Jacinto v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 240307. December 10, 2018.]

BENJAMIN ARADA JACINTO A.K.A. "BENJIE", petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 10, 2018, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 240307 (Benjamin Arada Jacinto a.k.a. "Benjie" v. People of the Philippines). — This is an appeal by certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the February 13, 2018 1 and June 25, 2018 2 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 09608. The CA dismissed Benjamin Arada Jacinto's (petitioner) appeal from the June 22, 2017 Joint Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Laoag City (RTC), which found him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

Antecedents

On March 31, 2016, petitioner was charged in two (2) separate Informations for selling and possessing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. In Criminal Case No. 17181-14, petitioner was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 for selling 0.1644 gram of shabu. In Criminal Case No. 17182-14, he was charged with violation of Sec. II of the same law for illegally possessing 5.9541 grams of shabu. Upon arraignment, he entered a negative plea for both charges. After pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.

The prosecution presented its version of the events:

On March 31, 2016, at about 10:30 in the evening, an asset reported to PO3 Lawrence Ganir (PO3 Ganir) of the Intel Operation Section of the Laoag City Police that he could buy shabu from petitioner. After he relayed the information to their team leader SPO2 Harold Nicolas, a buy-bust operation was planned. The buy-bust would be done at Lil Rancho, a snack house along Rizal Street in Laoag City. Upon consummation of the sale, PO3 Arnel Saclayan (PO3 Saclayan), the designated poseur-buyer, would give the pre-arranged signal, a phone call to PO3 Ganir, who would serve as back-up, along with PO2 Ramon Christopher Diego (PO2 Diego).

Before arriving at Lil Rancho, the asset received a text message from petitioner stating that he was at the second floor. PO3 Saclayan and the asset saw petitioner standing at the second floor porch. The asset approached him and introduced PO3 Saclayan as his friend who would like to buy shabu. He gave the P1,000.00 marked bill to petitioner who accepted it and put it in his pocket. Petitioner then brought out a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from the small pouch of his sling bag. TAacHE

After putting the sachet in his pocket, PO3 Saclayan called PO3 Ganir. While petitioner was still talking with the asset, PO3 Ganir and PO2 Diego appeared. PO3 Saclayan tried to arrest petitioner after introducing himself as a policeman, but he resisted and threw his sling bag up on the roof. He was only subdued with the help of the other police officers. PO3 Ganir handcuffed him and apprised him of his constitutional rights. They frisked petitioner and recovered the buy-bust money and a cellphone. Upon instruction of PO3 Saclayan, PO2 Diego climbed up the roof to recover petitioner's sling bag. Inside the sling bag they found one big heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, four small heat-sealed plastic sachets containing the same substance, ten empty sachets, one cut straw, and one broken tooter.

For security reasons and to avoid aggravating the other customers, the policemen proceeded to the Laoag City Police Station to do the marking and inventory of the items. They called for a barangay official and representatives of the media and the Department of Justice. Although efforts were exerted to secure the presence of those persons, only barangay chairman Henry Yumul (Yumul) appeared.

At the police station and in the presence of petitioner and Yumul, PO3 Saclayan marked the sachet he purchased from petitioner with his and petitioner's initials, "AMS-BJ." PO2 Diego, likewise, marked the items found inside petitioner's sling bag with his and petitioner's initials, "RSD-BJ." PO3 Ganir took pictures during the marking and inventory. After the marking, they prepared the confiscation/inventory receipt signed by PO3 Saclayan as poseur-buyer, PO2 Diego as seizing officer, and Yumul. According to PO3 Saclayan, the petitioner refused to sign the document or to receive a copy of it. Requests for the examination of the marked items and petitioner's drug test were subsequently prepared. PO3 Saclayan and PO2 Diego delivered the seized items and the requests for laboratory examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory (Crime Lab) which were received by PO3 Joseph Randy Velasco (PO3 Velasco).

After PO3 Velasco placed his initials on the sachets, he turned them over to Police Senior Inspector Amiely Ann Luis Navarro (PSI Navarro) of the Crime Lab. In Chemistry Report No. D-070-2016-IN, PSI Navarro confirmed that the contents of the seized items were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.

In his defense, petitioner denied the allegations and claimed that he was a victim of a frame-up; that no buy-bust operation took place; and that he was arrested while he was having a snack at Lil Rancho. To support his cause, he presented Wilson Daquioag, Jr. (Daquioag), the waiter, and Mark Ronald Manuel (Manuel), the owner of Lil Rancho, as witnesses. However, the testimony of Manuel was dispensed with.

