THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248920. September 28, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. PAUL BAÑARES y PARAGAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 28, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248920 (People of the Philippines v. Paul Bañares y Paragan). — This is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated June 26, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02855. The assailed Decision affirmed the Decision 2 dated January 17, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, Branch 55, finding accused-appellant Paul Bañares y Paragan (Bañares) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 17-4003-HC, the court finds the accused, PAUL BA[Ñ]ARES y PARAGAN, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00); and
2. In Criminal Case No. 17-4004-HC, the court finds the accused, PAUL BA[Ñ]ARES y PARAGAN, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The Acting Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is ordered to immediately cause the disposition of all the drugs and non-drug evidence in the manner provided by law.
The Jail Warden, Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP), Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, is directed to immediately cause the commitment of the accused to the National Penitentiary, Muntinlupa City, for the service of his sentence.
Furnish copies of this Decision, the National Bureau of Investigation, the PDEA and the Chief of Police, Himamaylan City Police Station, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental.
SO ORDERED. 3
Bañares was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 in separate informations, the accusatory portion of each reads as follows:
In Crim. Case No. 17-4003-HC
That on or about 16 July 2017 in the City of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, with deliberate intent, did then and there, willfully unlawfully, feloniously and criminally sell, deliver and give away to another, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "Shabu," marked as PB-BB, weighing 0.073gm/s, a dangerous drug, without being authorized by the law therefor.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4 (Emphasis omitted)
In Crim. Case No. 17-4004-HC
That on or about 16 July 2017 in the City of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, said accused, with deliberate intent, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously possess, and have in his control and custody one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "Shabu," marked as PB-1, weighing 0.078gm/s, a dangerous drug, without being authorized by law therefor.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5 (Emphasis omitted)
When arraigned, Bañares pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged against him. 6 During pre-trial conference, the following were stipulated: (1) jurisdiction of the RTC; and (2) identity of the accused in the information. 7 Trial on the merits then ensued. 8
The prosecution presented the following as its witnesses: (1) Police Officer 3 Octavio Llenado, Jr. (PO3 Llenado); (2) Police Officer 1 Jerrevie Gela (PO1 Gela); (3) Senior Police Officer 2 John Derrick Capunong (SPO2 Capunong); 9 (4) Police Chief Inspector Paul Jerome Puentespina (PCI Puentespina); Forensic Chemist of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Crime Laboratory Office 18, Bacolod City; and (5) Barangay Captain Cherrie Hope Belarga (Brgy. Captain Belarga). 10 On the other hand, Bañares testified on his own behalf. 11
The prosecution's evidence showed that the Himamaylan City Police Station received text messages from concerned citizens that Bañares was selling illegal drugs in Barangay Su-ay, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental. Bañares was included in the police's illegal drugs watch list. After conducting casing and surveillance, the police officers were able to confirm the reports about Bañares. A buy-bust operation was planned where PO3 Llenado was assigned as the poseur-buyer. 12
On July 16, 2017, at around 10:25 a.m., the buy-bust team went to Barangay Su-ay. While inside their tinted pick-up truck, PO3 Llenado saw accused-appellant handing over something to his customer in exchange for money. PO3 Llenado and his confidential asset alighted from their vehicle, without Bañares noticing them. They approached Bañares and the latter's customer walked away. 13 The asset talked to Bañares about their purpose. Bañares asked Llenado "fivehunimo?" 14 PO3 Llenado answered "huo." Thereafter, Bañares handed PO3 Llenado one small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet believed to be shabu, later marked as "PB-BB." 15 In return, PO3 Llenado gave to Bañares the previously marked P500.00 bill with serial number GU723382 and marking slash on the letters P and B on the word REPUBLIKA, later marked as "PB-2." 16
Immediately after the transaction, PO3 Llenado took off the hood of his sweatshirt, which was the pre-arranged signal for his fellow operatives, who were waiting aboard the tinted pickup truck, that the transaction was consummated. PO3 Llenado identified himself as a police officer, held Bañares and recovered the buy-bust money from his right hand. The other operatives rushed to help PO3 Llenado. Thereafter, PO3 Llenado conducted a body search and recovered from Bañares' right side pocket one small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet believed to be shabu, later marked as "PB-1," and four pieces of P100.00 peso bill with serial numbers DP322687, FJ121080, LL958671, and DP157620, collectively marked as "PB-3." 17
PO1 Gela arrested Bañares and informed him of his offense and rights under the law in a dialect known to him. 18 After the arrest, the other operatives of PNP Himamaylan City contacted the following witnesses to the inventory of the seized evidence: (1) Brgy. Captain Belarga; (2) Barangay Kagawad Norberto Urbanozo of Barangay Su-ay, Himamaylan City (Brgy. Kagawad Urbanozo); and (3) Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Ms. Deserie Domingo (Domingo). 19 The inventory receipt was signed by the three witnesses, PO3 Llenado, and PO1 Gela. 20 Bañares refused to sign the same. 21
