THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232383. June 22, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROY BERCASIO y SANGALANG AND JAPREE DE LEON y MATEO, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated June 22, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232383 (People of the Philippines v. Roy Bercasio y Sangalang and Japree De Leon y Mateo). — This resolves the appeal filed by accused-appellants Roy Bercasio y Sangalang (Bercasio) and Japree de Leon y Mateo (De Leon) against the affirmance 1 by the Court of Appeals (CA) of their conviction 2 for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
Accused-appellants Bercasio and De Leon were charged with violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165 in an information which reads:
That on or about the 7th day of April 2010 at Mabini, Santiago City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver one (1) small heat[-]sealed plastic sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as "Shabu " a dangerous drug weighing 0.139 grams more or less to a PDEA Poseur-Buyer in consideration of One Thousand Pesos [(P1,000.00)] marked bill with Serial Number XB068801 without any authority or license to do the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW[.] 3
Accused-appellant De Leon was also charged with violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 in an information which reads:
That on or about the 7th day of April 2010 at Mabini, Santiago City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control one (1) small heat-sealed plastic sachet containing 0.168 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as "Shabu" a dangerous drug without first having obtained any authority or permit from the government or its duly authorized representative.
CONTRARY TO LAW[.] 4
Upon arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. The parties did not make any stipulation or admission of facts. The cases were tried jointly. The prosecution offered the testimonies of Intelligence Officer 1 (IO1) April Rose A. Mendoza (IO1 Mendoza), IO1 Oliver B. Madriaga (IO1 Madriaga), and Police Chief Inspector Alfredo Quintero, a Forensic Chemist. The People also offered the following documents as evidence: Chemistry Report No. D-010-2010, a Request for Laboratory Examination, an Affidavit of Arresting Officer, and an Inventory of Seized Items. 5 The defense relied solely on the testimonies of accused-appellants.
Version of the Prosecution
Respondent summarizes the facts in its brief before the CA, which it adopted in toto, as follows:
On April 7, 2010, at around 10:30 in the morning, a confidential informant called up Special Investigator (SI) Armenio Gaudia of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)-Regional Office No. 2 in Camp Adduru, Tuguegarao City, and informed the latter that appellant Japree de Leon was engaged in selling illegal drugs at Barangay Mabini, Santiago City.
Based on the information given by the informant, a buy-bust team was organized to carry out a buy-bust operation. [IO1 Mendoza] was designated as the poseur-buyer, while [IO1 Madriaga] was the immediate back-up. Other members of the team were IO1 Talek Corotan, IO1 Job Jeronella, IO1 Juneclide Cabanilla, IO1 Benjamin Binwag and SI2 Armenio Gaudia.
Prior to the buy-bust operation, the team prepared the buy-bust money consisting of one (1) piece P1,000-peso bill with Serial No. XB06881. The team likewise coordinated with the Santiago City Police Station 2 in Dubinan West, Santiago City regarding the planned buy-bust operation. It was also at the police station when the civilian informant sent a text message to appellant Japree de Leon that a friend wanted to buy shabu from him. Appellant Japree de Leon replied and instructed them to proceed to the residence of appellant Roy Bercasio where the transaction would take place. CAIHTE
At around 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon that same day, the team proceeded to the house of appellant Roy Bercasio at Purok 3, Mabini, Santiago City. [IO1 Mendoza] was with the civilian informant while the rest of the team stayed in a safe distance. The informant approached appellant Roy Bercasio and introduced IO1 Mendoza as the one who wanted to buy shabu from appellant Japree de Leon. Appellant Roy Bercasio then told them that appellant Japree de Leon was waiting for them inside the house.
Upon entering the house, the informant introduced IO1 April Rose Mendoza to appellant Japree de Leon. The latter then asked IO1 Mendoza how much she wanted to buy. IO1 Mendoza replied that she wanted to buy shabu worth P1,000.00. IO1 Mendoza then handed the buy-bust money to appellant Japree de Leon, who, in turn, handed a heat-sealed plastic sachet to the former.
Convinced that the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet contained the suspected shabu, [IO1 Mendoza] executed the pre-arranged signal by making a missed call to [IO1 Madriaga]. At that point, [IO1 Madriaga] and the rest of the team rushed towards them, introduced themselves as PDEA agents and arrested appellants. After handcuffing appellants, IO1 Mendoza apprised appellants of their constitutional rights and the reason for their arrest.
[IO1 Madriaga] likewise conducted a body search on appellant Japree de Leon which resulted in the recovery of one more plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. Right at the crime scene, [IO1 Mendoza] marked the heat-sealed transparent sachet of shabu she bought from appellant Japree de Leon with "AAM", while IO1 Madriaga marked the one he recovered from appellant Japree de Leon with "OBM", respectively. They likewise took photographs of the confiscated items.
