THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252056. September 7, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.SAHARA ABAL ABDURAHMAN a.k.a. MANA and LIM AKIL ABDULA, accused;
SAHARA ABAL ABDURAHMAN a.k.a. MANA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 7, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252056 (People of the Philippines v. Sahara Abal Abdurahman a.k.a. Mana and Lim Akil Abdula, accused; Sahara Abal Abdurahman a.k.a. Mana, accused-appellant). — This is an appeal 1 filed pursuant to Section 13, Rule 122 in relation to Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by accused-appellant Sahara Abal Abdurahman alias Mana, assailing the Decision, 2 dated 14 October 2019, of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12068, which affirmed the Decision, 3 dated 22 October 2018, of the Regional Trial Court of Branch 103, Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-18-03826-CR, finding her and Lim Akil Abdula guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as amended.
In an Information dated 2 April 2018, accused-appellant Sahara Abal Abdurahman alias Mana (Abdurahman) and Lim Akil Abdula (Abdula) were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as follows:
"That on or about the 29th day of March 2018 in Quezon City, Philippines, said accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, without lawful authority did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in said transaction, the following dangerous drug[s], to wit: CAIHTE
[xxx xxx xxx]
all with a total net weight of FIVE FOUR FIVE POINT FIVE ONE EIGHT FOUR (545.5184) GRAMS, of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 4
Upon arraignment, both Abdurahman and Abdula pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 5
The Facts
The Version of the Prosecution
Agent Eric Tugunen (Agent Tugunen), a member of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Special Enforcement Service, testified that, on 28 March 2018, a confidential informant informed their team leader, Agent Jonar Cuayzon, that Abdurahman, alias "Mana," is actively selling shabu somewhere in Maligaya Street, Barangay Fairview, Pasong Putik, Quezon City. 6 The informant insinuated that he had gained the trust of Abdurahman, and was even asked by the latter if he could look for a possible buyer for a commission. 7
This report was relayed to the officer-in-charge, Agent Christy B. Silvan, who then directed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. 8 The team was composed of Agents Tugunen, Alfredo Santiago, Jr., and Alexis Anonas. 9 The team was provided with nineteen (19) pieces of genuine bills, consisting of: four (4) pieces of one hundred peso bills, ten (10) pieces of fifty peso bills, and five (5) pieces of twenty peso bills, placed on top of the bundles of boodle money, which were all stored in a cellophane that was placed inside a 7-11 brown paper bag. 10 The team also agreed that Agent Tugunen will flash the emergency flasher of the vehicle, as the pre-arranged signal, once the transaction was consummated. 11 After a briefing, the team proceeded towards the target area on board a black Montero. 12
After a few minutes, Abdurahman and Abdula arrived and boarded the vehicle. 13 After introductions, Abdurahman handed a bag to Agent Tugunen, who checked the contents of the bag which contained carbon paper with electrical tape, and beneath it was white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. 14 After Agent Tugunen examined the contents of the bag, Abdurahman demanded the money, which Agent Tugunen handed over. 15 Immediately thereafter, Agent Tugunen pressed the emergency flasher of the vehicle, prompting the other members of the team to rush towards the vehicle, while the three officers inside the vehicle introduced themselves as PDEA agents, and arrested both Abdurahman and Abdula. 16
After disembarking from the vehicle, Agent Tugunen personally placed his markings on the items purchased from Abdurahman and proceeded back to their office for inventory and documentation. 17 Upon arrival at the office, Agent Tugunen conducted the inventory in the presence of John Consulta, a representative from the media, and Barangay Kagawad Tita Umali, an elected local official. 18 Likewise, Agent Tugunen prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination, drug test, medical, and physical examination. 19 The confiscated drug items were then physically brought by Agent Tugunen to the crime laboratory and were received by Forensic Chemist Jag O. Soliven. Agent Tugunen had the sole custody of the confiscated drug items from the time these were purchased from Abdurahman, up to the time the same were personally delivered to the crime laboratory. 20
Upon receipt of the drug items and the Request for Laboratory Examination, Forensic Chemist Soliven examined the specimens and prepared Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DD018-420 concluding that the subject specimens are positive for shabu. 21 After the examination, Forensic Chemist Soliven turned over the specimens to evidence custodian Majella Muñasque for safekeeping, and these were only retrieved by Forensic Chemist Soliven on 7 June 2018 for the purpose of presenting the same before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 103, Quezon City (RTC). 22 DETACa
The Version of the Defense
