FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249415. February 15, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RAMIL CABURNAY y CASTAÑARES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 15, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 249415 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Ramil Caburnay y Castañares, accused-appellant).
This is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the December 19, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02673, which affirmed the June 28, 2017 Joint Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 30 (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. 2015-23149 and 2015-23150. The RTC found Ramil Caburnay y Castañares (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as "the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was indicted for violation of Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, in two (2) separate informations, the respective accusatory portions of which read:
Criminal Case No. 2015-23149
That on or about the 8th day of September 2015, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a police poseur[-]buyer one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called shabu, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. 3
Criminal Case No. 2015-23150
That on or about the 8th day of September 2015, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused not being then authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess and keep eight (8) heat sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a total of 1.21 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called shabu, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165. 4
Upon arraignment on October 9, 2015, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the offenses charged. 5 Pre-trial was held on January 28, 2016, and was terminated on the same day. 6 A joint trial thereafter ensued.
The CA summarized the evidence for the prosecution and the defense as follows:
The antecedent facts as presented by the prosecution showed that in the morning of September 8, 2015, PO2 Archimedes T. Olasiman ("PO2 Olasiman"), a police officer assigned at the Provincial Intelligence Branch (PIB) of the Negros Oriental Provincial Police Office (NOPPO), received information from their confidential asset that a certain Ramil Bayot, was engaged in illegal drug trade in Cadawinonan Housing Project. He immediately relayed such information to the Chief of the PIB, Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Benedick Poblete who instructed them to verify the information. They verified the information through the aforementioned confidential informant which was done through text messaging The informant arranged a meet up with Ramil Bayot around 11:00 o'clock in the morning of September 8, 2015. PO2 Olasiman relayed all of these to their Chief who told them that they will conduct a buy-bust operation. A briefing was then conducted by their team leader, PO3 Jerry Magsayo [(PO3 Magsayo)]. PO2 Olasiman was designated as the poseur-buyer who will go to the location of the suspect to conduct a test-buy. His back-up was PO1 Ismael M. Llosa [(PO1 Llosa)]. PO2 Olasiman was given Php500.00 with serial number JB686180 as buy-bust money by PO3 Magsayo and PO2 Olasiman placed his initials on it, specifically on the seal of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. PO3 Magsayo coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) regarding the said operation and was given a control number.
After the briefing, the team proceeded to Cadawinonan Housing Project, the area of operation. They arrived there at around 11:50 o'clock in the morning. While there, they first had a quick briefing in a secluded area where it was agreed that PO2 Olasiman will just walk towards the target area with his back-up, PO1 Llosa, following him. Aside from PO2 Olasiman and PO1 Llosa, there were ten (10) other police officers who are situated in a secluded area for quick response.
While walking towards the location of the suspect, their confidential asset made a call to Ramil to inform the latter that they were on their way. When they reached the target location, the asset once again called Ramil to inform him that they were already in front of the house of a certain Gerry. A male person with long hair and wearing shorts came out of the house. The asset informed PO2 Olasiman that the person who came out is Ramil. The asset then told Ramil that they would like to score worth "kinye" which means Php500.00 worth of shabu. Ramil then took out a black coin purse from his back pocket and from that purse he took one (1) sachet. PO2 Olasiman gave the Php500.00 bill to Ramil in exchange for the one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet. PO2 Olasiman checked the sachet and when he was certain that it was really shabu, he grabbed the hand of Ramil. He told Ramil not to move and informed the latter, in the Visayan dialect, that he is a police officer and that he is arresting him for selling shabu. He also informed Ramil of the latter's rights. He was certain that Ramil understood everything that he said because the former nodded his head. His back-up, PO1 Llosa, immediately arrived upon seeing him hold Ramil's hand.
