People v. Bautista y Mabingnay

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 243671. October 4, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOANA BAUTISTA y MABINGNAY AND JAMES DE GUIA y BAUTISTA, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated04 October 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 243671 (People of the Philippines v. Joana Bautista y Mabingnay and James De Guia y Bautista). — Challenged in this appeal is the March 8, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07925 which affirmed the December 3, 2015 Joint Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 79 of Quezon City convicting accused-appellants Joana Bautista y Mabingnay (Bautista) and James De Guia y Bautista (De Guia) (collectively, accused-appellants) of Unauthorized Sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as shabu, under Section 5, 3 Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Acts of 2002 in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-07854-CR, and further affirmed the conviction of Bautista for Illegal Possession of shabu under Section 11, 4 Article II of the same law in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-07855-CR. 5

The Antecedents:

Accused-appellants were charged before the RTC for said crimes under the following Informations:

Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-07854-CR:

The undersigned accuses JOANA BAUTISTA y MABINGNAY a.k.a. 'SHIELA/ANNA' and JAMES DE GUIA y BAUTISTA a.k.a. 'PIDO' of the crime of VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, committed as follows:

That on or about the 26th day of August 2015, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping each other, without any lawful authority, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly, sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing zero point twenty-four (0.24) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6 aDSIHc

Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-07855-CR:

The undersigned accuses JOANA BAUTISTA y MABINGNAY a.k.a. 'SHIELA/ANNA' of the crime of VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, committed as follows:

That on or about the 26th day of August 2015, Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, without authority of the law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess one point seventy-seven (1.77) gram(s) of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

When arraigned on September 11, 2015, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. On even date, the pre-trial of the cases was held and terminated, with the parties agreeing on the jurisdiction of the trial court and the identity of the accused-appellants as the same persons charged in the Information. 8

Version of the Prosecution:

On August 26, 2015, Police Chief Inspector Enrico Figueroa (PCI Figuerora) of the Quezon City Police District (QCPD), gathered his men at around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon for the conduct of a buy-bust operation upon a tip given by a confidential informant that accused-appellant Bautista, then known as alias "Shiela/Ana" was peddling illegal drugs in North Fairview, Quezon City. A Pre-Operation Report was prepared and PO1 Lorenzo Balisi (PO1 Balisi) made a prior coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). PCI Figueroa designated PO3 Vicben N. Padua (PO3 Padua) as the poseur buyer and gave him a P500.00 buy-bust money, which the latter marked with his initials "VNP." 9

At around 7:30 in the evening of August 26, 2015, PO3 Padua, the confidential informant, PO1 Balisi and the other back-up operatives proceeded to the target area. 10

Upon reaching Bukluran Street at North Fairview, Quezon City, the confidential informant immediately saw and called Bautista. They talked and the confidential informant was told by Bautista to wait. At 8:45 in the evening, Bautista instructed the confidential informant to proceed to a shanty along Bukluran Street. At the shanty, Bautista asked the confidential informant why the latter brought a companion with him. In response, the confidential informant introduced PO3 Padua to Bautista as a customer who wanted to buy shabu. Bautista asked PO3 Padua how much he wished to buy, and when the latter told her that he wanted to buy P500.00 worth of shabu, Bautista brought out a case for eyeglasses, took out a sachet of shabu and gave it to n PO3 Padua. Bautista then introduced PO3 Padua to her companion, De Guia, for him to give the payment. PO3 Padua then gave the P500.00 buy-bust money to De Guia and the former rang PO1 Balisi's cellular phone to signal that the sale had been consummated. PO1 Balisi and the other operatives then rushed to the scene and arrested Bautista and De Guia. PO1 Balisi likewise recovered the P500.00 buy-bust money from De Guia. Moreover, upon conducting a bodily search on Bautista, PO1 Balisi recovered another sachet of suspected shabu in Bautista's possession. Then and there, PO3 Padua marked the sachet of shabu subject of the sale with his initials "VNP-JB 8-26-15" while PO1 Balisi placed the marking "LB-JB 8-26-15" on the sachet of shabu confiscated from Bautista. 11

