SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238115. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROLLY BURAY y DEL PUERTO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated13 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238115 (People of the Philippines v. Rolly Buray y Del Puerto). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated January 30, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01581-MIN which affirmed the Consolidated Judgment 3 dated September 30, 2016 of Branch 40, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Misamis Oriental, Cagayan de Oro City, finding Rolly Buray y Del Puerto (accused-appellant) guilty of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 in two Informations 4 as follows:
Criminal Case No. 2010-1229:
That on or about 3:40 p.m. of December 9, 2010, at Zone 5, Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to possess dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, criminally and knowingly have in his possession, custody and control, seven heat-sealed transparent sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, with total net weight of .14 gram, accused well-knowing that the substance recovered from his possession is a dangerous drugs [sic].
Contrary to Paragraph 2 (3), Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. 5
Criminal Case No. 2010-1230:
That on or about 3:40 p.m. of December 9, 2010, at Zone 5, Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, criminally and knowingly sell and/or offer for sale, and give away to a poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, weighing 0.02 gram, in consideration of two P100 bills with Serial Nos. XB139611 and ZC774036.
Contrary to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165. 6
When arraigned, accused-appellant entered his pleas of not guilty to the charges. After the termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 7
Version of the Prosecution
On December 9, 2010, a confidential informant notified the officers of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) that a certain "Bogart" was selling shabu in Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City. A buy-bust team was immediately formed with Intelligence Officer 1 Nestle Carin (IO1 Carin) as the poseur-buyer and Intelligence Officer 1 Elvis M. Taghoy, Jr. (IO1 Taghoy) as the arresting officer. After the briefing, the team immediately proceeded to the target area. 8
At accused-appellant's house, the confidential informant introduced IO1 Carin to the former as an interested buyer of shabu. They all proceeded to the second floor of the house where accused-appellant showed them eight sachets of shabu. IO1 Carin took one of the sachets and handed to accused-appellant two P100-bills as payment. She then rang up IO1 Taghoy and immediately dropped the call — the pre-arranged signal that the transaction had already been consummated. 9
IO1 Taghoy and the rest of the team rushed to the house and arrested accused-appellant. IO1 Taghoy seized the seven sachets of shabu and the P200 buy-bust money from accused-appellant. IO1 Carin also surrendered to IO1 Taghoy the sachet of shabu she bought from accused-appellant. 10
Afterwards, IO1 Taghoy marked all the seized items and prepared the inventory. BarangayKagawad Admiral P. Avanceña, who checked the items listed on the inventory, signed it. At the same time, IO1 Carin took pictures of the seized items. 11
The arresting officers then brought accused-appellant to the PDEA office. IO1 Taghoy remained in possession of the seized items. At the office, IO1 Taghoy prepared the request for laboratory examination. He and IO1 Carin brought the seized items and accused-appellant to the crime laboratory for drug testing. 12
At the crime laboratory, Police Chief Inspector Erma Salvacion-Sampaga (PCI Salvacion-Sampaga) received the request and the seized items. Qualitative tests on the seized items and accused-appellant's urine sample yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu. PCI Salvacion-Sampaga reduced her findings in writing and surrendered the dangerous drugs to the evidence custodian. Thereafter, she retrieved them and surrendered them to the court. 13
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant asserted that on December 9, 2010, at 3:40 p.m., he was sick and resting on the second floor of his house in Zone 5, Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City. Suddenly, three FX vans arrived near his house. Several armed men, whose faces were covered with bonnets, alighted from the vehicles and rushed towards the first floor of the house. He was about to go down to the first floor, but one of the men pointed his firearm at him and told him not to move. The other men also instructed, at gunpoint, the other occupants of the house on the first floor not to move. 14
An armed man wearing a bonnet and a PDEA shirt arrested him on the second floor. When he denied having any dangerous drugs, some of them repeatedly punched him, kicked him, pushed him down the floor face-down, and handcuffed him. The others went up the second floor and searched the rooms. Thereafter, they strew small-sized plastic bags and money bills on the floor; and then took pictures. 15
Accused-appellant maintained that the armed men did not present any search warrant and were unaccompanied by a barangay official when they arrived and searched the rooms in the house. The barangay official arrived after the search was done. He also contended that he gave no consent to the search. He further asserted that he was brought to the PDEA office, asked to divulge names of persons involved in selling shabu, and tortured when he was unable to provide names. 16
Finally, accused-appellant denied the allegations against him and maintained that the items allegedly seized from him were planted. 17
The Ruling of the RTC
On September 30, 2016, the RTC rendered a Consolidated Judgment 18 as follows:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the court hereby finds accused Rolly Buray y Del Puerto:
1. In Crim. Case No. 2010-1230, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the offense charged in the information (violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165). He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
2. In Crim. Case No. 2010-1229, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Par. 2 (3), Article II of R.A. No. 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to twelve years (12) and two (2) days as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00, with no subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment thereof.
The period of his preventive detention shall be credited in his favor. The sachets of shabu are hereby ordered forfeited in favour [sic] of the government for proper disposal in accordance with the rules.
SO ORDERED. 19 (Emphasis omitted.)
The RTC was convinced that the prosecution sufficiently discharged the burden of establishing the elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. 20
The case was then elevated to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
On January 30, 2018, the CA affirmed the Consolidated Judgment of the RTC. 21 The CA disposed of the case as follows:
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED. The Consolidated Judgment dated 30 September 2016 of the Regional Trial Court. Special Drugs Court, 10th Judicial Region, Branch 40, Cagayan de Oro City, in Criminal Case Nos. 2010-1229 and 2010-1230, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 22
Hence, the appeal before the Court.