Thereafter, the arresting team brought appellants to Santiago City General Hospital for physical examination. Then they proceeded to Santiago City Police Station 2 for the usual booking procedure and documentation. An inventory of the items was likewise conducted at the precinct witnessed by Barangay Kagawads Warlito Barlaan and Manuel Ugaban of Purok 3, Mabini, Santiago City. SI2 Armenio Gaudia prepared a request for laboratory examination of the confiscated plastic sachets containing the suspected shabu. He subsequently brought the said items to Santiago City Crime Laboratory for examination.
Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Alfredo M. Quintero, Forensic Chemist of Santiago City Crime Laboratory, conducted a laboratory examination on the contents of the plastic sachets and issued Chemistry Report No. D-010-2010, declaring that the same yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as shabu, a dangerous drug. 6
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellants interposed a defense of denial and frame-up. Their testimonies were summarized by the trial court as follows:
Accused Roy Bercasio, 43 years old, married, a resident of Purok 3, Mabini, Santiago City since birth, and a merchandizer [sic] before his arrest and detention, testified that he resides in their old house located in Mabini, Santiago City together with his mother, wife and two (2) children: that their house is [a] 2-stor[e]y building with five (5) rooms made of wood. Aside from their house, there are neighboring houses. He declared that, on April 7, 2010 at 12:00 Noon, he was watching TV in one room while his wife and children were sleeping in another room; meanwhile, his friend Japree De Leon (his co-accused) arrived and invited him for a drinking spree which he rejected since it was 12:00 high noon and, besides, he just arrived from Nueva Ecija; instead, he offered a simple snack. He recalled that, while having snacks, he heard a noise outside their house and when he went out[,] he saw many people who introduced themselves as PDEA agents and, suddenly they handcuffed them and showed some items on top of the bed. Thereafter, he said, they were boarded a vehicle and brought to Station II in Dubinan, Santiago City. At the police station, two (2) barangay kagawads arrived and signed a document. Afterwards, the accused were brought to a hospital for physical examination and subsequently proceeded to the PNP Santiago City. On cross examination by the prosecution, he admitted that PDEA agent April Rose Mendoza was present when he was arrested by the PDEA, including IO1 Oliver Madriaga. He clarified though that the [Php1,000.00] taken from him was the money of accused Japree de Leon. On re-direct, he said the PDEA agents did not inform him of his constitutional right to counsel. He confirmed that the PDEA agents made the inventory in the police station in the presence of the two (2) barangay officials and other policemen then present. He denied that the seized items were taken from his possession. On queries of the Court, he declared that IO1 Mendoza did not talk to him before they arrested him, and he is not sure if there was a civilian asset. (TSN, May 21, 2013). DETACa
Accused Japree de Leon, 29 years old, a resident of Purok 3, Mabini, Santiago City, also testified that he was born in Mabini, Santiago City and they reside in one compound with his relatives, including his co-accused Roy Bercasio, his barangay mate. He declared that, on April 7, 2010, in the afternoon, he was on his way to the house of Roy Bercasio but he was not able to enter the house, instead, the PDEA agents accosted him and brought him inside the house of Roy Bercasio and once inside a room he was pulled his face against the wall and then bodily searched by the PDEA agents; subsequently, they were handcuffed. When they turned around, they saw drugs in the bed and the PDEA agents told them the drugs belong to them because they are selling. He corroborated the testimony of accused Roy Bercasio that two (2)-barangay kagawad arrived and signed a document at Precinct 2; thereafter, they were brought to the PNP of Santiago City. He confirmed also that the [Php1,000.00] taken from him is his own money; he added that, at that time, he had [Php6,500.00]; he said the PDEA agents got all his money but only declared Php1,000.00. On question of the Court, he categorically stated that the PDEA agents arrested them for selling illegal drugs. He also clarified that the drugs on top of the bed were two (2) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet. He denies having one (1) sachet taken from him (TSN, June 13, 2013). 7
Ruling of the RTC
The trial court found accused-appellants guilty as charged. It gave more weight and credence to the evidence of the prosecution, which was able to establish that a buy-bust operation took place wherein accused-appellants were caught in the act of selling shabu to IO1 Mendoza. It was established that when the PDEA confidential informant approached Bercasio and introduced IO1 Mendoza as a potential buyer of shabu, Bercasio allowed them inside his house where De Leon was already waiting. Once inside Bercasio's house, IO1 Mendoza consummated the transaction with De Leon, who handed over a sachet of shabu in exchange for the P1,000.00 marked money. Upon the signal given by IO1 Mendoza, the rest of the apprehending team moved in to arrest accused-appellants, and they found another sachet of shabu in De Leon's possession. Furthermore, accused-appellants themselves admitted that they were arrested by the PDEA agents. The trial court disposed of the case thus:
WHEREFORE, the Court finds:
1) In Criminal Case No. 35-6705, for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 accused Roy Bercasio and Japree de Leon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Php500,000.00; and
2) In Criminal Case No. 35-6706, for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 accused Japree de Leon GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY and a fine of Php300,000.00.