Thereafter, the operatives brought Bañares to the Himamaylan Police Station. The two sachets of confiscated drugs were brought by PO3 Llenado to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Bacolod City. He prepared and signed the 22 Chain of Custody Form and the Letter Request for laboratory examination, 23 both of which were personally received by PCI Puentespina, the forensic chemist. 24 After examining the specimens, PCI Puentespina found that the two sachets of confiscated drugs were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu as shown in Chemistry Report No. D-605-2017. 25 PO3 Llenado was furnished with a copy of the said report. 26
Bañares, as the lone witness, testified that on June 16, 2017 at 9:00 a.m. he went to Kabankalan City to buy spare parts for his tricycle. However, the store was closed when he arrived so he went back to Barangay Su-ay, Himamaylan City. At Barangay Su-ay, he went directly to former Brgy. Captain Badajos' house because his mechanic, Yu-an Ortega (Ortega), was the former's adopted son. While he was calling Ortega from outside his house, Police Officer Garcia (Garcia) called him. When Bañares approached Garcia, the police officer undressed and handcuffed him. Bañares asked why he was being restrained and Garcia answered that he was in possession of shabu. PO3 Llenado arrived and had a folded P500.00 bill and a small sachet of shabu in his hand. Police Officer Nombre later on arrived and gave another sachet of shabu to PO3 Llenado. Police Officer Nombre placed the sachets on the table on a closed store. 27
Bañares shouted "Planted! Planted!" 28 but was told by SPO2 Capunong to shut up or he would shoot him. 29 The police officers took the four pieces of P100.00 bills from Bañares' pocket which were originally intended to buy for the spare parts and were used as evidence against him. Bañares strongly denied selling shabu and maintained that he knew PO3 Llenado because he was the classmate of Bañares' younger sibling. He also knew that PO3 Llenado was a police officer because during their high school alumni homecoming at Himamaylan National High school, PO3 Llenado was talking about his job when he approached Bañares' booth. 30
On January 17, 2018, the RTC rendered its Decision 31 finding Bañares guilty of the crimes charged. For Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, he was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. For Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, he was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. 32
The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crimes charged. 33 The PNP Himamaylan City conducted surveillance and complied with pre-operational procedures prior to the successful buy-bust. After the buy-bust, the seized items were properly marked, inventoried, and photographed in the presence of the Brgy. Captain Belarga, Brgy. Kagawad Urbanozo, and DOJ representative Domingo. The RTC gave credence to PO3 Llenado's testimony that as the poseur-buyer, he received the shabu from Bañares after giving him the marked money in the amount of P500.00. 34 The RTC also observed that the dangerous drugs recovered from Bañares, and the other one bought from him, were directly submitted by PO3 Llenado to PCI Puentespina, the forensic chemist of PNP Crime Laboratory in Bacolod City who found the same to be positive as shabu. 35 Thus, the RTC declared that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the buy-bust team under the chain of custody rule and disregarded Bañares defense of denial. 36
Aggrieved, Bañares appealed his conviction to the CA. In his Brief, 37 Bañares argued that his arrest was illegal because he was not committing any crime when he was arrested. Since no valid arrest took place, the subsequent search conducted on him is, likewise, illegal and the items seized from him were fruits of the poisonous tree. He argued that despite his failure to question the legality of his arrest, the seized items are still inadmissible as evidence. 38
In addition, his claim that Police Officer Garcia took off his shirt was corroborated by the prosecution's evidence showing that he was shirtless while sitting beside Brgy. Captain Belarga who was a witness during the inventory. He argued that since he was included in the PNP drugs watch list, he became a part of the police's clean-up operation to meet their quota of capturing drug personalities. Bañares also had no reason to sell shabu to PO3 Llenado because he knew that he was a police officer prior to the buy-bust operation. 39
Furthermore, Bañares averred that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody over the two sachets of suspected shabu. There was serious doubt as to the origin of the subject sachets of shabu because of the conflicting testimonies of PO3 Llenado and Bañares. PO3 Llenado narrated that he recovered from Bañares one sachet of shabu during buy-bust and another sachet during the subsequent search. On the contrary, Bañares insists that after he was arrested by Police Officer Garcia, PO3 Llenado arrived holding a sachet of shabu. Police Officer Nombre later arrived and placed another sachet of shabu on the table. More importantly, the other prosecution witnesses — PO1 Gela and SPO2 Capunong — had no personal knowledge as to the ultimate source of the illegal drugs. PO1 Gela did not see the actual exchange but only rushed to the crime scene after the pre-arranged signal was made, while SPO2 Capunong was not present during the buy-bust operation and merely prepared the investigation report. Likewise, SPO3 Llenado's testimony was bereft of details how the two sachets of shabu were turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory. PCI Puentespina also did not testify how the specimens were kept inside the crime laboratory, who was in custody of the specimens from the time they were examined until they were presented in court. 40