PO2 Olasiman pre-marked the seized sachet at the place of arrest by putting a masking tape on the said sachet and writing "RC-BB, date and his (Olasiman's) initials." "RC" refers to Ramil Caburnay, "BB" means buy-bust, and the date was "9-8-15." After marking, he conducted a body search on Ramil. He was able to recover from Ramil's hand the aforementioned black purse and the Php500.00 marked money. Inside the black coin purse were eight (8) pieces of transparent heat-sealed plastic sachets containing suspected shabu, one (1) empty transparent plastic sachet and two (2) pieces hand-rolled tin foil. PO2 Olasiman also pre-marked all of these items at the place of arrest. For the eight (8) plastic sachets, he placed "RC-P1 9-8-15" with his (Olasiman's) initials until "RC-P8 9-8-15" with his initials. "P1" to "P8" refers to the number of plastic sachets of suspected shabu. On the empty plastic sachet he placed the marking "RC-P9 9-8-15" with his initials. For the two (2) pieces hand-rolled tin foils, he placed the marking "RC-P10 to P11 9-8-15" with his initials. The black coin purse was marked "RC-P12" with the date and Olasiman's initials. After doing the pre-marking, PO2 Olasiman informed Ramil that he is being arrested for another violation that of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. After doing all these, the team proceeded to their satellite office located at the 4th floor of the Provincial Engineer's Office.
All of the seized items were in the possession of PO2 Olasiman from the place of arrest until they reached their office. He placed the items inside a brown envelope. The police [officers] testified that they did not conduct the inventory at the place of arrest for the safety of the subject and that this was decided by their team leader [PO3 Magsayo]. Upon arrival at their office, all the confiscated items were laid out on top of a table with Ramil sitting in front of the said table. The police officers then called their witnesses who were: Brgy. Kagawad Edwin Albina [(Brgy. Kagawad Albina)], mediaman Mr. Glen Serion [(Serion)] and Mr. Chilius Benlot [(Benlot)] who is an employee of the City Prosecution Office of Dumaguete City. PO2 Olasiman then prepared the inventory after the witnesses arrived. The witnesses read and checked the inventory and then signed it in front of Ramil [PO1 Llosa] photographed the confiscated items, as well as the proceedings and the personalities present during the conduct of the inventory.
After the conduct of the inventory, PO2 Olasiman prepared the Request for Laboratory and Drug Test to be submitted to the PNP Crime Laboratory to determine the presence of any dangerous drugs on the confiscated items and upon the person of Ramil as mandated by Section 38 of R.A. 9165. After he was done with the preparation of the said document, he placed all the seized items inside a brown envelope and he personally delivered the same to the crime laboratory. Upon the other hand, Ramil was brought to the City Health for medical examination. After the latter was done there, he was brought to the crime laboratory where PO2 Olasiman had gone ahead of him.
When PO2 Olasiman arrived at the crime laboratory, the duty officer of the day, PO3 Michelle Cañete [(PO3 Cañete)], checked his request. She also opened the brown envelope and checked its contents one by one. After checking the contents, she sealed back the envelope and placed her signature on the masking tape. PO3 Cañete stamped PO2 Olasiman's request with the date and time of receipt which was September 8, 2015 at 13:35H or 1:35 o'clock in the afternoon. PO2 Olasiman and PO3 Cañete affixed their respective signatures on the letter request in each other's presence. In court, during the trial of the case, PO2 Olasiman was shown the brown envelope which contained the submitted evidence and he assured the court that it was the same envelope he brought to the crime laboratory because he placed his signature on the masking tape that sealed the envelope.
On cross-examination, PO2 Olasiman testified that their confidential asset did not personally go to their office to report the illegal activity of the accused-appellant. The asset only communicated with him through text message. The said communication was not recorded in the police blotter nor was there any documentary evidence to prove it. The police officer also testified that he was not familiar with Ramil Bayot or Ramil Caburnay and the latter was not a part of the drug list in their office.
[PO3 Cañete] testified that after checking the contents of the brown envelope submitted by PO2 Olasiman as well as the letter request, she gave them to PCI Josephine Llena [(PCI Llena)], the Chief Forensic Chemist of the Negros Oriental Crime Laboratory, at 1.50 o'clock in the afternoon on September 8, 2015. From the time PO3 Cañete received the letter request and the specimens from PO2 Olasiman to the time she delivered the same to PCI Llena, the time interval was only 15 minutes. She avers that during the 15-minute interval the specimens and the letter request were all in her possession, specifically in her drawer which is under lock and key and only she has the custody of the said key. When PCI Llena received the letter request and the specimens from her, PCI Llena likewise affixed her signature and the date and time of receipt. As for the request for drug test, PO3 Cañete personally received the urine sample from the accused-appellant himself. She kept the sample by placing it inside a refrigerator and gave the same to PCI Llena together with the drug specimens and the letter request.
