Station applied for a search warrant against the petitioner before Branch 88 of the Cavite City RTC. After examining the applicant and his witnesses under oath, Judge Agapito Lu was satisfied that there existed probable cause to believe that the petitioner kept an undetermined amount of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) at her Bagong Purok, Caridad residence. The judge, consequently, issued Search Warrant No. 01-2011. 5
On even date, the law enforcement units of the Cavite Component City Police Station planned an operation to implement the search warrant. They formed a team led by P/Insp. Estrada and composed of Police Officer 2 Ryjan De Guzman (PO2 De Guzman), PO2 Portacio, PO2 Sto. Domingo, PO2 Nabos, PO2 Crisostomo, PO2 Monzon, and PO1 Genuino. PO2 De Guzman was designated to act as the searcher, PO2 Portacio was designated as photographer and recorder, and the rest were to serve as perimeter back-up. 6
At around 9 o'clock in the evening of the same day, the team proceeded to the petitioner's residence in Barangay 36, Bagong Purok, Caridad, Cavite City to implement the warrant. Upon arriving thereat, they called her to come outside and informed her that they would be searching her house for contraband. PO2 Portacio then showed her a copy of the search warrant and asked her to sign the same, but she refused. Subsequently, the police team asked the occupants of the house, Vivian Lomat and three (3) minors, to step outside. 7 CAIHTE
The police officers then began conducting the search. After the arrival of a representative from the media and a barangay official, the team searched the first floor of the petitioner's house. The search, however, yielded nothing. As a result, a group composed of PO2 De Guzman, PO2 Portacio, the media representative, and the barangay official searched the second floor of the house. They were accompanied by the petitioner. Notably, the group found a Mercury Drug plastic bag behind a TV rack in the master's bedroom. It contained four (4) transparent plastic sachets, all holding a white crystalline substance. PO2 de Guzman marked the plastic bag with the letters "RIR," while the sachets were marked as "RIR 1" to "RIR 4." In the same room, the group found a red pouch. PO2 De Guzman opened it and found thirteen (13) more plastic sachets also containing a white crystalline substance, ten (10) plastic sachets, each with two (2) rolled up pieces of aluminum foil, and a pack of smaller plastic sachets. PO2 De Guzman likewise marked the red pouch and its contents. Finally, before the police team left, PO2 Portacio inventoried the evidence seized from the house. 8
The petitioner, however, has a different account of the police team's conduct of the search. According to her, at around 9 o'clock in the evening of January 6, 2011, she was being massaged by her friend, Vivian, when a team of eight (8) policemen suddenly entered her house, declaring that they had a search warrant. Nevertheless, despite her repeated demands, the police operatives refused to show her the warrant and instead simply told her to keep quiet. Later, three policemen proceeded to the second floor of the house while the petitioner remained downstairs. There they found her husband, Federico Hernandez, and ordered him to sit beside the petitioner, who was still on the ground floor. The three policemen then continued searching the second floor for about an hour. After the search, the petitioner was asked to accompany the team to the police station. Thereat, she was informed that she was caught selling drugs and, as a consequence, she was placed inside a detention cell. 9
After the petitioner was detained, PO2 Sto. Domingo prepared a Request for Drug Test and Drug Examination. Once he accomplished the request, PO2 De Guzman and PO2 Portacio brought the items seized from the police station to the Cavite Provincial Crime Laboratory, where the said items were chemically tested. The laboratory tests revealed that the confiscated plastic sachets contained shabu, a dangerous drug. 10
Consequently, the Cavite City prosecutor filed two (2) Informations, charging the petitioner with violations of Sections 11 and 12 of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. The accusatory portions of the Informations read:
Criminal Case No. 13-11
That on [or] about January 6, 2011, in the City of Cavite, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [petitioner], without legal authority, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in her possession and control seventeen (17) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a total net weights [sic] of 1.19 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as "shabu," a dangerous drugs [sic]. DETACa
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 14-11
That on or about January 6, 2011 in the City of Cavite, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the [petitioner], without legal authority, did, then and there, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in her possession and control ten (10) plastic sachets with 2 pieces of rolled up aluminum foil in each sachet used for sniffing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as "shabu" residue, a dangerous drugs [sic].
