FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250891. July 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JONATHAN CABILLON, JR. y RIBATO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250891 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus JONATHAN CABILLON, JR. y RIBATO, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court REVERSES the Decision 1 dated April 15, 2019 of the Court of Appeals, Tenth Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10691 (Assailed Decision) which affirmed the Decision 2 dated November 17, 2017 of Branch 52, Regional Trial Court of Tayug, Pangasinan (RTC) in Criminal Case No. T-6544 convicting accused-appellant Jonathan Cabillon, Jr. y Ribato (Cabillon) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165. 3
Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640, 4 imposes upon the members of the buy-bust team to strictly comply with the following requirements: (1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, and (c) a representative from the media, or a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 5
It must be emphasized that Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized item and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation and in the presence of the aforementioned required witnesses, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 6
In a long line of cases, 7 the Court has held that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory, is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose. 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. 8 It is at this point in which the presence of the required witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. 9
In the instant case, the buy-bust team failed to strictly comply with the mandatory procedure required under Section 21.
The mandatory witnesses under Section 21, Barangay Kagawad Mariebel Ylarde (Kagawad Ylarde), Barangay Kagawad Raquily Bado, and media representative Juvelyn Baracca arrived only after the apprehension of Cabillon. In fact, they were only called after Cabillon was already apprehended, and they arrived about 10 to 20 minutes after. 10 None of the aforementioned witnesses were present at the time or near the place of the arrest of Cabillon and the seizure of the illegal drug. They were only "called in" by the buy-bust team at the time of the photography, marking and inventory of the seized item.
Worse, it is apparent from the testimony of Kagawad Ylarde that they merely signed the inventory receipt without actually witnessing the inventory. Kagawad Ylarde's testimony was as follows:
Q: May I call your attention on Exh. I-2 depicting the picture of the money and the plastic sachet. Isn't it that this money and the plastic sachet as depicted in that picture already appears (sic) exactly like that when you arrive[d] at that place? (Showing)
A: Yes, [Ma'am].
Q: Do you recall who made the entries in the inventory receipt of property that you signed?
A: Sir Dilan, [Ma'am].
Q: And Madam Witness, after the inventory, did they give you [a] copy of the inventory receipt?
A: No, [Ma'am].
Q: Isn't it that you merely affixed your signature without comparing the contents of the inventory receipt with the actual items?
A: Yes, [Ma'am], I did not bother to compare I just signed the document. 11
At first glance, the police officers in this case may appear to have complied with the requirements of Section 21. Upon closer inspection of the records, however, as illustrated above, there were serious deviations from Section 21 that the Court cannot just simply brush aside. Furthermore, the buy-bust team failed to give any justifiable reason or explanation for the foregoing deviations from the law.
It bears emphasis that the practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the required witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to "witness" the inventory and photography of the drug only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the required witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drug must be secured and complied with at the time of the buy-bust arrest, such that the required witnesses are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." Most importantly, the required witnesses must actually witness the marking and the inventory of the seized item.
Finally, under the 2010 Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation, one of the critical procedures that must be observed in the conduct of buy-bust operations is the marking of the evidence with the initials of the apprehending officer/evidence custodian, as well as indicating the date, time and place the evidence was confiscated/seized. In People v. Narvas12(Narvas), non-compliance with this critical procedure was one of the grounds for the acquittal of the accused in that case. Similar to Narvas, the plastic sachet in the instant case was merely marked with the initials of the apprehending officer without indicating the date, time, and place the evidence was supposedly confiscated. This further makes the procedure employed by the police officers in this case highly irregular.
All in all, since the prosecution failed to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug remained uncompromised, the Court is called upon to acquit Cabillon.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated April 15, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10691 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant JONATHAN CABILLON, JR. y RIBATO is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.
SO ORDERED."
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. 3-16. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Gabriel T. Robeniol concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 49-54. Penned by Presiding Judge Emma S. Ines-Parajas.
3. AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, approved June 7, 2002.
4. 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 July 15, 2014.
5.People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018, 887 SCRA 349, 363.
6.People v. Musor, G.R. No. 231843, November 7, 2018, 885 SCRA 154, 170.
7.People v. Espejo, G.R. No. 240914, March 13, 2019, 897 SCRA 205; People v. Caranto, G.R. No. 217668, February 20, 2019, 894 SCRA 18; People v. Cabezudo, G.R. No. 232357, November 28, 2018, 887 SCRA 448; People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 225786, November 14, 2018, 885 SCRA 26; People v. Bricero, G.R. No. 218428, November 7, 2018, 885 SCRA 1; People v. Musor, id.; People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 225736, October 15, 2018, 883 SCRA 218; People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
8.People v. Tomawis, id. at 408.
9.Id. at 409.
10.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
11. CA rollo, p. 41, citing TSN dated August 17, 2017, p. 5.
12. G.R. No. 241254, July 8, 2019, 908 SCRA 125.