PCI Llena testified that she received the letter request and the specimens from PO3 Cañete. She subjected the specimens to physical examination by taking their weight and by taking note of the markings and physical appearance of the specimens. She also performed a chemical examination of the specimens by taking a sample from each plastic sachet to determine the presence of dangerous drugs. She was able to confirm that all the nine (9) plastic sachets submitted for forensic examination are positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. With respect to the drug specimens, she wrote down all her findings in Chemistry Report No. D-342-15. As for the urine sample of the accused-appellant, the result of the drug test was negative and the same was reflected in Chemistry Report No. DT-246-15. After conducting the chemical examination, she resealed the specimens in the brown envelope and placed her own markings on it and on the black coin purse as well and kept the items in their evidence room. Only she has the sole custody of the key to the evidence room. On November 9, 2015, the brown envelope with the specimens inside was submitted to the [RTC] and a receipt was issued by Ms. Kathryn Yan-Labi, the court personnel who received it.
Accused-appellant Ramil, on the other hand, denied the charges against him. He denied being engaged in the selling of dangerous drugs nor was he in possession of any dangerous or illegal drugs on September 8, 2015. He averred that he has been residing in Cadawinonan Housing Project for the past two (2) years. He was originally a resident of Labangon, Cebu City. He transferred to Cadawinonan because his friend Gerry Bayot invited him to work there as a parlor beautician. He and Gerry lived together in the latter's house. During that fateful day of September 8, 2015, he was inside their house cleaning. At around 11:00 o'clock in the morning he heard a knock at the gate. When he looked outside, he saw that there were six (6) men. He recognized two (2) of the men because they had visited Gerry before, namely, Harris Solibio and PO3 Magsayo. According to Ramil, Harris Solibio was the police asset and the latter was already shot and killed. Ramil also claimed that Gerry is an informant of the police.
Ramil let the men in because he knew two of them. He made them sit down at the living room and wait for Gerry for the latter had gone out to buy their lunch. The men waited for thirty (30) minutes while he continued to clean the house. One man, who he would later know as PO2 Olasiman, then suggested that they go back to their office because they had waited long enough for Gerry. Ramil led them to the gate. PO2 Olasiman then told him to just go with them to their office for they have questions to ask him. He assented and went with them because he trusted them having already known Harris Solibio and PO3 Magsayo. He did not change his clothes anymore before going to the office of the visitors. When he arrived at the office, they made him sit down on a chair next to a table. He was asked if there was a Tonton who visited Gerry to which he replied in the negative because he only knew the faces of those who visited Gerry, not their names. During all this time, nobody told him that he was arrested, nor was he handcuffed.
After asking the questions, one of the men said that they will make an inventory, a term which the accused-appellant does not understand. He asked what it was and was told that they will list the items taken from him. He told the men that they will not get anything from him because he did not have any transactions at that time. He then saw PO2 Olasiman open a drawer and took out a black coin pouch. The latter opened the pouch and produced a Php500.00 bill, eight (8) plastic sachets. The men arranged the items on the table and called it an inventory. Ramil stressed that these items came from the drawer of PO2 Olasiman and not from him. He was not arrested before he was brought to the office of the aforementioned men. He maintained that he was only invited to go to their office. He was subjected to a drug test in relation to the cases filed against him and the test came out negative. As regards Gerry Rubio, the latter was arrested in March 2016 and has a case pending in another sala.
