FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246325. November 29, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MANUEL CENTENO y PECHO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated November 29, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246325 (People of the Philippines v. Manuel Centeno y Pecho). — This appeal 1 seeks the reversal of the November 22, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08709 which affirmed in toto the September 14, 2016 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Calamba City in Criminal Case Nos. 22806-2014-C and 22807-2014-C, finding accused-appellant Manuel Centeno y Pecho guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 (2) (3), Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Accused-appellant was charged with violating Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of RA 9165 in two separate Informations, as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 22806-2014-C
That on or about 5:00 p.m. of 29 April 2014 at Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell to a poseur-buyer a quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, having a total weight of 0.17 [gram], in violation of the aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 22807-2014-C
That on or about 5:00 p.m. of 29 April 2014 at Brgy. Pansol, Calamba City, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, [the above named accused] did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, possess two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, having a total weight of 0.22 [gram], in violation of the aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. 7
After pre-trial, the cases were consolidated and joint trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
Captain Roger Sarreal (Capt. Sarreal), the Chief Intelligence Officer of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Calamba Police Station, received a tip from a confidential informant that accused-appellant was among the personalities involved in selling illegal drugs in Brgy. Pansol, Calamba, Laguna. Acting on this tip, a buy-bust team was formed composed of Police Officer 3 Abundio Castillo (PO3 Castillo), Senior Police Officer 1 Colinares, Police Officer 2 Cuevas, Police Officer 3 Amador, and Capt. Sarreal. 8
Before proceeding to the target area, the buy-bust team prepared the pre-operation report, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency coordination form and a P500-bill which would be used as marked money. 9
PO3 Castillo was designated as poseur-buyer. The team agreed that a missed call from PO3 Castillo would be the pre-arranged signal that the sale was consummated. 10
On April 29, 2014, at around 5:00 p.m., the team proceeded to the target area in Brgy. Pansol. The confidential informant accompanied PO3 Castillo to accused-appellant's house. When they arrived, the confidential informant introduced PO3 Castillo to the accused-appellant as the person interested in buying shabu. After the introduction, the confidential informant left to give accused-appellant and PO3 Castillo time to discuss their transaction. 11
Thereafter, accused-appellant asked PO3 Castillo how much shabu he would purchase. PO3 Castillo answered that he wanted P500-worth of shabu. Accused-appellant went inside the house. PO3 Castillo noticed another person inside, later on identified as accused-appellant's brother, Cresenciano. 12
Accused-appellant returned holding a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PO3 Castillo gave him the marked P500-bill and accused-appellant, in turn, handed to PO3 Castillo the small plastic sachet. 13
Once in possession of the plastic sachet, PO3 Castillo introduced himself as a police officer. He pulled out his gun and gave Capt. Sarreal a "missed call." A few seconds later, the rest of the buy-bust team arrived. 14
PO3 Castillo recited to accused-appellant and his brother, Cresenciano, their constitutional rights. Thereafter, he asked them to empty their pockets. Accused-appellant had two more plastic sachets in his possession while Cresenciano had one small plastic sachet, all containing white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. 15
While still in the house of accused-appellant, PO3 Castillo placed markings on the small plastic sachets bought from accused-appellant. He also marked the other three small plastic sachets found in accused-appellant and Cresenciano's pockets, respectively. 16
PO3 Castillo testified that after he placed the markings on the purchased and seized specimens, photographs were taken of them. An inventory of the seized items was also conducted at the place of seizure in the presence of accused-appellant and Cresenciano. Thereafter, the two accused were brought to the police station. During transit, the items remained in the possession of PO3 Castillo. 17
At the police station, while the requests for drug test and laboratory examination were being prepared, PO3 Castillo remained in custody of the items. He later on delivered the specimens to the crime laboratory. 18
During the hearing on September 26, 2014, the parties stipulated, among others, on the following facts:
(1) That the letter requests were duly received by the Regional Crime Laboratory as evidenced by the stamp marked receipt and were delivered by PO3 Castillo;
(2) That attached to the said request are the following: one piece heat-sealed plastic sachet containing suspected shabu marked as "CPC-1" and three pieces heat-sealed plastic sachets containing suspected "shabu" marked as "MPC-BB," "MPC-1," and "MPC-2";
(3) That pursuant to the said letter request, Forensic Chemist Donna Villa P. Huelgas [Forensic Chemist Huelgas] conducted a qualitative examination of the specimens enclosed in the said letter and the result of the examination was reduced into writing in Chemistry Report Nos. [D-484-14-C and D-485-14-C]; 19 and
(4) That the specimen enclosed in the letter requests were the same specimen that were examined by [Forensic Chemist Huelgas]. 20
The Chemistry Reports cited specimens A, B, and C, pertaining to three small plastic sachets confiscated from accused-appellant, to contain methamphetamine hydrochloride," a dangerous drug. 21