SO ORDERED. 8
Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed the RTC's findings as to the occurrence of the buy-bust operation. It held that the variance in the testimonies of IO1 Mendoza and IO1 Madriaga did not detract from the established fact that they conducted a buy-bust operation against accused-appellants. As regards accused-appellants' contentions concerning the handling, preservation, and presentation of the drug specimens, the appellate court held that the presence of two barangay councilors was substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165; and that the failure of the prosecution to present photographs of the confiscated contraband did not render said contraband inadmissible in evidence. The appellate court further held that the prosecution's failure to present the forensic chemist's testimony on the preservation of the integrity of the seized contraband was attributable to the defense counsel, viz.:
As stated earlier, at the hearing on September 29, 2010, the prosecution offered the testimony of PCI Quintero to prove that as the forensic chemist of the Santiago City Crime Laboratory, he received two (2) heat-sealed sachets holding white crystalline substance from members of the PDEA. Atty. Garcia, accused's counsel, admitted that the substance was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The trial judge ruled that Quintero's offered testimony is admitted, and because the defense counsel raised no objections, the testimony was dispensed with. Then, when the prosecution made an oral offer of the witness' Chemistry Report, again, the defense counsel did not raise any objection. If accused believed that the forensic chemist failed to preserve the integrity of the evidence, they should not have stipulated on his testimony and instead allowed him to testify and cross-examined him on the manner that he handled the evidence. This Court cannot take the dispensing of the chemist's testimony against the prosecution. That would be unfair to the prosecution because it could no longer present rebuttal evidence. Thus, at this late stage, this Court must presume that the forensic chemist performed his work regularly and that he preserved the integrity of the evidence while it was in his custody. 9
The appellate court thus concluded that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody. However, it modified the penalty imposable upon accused-appellant De Leon for violation of Section 11. Since the shabu seized from De Leon was less than 5 grams, the appellate court imposed an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment from 12 years and 1 day to 13 years and 1 day. The CA disposed of the case thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Joint Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Santiago City is AFFIRMED; however, the penalty of imprisonment imposed on accused Japree M. De Leon in Criminal Case No. 6706 is MODIFIED to 12 years and 1 day to 13 years and 1 day. aDSIHc
SO ORDERED. 10
Hence, the present appeal, on the ground that the courts a quo erred in convicting accused-appellants despite the prosecution's failure to establish the existence of the buy-bust operation and the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. 11
Court's Ruling
An appeal against a judgment of conviction opens the whole case for review; and all errors, whether or not assigned, are open to appreciation and correction, 12 regardless of whether or not they were raised for the first time on appeal. 13
Since the existence of the dangerous drug is an essential element in both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, as defined and penalized in Article II, Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of R.A. No. 9165, the origin and identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty in order to sustain a conviction for either offense. 14 As the corpus delicti of the crime, the existence and custody of the dangerous drug subject of the transaction or possession must be established beyond reasonable doubt. 15
To this end, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes the guidelines to be observed by law enforcement officers in the processing and custody of dangerous drugs. Section 21 (1) provides:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: (1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
Unjustified noncompliance with the foregoing procedures renders the existence of the corpus delicti in doubt, as the possibility of switching or substituting the seized items with another sample can never be ruled out. Thus, the Court has consistently ruled that the prosecution must provide adequate justification for lapses in the procedure for handling seized dangerous drugs, otherwise such seizures shall be considered invalid. 16
In People v. Pantallano, 17 the Court acquitted the accused who was arrested in a buy-bust operation in 2012, because the inventory of the seized narcotics was signed only by a barangay kagawad. The Court elucidated on the importance of the three-witness requirement as laid down in the foregoing provision, viz.:
Since the offenses subject of this appeal were committed before the amendment introduced by R.A. 10640, the old provisions of Section 21 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) should apply, viz.:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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.