On cross-examination, Ramil testified that Gerry invited him to work in Dumaguete City and that he lived with the latter for two (2) years already. The business has not yet materialized at the time he was arrested in 2015, however, they already had customers for home service. The houses at the Cadawinonan Housing Project are close to each other, thus, their neighbors saw the arrival of the men at their house. Despite this fact, Ramil was not able to ask any of his neighbors to testify in his favor. He was not able to ask for help from his friend Gerry because the latter disappeared for a while when the police were looking for him. Gerry did not return to their house. He knew about this because Gerry is also in jail and the two of them were able to talk there. 7
The RTC Ruling
In its June 28, 2017 Joint Decision, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the joint decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Court hereby renders judgment as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 2015-23149, the accused RAMIL CABURNAY Y CASTAÑARES is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale and delivery of 0.05 gram of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "RC-BB 9-8-15" with signature containing 0.05 gram of shabu is hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
2. In Criminal Case No. 2015-23150, the accused RAMIL CABURNAY Y CASTAÑARES is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal possession of 1.21 grams of shabu in violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum term to fourteen (14) years as maximum term and to pay a fine of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00).
The eight (8) heat-scaled transparent plastic sachets with markings "RC-P1 9-8-15" to "RC-P8 9-8-15," respectively, containing a total of 1.21 grams of shabu are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
In the service of sentence, the accused RAMIL CABURNAY Y CASTAÑARES shall be credited with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment, provided he agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
SO ORDERED. 8
The RTC placed premium on the testimonies of PO2 9 Olasiman and PCI Llena over that of accused-appellant. Aside from the presumption that the officers regularly performed their duties, it noted that they each gave a consistent and straightforward narration of what occurred. It declared that accused-appellant's arrest was valid because he was caught in flagrante delicto through a valid buy-bust operation. It found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were properly preserved. The RTC concluded that all the elements for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II or illegal sale were established. Similarly, it concluded that all elements for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II or illegal possession of dangerous drugs were duly proven. 10
Unsatisfied, accused-appellant filed an appeal before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its assailed December 19, 2018 Decision, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC joint judgment. The fallo of the CA decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the appeal filed in this case is hereby DENIED. The assailed June 28, 2017 Joint Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Dumaguete City, in Criminal Case No. 2015-23149 and Criminal Case No. 2015-23150 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 11
The CA found no cogent reason to overrule the findings of the trial court. It held that the prosecution had established all the elements of the two crimes charged against accused-appellant and that the noncompliance with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 was justified. It noted that the buy-bust was conducted immediately after the police officers were informed by their confidential asset of the illegal drug activities of accused-appellant. Thus, it held that the period of time it would take to call the statutory witnesses and have them accompany the team to the target area to witness the buy-bust, arrest, marking, inventory and photography would affect the conduct of the buy-bust operation which success largely depended upon the swiftness and timing of how it was carried out. Further, it observed that PO2 Olasiman testified that they did not conduct the inventory at the place of arrest because their team leader, PO3 Magsayo, decided to have it done at their office for the safety of accused-appellant. According to the CA, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. 12
Issues
Accused-appellant ascribes the following errors allegedly committed by the CA:
I
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE TILE FAILURE OF TILE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.
II
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE ARRESTING OFFICERS TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN SEC. 21, ART. II OF RA. 9165. 13
First, accused-appellant insists that no buy-bust operation was conducted. On the date of the alleged buy-bust operation, accused-appellant was just in his house cleaning and not doing any act punishable by law. 14 He also claims that the failure of the arresting officers to verify the reliability and integrity of the information that was given to their office against him, through casing and surveillance, created a cloud of doubt as to whether a lawful arrest was indeed conducted through a buy-bust operation. Also, he points to the fact that the arresting officer had no personal knowledge as to the transaction between the confidential asset and accused-appellant. The arresting officer was just informed of the same through text messages allegedly forwarded by the confidential asset. However, no documentary evidence was adduced to prove that such text message conversation between the confidential asset and accused-appellant actually took place. Accused-appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to present a complete picture of the buy-bust operation. He concludes that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. 15
Second, accused-appellant asseverates that the arresting officers failed to comply with the mandatory procedure outlined in Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. In particular, he points to the failure of the arresting officers to conduct the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items in the presence of the representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official since the same were conducted prior to the arrival of these required witnesses. He asserts that the prosecution witnesses themselves admitted that upon their arrival at the office, the inventory form had already been accomplished and photographs had already been taken. All that was left for them to do was to sign the certificate of inventory. Thus, they had no personal knowledge as to the actual taking of the inventory of the items allegedly recovered from accused-appellant. The noncompliance was not justified by the prosecution. Hence, the corpus delicti was not proven and acquittal must ensure. 16
Our Ruling
The appeal is impressed with merit.