On 29 March 2018, at around noon, Abdurahman and Abdula were in SM Fairview to meet up with the former's niece, Lyn Abdula (Abdula), then accompanied by a woman, named Thea, who was unknown to both Abdurahman and Abdula. 23 Thea asked Abdurahman for a favor to deliver a gift, marked happy birthday, to her friend, Pia. 24 Pia instructed Abdurahman to go to Fairview Terraces, and they met each other in front of the mall. 25 Pia led them inside a vehicle, and asked Abdurahman for the gift. 26 When Abdurahman handed over the bag to Pia, they were immediately surrounded by armed men. 27 Abdurahman and Abdula were shocked and asked the armed men why they were pointing their guns at them. 28 The driver of the vehicle, however, told them to keep quiet and remain seated. 29
Abdurahman and Abdula were brought to the PDEA office, where the armed men, barangay officers, and media men followed. 30 Abdurahman and Abdula were made to sit in front of a table where the officers laid down on the same table a plastic bag with white contents and money. 31 Abdurahman and Abdula vehemently denied any involvement in any drug activities and insisted that there is no truth to the charge against them. 32 Both Abdurahman and Abdula were then detained. 33
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its Decision, dated 22 October 2018, 34 RTC found Abdurahman and Abdula guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of shabu:
ACCORDINGLY, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Sahara Abal Abdurahman alias "Mana" and Lim Akil Abdula guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, and they are hereby sentenced to suffer a jail term of life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos each.
The Branch Clerk of Court is ordered to turn over the subject specimens covered by Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DDO18-420 to the PDEA Crime Laboratory in order that the same be included in its next scheduled date of burning and destruction.
SO ORDERED. 35
Aggrieved, Abdurahman and Abdula appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
The Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On 14 October 2019, the CA denied the appeal:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant APPEAL is hereby DENIED.
SO ORDERED.36
The CA found that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were sufficiently established, giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 37
The CA also found that the prosecution sufficiently established, beyond doubt, an unbroken link in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs. 38 According to the CA, the record of the case outweighed whatever perceived discrepancy concerning the identity of the evidence custodian who received the specimens from the forensic chemist. 39 The CA emphasized that the prosecution and the defense entered into a stipulation during trial that it was Majella Muñasque, as evidence custodian, who personally received the specimens from the forensic chemist for safekeeping, which account corresponds with the entry in the Turn-Over Logbook for 30 March 2018. 40 Such stipulation was deemed binding as a judicial admission. 41
The CA also brushed aside the supposed defects in the handling of the confiscated items, explaining that their integrity, identity and evidentiary value remained intact. First, the CA noted that the fact that the weight of the seized plastic sachets with suspected shabu was not immediately determined by Tugunen at the time of confiscation will not ipso facto affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, in the absence of any existing provision under the law as regards the requirement of actual weighing of the dangerous drugs immediately upon confiscation. 42 While there was no actual weighing of the illegal drugs at the situs of arrest, the actual weight of the seized illegal drugs were sufficiently determined when the samples were brought to the crime laboratory to undergo examination. 43 Thus, whatever discrepancies as to the weight of the seized plastic sachets per the Information should be deemed as obvious inadvertent blunders by the typist. 44 In any case, the recorded total net weight of the seized drugs indicated on Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DD018-420 was consistent with what was indicated on the Information. 45 Second, the conduct of inventory, photographing and documentation of the confiscated illicit drugs by the apprehending officers was properly carried out since these were retrieved in a warrantless seizure pursuant to a buy-bust operation. 46 Third, the absence of a representative from the DOJ during the conduct of the inventory was not fatal to the prosecution of Abdurahman and Abdula because the presence of a media representative and a barangay kagawad sufficed as compliance with the law. 47 Fourth, it was impossible to require the presentation of the investigator on-duty to whom the drugs were supposedly turned over since it was established on record that the seized drugs were in the sole possession of Tugunen from the time of seizure, to the conduct of inventory, and the subsequent turnover to Forensic Chemist Soliven for examination. 48 Fifth, the CA noted that it was not necessary for Forensic Chemist Soliven to sit on the witness stand in view of the stipulations reached by the parties during trial. 49 ATICcS
Pursuant to Section 13 (c), Rule 122 in relation to Section 13, Rule 124 Abdurahman filed a Notice of Appeal, 50 which elevated the records of the case to this Court.
