SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247953. February 23, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JELMER CEDULA y BALABA ALIAS "JARAGS", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 February 2022 which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 247953 (People of the Philippines v. Jelmer Cedula y Balaba alias "Jarags"). — Assailed in this appeal 1 is the April 17, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01674-MIN, which affirmed in toto the January 12, 2017 Omnibus Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4 of Butuan City, in Criminal Case Nos. 16278 and 16279, finding accused-appellant Jelmer Cedula y Balaba @ "Jarags" (Cedula) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, 3 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Factual Antecedents:
In two separate Informations both dated October 18, 2012, Cedula was charged with violation of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 16278:
That at more or less 9 o'clock in the evening of October 4, 2012 at Purok 6, Libertad, Butuan City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver one (1) folded bond paper of dried marijuana leaves with fruiting tops weighing of six point one zero seven zero (6.1070) grams, a dangerous drug to IO1 Marjorie M. Veso, a poseur-buyer for a consideration of five hundred (P500.00) pesos.
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165). 4
Criminal Case No. 16279:
That on or about 9 o'clock in the evening of October 4, 2012 at Purok 6, Libertad, Butuan City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, control, and custody one (1) small non-sealed plastic sachet and one (1) open window envelope of marijuana dried leaves with fruiting tops with a total weight of zero point nine four three three (0.9433) gram, which is a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW: (Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165). 5
Upon his arraignment on November 28, 2012, Cedula pleaded "not guilty" to both charges. 6 After the preliminary conference and pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
At around 2:00 p.m. of October 4, 2012, IO1 Myrian Balbada (Balbada) was on duty at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Office in Butuan City when Barangay Captain Vincent Rizal Rosario (Rosario) arrived and informed her about a tip from a confidential informant (CI) that Cedula was selling dried marijuana leaves to some students of the Libertad National High School. 7 Balbada relayed the information to the PDEA Acting Regional Director, who then instructed Agent Christy Silvan (Silvan) to verify the same. 8 In this regard, casing and surveillance of Cedula were performed, where a "test-buy" operation confirmed that Cedula was indeed engaged in the illegal sale of marijuana. 9
On the basis thereof, a briefing was conducted to plan the buy-bust operation against Cedula. 10 It was decided that Balbada would act as the arresting officer while Agent Marjorie Veso (Veso) would act as the poseur-buyer. The rest of the team was tasked to act as immediate back-up operatives and to secure the perimeter of the target location. 11 During the briefing, it was also agreed that Veso would make a drop call on Balbada's phone to signal the team that the sale had been consummated. 12 Meanwhile, the CI arranged and set up the drug transaction with Cedula. 13 Afterwards, the team prepared the buy-bust money consisting of one P500.00-bill marked as "MM," and recorded the pre-operational report in the PDEA Blotter Book. 14
At around 8:50 p.m., the team proceeded to the agreed area of transaction, which was a convenience store located in Balanghai Road, Purok 6, Libertad, Butuan City. 15 Upon arriving thereat, Veso and the CI walked towards the store and saw Cedula sitting on a table and having a drinking spree with a group of men outside. 16 Cedula then approached the two and led them to the opposite side of the convenience store. 17 Cedula asked the CI who Veso was and the CI, in turn, introduced Veso as the interested buyer of marijuana. 18 Cedula gave Veso a folded bond paper containing dried marijuana leaves. In exchange therefor, Veso handed him the buy-bust money. 19 Consequently, Veso miscalled Balbada to notify the team that the sale had been made. 20
Thus, Balbada, Rosario, and the rest of the buy-bust team immediately rushed to the scene. 21 Cedula shouted for help and attempted to escape; however, he was eventually subdued and arrested. Balbada then informed Cedula of the nature of his arrest and his constitutional rights. 22 She likewise frisked his body to search for any deadly weapons but found none. 23 After Cedula was neutralized, Veso marked the marijuana she had bought from him with "MM-1." 24 The apprehending team also took photos of the recovered item. 25