Accused-appellant should be acquitted because the corpus delicti in the instant case was not established.
The Court has previously held that "[i]n drug-related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the offenses of sale and possession of shabu under Republic Act No. 9165, but also of proving the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. 'Corpus delicti has been defined as the body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. The corpus delicti is a compound fact made up of two (2) things, viz.: the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result.' The dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law prohibiting the possession of the dangerous drug. 17 Consequently, the State does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving corpus delicti when substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the seized drugs as to raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court. 18
R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640 19 which was passed into law and took effect in 2014, provides for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs, thus —
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 [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 and custody over said items. (emphases and underscoring supplied)
Plainly, Sec. 21 requires that two (2) witnesses — (1) an elected public official and (2) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media — be present during the physical inventory and the photographing of the seized items. Aside from their said required presence, they must also sign and receive a copy of the inventory.
The Court explained in no uncertain terms the import of this requirement in People v. Adobar20(Adobar). While Adobar makes mention of the presence of three witnesses, the variance is explained by the fact that the incident in Adobar occurred prior to the amendment of R.A. No. 9165. Nonetheless, the Court's reasoning in Adobar for the mandatory presence of these witnesses during the actual inventory and photograph of the items seized applies with equal force herein:
In no uncertain words, Section 21 requires the apprehending team to "immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph [the seized illegal drugs] in the presence of the accused x x x or his 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."
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs must be at the place of apprehension and/or seizure. If this is not practicable, it may be done as soon as the apprehending team reaches the nearest police station or nearest office.
In all of these cases, the photographing and inventory are required to be done in the presence of any elected public official and a representative from the media and the DOJ who shall be required to sign an inventory and given copies thereof. x x x 21 (emphasis in the original)
The mandatory witnesses herein did not witness the actual taking of physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. They were only called to sign the copies of the inventory and to each receive a copy thereof. They all testified that when they arrived at the office of the arresting officers near the capitol area, the items were already prepared and the inventory was already done. 22
Brgy. Kagawad Albina testified in this wise:
Q: Mr. Witness, you were just called by the police officers to witness the inventory?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And the inventory was conducted at their office located near the capitol area?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: So when you arrived there, the accused was already arrested?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: There were already items prepared?
A: Yes. There were.
Q: And the inventory was already filled up?
A: Yes.
Q: So, all you have to do, Mr. Witness, was just to affix your signature?
A: Yes. 23
DOJ representative Benlot, in turn, testified:
Q: Mr. Witness, you were called to witness the inventory at the office located at the Capitol area?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you went there only to witness the inventory?
A: Only to witness the inventory, sir.
Q: Because you have no personal knowledge of the incident which led to the arrest of the accused?
A: No personal knowledge, sir.
Q: As a matter of fact, when you arrived at the office, the accused was already arrested?
A: Already arrested, sir.
Q: There were already markings on the items?
A: Already with markings, sir.
Q: So all you have to do was just to compare the items and affixed your signature?
A: Yes, sir. 24
Lastly, media representative Serion also testified in the same manner:
Q: Mister Witness, what time did you arrive at the SOG Office to witness the inventory?
A: Well, as far as I can remember usually, I have to put the time when I sign my signature [in] the inventory I mean. Then it's 12:21 here noon.
Q: 12:21 noon.
A: Yes.
Q: What day, Mr. Witness?
A: I cannot remember what day but it was September 8.
Q: Ah okay. So you witnessed the inventory at 12:21 noontime.
A. Yes.
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, when you arrived at the SOG Office the entries were already written.
A: Yes.
Q: The items were already marked?
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: And the items were already prepared.
A: Yes.
Q: So all you have to do was just to compare the items and affixed your signature.