In its formal offer of evidence, the prosecution included the following as documentary evidence: (1) Judicial Affidavit of PO3 Castillo; (2) Request for Laboratory Examination; (3) Chemistry Report No. D-485-14; (4) Seized sachets of "shabu"; (5) Receipt of Physical Inventory; (6) Pre-Operation Report; (7) Coordination Form; and (8) Marked Money. 22
Version of the Defense
At around 5:00 p.m. of April 29, 2014, accused-appellant just came home from work and was resting in front of his mother's house in Brgy. Bagong Kalsada, Calamba City. 23
Later on, a group of armed individuals looking for a certain Godeng arrived. Accused-appellant replied that Godeng is his brother, Gaudencio, who was then detained at the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology, Turbina, Calamba, Laguna. However, they did not believe him. The armed individuals then held accused-appellant's hands and instructed him to lie face down on the ground. Subsequently, his mother's house was searched. 24
Accused-appellant averred that he was arrested in Brgy. Bagong Kalsada, not in Brgy. Pansol as stated in the Information, and denied that he was selling illegal drugs. 25
The defense formally offered the following documentary evidence: (1) Certificate of Detention of one Gaudencio Centeno y Pecho; (2) Voters Identification Card of accused-appellant; (3) Barangay Certification issued to accused-appellant; and (4) Barangay Certification issued to Cresenciano P. Centeno. 26
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On September 14, 2016, the RTC promulgated its Judgment 27 in the consolidated criminal cases finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Secs. 5 and 11, Art. II of RA 9165, while acquitting Cresenciano. The RTC held that the elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs were established as well as the unbroken chain of custody. The RTC specifically held that:
Given that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized specimens were preserved, the failure to strictly observe the procedures under Section 21 of RA 9165 is not fatal to the prosecution's case or by itself warrants an acquittal. 28
Thus, the dispositive portion of the RTC Judgment reads as follows:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, in Criminal Case No. 22806-2014-C, the Court finds accused, MANUEL CENTENO y PECHO, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and TO PAY A FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS.
In Criminal Case No. 22807-2014-C, the Court likewise finds accused, MANUEL CENTENO y PECHO, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, paragraph 2 (3), Article II of Republic Act 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, as maximum, and to PAY A FINE OF THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00) PESOS.
Finally, in Criminal Case No. 22808-2014-C, for lack of evidence and for failure of prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt, CRESENCIANO CENTENO y PECHO is ACQUITTED of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to turn-over the methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) subject of this case for proper disposition and destruction.
SO ORDERED. 29
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision 30 promulgated on November 22, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC Judgment and denied the appeal of accused-appellant. The CA held that positive identification prevails over accused-appellant's uncorroborated and weak defense of denial. Likewise, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of the duty of the arresting officers. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Judgment dated 14 September 2016 of Branch 37 of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City in Criminal Cases Nos. 22806-14-C, 22807-14-C and 22808-14-C is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 31
Thus, this appeal, with accused-appellant arguing that he must be exonerated of the crime in view of the irregularities in the custody of the seized illegal drugs.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
To warrant a conviction for the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. 32
On the other hand, to warrant a conviction for the Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the following essential elements must exist: (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. 33
In addition to these essential elements, the prosecution must likewise establish with moral certainty the identity of the prohibited drug, and must show an unbroken chain of custody over the prohibited drug. According to the original provision of Sec. 21 (1), Art. II of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish each link of the chain of custody, from the moment the drug is seized up to its presentation in court as evidence of the crime, on top of establishing the elements of the Illegal Sale or Possession of Dangerous Drugs. Sec. 21 (1) of RA 9165 provides:
Section 21. x x x. — 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 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;
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 goes on further to state that:
Section 21. x x x. —
(a) The apprehending officer/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 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;
After a judicious perusal of the records of the case, the Court holds that the original three-witness rule under RA 9165, the law applicable to the case at bar as the alleged crimes were committed on April 29, 2014, was not complied with. The buy-bust team failed to establish the presence of the three required witnesses at the time of the inventory and photograph-taking of the drugs. Neither did the buy-bust team take advantage of the saving clause found in Sec. 21 (a) of the IRR as the prosecution gave no justifiable reason why the buy-bust team dispensed with the above-mentioned requirements. The Court notes that the prosecution did not present a sworn affidavit stating the reasons for noncompliance with the requirements nor did they present a supplemental statement regarding the steps the buy-bust team took to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. As PO3 Castillo testified himself:
[ATTY. QUINTOS]:
Q: Who put the markings on the specimen?