However, by this time, several onlookers and residents had already gathered in the area. For security purposes, Agent Silvan instructed the team to transfer to the PDEA office for the conduct of thorough inventory and photographing of the evidence. 26 Upon arrival at their office, Balbada frisked Cedula once more. She then recovered one cellophane pack containing dried marijuana leaves from the right back pocket, as well as scattered pieces of dried marijuana leaves, from the left front pocket of Cedula's jeans. 27 Veso, who was present when Balbada recovered such items, marked the cellophane pack with "MM-2" while the scattered leaves were placed on a piece of bond paper and marked as "MM-3." 28 Likewise, present at the PDEA office to witness the marking of the items recovered from Cedula were Brgy. Captain Rosario, Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Ronaldo Bedrijo (Bedrijo), and media representative Romel Timosa (Timosa). 29 Photographs were taken during this time and a Certificate of Inventory, duly signed by the said witnesses, was also prepared. 30 Subsequently, Veso prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination 31 and brought the confiscated items to the PNP 32 Crime Laboratory. 33 Results of the laboratory examination showed that the items were indeed marijuana, a dangerous drug. 34 Cedula was also made to undergo drug testing, which similarly yielded a positive result for marijuana. 35
Version of the Defense:
The defense first presented the testimony of one Jay-R G. Barquilla, who is a fraternity brother of Elmer Cedula, Cedula's father. 36 He claimed that on the night of October 4, 2012, they were all having a drinking session in a convenience store to celebrate the anniversary of their fraternity, Tau Gamma Phi. 37 At around 8:00 p.m., Cedula and his father went home. A few moments later, Cedula returned to the convenience store and resumed drinking. 38 Suddenly, a black Pajero arrived and Brgy. Captain Rosario, together with two female companions, alighted from the vehicle. Rosario then announced, "Do not run. This is [a] raid. We were conducting surveillance against you for a long time already."39 The two female companions then approached Cedula. One of them positioned herself at the back of Cedula and inserted her hand in the latter's back pocket. Meanwhile, the other female companion stood in front of Cedula and inserted her hand in his front pocket. 40 Afterwards, another female person carrying a white bond paper came. She then placed the paper on one of the tables, opened it, and declared that there was marijuana inside. 41 Subsequently, Cedula and one of his companions were handcuffed. 42
Next, Cedula himself testified. He alleged that at around 8:00 p.m. of October 4, 2012, he was at a convenience store having a drinking session with a certain Jerick and Tantoy. 43 He briefly left to use the restroom and when he returned, Brgy. Captain Rosario arrived in a black Pajero and called him over. When he approached Rosario, two female persons, one of whom was Veso, suddenly came and arrested him. 44 While being subjected to a body search, Cedula looked back and noticed Veso carrying a black backpack. He then saw her place a brown envelope on one of the tables. 45 She opened the envelope and declared that there was marijuana inside. 46 Cedula denied owning the same. 47 Afterwards, his friend Jerick was also arrested, and they were both brought to the PDEA office. 48 Cedula was then subjected to another body search by one of the police officers. It was then made to appear that a P500.00-bill was found in his pocket, which Cedula likewise denied owning. 49 In essence, Cedula maintained his innocence and claimed that he was being falsely accused of the charges against him.
Ruling of the Regional of Trial Court:
In its January 12, 2017 Omnibus Decision, 50 the RTC found Cedula guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The RTC was persuaded that the integrity, authenticity, and origin of the prohibited drug was not compromised. 51 Moreover, it was convinced by and gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as they are police officers who enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties absent any evidence to the contrary. 52 The RTC thus ruled:
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
In Criminal Case No. 16278, of violation of Section 5 (Selling) of Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), the Court finds accused Jelmer Cedula y Balaba alias "Jarags" guilty beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to suffer the extreme penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
In Criminal Case No. 16279, of violation of Section 11 (Possession) of Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002), the Court finds accused Jelmer Cedula y Balaba alias "Jarags" guilty beyond reasonable doubt and is hereby sentenced to undergo imprisonment of an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years to pay a fine of P300,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Accused shall serve both sentence at the Davao Prison and Penal Farm at Braulio E. Dujali, Davao del Norte.