A: Yes, Your Honor.
Q: You have no personal knowledge of the incident which led to the arrest of the accused?
A: I have no personal knowledge on the matter of the arrest of the suspect, your Honor. 25
From the foregoing testimonies, it is evident that none of the mandatory witnesses had any personal knowledge as regards the arrest of accused-appellant. By the time they arrived at the office, the inventory form had already been filled out and the seized items already prepared and set up on the table. 26
It should be emphasized that the absence of these mandatory witnesses may be excused provided that there are (1) justifiable reasons and (2) proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were maintained. 27 Hence, the prosecution must allege and prove the presence of a justifiable ground in failing to secure the presence of the mandatory witnesses, thus:
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 reason/s 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 prove 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.
Earnest effort[s] to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must he 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 noncompliance. 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. 28 (emphases and underscoring in the original; citations omitted)
Unfortunately, there was neither allegation nor proof of any justifiable grounds to excuse the police from securing the presence of the mandatory witnesses during the actual inventory and photography of the seized items. There was no indication either that the police exerted earnest efforts to secure the presence of these required representatives prior to the actual inventory and photography of the seized items. Instead, it appears that the police officers mistakenly believed that securing the presence of the mandatory witnesses after the fact of the inventory and photograph of the seized items was sufficient to comply with the requirements of the law. This is erroneous, as explained in Adobar. The mandatory witnesses must be present during the actual inventory and photography of the seized items in order to property serve the interests of the law. Otherwise, if their presence can be secured after the fact, to only sign the inventory receipt and to receive a copy thereof, they would have no actual knowledge of what transpired and cannot safeguard the interests of accused-appellant. Here, the failure of the police to secure the actual presence of the mandatory witnesses is fatal. It constitutes noncompliance with the requirements of Sec. 21.
Such nonchalant attitude towards the rules cannot be countenanced. It must be remembered that:
The significance of complying with Section 21's requirements cannot be overemphasized. [Noncompliance] is tantamount to failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By failing to establish an element of these offenses, [noncompliance] will, thus, engender the acquittal of an accused." 29 (emphases supplied)
Since from the inception, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were doubtful due to noncompliance with the safeguards set by law to preserve such, the identity of the seized drugs brought to the court cannot be relied upon.
Due to the serious defects in the physical inventory and photography of the seized evidence, the identity of the seized evidence presented before the Court is highly uncertain. The prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti of the crimes charged, thus casting reasonable doubt on whether accused-appellant had indeed committed the serious crimes ascribed to him by the State. As such, the Court must acquit accused-appellant on the basis of reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The December 19, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02673 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Ramil Caburnay y Castañares is ACQUITTED of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 on the ground of reasonable doubt and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for his immediate implementation. The said Director is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
Let entry of judgment be issued IMMEDIATELY.
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. 5-21; penned by Executive Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (a retired Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Emily R. Aliño-Geluz, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 41-54; penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.
3. Records, p. 3.
4.Id. at 38.
5.Id. at 80.
6.Id. at 96.
7.Rollo, pp. 6-13.
8. CA rollo, pp. 53-54.
9. Referred to as "PO1 Olasiman" in some parts of the record.
10. CA rollo, pp. 47-53.
11.Rollo, pp. 20-21.
12.Id. at 17-20.
13. CA rollo, p. 20.
14.Id. at 29-31.
15.Id. at 31-33.
16.Id. at 34-38.
17.People v. Bautista, 682 Phil. 487, 499-500 (2012).
18.Id. at 500.
19. 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.'"
20. 832 Phil. 731 (2018).
21.Id. at 753-754.
22. CA rollo, pp. 35-36.
23. TSN, May 4, 2017, p. 5 (Cross-Examination of Kagawad Edwin Albina).
24. TSN, May 4, 2017, p. 9 (Cross-Examination of Anthony Chilius Benlot).
25. TSN, May 8, 2017, pp. 11-12 (Cross-Examination of Glenn Serion).
26. CA rollo, p. 36.
27.People v. Asaytuno, Jr., G.R. No. 245972, December 2, 2019.
28.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
29.People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816, 827 (2014).