SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240032. November 11, 2020.]
GABRIEL OMAMOS y WONG, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 11 November 2020 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240032 (Gabriel Omamos y Wong v. People of the Philippines). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 seeks to reverse and set aside the May 15, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 01448-MIN. The CA affirmed the May 17, 2016 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Iligan City, Branch 6 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 06-16327, finding Gabriel Omamos y Wong (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 4
The Antecedents
In an Information 5 dated September 26, 2012, petitioner was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, to wit:
That on or about September 24, 2012, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one (1) big size heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a total of 1.90 grams and two (2) pieces small size heat[-]sealed plastic sachet containing 0.01 gram each or a total of 0.02 [gram] of methamphetamine [h]ydrochloride, a dangerous drug commonly known as [shabu] without being authorized by law.
Contrary to and in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165." 6
Petitioner pleaded not guilty during arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued thereafter. 7
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented Police Superintendent 8 Mary Leocy Mag-abo (PS Mag-abo), Intelligence Officer I Manuel Chacon, Jr., (IO1 Chacon), and Security Officer II Neil Pabilona (SO2 Pabilona) as witnesses. 9 On September 24, 2012, Intelligence Officer III Leopoldo Dy-Cezar (IO3 Dy-Cezar) of the Lanao del Norte Provincial Drug Enforcement Office (LDNPDEO) received a tip from a confidential informant that a man named "Onyot" (later identified as petitioner) was engaged in the sale of prohibited drugs. Thereafter, IO3 Dy-Cezar formed a buy-bust team consisting of SO2 Pabilona as the poseur buyer, IO1 Chacon as the arresting officer, and several other LDNPDEO operatives 10 as immediate back-up. SO2 Pabilona was given one (1) P500.00 bill as buy-bust money. 11
On even date, at around 4:45 in the afternoon, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. SO2 Pabilona and the confidential informant alighted from the service vehicle and went to petitioner's house. Upon reaching the house, SO2 Pabilona and the confidential informant waited on the first floor where the latter called out the name "Nyot." Thereafter, a certain "Ondo," who was later identified as petitioner's father, looked down and invited SO2 Pabilona and the confidential informant upstairs. Upon reaching the upstairs portion of petitioner's house, Ondo asked SO2 Pabilona, "Pila man imu kuhaon?" (How much are you going to buy?). SO2 Pabilona replied, "Five hundred lang, bai" (Just for the amount of five hundred pesos). Ondo asked for the payment and SO2 Pabilona handed him the buy-bust money. Thereafter, petitioner came out of a small room and asked Ondo the amount that SO2 Pabilona would buy. Ondo answered and handed petitioner the buy-bust money. Petitioner then went back inside the small room where SO2 Pabilona saw him pick up a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with white crystalline substance along with other sachets from a big plastic container which was covered with a black shirt. Petitioner went out of the room and gave SO2 Pabilona the plastic sachet. While SO2 Pabilona was examining the plastic sachet, Ondo said "Okay lage na item. Pagdali mo diha kay naa pay daghan gahulat sa ubos" (That item is good. You hurry up because there are still many waiting downstairs.) SO2 Pabilona then placed a missed call, the pre-arranged signal, which caused the back-up team to rush to the scene. 12
Upon arrival at the scene, IO1 Chacon arrested petitioner. IO1 Chacon went inside the small room where he recovered three (3) more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, the buy-bust money, empty plastic sachets, forceps, and a lighter. In the presence of Kagawad Rogelio Ebale (Kagawad Ebale), IO1 Chacon marked the three (3) plastic sachets with "MBC-GWO 09-24-12 MBC-1," "MBC-GWO 09-24-12 MBC-2," and "MBC-GWO 09-24-12 MBC-3." The inventory and photographing of the plastic sachets along with the other seized items were initially done at petitioner's house but the LDNPDEO operatives decided to continue the same at Police Station 5 due to security reasons. 13 After the inventory, the team proceeded to their office where IO1 Chacon prepared the request for laboratory examination of the seized items. 14
The next day, at around 1:58 in the afternoon, IO1 Chacon brought the seized items to the Lanao del Norte Provincial/Iligan City Crime Laboratory. Police Officer II Alzula, Jr. received the seized items from IO1 Chacon together with the request for laboratory examination. PS Mag-abo, a forensic chemical officer, then conducted a qualitative examination of the seized items and reduced her findings in Chemistry Report No. D-85-2012. 15 In the said report, PS Mag-abo confirmed the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu in all three plastic sachets. 16
Evidence for the Defense
The defense presented petitioner as its sole witness. Petitioner testified that at 2:30 in the afternoon of September 24, 2012, petitioner was at his uncle's house when Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) agents suddenly barged inside and searched the house. Finding nothing, the PDEA agents frisked him and his uncle but failed to recover anything from them. Thereafter, petitioner was brought to his house where he saw his father. Petitioner and his father were both instructed to lie down facing the ground while the PDEA agents searched the room. Petitioner then saw the PDEA agents place plastic sachets in the room and heard them say that they found shabu. Petitioner was then brought to Police Station 5. 17
RTC Ruling
In its May 17, 2016 Decision, the RTC found petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court hereby finds accused GABRIEL OMAMOS y Wong GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Art. II of Republic Act [No.] 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and sentences him to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00).