He shall be credited in the service of his sentence with his preventive imprisonment conformably with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
The marijuana dried leaves with fruiting tops are ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 53
Aggrieved, Cedula filed an Omnibus Notice of Appeal 54 dated February 6, 2017, requesting the RTC to stay the execution of judgment and elevate the records of the case to the CA. 55 The RTC granted the same through an Omnibus Order dated February 23, 2017. 56
In his appeal, Cedula raised the following lone assignment of error:
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 57
He reiterated his defenses of denial and frame-up, insisting that the confiscated drugs were maliciously planted by the police officers. 58 Further, Cedula also claimed that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody because of the police officers' failure to strictly comply with the procedures laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. 59
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In a Decision 60 dated April 17, 2019, the CA denied Cedula's appeal. Similar to the RTC, it ruled that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of both Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. 61 Further, the CA held that the body of evidence adduced by the prosecution supported the conclusion that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were properly preserved and safeguarded through an unbroken chain of custody. 62 It likewise gave more credence to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies than Cedula's defenses of denial and frame-up. Ultimately, the CA found no convincing reason to set aside the decision of the RTC. 63 The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, for lack of merit, the instant Appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the January 12, 2017 Omnibus Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), 10th Judicial Region, Branch 04, Butuan City in Criminal Case Nos. 16278 and 16279 is AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED. 64
Dissatisfied with the ruling of the CA, Cedula filed the present appeal. 65
Issue:
The sole issue to be resolved in the instant case is whether Cedula is guilty of violating Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
For an accused to be successfully convicted of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 66 Meanwhile, in instances where an accused is charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, three elements ought to be proved by the prosecution, namely: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 67
However, jurisprudence provides that the presentation of evidence establishing the elements of the offenses of Illegal Sale and/or Possession of Dangerous Drugs alone is insufficient to secure or sustain a conviction under RA 9165. 68 In illegal drugs cases, the dangerous drugs itself constitute the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is also equally important for the prosecution to clearly show that the integrity and identity of the drugs seized from the accused had been duly preserved with moral certainty. In other words, aside from the elements of Illegal Sale and Possession, it must likewise be established with moral certainty that the illegal substance presented in court as evidence against the accused is the same as the one seized from him. 69 Compliance with the chain of custody rule performs this function as it warrants that the unnecessary doubts with regard to the identity of the evidence are removed. 70
After a careful review of the records of the case, this Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish, with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict, the integrity and identity of the dangerous drugs that were seized from Cedula.
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides the procedural safeguards that the apprehending team must observe in the custody and handling of seized illegal drugs in order to preserve their identity and integrity as evidence. "As indicated by their mandatory terms, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is essential and the prosecution must show compliance in every case." 71 The said provision 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 is 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; x x x
Further, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 elaborates on the proper procedure to be followed, viz.:
(a) The apprehending office/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: 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, further 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; x x x
Here, the buy-bust team failed to clearly establish that the requirements of the afore-cited law have been strictly complied with.
It has not escaped this Court's observation that the drugs allegedly possessed by Cedula were only recovered when they already transferred to the PDEA office, which we find dubious since he had already been frisked or searched by Balbada at the place of arrest. Balbada's excuse that she was only searching for deadly weapons when she frisked Cedula for the first time is unbelievable. It was a buy-bust operation — the very purpose of the operation was to ascertain whether the accused is dealing with drugs. It would be contrary to logic and common sense if we were to believe that she was not searching the accused for any drugs that might be in his possession. There is therefore doubt as to whether there was tampering or planting of evidence that took place from the time Cedula was arrested to the time they transferred and reached the PDEA office.
Moreover, the Certificate of Inventory that was presented by the prosecution was not regularly executed. To reiterate, Section 21 of the IRR of RA 9165 mandates that the copies of the inventory shall be signed by all of the following persons: (a) accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the DOJ. In the instant case, a perusal of the records would reveal that the said document was not signed by Cedula or his counsel or representative. 72 Neither did the prosecution acknowledge such defect nor did it provide any justification whatsoever as to why Cedula failed to sign the Certificate of Inventory. Thus, this unexplained gap casts doubt upon the identity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs, and gives rise to the probability that the integrity of the seized evidence might have been compromised while under police custody.
