FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 194723. January 12, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. GAMORANAO BOLATAN y ALONTO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 12, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 194723 (People of the Philippines v. Gamoranao Bolatan y Alonto). — Before this Court is a motion for reconsideration filed by Gamoranao Bolatan y Alonto (accused-appellant) of the Resolution 1 dated January 29, 2014 denying accused-appellant's appeal and affirming his conviction for violation of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Facts of the Case
The prosecution filed two separate Informations charging accused-appellant for violation of Section 5 and Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165 which read as follows:
Criminal Case No. DC 03-184
That on or about the 5th day of May, 2003, in the City of Angeles, 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) piece of small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet each (sic) containing more or less TWO (2) GRAMS of SHABU (Methamphetamine Hydrochloride), which is dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.
ALL CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. DC 03-185
That on or about the 5th day of May, 2003, in the City of Angeles, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and/or deliver to a poseur-buyer ONE (1) small transparent plastic sachet containing more or less FIVE TENTHS (0.5) OF A GRAM of SHABU (Methmaphetamine [sic] Hydrochloride), which is dangerous drug, without authority whatsoever.
ALL CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty." Pre-trial and trial then ensued. 3
The prosecution presented its lone witness, PO3 Alfredo Ayco (PO3 Ayco), the police officer who acted as poseur-buyer and testified that on May 5, 2003, at about 5:00 p.m., an informant went to their office to report about a certain "Jimmy" selling drugs at J.P. Laurel St., Virgen Delos Remedios, Angeles City. After receiving the tip, his Chief of Police formed a team composed of SPO4 Fernando Calado (SPO4 Calado) and PO3 Ayco for the conduct of a buy-bust operation. The Chief of Police gave them five marked pieces of P100.00 bills to be used as buy-bust money. PO3 Ayco, SPO4 Calado, and their informant arrived at the area at about 5:50 of the same afternoon. Upon reaching Apt. A-6, PO3 Ayco and the informant knocked at the screen door which was opened by accused-appellant. The informant pointed to PO3 Ayco as the one who wanted to purchase shabu. Accused-appellant reached inside his pocket for a plastic sachet of shabu and handed it to PO3 Ayco. PO3 Ayco in turn gave the five pieces of P100.00 bills. Subsequently, PO3 Ayco introduced himself as a policeman and frisked accused-appellant. SPO4 Calado rushed to the scene to serve as back-up. The two policemen prepared an inventory of the items seized signed by the media representative Raul Suscano and Barangay Kagawad Pio Padilla at the Barangay Hall of Virgen Delos Remedios. The police officers proceeded to the police station for custodial investigation and proper documentation. PO1 Tolentino then delivered the request together with the seized specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory, for which Chemistry Report No. D-179-2003 was issued, confirming that the seized items were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 4
The defense presented accused-appellant who testified that he was a sidewalk vendor of VCDs, DVDs, VCD player, and accessories. On May 5, 2003, while he was about to bring his wares inside the house, he was surprised that two police officers entered his house. He knew them to be police officers as they previously apprehended other pirated DVD vendors. Upon entering the house, the police officers allegedly shouted invectives at him for not lending them some VCD tapes and VCD player. The two confiscated his VCD tapes and his earnings allegedly as evidence. Accused-appellant was brought to a safe house and was told that he will be released only if he pays them P1,500.00 each. Accused-appellant was able to give P1,500.00 to SPO4 Calado but failed to give money to PO3 Ayco. Hence, he was brought to the police station. 5
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On October 23, 2008, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the sale of shabu and meted upon him the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00; and illegal possession of shabu with a penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years as maximum of reclusion temporal and a fine of P300,000.00. 6
The RTC gave credence to the testimony of PO3 Ayco because he was able to establish all the elements of the crimes charged. The RTC did not consider the defense of alibi and frame-up proffered by accused-appellant. 7
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Accused-appellant appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeals (CA), which rendered a Decision 8 dated June 28, 2010 affirming the ruling of the trial court. The CA held that the prosecution proved all the elements for the illegal possession and illegal sale of shabu. The CA gave credence to the testimony of PO3 Ayco and viewed accused-appellant's defense of alibi and frame-up with disfavor. 9 The CA likewise found that the procedure for the seizure and custody of drugs provided under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was duly complied with. 10
Because of the affirmance of his conviction, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. 11 In his Supplemental Brief, 12 accused-appellant insists that the trial court and CA erred in relying only on the sole testimony of PO3 Ayco. Accused-appellant also avers that the police officers were not able to prove compliance with the chain of custody in handling the seized drugs. Accused-appellant stresses that the alleged shabu was delivered to the crime laboratory only on June 4, 2003 while the incident happened on May 5, 2003. Further, only the representative from the media and a barangay kagawad signed the inventory. Accused-appellant claims that the witnesses were not present during the actual inventory. There was also no photograph taken. 13
The Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief and instead, adopted the Appellee's Brief previously filed to the CA. 14
On January 29, 2014, the Court issued a Resolution 15 denying the appeal and affirming the rulings of the RTC and CA.
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The motion for reconsideration is granted.
In illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165, it is essential that the identity of the seized drugs be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 16 Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt which therefore warrants an acquittal. 17 In order to establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, there must be observance of the chain of custody rule enshrined under Section 21 of R.A. 9156.
Here, since the buy-bust operation was conducted prior to the amendment of R.A. 9165, the apprehending team is mandated, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (1) a representative from the media; (2) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (3) any elected public official. 18
In this case, the records provide that the inventory of the seized drugs was only witnessed by the accused-appellant, a representative from the media, and a barangay kagawad. The illicit drug was not even photographed as required by Section 21. There was no explanation offered as to: (1) why the inventory was not witnessed by a representative from the DOJ; and (2) why was there no photograph of the illicit drugs.
The Court has explained in a number of cases that 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. Without the insulating presence of these witnesses 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 will negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject drug that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affect the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. 19
Additionally, the Court already held that the presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest because it is at this point in which their presence is most needed. Their attendance at the time of seizure and confiscation would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. 20 Here, it was not proved that the witnesses were present at the time of the buy-bust operation.
The glaring non-compliance of the provisions of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 rendered the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items to be highly compromised, consequently warranting accused-appellant's acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the Court treats the letter dated December 20, 2019 as a second motion for reconsideration. The Entry of Judgment dated August 20, 2014 is hereby RECALLED. Accordingly, the second motion for reconsideration is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 28, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 03806 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Gamoranao Bolatan y Alonto is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged against him and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
SO ORDERED." (Gesmundo, J., designated as additional Member per Raffle dated October 29, 2020; Gaerlan, J., took no part.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 45-51.
2.Id. at 3.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 3-5.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id. at 5.
7.Id. at 46.
8. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court); id. at 2-12.
9.Id. at 6-9.
10.Id. at 10-11.
11.Id. at 13.
12.Id. at 24-30.
13.Id. at 25-27.
14.Id. at 32-33.
15.Supra note 1.
16.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
17.People v. Gamboa, 833 Phil. 1055, 1072 (2018).
18. Section 21 (1) of R.A. 9165 states:
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;
xxx xxx xxx
19.People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
20.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 408-409 (2018).