As the arrest of accused-appellants caused a commotion and to avoid any untoward incident, the arresting officers immediately brought accused-appellants to the barangay hall of Greater Fairview, Quezon City where an inventory of the confiscated items was conducted in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Jerson M. Dazo (Kag. Dazo). Photographs of the seized items and of the signing of the Inventory were also taken, after which the arresting officers went back to their office and presented the seized items to police investigator PO3 Warlito Cagurungan (PO3 Cagurungan). A Request for Laboratory Examination was prepared and PO3 Padua and PO1 Balisi delivered the confiscated sachets of suspected shabu to the crime laboratory at the Kamuning Police Station. 12

Qualitative examination of the confiscated substances by Forensic Chemist PSI Bernardo Roque (PSI Roque) yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 13

Version of the Defense:

Accused-appellants vehemently denied the accusation against them. They both testified that they were resting in their respective houses at around 7:30 in the evening of August 26, 2015 when the police officers came and arrested them. Both claimed that they were framed up by the arresting officers. However, both admitted that they neither knew, nor had any misunderstanding with the police officers prior to their arrest. De Guia, however, claimed that the police officers were looking for a certain "Ayo" and he was arrested because he was not able to point the whereabouts of said person. 14

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

In its December 3, 2015 Joint Judgment, 15 the trial court convicted accused-appellants as charged, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. 15-07854, the Court finds accused JOANA BAUTISTA y MABINGNAY and JAMES DE GUIA y BAUTISTA, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, of Republic Act 9165, and they are hereby each sentenced to suffer LIFE imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) pesos;

2. In Criminal Case No. 15-07855, the Court finds accused JOANA BAUTISTA y MABINGNAY, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, of Republic Act 9165 and she is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to Twenty (20) years as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00); ETHIDa

xxx xxx xxx 16

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

Aggrieved with the trial court's ruling, accused-appellants appealed to the CA. They asserted that the prosecution failed to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that they were victims of a frame up and were not actually arrested in flagrante delicto. They likewise assailed their arrest as illegal for want of a warrant. 17

However, in its March 8, 2018 Decision, the appellate court affirmed the RTC's judgment. The fallo of the appellate court's Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the assailed December 3, 2015 Joint Judgment of Branch 79 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City is AFFIRMEDin toto.

xxx xxx xxx 18

Hence, accused-appellants filed this appeal. Accused-appellants assail their conviction on the ground that: (1) their warrantless arrest was invalid and the drugs allegedly seized from them were inadmissible in evidence; 19 (2) the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody since there were irregularities in the custody of the seized shabu and the police officers' handling of the same; 20 and (3) there was noncompliance of the requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, in particular the presence of the required witnesses from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. 21

Issue:

The pivotal issue in the instant case is whether or not accused-appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged against them.

Our Ruling

The appeal is meritorious. We acquit accused-appellants.

The prosecution must establish the following elements under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in order to secure a conviction for the crime of Illegal Sale of regulated or prohibited drugs, such as shabu: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 22 What is material in a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti. Corpus delicti, which literally means the "body of the crime," pertains to "the fact of the commission of the crime charged or the body or substance of the crime." In cases involving drugs, the confiscated article constitutes the corpus delicti of the crime charged. 23

On the other hand, a case of Illegal Possession of dangerous drugs will prosper if the following elements are present: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 24

In sustaining a conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, it is not enough that the prosecution merely establishes the elements of the crimes of Illegal Sale or Illegal Possession of dangerous drugs. It is likewise essential that the identity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drug itself, must be shown to have been preserved. 25 This is because an illegal drug has a unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 26

As We have reiterated in People v. Yagao, 27 the prosecution must show that the illegal drugs, the shabu in this case, presented in court are the same illegal drugs actually recovered from the accused-appellants to remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, 28 embodies the following procedural safeguards:

SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," is hereby amended to read as follows:

"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. cSEDTC

xxx xxx xxx

In the same vein, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Section 21 (a), enumerates the following procedural requirements, to wit:

(a) The apprehending office/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 non-compliance 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

Thus, in order to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been properly preserved, the prosecution must establish that the chain of custody was observed. Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002 defines chain of custody as the "duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction." 29

In accordance with the foregoing guidelines, We echoed in Tumabini v. People, 30 the following links that must be established to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug: 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.