The Issue
The sole issue for our resolution is the determination of Abdurahman's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
At the outset, it must be stressed that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors. The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 51
Abdurahman was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which states:
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — 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 sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
In every prosecution for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 52
As held by this Court in People v. Tomawis: 53
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of paramount importance that the prosecution prove that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs are preserved. Each link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs must be established. 54
To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 55
R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, applies
The law in place at the time of the commission of the offense by Abdurahman in 2018 was R.A. No. 9165, as already amended by R.A. No. 10640. The latter amendatory law became effective on 23 July 2014. 56 In resolving the issues in the present case, the Court will apply the provisions of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
To ensure the preservation of the integrity and identity of seized drugs in buy-bust operations, the procedure for custody and disposition is clearly outlined under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. The relevant portion is reproduced as follows: TIADCc
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:
(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)
The chain of custody rule stated under Section 21 requires the apprehending team to conduct physical inventory, marking, and photography of the seized items, immediately after seizure and confiscation, and in the presence of the following witnesses: (i) the accused, or the person from whom such items were seized, or his representative or counsel, (ii) an elected public official, (iii) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given copies thereof.
In People v. Esguerra, 57 this Court clarified:
To establish the identity of the dangerous drugs with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence. As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media. The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 58 (Citations omitted; emphasis not ours)
To be clear, jurisprudence has established that the chain of custody is divided into four (4) links: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 59
In this case, the records show that the buy-bust team committed several lapses in the seizure and handling of the drugs, thereby creating reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the drugs, and the guilt of Abdurahman.
The buy-bust team failed to comply with
The Court notes that the buy-bust team failed to conduct the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses under Section 21.
Agent Tugunen testified that, immediately after the arrest of Abdurahman and seizure of the illegal drugs, he disembarked from the vehicle and placed his markings on the items purchased from Abdurahman. 60
While Agent Tugunen's testimony shows that he complied with the requirement to conduct the marking immediately after confiscation and at the place of seizure, the records are silent as to whether the supposed marking was conducted in the presence of the Abdurahman, the accused.
As noted by this Court in People v. Paz: 61
Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items after they have been seized. It is the starting point in the custodial link. It is vital that the seized items be marked immediately since the succeeding handlers thereof will use the markings as reference. The rule also requires that the marking of the seized contraband be done "(1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation." Here, there is no showing that the marking was accomplished in the presence of Paz. All that was established was that, while at the PDEA office, AGENT Silverio marked the sachets with "RBS-1 05/09/13" and "RBS-2 05/09/13," while the other details are left out for this Court to speculate. 62 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied)
This rule was reiterated in the more recent case of People v. Serojales, 63 where the Court emphasized the importance of marking in proving an unbroken chain of custody: SDAaTC
Crucial in proving chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus, it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, 'planting,' or contamination of evidence.
The chain of custody rule requires that the marking of the seized contraband be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator, and (2) immediately upon confiscation.64 (Citations omitted; emphasis supplied)
Similarly, the Court cannot speculate on the details surrounding Agent Tugunen's marking of the seized items. As stated, the records do not show that the marking of the seized packets of shabu was conducted in the presence of Abdurahman. Agent Tugunen's failure to mark the seize items in the presence of Abdurahman marks the first gap in the chain of custody in the buy-bust operation.
Agent Tugunen further testified that, after marking the seized items, he proceeded to the PDEA Office in Barangay Pinyahan, Quezon City to conduct physical inventory and photography of the seized packets of shabu. According to him, the physical inventory was conducted in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Tita Umali, an elected public official, and John Consulta, a representative of the media. 65
The CA correctly clarified that R.A. No. 10640 uses the disjunctive "or" in the enumeration of witnesses required to be present during the conduct of physical inventory and photography of the seized items, i.e., the same shall be witnessed by an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. 66 Stated differently, the presence of either the representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media suffices.
However, the records are silent as to whether such physical inventory and photography of evidence were conducted in the presence of the accused. Section 21 clearly requires the presence of the accused and the mandatory witnesses during the conduct of the inventory and photography of the seized items.
