SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242515. September 19, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RIE ANA AGULAY y BARROGA, accused-appellant
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 19, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242515 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. RIE ANA AGULAY y BARROGA, accused-appellant). — Buy-bust operations must follow the procedure outlined under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21, combined with the prosecution's failure to establish any justifiable grounds for noncompliance, is enough to negate the integrity of drugs allegedly seized during a buy-bust operation.
This Court resolves an appeal filed by Rie Ana Agulay y Barroga (Agulay) assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, which in turn, affirmed the Joint Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court finding Agulay guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs, in violation of Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In two separate Informations, Agulay was charged with illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs, both punished respectively under Sections 5 and 15 of Republic Act No. 9165. The accusatory portion of the Informations read:
Criminal Case No. 5344-18
That on or about 11:05 o'clock in the evening of February 26, 2016 at Barangay No. l0-N Lacub, City of Batac, Ilocos Norte, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a private individual, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly sell and deliver to PO1 Juvie Ann A. Barroga, who acted as a police poseur-buyer, in consideration of ONE THOUSAND (P1,000.00) PESOS, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, described as Specimen "A" with markings JAB weighing 0.0377 gram which gave positive result to the test for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is commonly known as 'shabu,' a dangerous drug, without the necessary authority, permit, or license from the appropriate government agency, in violation of the afore-cited law. 3
Criminal Case No. 5345-18
That on or about 11:05 o'clock in the evening of February 26, 2016 at Barangay No. 10-N Lacub, City of Batac, Ilocos Norte, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, being a private individual, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly use for the first time Methamphetamine Hydrochloride which is commonly known as 'shabu,' a dangerous drug, wherein she was positively found to be positive to the test of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, a dangerous drug in Chemistry Report No. CDT-052-2016-IN, without the necessary authority, permit or license from the appropriate government agency, in violation of the afore-cited law. 4
Upon arraignment, Agulay pleaded not guilty to both charges. Pre-trial thereafter followed, and upon its termination, trial on the merits then ensued. 5
The prosecution presented the testimony of Police Officer I Juvie Ann Barroga (PO1 Barroga) and Barangay Kagawad Junell Mark Calderon (Kagawad Calderon). 6
According to PO1 Barroga, at about 5:00 p.m. on February 26, 2016, the Officer-in-Charge of the Batac City Police Office briefed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation against a certain "Rie Ana Agulay." PO1 Barroga was tasked to act as the poseur-buyer and given two P500.00 bills to use as buy-bust money, photocopies of which had been presented earlier, on February 16, 2016, to the Office of the City Prosecutor for authentication before the operation. A police asset had facilitated the transaction with Agulay. 7
After the briefing, several police officers proceeded to a waiting shed along Asuncion Street, Barangay Lacub, Batac, Ilocos Norte, where the transaction was to take place. PO1 Barroga saw the asset, and other police officers positioned themselves nearby. The asset exchanged text messages with Agulay and said that Agulay was on her way. However, shortly after, Agulay passed by the waiting shed without stopping. Agulay told the asset she did not stop because she saw several persons in a parked vehicle in front of the waiting shed. Thus, she and the asset agreed to meet somewhere else on the same street, near the riverside empanadaan. 8
PO1 Barroga and the asset then proceeded to the agreed-upon spot to meet Agulay, who arrived around 10 minutes later. The asset introduced PO1 Barroga to Agulay, and Agulay took a plastic sachet of white crystalline powder from her jacket pocket. Upon PO1 Barroga's inquiry, Agulay said the sachet cost P1,000.00. PO1 Barroga handed Agulay the buy-bust money in exchange for the plastic sachet. 9
PO1 Barroga then introduced herself as a police officer and raised her left hand to signal to the buy-bust team that the sale had been consummated. Agulay ran, and PO1 Barroga and the other police officers chased her. Suddenly, Agulay sat at the bridge nearby and cried. The police officers approached, and she dropped cash on the ground. She then picked up the money, upon a police officer's instruction. 10
Upon arrival of Kagawad Calderon and Kagawad Ramon Lopez (Kagawad Lopez), Police Officer I Madalipay (PO1 Madalipay) conducted a body search on Agulay. 11 From this search, PO1 Madalipay recovered the marked money and a cellphone. 12 Thereafter, PO1 Barroga marked the plastic sachet she had purchased from Agulay with her initials "JAB." PO1 Barroga also conducted an inventory, completed a Receipt of Properties/Articles Seized, and had the barangay officials sign the inventory receipt. 13
The police officers brought Agulay and the seized items to the police station, where a physician examined Agulay. She was then taken to the Ilocos Norte Crime Laboratory. 14
At the laboratory, PO1 Barroga brought the seized items to Police Officer III Arnel Roque (PO3 Roque) for examination. The seized items tested positive for shabu, a dangerous drug. 15
Agulay was the sole witness for the defense. She denied the material allegations against her. She recalled that on February 26, 2016, she received a text message from a friend, Ram Valdez (Valdez), asking to meet at the empanadaan for snacks. She agreed and went to the empanadaan to find Valdez waiting there. While having snacks, two men who claimed to be Valdez's friends joined them. 16
After around 30 minutes, the men asked Agulay to accompany them on a walk. They approached the bridge, and the men asked Agulay to pick up the two P500.00 bills on the ground. As Agulay picked up the money, a lady took pictures of her. 17
They waited for barangay officials. When the officials arrived, photos of Agulay were taken. The barangay officials signed all the documents, after which Agulay was taken to the police station. 18
At the police station, Agulay was shown a plastic sachet of shabu, which she said was not hers. She was put in jail. 19 She insisted that the buy-bust sale did not happen. She was not questioned regarding her illegal use of shabu. 20
After trial, the Regional Trial Court found that the prosecution had sufficiently proved that Agulay had illegally sold and used dangerous drugs.