The use of the word "shall" means that compliance with the foregoing requirements is mandatory. Section 21 (a) clearly states that physical inventory and the taking of photographs must be made in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel and the following indispensable witnesses: (1) an elected public official, (2) a representative from the DOJ and (3) a representative from the media. The Court, in People v. Mendoza, explained that the presence of these witnesses would preserve an unbroken chain of custody and prevent the possibility of tampering with or "planting" of evidence, viz.:
[W]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized 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 [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. ETHIDa
As culled from the records and highlighted by the testimonies of the witnesses themselves, only one out of three of the required witnesses was present during the inventory stage. There were no representatives from the DOJ and the media. Neither was it shown nor alleged by the arresting officers that earnest efforts were made to secure the attendance of these witnesses. To the Court's mind, the lower courts relied so much on the narration of the prosecution witnesses that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved without taking into account the weight of these procedural lapses. 18
Here, the inventory receipt was signed by IO1 Mendoza and two persons named Warlito Barlaan (Barlaan) and Manuel Ugaban (Ugaban), 19 who were both barangay officials (kagawad). 20 Both IO1 Mendoza and IO1 Madriaga testified that Barlaan and Ugaban witnessed the inventory of the specimens at the Santiago City Police Station 2, after the marking and photographing thereof at the buy-bust area. 21 The operational documentation and the testimonies of IO1 Mendoza and IO1 Madriaga are silent as to whether Barlaan and Ugaban were present during the marking and photographing of the contraband seized from accused-appellants. Neither do IO1 Mendoza or IO1 Madriaga explain why the inventory was witnessed only by two-barangay kagawad, or the absence of DOJ and media representatives to witness the inventory and photographing. There was likewise no explanation for the conduct of the inventory at the Santiago City Police Station 2 even when the marking and photographing of the specimens was conducted at the buy-bust area itself. The custodial procedure in Section 21 of the Dangerous Drugs Act is not a trivial formality. It is an operational safeguard which maintains the evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs. Thus, unjustified noncompliance therewith renders the origins of the seized narcotics doubtful. 22 In view of the unjustified lapses committed by the apprehending team in this case, reasonable doubt emerges as to the origin and identity of the narcotics allegedly seized from accused-appellants, rendering the existence of the corpus delicti of the offenses in doubt. Thus, the Court has no choice but to grant the appeal.
WHEREFORE, the present appeal is GRANTED. The November 17, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06695 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Roy Bercasio y Sangalang and Japree De Leon y Mateo are hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless they are being held for any other lawful cause. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is hereby ORDERED to submit his report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice. Let entry of judgment be immediately issued.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-16. Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06695, dated November 17, 2016. Penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang (now retired), with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court) and Manuel M. Barrios, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 41-49. Joint Decision dated September 3, 2013 in Criminal Case Nos. 35-6705 and 35-6706. Rendered by Judge Efren M. Cacatian of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City, Isabela, Branch 35.
3. Id. at 41-42.
4. Id. at 42.
5. Rollo, p. 3.
6. CA rollo, pp. 67-69.
7. CA rollo, pp. 45-46.
8. Id. at 49.
9. Rollo, p. 14.
10. Id. at 15-16.
11. CA rollo, p. 34.
12. People v. Fornillos, G.R. No. 231991, January 27, 2020, citing People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 234190, October 1, 2018.
13. People v. Jagdon, G.R. No. 234648, March 27, 2019, citing People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1056-1057 (2018).
14. Fuentes v. People, G.R. No. 228718, January 7, 2019, People v. Alon-Alon, G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019, People v. Abdulah, G.R. No. 243941, March 11, 2020, citing People v. Nacua, 702 Phil. 739 (2013), People v. Battung, 833 Phil. 959 (2018), People v. Catentay, 638 Phil. 201 (2010), People v. Nazareno, 559 Phil. 387 (2007).
15. People v. Crispo, et al., 828 Phil. 416, 436 (2018), People v. Ramirez, et al., 823 Phil. 1215, 1228 (2018).
16. People v. Sioson, G.R. No. 242686, July 7, 2020, People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018. Such has been the rule even before the amendment of RA 9165, Section 21 in 2014. Dela Riva v. People, 769 Phil. 872 (2015), Valencia v. People, 725 Phil. 268 (2014), People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441 (2013), People v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147 (2011) People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393 (2010) and cases cited therein.
17. G.R. No. 233800, March 6, 2019.
18. Id.
19. Inventory of Seized Properties/Items, Records, p. 9.
20. TSN, September 29, 2010, p. 18; TSN, August 23, 2011, p. 9.
21. TSN, September 29, 2010, pp. 17-18; TSN, November 8, 2010, pp. 8-9; TSN, August 23, 2011, pp. 8-9.
22. Aparente v. People, 818 Phil. 935, 946-947 (2017).