In People v. Malabanan, 67 this Court explained the significance of requiring the presence of witnesses in the seizure and handling of dangerous drugs:
It bears emphasizing that the presence of the insulating witnesses is not a hollow requirement. It is of primordial importance as it lends another layer of legitimacy to the conduct of buy-bust operation. Coupled with the rule that the marking of the seized drugs be marked in the presence of the accused, the additional witnesses ensure that it could be concluded with moral certainty that what was presented in court are the same drugs recovered from suspected drug, personalities. If the identity and integrity of the seized drugs are questionable at its inception, then, the manner in which they are subsequently handled becomes irrelevant as lingering doubt would always follow the corpus delicti. 68 (Emphasis supplied)
Agent Tugunen testified that "they brought the accused together with the sequestered specimen to their office for further investigation and important documentations." 69 While it is clear that Abdurahman was at the PDEA Office at the time of the conduct of physical inventory and photography of evidence, it is unclear whether Abdurahman was physically present in the same room as Agent Tugunen and the other witnesses to personally observe the inventory and photography of the seized items. acEHCD
Moreover, the records are bereft of any proof that Abdurahman and the two insulating witnesses signed the inventory and were given copies thereof. This supports the Court's position that Abdurahman was not given the opportunity to personally witness both the marking and inventory of the seized items, as required under the law.
The buy-bust team failed to conduct
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, requires that the physical inventory and photography of evidence be conducted immediately after seizure. Logically, this requirement of immediacy means that the conduct of physical inventory and photography of evidence be conducted at the place of seizure. However, the same section contains a clause pertaining to warrantless seizures:
[x x x] 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; [x x x] (Emphasis supplied)
According to the CA, the inventory and photography of the seized items, conducted at the PDEA Office in Quezon City, was properly carried out since the illegal drugs were retrieved from Abdurahman in a warrantless seizure pursuant to a buy-bust operation.
The Court disagrees.
In People v. Taglucop, 70 the Court ruled that, in case of warrantless seizures, the requirement of immediacy in conducting the inventory and photography of seized drugs is met when the same is done at the place of seizure. However, the same may be done at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team when to do so at the place of seizure is impracticable or would pose an immediate and extreme danger to the seized items:
Accordingly, as current jurisprudence stand, in case of warrantless seizures, the inventory and taking of photographs generally must be conducted at the place of seizure. The exception to the rule is when the police officers provide justification that:
1. It is not practicable to conduct the same at the place of seizure; or
2. The items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger at the place of seizure.
Thus, the absence of justification by the buy-bust team for the application of the exception, rather than the general rule, in the conduct of inventory and taking of photographs is fatal to the chain of custody link of confiscated drugs.
The saving clause under Section 21 of
In its Decision, the CA brushed aside the supposed defects in the handling of the confiscated items, explaining that their integrity, identity and evidentiary value remained intact.
The Court disagrees.
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, contains a saving clause, which recognizes that full compliance with the strict requirements on preserving the chain of custody may not always be possible. The relevant portion states: SDHTEC
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. 71
The Court in Taglucop, 72 explained that two conditions must be met in order to avail of the saving clause:
1. The existence of 'justifiable grounds' allowing departure from the rule on strict compliance; and
2. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.
Justifiable grounds for departing from a strict compliance with the law must exist and be proven; otherwise, the requisites therein would merely be fancy ornaments that may easily be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience. 73
In People v. Vinluan, 74 the Court clarified the application of the saving clause:
For the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must first have recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explain the justifiable ground for non-compliance as well as show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.
The prosecution bears the duty to acknowledge and justify any deviations from the procedure during the trial. 75
There must first be an admission of mistake on the part of the prosecution and a corresponding explanation for the omission, before the saving clause can apply. The Court explained the value of strictly enforcing the saving clause:
However, the saving clause, as an exception to the rule of strict compliance, is not a talisman that the prosecution may invoke at will. Indeed, it is the burden of the prosecution in the application of the saving clause to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved in all the four links in the chain of custody. This is the heavy duty placed on the prosecution, not only due to the presumption of innocence of the accused, but also as a consequence for not complying with the mandatory requirements provided by the first and second parts. 76
The buy-bust team offered no explanation for its departure from the strict chain of custody rule outlined under Section 21. Thus, for failure to comply with the requirements for the application of the saving clause, the Court cannot give weight and evidentiary value to the confiscated items. The corpus delicti was therefore not established.