On the charge of illegal sale, the Regional Trial Court found that the prosecution established the elements of the offense, namely, "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor." 21 These were established when PO1 Barroga testified that she handed Agulay the marked money, and Agulay handed her a plastic sachet containing shabu in exchange. 22 The identity of the shabu was proven by the unbroken chain of custody, established through PO1 Barroga's testimony, the markings she placed on the sachet at the place of apprehension, the inventory done at the place of apprehension, the Receipt of Properties/Articles Seized embodying the inventory, which was signed by PO1 Barroga, Kagawad Calderon, and Kagawad Lopez, 23 the Request for Laboratory Examination showing the turnover and receipt of the seized items, and the stipulations regarding the turnover and reports. 24
The Regional Trial Court acknowledged that representatives from the media and the Department of Justice were absent during the inventory, and the prosecution did not attempt to explain such absence. 25 However, the trial court held that this was not fatal to the prosecution's case, as strict compliance with the requirements under the law is not always possible. 26 It provided its own justifiable ground for the prosecution, namely, that the buy-bust operation took place too late in the hour to summon the presence of representatives from the media or the National Prosecution Service to witness the same. 27
On the charge of illegal use of dangerous drugs, the Regional Trial Court found that Chemistry Report No. CDT-052-2016-IN, stating that the urine sample taken from Agulay contained shabu, and was subject to screening and confirmatory tests, was sufficient to establish that Agulay introduced shabu into her body. 28
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
(1) In Crim. Case No. 5344-18, the accused RIE ANA AGULAY [y] BARROGA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs penalized under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 as amended and is hereby sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT. She is also sentenced to pay a FINE of P500,000.00. Let the methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu," subject of this case be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition.
(2) In Crim. Case No. 5345-18, the accused RIE ANA AGULAY [y] BARROGA is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal use of dangerous drugs penalized under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165 as amended and is hereby sentenced to rehabilitation in a government center for a minimum period of six months.
SO ORDERED. 29
In its November 29, 2017 Decision, 30 the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the Regional Trial Court in toto. The Court of Appeals disregarded the absence of media and Department of Justice representatives, finding that the totality of evidence was sufficient to establish the unbroken chain of custody. 31
The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The October 28, 2016 Joint Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Batac City, Ilocos Norte, Branch 18, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.32 (Emphasis in the original)
Agulay filed a Notice of Appeal, 33 to which the Court of Appeals gave due course. The case records were thus elevated to this Court. 34
In its December 5, 2018 Resolution, 35 this Court noted the case records and directed the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs.
The Office of the Solicitor General, on behalf of the People of the Philippines, manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief. 36 Agulay made a similar manifestation through her counsel. 37
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellant Rie Ana Agulay y Barroga for violation of Sections 5 and 15 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.
This Court partially grants the appeal. The conviction for illegal use of dangerous drugs is affirmed. However, accused-appellant must be acquitted of the charge of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
For a successful prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be shown: "(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." 38 To prove that the sale took place, the following must be established: "(1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence." 39
Thus, the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, or "the body of crime that will establish that a crime was committed," 40 must be indisputably shown. 41 In cases involving illegal drugs, the corpus delicti is the "confiscated illicit drug itself, the identity of which must be preserved." 42 The prosecution thus has the duty to establish this identity beyond reasonable doubt. 43
Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, contains the procedure apprehending teams must follow when seizing dangerous drugs, to ensure that the dangerous drugs submitted in evidence are, in fact, seized from an accused:
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 persons 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.
Thus, the inventory of the seized drugs must be conducted immediately after the seizure, in the presence of insulating witnesses in the form of "an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media" 44 to minimize, if not eliminate, the possibility of planting of evidence. 45
As the inventory and photographing of the seized items must be done in the presence of certain witnesses immediately after the seizure, the insulating witnesses under Section 21 should already be present and ready to witness the inventory during the seizure of items. 46 The reasons for this were explained in People v. Tomawis: 47
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 48 (Citations omitted)
Indeed, given the risks peculiar to narcotics, this Court has set the standards for their handling, standards which are stricter than those pertaining to other materials. Thus:
Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item with sufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with. 49 (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, although elected public officials Kagawad Calderon and Kagawad Lopez were called in, they arrived only after the buy-bust had been conducted. 50 Moreover, no representative from the National Prosecution Service or media witnessed any part of the buy-bust operation. None of the insulating witnesses were nearby during the buy-bust and the apprehension of accused-appellant.