The Issue
The issue before the Court is whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
Our Ruling
The Court grants the appeal.
The elements necessary in every prosecution for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs are: "(1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor." 23 On the other hand, for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be established: "(a) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs." 24
For a successful prosecution of the offense of Illegal Sale and/or Possession of Dangerous Drugs, not only must the prosecution establish the above elements, but also, it is equally "essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpusdelicti of the [offense.]" 25
Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the offense. 26 "As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, interalia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same." 27
The law further requires that the inventory and photographing of the confiscated 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 certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 28 one representative each from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative from either the National Prosecution Service or the media. 29
In cases where strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure is not possible, the seizure and custody of the seized items will not be rendered void if the prosecution satisfactorily proves that there was a justifiable ground for the deviation, and the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items had been properly preserved. 30 Further, noncompliance with the witness requirement may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, albeit the latter failed to appear. 31
After a review of the records of the case, the Court finds that the prosecution utterly failed to prove the corpusdelicti of the offenses charged as it failed to demonstrate that the arresting officers observed the requirements mandated by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.
In the case, the charges for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 were purportedly committed on December 9, 2010, when RA 9165 was not yet amended by RA 10640. Thus, the three-witness rule applies. However, it appears that only an elected official witnessed the inventory of the seized items as the inventory sheet was signed only by IO1 Taghoy and Barangay Councilor Admiral P. Avanceña, Sr. 32 Notably, the other required witnesses, i.e., a representative from the media and the DOJ, were not present.
Furthermore, the rule requires that the inventory sheet must be signed by the accused or his/her representative along with the three required witnesses. 33 Here, neither accused-appellant nor his representative signed the confiscation receipt/inventory sheet.
Nothing in the records shows that the prosecution or the arresting officers provided a justification for the buy-bust team's noncompliance with the three-witness rule or offered a plausible explanation as to why there were no representatives from the media and the DOJ present. Neither was it proven that the arresting officers had exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of said required witnesses. In other words, this blatant deviation from the mandatory procedure was completely left unjustified by the prosecution.
The Court cannot merely gloss over the glaring lapse committed by the arresting officers especially when the shabu allegedly seized from accused-appellant amounted to only 0.16 gram in total. In fact, the Court has repeatedly highlighted the need to ensure the integrity of the seized drugs in the chain of custody when the dangerous drug allegedly confiscated from the accused is of minuscule quantity, 34 "which is evidently harder to identify and is highly susceptible to tampering, alteration, or substitution." 35
Considering that the marking and inventory of the allegedly seized drugs were highly questionable, there is no assurance that the seized sachets of shabu tested in the crime laboratory and presented in court were the same sachets of dangerous drug supposedly confiscated from accused-appellant. "While the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the [accused-appellant] to be presumed innocent and it cannot itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt." 36 The presumption of regularity, after all, is a presumption that is disputable by contrary proof, and which, when controverted by competent evidence, cannot be regarded as binding truth. 37
In drug cases, the conviction of an accused cannot be sustained if there is a persistent doubt about the identity of the drug. 38 "The identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty." 39 Aside from showing that the elements of illegal sale or possession are present, "the fact that the substance illegally [sold or] possessed in the first place is the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict." 40
The Court holds that the evidence on record and the circumstances obtaining in the case do not support a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Because the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized sachets of shabu were never preserved, the corpusdelicti was not adequately proven.
In fine, reasonable doubt does exist in the present case. Because the quantum of proof required for the conviction of accused-appellant for the violations charged was not met, his acquittal is in order.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated January 30, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01581-MIN is REVERSED and SETASIDE. Accused-appellant Rolly Buray y Del Puerto is hereby ACQUITTED.
The Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, Davao del Norte, is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Rolly Buray y Del Puerto, unless he is being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J., on official leave; HERNANDO, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 18-19.
2.Id. at 3-17; penned by Associate Justice Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Oscar V. Badelles, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 50-63; penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Corazon B. Gaite-Llanderal.
4. As culled from the CA Decision, rollo, p. 4.
5. As culled from the CA Decision, id. at 4.
6. As culled from the CA Decision, id.
7.Rollo, p. 5.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 5-6.
13.Id. at 6.
14. CA rollo, p. 35.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18. CA rollo, pp. 50-63.
19.Id. at 62.
20.Id. at 61.
21.Id. at 50-63.
22.Rollo, p. 17.
23.People v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147, 157 (2011).
24.Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 686 Phil. 137, 148 (2012).
25.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
26.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018). See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014) and People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 459-460 (2015).
27.People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
28. Entitled "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,'" approved on July 15, 2014, and effective on August 7, 2014.
29.People v. Gabunada, supra note 27.
30. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
31.People v. Gabunada, supra note 27.
32. Records (Criminal Case No. 2010-1299), p. 8; Records (Criminal Case No. 2010-1230), p. 8.
33. See People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.
34.People v. Del Mundo, 818 Phil. 575, 588 (2017).
35.People v. Surima, G.R. No. 241009 (Notice), December 11, 2019.
36.People v. Cantalejo, 604 Phil. 658, 668-669 (2009).
37.Id. at 669.
38.People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 403 (2010).
39.Id.
40.Id.