CONTRARY TO LAW.
The petitioner was thereafter arraigned and pleaded not guilty to both charges. 11
After the trial, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision, finding the petitioner guilty of violating Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, but acquitting her of the Section 12 charge. To the trial court, the testimony of PO2 De Guzman, the sole prosecution witness, deserved more credence than the petitioner's. The trial court accorded the law enforcer's testimony, which was held to be straightforward, consistent, and free from any serious contradiction, with the presumption of regularity. 12 On the other hand, the petitioner's defense of denial was held to be merely self-serving. As such, it could not be given greater weight than the declarations of a credible police witness who testified on affirmative matters. 13 However, as regards the confiscated drug paraphernalia, the trial court held the same to be inadmissible in evidence because the search warrant issued against the petitioner stated that only an "undetermined quantity of illegal drugs (shabu)" could be seized from her house. Moreover, the warrant was issued only for one specific offense — a violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165. Therefore, the seizure of the drug paraphernalia, possession of which is punished under Sec. 12 of the same law, was held to be violative of the rule of particularity of the things seized. 14 The RTC disposed of the case, thus:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 13-11[,] this Court finds accused Remedios Ignacio y Reyes Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating subparagraph (3), paragraph 2, Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for keeping in her possession 1.19 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or [shabu] and hereby sentences her to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and One (1) day[,] as minimum[,] to Fifteen (15) years[,] as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
Accused Remedios Ignacio y Reyes is hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 14-11 for lack of evidence against her.
The illegal drug subject of this case is hereby forfeited in favor of the government and ordered turned over to the Dangerous Drugs Board for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 15
Aggrieved, the petitioner elevated her conviction to the CA, which found no merit in the appeal. On PO2 De Guzman's testimony, the appellate court agreed with the RTC and held that the same was more credible than that of the petitioner. Moreover, the CA ruled that the search warrant's implementation was proper, as the petitioner allowed the officers to search her house in her presence. 16 Lastly, it was ruled that the prosecution had successfully established all the elements of the crime charged 17 and substantially complied with the chain of custody rule. 18 The dispositive portion of the assailed CA decision reads: aDSIHc
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant Appeal is hereby DENIED. The Joint Decision dated December 1, 2014 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 88 of Cavite City in Criminal Case Nos. 13-11 and 14-11 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 19
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration only to be denied by the CA in the assailed resolution.
Hence, the instant petition.
In her appeal, the petitioner challenged the police team's implementation of the search warrant. In imputing irregularity thereto, she stated that she was made to stay at the ground floor of her house, while the police officers searched the second floor. Citing Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which provides that the search of any premises must be made in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof, she argued that the evidence seized from the master's bedroom was inadmissible because the police team did not implement the warrant properly. 20
The Issue
Whether or not the search of the master's bedroom was valid. 21
The Court's Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit.
As stated above, the petitioner's arguments draw strength from Section 8 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made in presence of two witnesses. — No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
As correctly pointed out by the petitioner, the above provision imposes a mandatory requirement on law enforcers who search any premises, whether armed with a warrant or not. Departing from the rule by preventing the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his or her family from witnessing the search "violates the spirit and letter of the law, and thus, taints the search with the vice of unreasonableness, rendering the seized articles inadmissible due to the application of the exclusionary rule." 22
In People v. Go, 23 the Court handed down a verdict of acquittal because the police officers who searched the upper floor of the accused's house did so while he was away therefrom and while his son was handcuffed to a chair on the ground floor. Thus, none of the premises' lawful occupants were able to witness the search. Even though the searching team was accompanied by barangay officials, the Court acquitted the accused because of the irregular manner in which the search was conducted, thus:
As pointed out earlier, the members of the raiding team categorically admitted that the search of the upper floor, which allegedly resulted in the recovery of the plastic bag containing the shabu, did not take place in the presence of either the lawful occupant of the premises, i.e., appellant (who was out), or his son Jack Go (who was handcuffed to a chair on the ground floor). Such a procedure, whereby the witnesses prescribed by law are prevented from actually observing and monitoring the search of the premises, violates both the spirit and letter of the law[.] ETHIDa
xxx xxx xxx
That the raiding party summoned two barangay kagawads to witness the search at the second floor is of no moment. The Rules of Court clearly and explicitly establishes a hierarchy among the witnesses in whose presence the search of the premises must be conducted. Thus, Section 8, Rule 126 provides that the search should be witnessed by two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality only in the absence of either the lawful occupant of the premises or any member of his family. Thus, the search of appellants residence clearly should have been witnessed by his son Jack Go who was present at the time. The police officers were without discretion to substitute their choice of witnesses for those prescribed by the law.