In People v. Mendoza, 51 this Court underscored the danger that follows when these required insulating witnesses are absent when custody of the seized items is being secured:
Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody. 52
The failure to comply with the requirements of Section 21, combined with the prosecution's failure to establish any justifiable grounds for noncompliance, is enough to negate the integrity of the allegedly seized drugs in this case. Although the Regional Trial Court excused the apprehending team's noncompliance due to the late hour of the buy-bust, it was incorrect for the court to provide its own justifiable ground. To accommodate lapses in following chain of custody requirements, the justifiable ground must be pleaded and proven as a fact by the prosecution during trial. 53 The prosecution's failure to plead and prove the justifiable grounds is fatal to the case against accused-appellant. 54
Indeed, a conviction in criminal proceedings requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, which calls for moral certainty since "[t]he conscience must be satisfied that the accused is responsible for the offense charged." 55 No less than the Bill of Rights, which recognizes every person's right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, requires this quantum of evidence. 56
Moreover, the minuscule amount of drugs allegedly seized froth accused-appellant merits a higher level of scrutiny on the credibility of evidence against him. 57
The prosecution must establish the accused's guilt purely on the strength of its own evidence, not on the weakness of the accused's defense. The prosecution failed in this task. Necessarily, the accused-appellant's acquittal must follow.
The conviction for illegal use of dangerous drugs, however, is affirmed. To secure such a conviction, the prosecution must establish that two drug tests were conducted on the accused: a screening test and a subsequent confirmatory test. 58 Here, the prosecution established that the necessary screening and confirmatory tests were conducted, and that shabu was detected in the tests. 59
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08799 dated November 29, 2017, which affirmed the Joint Judgment of the Regional Trial Court in Criminal Case Nos. 5344-18 and 5345-18 of Batac City, Ilocos Norte, Branch 18, dated October 28, 2016 is MODIFIED as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 5344-18 for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, accused-appellant RIE ANA AGULAY y BARROGA is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless she is being confined for some other lawful cause.
In Criminal Case No. 5345-18, the conviction of accused-appellant RIE ANA AGULAY y BARROGA for violation of Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165, sentencing her to undergo a minimum of six (6) months drug rehabilitation in a reputable government drug rehabilitation center, is AFFIRMED.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women for immediate implementation. The Superintendent is directed to report to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution, the action she has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Zalameda, J., designated additional Member vice Lopez, M., J., per Raffle dated September 13, 2022)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERISITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-13. The November 29, 2017 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08799 was penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) of the First Division of Court of Appeals, Manila.
2. CA Rollo, pp. 52-68. The October 28, 2016 Joint Judgment in Criminal Case Nos. 5344-18 and 5345-18 was penned by Acting Presiding Judge Francisco R. D. Quilala of the Regional Trial Court of Batac City, Ilocos Norte, Branch 18.
3.Id. at 52.
4.Id. at 52-53.
5.Id. at 53.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 54.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 56.
12.Id. at 54.
13.Id. at 54-55.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 56.
17.Id. at 57.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 59.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 60.
24.Id. at 61.
25.Id. at 63.
26.Id.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 66.
29.Id. at 67-68.
30.Rollo, pp. 2-13.
31.Id. at 10-11.
32.Id. at 13.
33. CA rollo, p. 120.
34.Id. at 124.
35.Rollo, pp. 20-21.
36.Id. at 23-26.
37.Id. at 27-29.
38.People v. Unisa, 674 Phil. 89, 108 (2011) [Per J. Perez, Second Division] citing People v. Manlangit, 654 Phil. 427 (2011) [Per J. Velasco, First Division].
39.People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division], citing People v. Darisan, et al., 597 Phil. 479, 485 (2009) [Per J. Corona, First Division] and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883 (2009) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
40.Id.
41.People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
42.Id.
43.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
44. Section 21 or Republic Act No. 9165.
45. People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019 <https://elibrary.judiciaiy.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65518> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
46.Id.
47. 830 Phil. 385 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
48.Id. at 408-409.
49.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 589 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
50.Rollo, p. 4.
51. 736 Phil. 749 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
52.People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65518> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
53.People v. Jugo, 824 Phil. 743 (2018) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
54.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division], citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
55.Veriño v. People, G.R. No. 225710, June 19, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65375> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division] citing People v. Ganguso, 320 Phil. 324, 335 (1995) [Per J. Davide, Jr., First Division] citing People v. Casinillo, 288 Phil. 688 (1992) [Per J. Davide Jr., Third Division].
56. CONST, Art. III, Sec. 14 (2) provides:
xxx xxx xxx
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
57.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
58.People v. Lopez, G.R. No. 247974, July 13, 2020, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66294> [Per J. Caguioa, First Division].
59. CA rollo, p. 66.