Because of the buy-bust team's disregard of the established procedures under Section 21 of RA 9165, the presumption of regularity cannot stand. 73 Strict compliance with Section 21 is especially important in instances where only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is involved, such as in this case. As enunciated in People v. Holgado: 74
While the miniscule amount of narcotics seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, this circumstance underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. In Mallillin v. People, this court said that "the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives."
xxx xxx xxx
Trial courts should meticulously consider the factual intricacies of cases involving violations of Republic Act No. 9165. All details that factor into an ostensibly uncomplicated and barefaced narrative must be scrupulously considered. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs. These can be readily planted and tampered.75 (Emphasis supplied)
While the defense foisted by Cedula is inherently weak, the prosecution must still meet its obligation to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs seized. Well-settled is the doctrine that the prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. That Cedula might have actually committed the imputed crimes is of no consequence, for he had no burden to prove his innocence, which was presumed from the outset. 76
In conclusion, this Court finds that the prosecution failed to show that the chain of custody was properly preserved. Therefore, proof beyond reasonable doubt was likewise not established. Accordingly, an acquittal must ensue.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the April 17, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01674-MIN. Accused-appellant Jelmer Cedula y Balaba @ Jarags is hereby ACQUITTED of the charges of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. His immediate RELEASE from detention is hereby ordered unless he is being held for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, Braulio E. Dujali, Davao del Norte for immediate implementation. The Superintendent is also DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five days from his/her receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 27-29.
2.Id. at 5-26. Penned by Associate Justice Evalyn M. Arellano-Morales and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr.
3. Entitled "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." Approved: June 7, 2002.
4. Records, Criminal Case No. 16278, p. 1.
5. Records, Criminal Case No. 16279, p. 1.
6. Records, Criminal Case No. 16728, p. 21; Records, Criminal Case No. 16279, p. 22.
7. TSN, September 7, 2015, p. 3.
8.Id. at 4.
9.Id. at 26.
10.Id. at 4.
11.Id. at 4-5.
12.Id. at 5.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 5-7.
15.Id. at 7-8.
16. TSN, April 25, 2016, p. 7.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 10.
20.Id. at 9.
21. TSN, September 7, 2015, p. 9.
22.Id.
23. TSN, April 25, 2016, p. 9.
24.Id.
25. TSN, September 7, 2015, p. 14; records, Criminal Case No. 16278, p. 17.
26.Id. at 10 and 21.
27.Id. at 11.
28. TSN, September 7, 2015, pp. 16-17; TSN, April 25, 2016, p. 12.
29.Id. at 17; id. at 11.
30. Records, Criminal Case No. 16278, pp. 14 and 17.
31.Id. at 10.
32. Philippine National Police.
33. TSN, April 15, 2016, p. 15.
34. TSN, June 24, 2014, p. 3; records, Criminal Case No. 16278, p. 11.
35. TSN, April 25, 2016, p. 16; records, Criminal Case No. 16278, p. 12.
36. TSN, September 29, 2016, p. 3.
37.Id. at 4.
38.Id. at 5.
39.Id. at 6.
40.Id. at 7.
41.Id. at 7-8.
42.Id. at 8.
43. TSN, November 4, 2016, p. 4.
44.Id. at 5.
45.Id. at 6.
46.Id. at 7.
47.Id.
48.Id. at 8.
49.Id. at 9.
50. CA rollo, pp. 44-61.
51.Id. at 56.
52.Id. at 60.
53.Id. at 60-61.
54.Id. at 17-18.
55. Records, Criminal Case No. 16378, p. 118; records, Criminal Case No. 16279, p. 99.
56.Id. at 120; id. at 101.
57. CA rollo, p. 27.
58.Id. at 34.
59.Id. at 36-40.
60.Rollo, pp. 5-26.
61.Id. at 12.
62.Id. at 18.
63.Id. at 23-25.
64.Id. at 25-26.
65.Id. at 27-28.
66.People v. Buesa, G.R. No. 237850, September 16, 2020.
67.Id.
68.People v. De Guzman, 825 Phil. 43, 54 (2018).
69.People v. Arellaga, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020.
70.Id.
71.People v. De Guzman, supra note 68.
72. Records, Criminal Case No. 16278, p. 14.
73.People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.
74. 741 Phil. 78 (2014).
75.Id. at 99-100.
76.People v. Calates, 829 Phil. 262, 274 (2018).