xxx xxx xxx
The raiding teams departure from the procedure mandated by Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, taken together with the numerous other irregularities attending the search of appellants residence, tainted the search with the vice of unreasonableness, thus compelling this Court to apply the exclusionary rule and declare the seized articles inadmissible in evidence. This must necessarily be so since it is this Courts solemn duty to be ever watchful for the constitutional rights of the people, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. In the oft-quoted language of Judge Learned Hand:
As we understand it, the reason for the exclusion of evidence competent as such, which has been unlawfully acquired, is that exclusion is the only practical way of enforcing the constitutional privilege. In earlier times the action of trespass against the offending official may have been protection enough; but that is true no longer. Only in case the prosecution which itself controls the seizing officials, knows that it cannot profit by their wrong, will that wrong be repressed. 24 (Emphasis and citations omitted)
Similarly, the Court acquitted the accused in People v. Del Castillo25 because the police officers who searched her house told the occupants thereof to sit in the sala while the search was being conducted. In the same manner as the Go search, the members of the police team were accompanied by barangay officials. Nevertheless, the search was held to be irregular, thus:
Clearly, the search of the house must be done in the presence of the lawful occupants and it is only in the absence of the former that two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality may be called upon to witness the search. While appellant and the other occupants of the house were present during the search, they were not allowed to actually witness the search of the premises. They were in the words of the policemen pressed, i.e., they were asked to stay put in the sala where they were seated while the simultaneous search was on-going in the upper and lower portions of the house. They should be the ones that should have accompanied the policemen while the search was being done and not substituted by the barangay tanods in their stead. 26
Hence, it has been held that a search conducted by members of a raiding team who are free to roam around the raided premises unaccompanied by any witnesses is highly irregular, and thus, any evidence obtained therefrom is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. 27
From the foregoing, therefore, the petitioner's acquittal may seem in order. However, her assertion that she and the other occupants of her house were prevented from witnessing the search was belied by the testimony of PO2 De Guzman, who clearly stated that the petitioner accompanied the police officers while they were searching the second floor, thus: cSEDTC
PROS. ALBERTO:
How many of you went to the second floor?
PO2 DE GUZMAN:
There were five of us, Ma'am.
Q: Who are these five persons, Mr. Witness?
A: Remedios Ignacio, the accused, I, PO2 [De] Guzman, PO2 Portacio, Media Representative Reynaldo Morales, and Brgy. Tanod Ernesto Santos, Ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You said there were three rooms, what room did you first search at the second floor?
A: The master's bedroom, Ma'am.
Q: How did you know that this is the master's bedroom?
A: The bed of the husband and wife was there, as well as the picture, Ma'am.
Q: Where was Remedios Ignacio when you searched the master's bedroom?
A: She was beside us, Ma'am.
Q: At the master's bedroom, what happened when you conducted the search there?
A: When I was already starting the search, I, together with the witnesses there, was able to see the Mercury Drug plastic bag at the back of a T.V. rack.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And what did you do when you saw this Mercury Drug plastic bag?
A: I opened it and I saw that it contained four pieces of transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substances.
Q: When you opened this plastic bag, who were present?
A: The five of us, Ma'am.
Q: Including the accused?
A: Including the accused, Ma'am.
Q: After discovering that this plastic bag contained four pieces of transparent plastic sachet which contained white crystalline substance, what did you do with these items?
A: I marked the Mercury Drug plastic bag with letters "RIR."
Q: What about the contents of this Mercury Drug plastic bag, what did you do?
A: I marked them respectively with "RIR-1" to "RIR-4."
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And where were you when you placed the markings on these items, Mr. Witness?
A: There inside the master's bedroom, Ma'am.
Q: In the presence of?
A: In the presence of witnesses, Ma'am.