The defense testimonies offered the following version of the events:

After petitioner got off his duty as a cook at La Eliana Hotel on March 31, 2016, he went to Lil Rancho and ordered a cucumber shake. After placing his order, he went to the second floor and smoked at the veranda. A few minutes later, he instructed Daquioag to put his order on the table while he continued smoking. He narrated that about four or five men approached and asked him if they could smoke. After he answered yes, they grabbed his hand and pinned him against the wall, and then handcuffed and punched him. The men proceeded to search the second floor and the roof. He denied throwing his sling bag on to the roof of the building adjacent to Lil Rancho. He claimed that the bag was still slung on his right shoulder when his hands were cuffed behind him. He also maintained that he did not know who owned the plastic sachets taken from inside the bag. HDICSa

Petitioner asserted that he did not know the policemen nor was there any misunderstanding between them prior to the March 31, 2016 incident; and that he had not filed any complaint against them. He claimed that he was punched by the arresting officers as evidenced by the medical report indicating excessive contact on his abdomen.

Daquiaog, on his part, testified that he was on duty at the time of the incident at Lil Rancho. He claimed that he served petitioner's order and saw him smoking at the veranda; that he was cleaning the second floor when several men appeared and asked him about the menu; that he was conversing with those persons when some men approached the petitioner; that he noticed three persons conversing with petitioner for a few seconds before grabbing him; that the person who asked about the menu followed the men that approached petitioner; that he then went downstairs and looked for his boss and did not go back to the second floor so he did not see what else had transpired.

The RTC Ruling

In its Joint Judgment, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. It found the prosecution's version to be more credible. It ruled that the defense failed to adduce any ill motive on the part of the policemen who arrested petitioner, thus, failing to overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. It held that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody and declared that the plastic sachets recovered from petitioner and from the sling bag that were turned over to the crime laboratory for testing, and those submitted to the Court and identified by the policemen, to be one and the same.

In Crim. Case No. 17181-14, petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. In Crim. Case No. 17182-14, petitioner was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to life imprisonment, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P400,000.00.

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed before the CA.

The CA Ruling

In its February 13, 2018 Resolution, the CA dismissed petitioner's appeal for his failure to furnish the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) with a certified copy of the assailed joint judgment despite due notice.

Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was, likewise, denied by the CA in its June 25, 2018 Resolution.

Hence, the instant petition.

Petitioner argues that the CA should have liberally applied the procedural rules and should not have dismissed the appeal outright. He also asserts that the RTC erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses without considering the testimonies of the defense witnesses. He further argued that the prosecution failed to present an unbroken chain of custody, thus, warranting his acquittal.

The Court's Ruling

The petition should be remanded to the CA for further proceedings on the merits.

The CA dismissed petitioner's appeal outright because he failed to furnish the OSG with a certified copy of the assailed RTC judgment. Secs. 3 and 7, Rule 154 of the Rules of Court require the accused-appellant to furnish a copy of the certified true copy of the assailed judgment to the appellee or, in this case, the OSG. Failure to comply with these requirements may be a ground to dismiss the appeal.

In this case, although petitioner was not able to furnish the OSG with a certified true copy of the assailed judgment at the first instance, he was able to correct his error in his motion for reconsideration before the CA. His counsel, subsequently, submitted a certified true copy of the judgment and the OSG was able to comment thereon. Thus, the CA should have relaxed the strict application of the procedural rules and decided the case on the merits. Liberality on procedural rules should have been extended to avoid delay. After all, litigations should, as much as possible, be decided on their merits and not on sheer technicalities. 4 IDaEHC

Further, the issues in this case necessitate the factual determination of the CA, particularly, the compliance with the chain of custody rule. In the recent case of People v. Lim, 5 the Court enumerated the guidelines to determine the compliance of the prosecution with the chain of custody rule:

1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.

2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.

3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause.

4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court. 6

Thus, pursuant to these guidelines, the CA should determine whether the prosecution complied with the chain of custody rule even though the representatives from the media and the DOJ were not present during the inventory and photography of the seized items. Further, the CA should also determine the allegation of petitioner that he suffered physical injuries in the hands of the police officers, as shown in the medical certificate.

WHEREFORE, in the interest of due process, the February 13, 2018 and June 25, 2018 Resolutions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 09608 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The case is REMANDED to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings to resolve several factual issues. DTCSHA

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 60-61; penned by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.

2.Id. at 32-33.

3.Id. at 35-58; penned by Judge Francisco R. D. Quilala.

4.David v. Marquez, G.R. No. 209859, June 5, 2017.

5. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

6.Id.