Therefore, in order to successfully prosecute an accused for violation of RA 9165, the State must prove the concurrence of the elements of the crime, the observance of the chain of custody by the apprehending officers, and compliance of the procedure laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, to confirm that the integrity of the corpus delicti has been preserved.

In People v. Lim31(Lim), the Court stressed the importance of the presence of the required witnesses, at the time of the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items pursuant to Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. 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 the third-party witnesses namely: (i) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official; or if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. 32 In the event that any of the foregoing witnesses are absent, this Court held in Lim that:

It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reasons such as:

(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 proved 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.33(Emphasis in the original)

In addition to the foregoing, there must be evidence of earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses on the part of the law enforcers. In People v. Miranda, 34 this Court reiterated that:

Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v. Ramos requires:

It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 35 SDAaTC

In sum, jurisprudence requires that, in the event that the presence of the essential witnesses is not obtained, the prosecution must establish not only the reasons for their absence, but also that earnest efforts were exerted in securing their presence. 36 Thus, the prosecution must explain the reasons for the procedural lapses, and the justifiable grounds for failure to comply must be proven, since the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 37

In this case, the prosecution failed to prove both requisites. The apprehension of accused-appellants occurred on August 26, 2015, which is after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640. Thus, as the prevailing law then, it requires that the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items 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 the two more third-party witnesses consisting of an elected public official and either a representative from the NPS or the media. 38 In this case, the apprehending officers were able to procure the attendance of an elected public official. However, records show that the physical inventory and photographing of the confiscated shabu were done without the presence of a representative from the media or the NPS. Moreover, the prosecution failed to provide any reason for the failure of the arresting officers to secure the attendance of these required witnesses. The records are bereft of any proof that the apprehending officers exerted genuine effort to secure their presence. When asked why there was no representative from the NPS or the media, PO1 Balisi simply explained that they were not able to come. 39 As We have pointed out in Lim, 40 mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.

In view of the absence of a representative from the media or the NPS during the physical inventory and the photographing of the seized shabu, the possibility of the contamination of the evidence creates a serious doubt as to the integrity of the alleged corpus delicti.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed March 8, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07925 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants James De Guia y Bautista and Joana Bautista y Mabingnay are ACQUITTED, their guilt not having proven beyond reasonable doubt They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for another lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, and the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, and the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, are DIRECTED to report to this Court the action they have taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

By:

(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Renato C. Francisco and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin.

2. Records, pp. 155-166; penned by Presiding Judge Nadine Jessica Corazon J. Fama.

3. Republic Act No. 9165, Article II, Section 5:

Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, 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 such transactions.

xxx xxx xxx

4. Republic Act No. 9165, Article II, Section 11:

Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — 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 possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:

xxx xxx xxx

5.Rollo, p. 2.

6.Id. at 3.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 5.

9.Id. at 3-4.

10.Id. at 4.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 4-5.

13.Id. at 5.

14.Id.

15. Records, pp. 155-166.

16.Id. at 165-166.

17.Rollo, p. 6.

18.Id. at 10.

19. CA rollo, pp. 73-74.

20.Rollo, p. 41.

21.Id. at 45-50.

22.People v. Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019.

23.People v. Yanson, G.R. No. 238453, July 31, 2019.

24.Duarte v. People, G.R. No. 238971, August 28, 2019.

25.Largo v. People, G.R. No. 201293, June 19, 2019.

26.People v. Yagao, G.R. No. 216725, February 18, 2019.

27.Id.

28. 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 (enacted July 15, 2014).

29.See also People v. Advincula, G.R. No. 201576, July 22, 2019.

30. G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.

31.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

32.People v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 243986, January 22, 2020.

33.Supra note 31.

34. G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019.

35.Id.

36.People v. Addin, G.R. No. 223682, October 9, 2019.

37.People v. Diamante, G.R. No. 231980, October 9, 2019.

38.People v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 243986, January 22, 2020.

39.CA rollo, p. 92.

40.People v. Lim, supra note 31.

n Note from the Publisher: Written as "gave it PO3 Padua" in the official document.