The period of his detention shall be credited in full in the service of his sentence.
Meanwhile, the sachets of shabu marked as E-1, E-2 [big plastic sachet containing Exhibits E-2-A and E-2-B] and sachets containing the shabu marked as Exhibits E-2-A and E-2-B are ordered confiscated in favor of the government.
SO ORDERED. 18
The RTC ruled that the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are present in this case. IO1 Chacon recovered the three plastic sachets with white crystalline substance during the buy-bust operation incidental to petitioner's lawful arrest. The contents of the plastic sachets were later on examined and confirmed to be shabu. There was also no evidence that petitioner had any legal authority to possess the three plastic sachets containing shabu. Against the positive testimonies of police and PDEA operatives, who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, petitioner's alibi and denial must fail. The RTC also noted the lack of motive on the part of prosecution witnesses to falsely testify against petitioner. 19
CA Ruling
In its May 15, 2018 Decision, the CA affirmed the conviction of petitioner as it gave more credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who were presumed to have regularly performed their duties. Petitioner's denial cannot avail in light of the positive and affirmative testimonies offered by the prosecution. The CA also ruled that the search was valid as it was incidental to the lawful arrest of petitioner who was caught in flagrante delicto. 20
As regards compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the CA found that the prosecution sufficiently established that the integrity of the seized evidence had been preserved. IO1 Chacon had continuing custody of the seized evidence from the time it was seized, during its marking and inventory, and up to its submission to the crime laboratory. The CA held that there were no conflicting testimonies or inconsistencies that would cast doubt on the way the seized pieces of evidence were handled during and after the buy-bust operation which would cast doubt on their integrity. 21
Issue
Petitioner submits this lone issue:
WHETHER OR NOT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF R.A. [NO.] 9165. 22
Petitioner argues that the buy-bust operation conducted by the PDEA operatives consisted of irregularities which compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence. Specifically, IO1 Chacon testified that he only learned of petitioner's name when they were already at LDNPDEO. However, the initials he used in marking the plastic sachets while at petitioner's house, i.e., MBC-GWO, represented his initials and petitioner's initials, respectively. This already raises doubts as to when the plastic sachets allegedly seized from him were actually marked.
Petitioner also contends that the prosecution failed to prove that Police Station 5 was the nearest police station to the place where the items were seized. The buy-bust team continued the inventory at Police Station 5 instead of completing the same at the scene of the crime. Since what occurred was a deviation from the procedure provided by law, the prosecution should prove that the circumstance falls under the exceptions under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. Moreover, the inventory and photographing of the seized items were not conducted in the presence of a media representative, an elected public official, and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ).
In its Comment, 23 respondent, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), explained that IO1 Chacon initially marked the items at the place of arrest and, finally, at the police station. Moreover, the alleged inconsistency on the fact that the markings contained petitioner's initials and IO1 Chacon's testimony that he only learned petitioner's full name later on cannot be the basis of petitioner's acquittal. Besides, IO1 Chacon testified two years after the buy-bust operation. Furthermore, the conduct of inventory at the nearest police station is allowed by law and is not a deviation from the procedure. The signature of Kagawad Ebale on the inventory of the seized items sufficiently proved that the buy-bust team complied with the requirements of R.A. No. 9165.
Our Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
The prosecution failed to establish that the buy-bust team complied with the procedure for the custody and disposition of the seized dangerous drugs under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, which states:
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;
xxx xxx xxx
On the other hand, the corresponding Implementing Rules and Regulations for Sec. 21 (a) of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
(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 noncompliance 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;
xxx xxx xxx
The above-cited provisions mandate the conduct of inventory and photographing of the seized evidence in the presence of three required witnesses: a media representative, an elected public official, and a representative from the DOJ. The presence of these mandatory witnesses guarantee against planting of evidence and frame up as they insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy and irregularity. 24
In this case, no representative from the media and the DOJ were present to witness the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized evidence. As shown by the testimony of IO1 Chacon, only Kagawad Ebale, an elected public official, was present during the inventory and photographing of the seized evidence, along with petitioner:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Who made the markings on these three sachets?