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appearing for the prosecution, claimed that there was a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to a buy-bust operation. As testified by PO3 Llenado who acted as the poseur-buyer, the buy-bust operation was successfully consummated and the marked money, as well the two sachets of shabu were duly presented and identified in court. The OSG argued that the testimonies of police officers during buy-bust operation enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties there being no evidence showing bad faith, ill-will or proof of tampered evidence. The OSG emphasized that there was an unbroken chain of custody of evidence under Section 21 of R.A. 9165. Lastly, the OSG argued that Bañares' defense of denial and frame up are self-serving and uncorroborated. 41
The CA affirmed the RTC ruling in its Decision 42 dated June 26, 2019. The CA held that Bañares was estopped from questioning the legality of his arrest because he failed to move for the quashal of the Information before his arraignment. He also actively participated in trial. 43
The CA concurred with RTC in giving credence to the police officers' testimonies that Bañares was caught during a buy-bust operation and declared that the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine does not apply in the face of a valid buy-bust operation. It also rejected Bañares defense of denial and frame-up. 44
In addition, the CA held that there was no missing link in the chain of custody of the prohibited drug. The testimony of PO3 Llenado established that he had custody of the illegal drugs from the time they were obtained from Bañares until they were brought to the crime laboratory. The CA observed that the handling of prohibited drugs was duly supported by the Chain of Custody Form and Request for Laboratory Examination which showed how the seized items were transferred from PO3 Llenado to PCI Puentespina at the crime laboratory. PCI Puentespina's testimony established that he was the only person who touched the seized items until they were brought and presented to court, thus, eliminating any doubt as to the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti. 45
Bañares appealed the ruling of the CA before this Court. 46 Both the OSG 47 and Bañares manifested that they will no longer file any supplemental brief.
The sole issue to be determined is whether the prosecution established Bañares guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale and illegal possession of prohibited drugs under R.A. 9165.
The appeal is meritorious.
At the outset, the Court may no longer entertain Bañares' challenge against his warrantless arrest and the subsequent search incident thereto. As correctly noted by the CA, this challenge should have been raised in a motion to quash before Bañares entered his plea, which he failed to do. On the contrary, Bañares' active participation during the trial is deemed to have cured any defect or irregularity which may have attended his capture. 48
Bañares, nevertheless, is not precluded from assailing the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti for the admissibility and probative value of evidence is not affected when he failed to question the court's jurisdiction over his person. 49 These are distinct and separate matters altogether.
The chain of custody rule as laid down in Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640 50 must be strictly observed. In this case, R.A. 10640 applies because the buy-bust operation took place on July 16, 2017. R.A. 10640 provides that the marking, physical inventory and photographing of the seized items by the apprehending team shall be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation, and in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel. The law also mandates that the foregoing be witnessed by specific persons, namely: (a) an elected public official; AND (b) a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media. 51
Furthermore, Section 21 (1), as amended, now includes a specification of locations where the physical inventory and taking of photographs must be conducted. The amended section uses the mandatory verb "shall" and now includes the following proviso:
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 52
In this case, although there was compliance with the number of witnesses for the inventory, We note that none of the prosecution witnesses mentioned the location where the physical inventory, taking of photographs, and marking of the seized items were done. PO3 Llenado 53 and PO1 Gela 54 only narrated that after the buy-bust operation, their companions requested for the presence of Brgy. Captain Belarga, Brgy. Kagawad Urbanozo and DOJ representative Domingo to witness the inventory. Meanwhile, Brgy. Captain Belarga only testified that she was present during the inventory and marking, but did not mention where the inventory was conducted. 55 Brgy. Kagawad Urbanozo and DOJ representative Domingo were not presented to testify in court. And according to the Affidavit of PO3 Llenado Jr., the poseur-buyer, he marked the shabu specimens Exhs. PB-BB and PB-1 "lately" without even disclosing where the markings were made. 56
As to the chain of custody, the Court has consistently ruled that the following links must be established: 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 from the forensic chemist to the court. 57
After a careful examination of the records, We found glaring gaps in the chain of custody that seriously taint the integrity of the corpus delicti. We agree with the defense that the corpus delicti was not proven because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody.