Favorable result benefits Abdula
In addition, Abdurahman's co-accused in this case, Abdula, must also be acquitted in view of Section 11 (a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, which states:
Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. —
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.
As stated, an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the entire case open for review, including those not raised by the parties. 77 While it is true that only Abdurahman filed an appeal, a favorable judgment shall benefit a co-accused who did not appeal, pursuant to Section 11 (a) above-cited. Thus, Abdurahman's acquittal for the crime charged is likewise applicable to Abdula.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision, dated 14 October 2019, of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 12068, which affirmed the Decision, dated 22 October 2018, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 103, Quezon City, in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-18-03826-CR, finding Sahara Abal Abdurahman alias Mana and Lim Akil Abdula guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as amended, is REVERSED. Accused-Appellant Sahara Abal Abdurahman alias Mana and accused Lim Akil Abdula are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. AScHCD
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE the accused-appellant Sahara Abal Abdurahman alias Mana and accused Lim Akil Abdula from detention, unless they are being held in custody for any other lawful reason, and to report to this Court the action taken on this order, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 25-27.
2. Id. at 3-24. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., and Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
3. CA Rollo, pp. 65-76.
4. Rollo, p. 4.
5. CA Rollo, p. 66.
6. Rollo, p. 5.
7. Id.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id. at 6.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. Id.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id. at 6-7.
23. Id. at 7; CA Rollo, p. 70.
24. Rollo, p. 7.
25. Id.
26. Id.
27. Id.
28. Id.
29. Id.
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. Id.
33. Id. at 8.
34. CA Rollo, pp. 65-76.
35. Id. at 76.
36. Rollo, p. 24.
37. Id. at 9.
38. Id. at 11.
39. Id. at 12.
40. Id.
41. Id. at 13.
42. Id. at 14-15.
43. Id. at 16.
44. Id. at 17.
45. Id.
46. Id. at 18.
47. Id.
48. Id. at 19.
49. Id.
50. Id. at 25-27.
51. Plan, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 247589, 24 August 2020, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/13355/>, citing Trinidad v. People, G.R. No. 239957, 18 February 2019, 893 SCRA 228, 236.
52. People v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 243986, 22 January 2020, 930 SCRA 67, 71-72.
53. People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
54. Id. at 142-143.
55. People v. Esguerra, supra note 52, at 73.
56. Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 77-2015. Under Section 5 of R.A. No. 10640, the "[a]ct shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." R.A. No. 10640 was published on 23 July 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6), which are both considered as newspapers of general circulation. Thus, following Section 5 of R.A. No. 10640, it appears that the law became effective on 7 August 2014 or fifteen days after its publication in the Philippine Star and Manila Bulletin. However, for purposes of uniformity, the Court follows OCA Circular No. 77-2015.
57. People v. Esguerra, supra note 52.
58. Id. at 73-74.
59. People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 252886, 15 March 2021, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/18638/>, citing Dela Riva v. People, 769 Phil. 872, 886-887 (2015).
60. Rollo, p. 4.
61. G.R. No. 233466, 7 August 2019, 912 SCRA 471.
62. Id.
63. G.R. No. 243985, 3 September 2020, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/14327/>.
64. Id.
65. Rollo, p. 4.
66. Id. at 19.
67. G.R. No. 241950, 10 April 2019, 901 SCRA 600.
68. Id. at 616.
69. CA Rollo, p. 67.
70. People v. Taglucop, G.R. No. 243577, 15 March 2022, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/27556/>.
71. Section 21, Republic Act No. 10640, "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002," approved on 15 July 2014.
72. People v. Taglucop, supra note 70.
73. People v. Taglucop, supra note 70, citing Valencia v. People, 725 Phil. 268 (2014).
74. G.R. No. 232336, 28 February 2022, accessed at <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/28408/>.
75. Id., citing People v. Andrada, 833 Phil. 999, 1013 (2018) and People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1060 (2018).
76. People v. Taglucop, supra note 70.
77. People v. Libre, 839 Phil. 221 (2018).