A: It is I mam.
Q: Who were present when you made the markings?
A: Barangay Kagawad Ebale.
Q: Who else were present?
A: She was the only one who arrived during the inventory.
Q: What about the one that you were able to apprehend at that time?
A: He was also there.
Q: What about the rest of the buy[-]bust team, where were they?
A: They were also at the area. 25
Nonetheless, Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides for an exception, provided that: (1) there are justifiable grounds for such failure to comply and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
This Court in People v. Lim, 26 further elaborated on what justifiable grounds the apprehending team may validly invoke in case of failure to comply with the mandatory witnesses rule, to wit: ( 1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.
Here, IO1 Chacon testified that the inventory was only witnessed by Kagawad Ebale and petitioner. Contrary to the OSG's assertion, there was no substantial compliance with the requirements of the law since the apprehending officers did not even testify on whether they exerted efforts in securing the presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media. The prosecution even failed to acknowledge or explain the absence of the media and DOJ representatives.
In People v. Crispo, 27 the Court emphasized that the prosecution has the positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. They must have the initiative to not only acknowledge but also justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings before the trial court. 28 This Court also ruled in Gamboa v. People29 that "the saving clause only applies where the prosecution has recognized the procedural lapses on the part of the police officers or PDEA agents, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds; after which, the prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved." 30 Consequently, the prosecution's failure to acknowledge the deficiency and to provide a justifiable ground therefor casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
The Court has also carefully perused the records and noted the lack of testimony or evidence on the handling of the seized evidence. Mallillin v. People31 explained the rule and importance of preserving the chain of custody, viz.:
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 32
To recall, IO1 Chacon testified that he was the one who marked the three plastic sachets. SO2 Pabilona also testified that the initial inventory of the three plastic sachets in the place of arrest followed the marking of the same. Thereafter, the apprehending team decided to continue the procedure at Police Station 5. 33 Noticeably absent in the records was evidence on who had custody of the three plastic sachets or how these were handled in the course of the inventory at the place of arrest, while the apprehending team were in transit to Police Station 5, and during the inventory at Police Station 5. Similarly, there was doubt as to who had custody of the three plastic sachets and how the same were handled while the apprehending team headed to LDNPDEO after the inventory conducted at Police Station 5.
In our constitutional system, basic and elementary is the presupposition that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused lies on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. The rule is invariable whatever may be the reputation of the accused, for the law presumes his innocence unless and until the contrary is shown. 34
These major lapses by the apprehending officers concerning the handling and custody of the seized evidence create serious doubts in the Court's mind as to its integrity and evidentiary value. The prosecution's utter failure to discharge its burden of establishing the identity of the seized evidence warrants the acquittal of petitioner.
WHEREFORE, the Court GRANTS the Petition for Review; REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the May 15, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 01448-MIN; ACQUITS Gabriel Omamos y Wong; and ORDERS his IMMEDIATE RELEASE from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent, Davao Prison and Penal Farm, Davao del Norte for immediate implementation. The said Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.
SO ORDERED. (Rosario, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2797 dated November 5, 2020)"
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-32.
2.Id. at 37-46; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justices Perpetua T. Atal-Paño and Walter S. Ong, concurring.
3.Id. at 54-60; penned by Judge Leonor S. Quinones.
4. Otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
5.Rollo, pp. 37-38.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 54.
8. "Police Chief Inspector" in some parts of the CA rollo.
9.Rollo, p. 55.
10. TSN dated September 8, 2014, p. 3.
11. CA rollo, p. 60.
12.Id. at 60-61.
13.Id. at 61-62.
14.Rollo, p. 39.
15. Records, p. 7.
16. CA rollo, p. 62.
17.Rollo, pp. 57-58.
18.Id. at 60.
19.Id. at 58-59.
20.Id. at 41-42.
21.Id. at 44.
22.Id. at 22.
23.Id. at 135-149.
24.People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 373 (2017).
25. TSN dated September 8, 2014, pp. 6-7.
26. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
27. 828 Phil. 416 (2018).
28.Id. at 437.
29. 799 Phil. 584 (2016).
30.Id. at 595.
31. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
32.Id. at 587; citations omitted.
33. TSN dated August 3, 2015, p. 11.
34.Mallillin v. People, supra note 31, at 593; citation omitted.