For the first link, the identity of the police officer who had direct and actual contact with the two sachets of shabu is not clear. As argued by the defense, there are conflicting testimonies between the police and the accused. While PO3 Llenado testified that he received from Bañares during buy-bust the plastic sachet of suspected shabu and recovered another sachet of suspected shabu during the subsequent search, Bañares narrated differently. Bañares insists that he was arrested by Police Officer Garcia and thereafter, PO3 Llenado arrived while holding a sachet of shabu. Later on, Police Officer Nombre arrived, gave another sachet of shabu to PO3 Llenado and placed the sachets of shabu on the table. 58
We also note that PO3 Llenado's testimony about the actual exchange of the buy-bust money and sachet of shabu was not corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses. PO3 Gela was inside the tinted vehicle during the exchange between PO3 Llenado and Bañares. He was 10-15 meters away and arrived at the scene only after the pre-arranged signal was made signifying that the transaction was already consummated. 59 SPO2 Capunong also admitted that he was not present during the buy-bust operation and he had no personal knowledge as to the source of the seized items. He merely prepared the Investigation Report. 60 Thus, this raises serious doubts as to the origin of the sachets of shabu. Though the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty is of course available, it has to be remembered that the presumption of innocence of a person accused of committing a crime prevails over the presumption of regularity of the performance of official duty. 61
The prosecution likewise failed to account for the fourth link of the chain of custody. No witness was presented to testify who was in custody of the specimens after their examination by the forensic chemist, until the time it was submitted to court. Likewise, it was not shown who submitted the pieces of evidence from the PNP crime laboratory to the court. PCI Puentespina only testified that he personally received from PO3 Llenado the drug specimens and the request for laboratory examination. After the examination of the specimens, PCI Puentespina sealed the evidence again, placed his marking thereon, and prepared Chemistry Report No. 605-2017. 62 There was no mention who brought the specimens to the court. Verily, the prosecution failed to provide the following details in order to establish the links needed to preserve the identity and integrity of the seized illegal drugs after their examination: (a) how the illegal drugs were handled to prevent their tampering before being presented to court; (b) where the specimens were stored after their examination; and (c) the precautions taken to prevent other people from having access to the specimens.
In cases of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the dangerous drug itself seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Hence, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. 63 While the minuscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. 64
The abovementioned lapses on the source, identity, and integrity of the drugs allegedly seized from Bañares have compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti in this case, thereby raising a cloud of reasonable doubt warranting accused-appellant's acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 26, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02855 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Paul Bañares y Paragan is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to inform this Court of the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Dorothy Montejo-Gonzaga; rollo, pp. 5-14.
2. Penned by Judge Walter G. Zorilla; CA rollo, pp. 37-46.
3.Id. at 45-45.
4. Records (Crim. Case No. 17-4003-HC), p. 1.
5. Records (Crim. Case No. 17-4004-HC), p. 1.
6. CA rollo, p. 21.
7. Records (Crim. Case No. 17-4003-HC), p. 29.
8. CA rollo, p. 21.
9. They were all members of the Himamaylan City Police Station at the time of the incident.
10. CA rollo, p. 22.
11.Id. at 24.
12. Records (Crim. Case No. 17-4003-HC), p. 8.
13.Id. at 6.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 20.
17.Id. at 6.
18.Id. at 11.
19.Id. at 9.
20.Id. at 55.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 16.
23.Id. at 17.
24.Id. at 16, 17.
25.Id. at 18.
26. TSN dated October 9, 2017, p. 6.
27. TSN dated December 13, 2017, pp. 3-4.
28.Id. at 4.
29.Id.
30.Id. at 7.
31.Supra note 3.
32. CA rollo, pp. 45-46.
33.Id. at 42.
34.Id. at 40-43.
35.Id. at 42-43.
36.Id. at 44-45.
37.Id. at 20-35.
38.Id. at 28.
39.Id.
40.Id. at 31-33.
41.Id. at 52-76; see OSG's Brief filed before the CA of Cebu on January 15, 2019.
42.Supra note 2.
43.Rollo, p. 9.
44.Id. at 10.
45.Id. at 11-12.
46.Supra note 1.
47.Rollo, pp. 24-26.
48.Veridiano y Sapi v. People, 810 Phil. 642-671 (2017).
49.Homar v. People, 768 Phil. 195-209 (2015).
50. Amendment to R.A. 9165 (Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government), R.A. 10640.
51.People v. Ruiz, G.R. No. 243635, November 27, 2019.
52.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882 (2018).
53. Records (Crim. Case No. 17-4004), p. 9; see also TSN dated October 9, 2017, p. 7.
54.Id. at 11; see also TSN dated October 25, 2017, p. 4.
55. TSN dated October 9, 2017, pp. 14-15.
56. Records (Crim. Case No. 17-4004), p. 9.
57.People v. Plaza, G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018.
58. TSN dated December 13, 2017, p. 4
59. TSN dated October 25, 2017, p. 3.
60. TSN dated October 25, 2017, p. 6.
61.People v. Plaza, supra note 57.
62. TSN dated November 13, 2017, pp. 8-9.
63.People v. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 234051, November 27, 2019.
64.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 99 (2014).