People v. Canton y Trinidad

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 241328. September 16, 2020.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. STANLEY CANTON y TRINIDAD, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 September 2020 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 241328 (People of the Philippines v. Stanley Canton y Trinidad). — After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court reverses and sets aside the assailed Decision 1 dated May 10, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01658-MIN that affirmed the Joint Decision 2 dated March 20, 2017 rendered by Branch 44, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Initao, Misamis Oriental in Criminal Case Nos. 2010-1877 and 2010-1878 finding Stanley Canton y Trinidad (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2012.

The Court acquits accused-appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty. To attain this, 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 crime. As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. 3

In addition, the law requires that the inventory and photography 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, 4 a representative 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 of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. 5

In the present case, there is an obvious deviation from the witness requirement under RA 9165. It is not denied that the seizure and inventory of the seized items were conducted in the presence of Barangay Captain Leonardo Jamis and media representative Amor Barlisan without any representative from the DOJ.

In a number of cases, the Court has held 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. Accordingly, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media, the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drug, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted buy-bust operations in the past would not be averted, negating the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject drug that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. 6 The Court explained in one case:

It is a matter of record that only appellant and media representative Maeng Santos were present to witness the inventory of the seized items. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals even noted the absence of any elected official and representative from the DOJ during inventory. No explanation was offered for this omission.

In People v. Abelarde, the accused was acquitted of violation of Section 5, RA 9165 because there was no evidence that the inventory of the seized dangerous drugs was done in the presence of an elected official, a media representative and a representative from the DOJ.

Similarly, in People v. Macud, the buy-bust team similarly failed to secure the presence of the required witnesses to the conduct of inventory of the seized drug items. For this, the Court, too, rendered a verdict of acquittal.

Indeed, the presence of the insulating witnesses during inventory is vital. In the absence of these persons, the possibility of switching, planting, or contamination of the evidence negates the credibility of the seized drug and other confiscated items. Non-compliance with the requirement is, therefore, fatal to the prosecution's case. 7 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted).

Concededly, there are instances wherein departure from the aforesaid mandatory procedures is permissible. Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides that "non-compliance 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 of and custody over said items." Even so, for this provision to be effective, the prosecution must first (1) recognize any lapse on the part of the police officers and (2) be able to justify the same. 8

Here, the prosecution failed to recognize the authorities' failure to obtain the mandatory witnesses during the marking and inventory of the seized specimen. Worse, it failed to make any justification for the non-observance of the law. 9 There was also no statement that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted to comply with the witness requirement. 10

In the end, the breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti would have been compromised. 11 Hence, his acquittal is perforce in order.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated May 10, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01658-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Stanley Canton y Trinidad is ACQUITTED of the offense charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.

The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Stanley Canton y Trinidad 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.

SO ORDERED." (BALTAZAR-PADILLA, J., on leave).

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 5-18; penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Walter S. Ong, concurring.

2. CA rollo, pp. 49-59; penned by Presiding Judge Marissa P. Estabaya.

3.People v. Villate, G.R. No. 247625, January 22, 2020.

4. 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 became effective on August 7, 2014.

5.People v. Villate, supra note 3.

6.People v. Piccio, G.R. No. 243575, January 22, 2020, citing People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385-408-409 (2018), and People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749 (2014).

7.People v. Caray, G.R. No. 245391, September 11, 2019.

8.People v. Piccio, supra note 6.

9.Id.

10.People v. Villate, G.R. No. 247625, January 22, 2020.

11.People v. Piccio, supra note 6, citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 352 (2015).