Q: What about the accused?
A: She was also there, Ma'am.
Q: Did you recover anything else aside from the Mercury Drug plastic bag?
A: Yes, Ma'am, we also recovered a red pouch with zipper attached to the wall along the altar.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: After searching the second floor, what did you do next?
A: PO2 Portacio informed Remedios Ignacio that she was being arrested for violating the law as regards illegal drugs and then the inventory was made, Ma'am. 28 (Emphasis supplied)
The petitioner argued that the courts a quo erred in giving credence to PO2 De Guzman's uncorroborated testimony. She maintained that since the prosecution failed to present any of the other members of the search team, there are doubts that the search warrant was properly implemented and that anything was in fact seized during the search. 29 SDAaTC
The contention deserves scant consideration.
To begin with, as correctly ruled by the CA, PO2 De Guzman's testimony was direct, consistent, and detailed. Hence, it deserved more credence than the petitioner's self-serving denial. In his testimony, the police officer perspicuously described in detail the manner by which the raiding team implemented the search warrant, from the time they arrived at the petitioner's house to the time they inventoried the seized items and detained the petitioner at the police station. His categorical testimony, as pointed out by the trial court, was free from any serious contradiction, and therefore, had to be accorded great weight and respect.
Moreover, the police team's conduct of the search enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties. 30 Where the officers who conducted the search were not motivated by any ill motive or where they did not perform their duties irregularly, their testimonies on the operation deserve full faith and credit. 31 In this regard, the petitioner herself admitted that no improper motive attended the search, thus:
COURT:
You are charged before this Court with possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia, do you know that?
IGNACIO:
Yes, your Honor.
Q: Are the accusations against you true?
A: No, your Honor.
Q: If they are not true then the policemen must be lying against you?
A: It could be, your Honor.
Q: Do you know the reason why these Police Officers will fabricate false charges against you?
A: I do not know of any reason, your Honor.
Q: Before you were arrested on January 6, 2011, did you have any quarrel or misunderstanding with any of the 8 policemen?
A: No, your Honor.
Q: After you were arrested, did any of the 8 policemen demand anything from you?
A: No, your Honor.32
With the foregoing admission, the presumption of regularity must stand. The petitioner's plain denial cannot prevail over PO2 De Guzman's affirmative and categorical declarations. The defense of denial has been invariably viewed with disfavor because it can easily be concocted. To merit consideration, it has to be substantiated by strong, clear, and convincing evidence. 33 Here, the petitioner failed to substantiate her defense, and thus, PO2 De Guzman's testimony was correctly appreciated in sustaining her conviction.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The December 1, 2014 Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, of Cavite City in Criminal Case Nos. 13-11 and 14-11 is hereby AFFIRMED. acEHCD
SO ORDERED." (CARPIO, J., additional Member per Raffle dated February 13, 2019; CARANDANG, J., additional Member per S.O. No. 2624 dated November 29, 2018).
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-22.
2. The challenged decision was penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela; id. at 76-91.
3.Id. at 102-103.
4.Id. at 37-49.
5.Id. at 43.
6.Id. at 39.
7.Id. at 39-40.
8.Id. at 40.
9.Id. at 41.
10.Id. at 40.
11.Id. at 78.
12.Id. at 47.
13.Id. at 48.
14.Id. at 49.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 85.
17.Id. at 87.
18.Id. at 89-90.
19.Id. at 91.
20.Id. at 17-19.
21.Id. at 17.
22.Bulauitan v. People, 795 Phil. 468, 475-476 (2016).
23. 457 Phil. 885 (2003).
24.Id. at 914-917.
25. 482 Phil. 828 (2004).
26. Id. at 843.
27. Quintero v. National Bureau of Investigation, 245 Phil. 414, 433 (1988).
28. TSN, December 12, 2012, pp. 15-23.
29. Rollo, pp. 18-19.
30. People v. Ygot, 790 Phil. 236, 242 (2016).
31. People of the Philippines v. Stephen Cabiles y Suarez a.k.a. "KANO," G.R. No. 220758, June 7, 2017, 827 SCRA 89, 97.
32. TSN, April 11, 2014, p. 27.
33. Saraum v. People, 779 Phil. 122, 134 (2016).