[PO3 CASTILLO]:
A: I was the one who marked them, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Did you mark them one by one?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: How would you know what was taken from Manuel and what was taken from Cresenciano and what was the buy-bust drug?
A: I marked it in the area in front of them that's why I know that the sachet was recovered [from] each of them, ma'am.
Q: Did you conduct any Inventory?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Where?
A: At the area, ma'am.
Q: In the same area?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Who were with you when you conducted the Inventory?
A: The whole team of the Intelligence Operatives of Calamba and preparing the documents in front of them, ma'am.
Q: At Pansol, correct?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Did you make a call to any Elected Barangay Officials to join you in this operation?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: What happened?
A: Nobody came that's why after we marked it, we brought it to the Barangay Hall of Brgy. Pansol, ma'am.
Q: What happened at the Barangay Hall of Brgy. Pansol?
A: We made a blotter report and then we informed them of their rights and we included in our Inventory is the blotter report ma'am.
Q: I am going to show you the Receipt of Physical Inventory that you were saying, can you tell me where was the signature of the Barangay Official in the blotter, it was not there correct?
A: What I know there was, ma'am.
Q: But indeed you went to the Barangay Hall for the said blotter, correct?
A: I know that there was a report but it was not there, ma'am.
Q: Of course, you also did not comply with the requirements of Section 21 [to] have a DOJ representative and a media personnel [sign] the Receipt of Physical Inventory, correct?
A: We were able to contact somebody but nobody arrived, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Of course, you have no proof that indeed you made a call, correct?
A: Yes, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Did you take photograph of the accused as well as the alleged specimen?
A: There was, ma'am.
Q: But you have no proof that there was a photograph, correct?
A: My companion was the one who took the photograph, ma'am.
Q: And you have no proof because the photograph was not in the record of this case?
A: As far as I know, a photograph was taken but I do not know if it was included in the files, ma'am.34 (Emphasis supplied)
As gleaned from the testimony of PO3 Castillo, the prosecution failed to show proof that they tried to contact representatives from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official, and take photographs of the seized drugs. Lastly, PO3 Castillo insisted that the Receipt of Physical Inventory was signed by a barangay official when in fact it was not. 35
The Court has previously held that the presence of the required number of witnesses at the time of the inventory is mandatory, and that their presence serves an essential purpose, especially in buy-bust operations. The three-witness requirement can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. 36
Without the insulating presence of these representatives during the inventory and photograph-taking, the evils of switching, planting or contamination of the evidence that had tainted buy-busts again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject illegal drugs, thus, adversely affecting the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. 37
Considering Our finding that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been seriously compromised, We find it no longer necessary to further discuss the other lapses committed by the prosecution.
As a final note, the Court reiterates that in a prosecution for Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, "the State carries the heavy burden of proving not only the elements of the offense, but also to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti, failing in which renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt." 38
For failure of the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs from accused-appellant, and to prove as a fact any justifiable reason for noncompliance with Sec. 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR, accused-appellant must be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The November 22, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08709 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Manuel Centeno y Pecho is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being held for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Moreover, the Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five days from receipt of this Resolution the action taken hereon.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." Marquez, J., on official business.
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. 15-17.
2. Id. at 3-14. Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Maria Filomena D. Singh (now a Member of the Court).
3. CA rollo, pp. 47-65. Penned by Presiding Judge Caesar C. Buenagua.
4. 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.
5. Records, p. 1.
6. Id. at 42.
7. CA rollo, p. 48.
8. Id. at 49. No first names were provided in the records for SPO1 Colinares, PO2 Cuevas, and PO3 Amador.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. Id.
14. Id.
15. Rollo, p. 6.
16. Id.
17. Id.
18. Id.
19. Id. at 6-7.
20. Id. at 7.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. Id.
24. Id. at 7-8.
25. Id.
26. Id. at 8.
27. CA rollo, pp. 47-65.
28. Id. at 58-59.
29. Id. at 65.
30. Rollo, pp. 3-14.
31. Id. at 13-14.
32. People v. Ortega, 738 Phil. 393, 400 (2014).
33. People v. Cabrellos, 837 Phil. 428, 438 (2018), citing People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015).
34. TSN, June 5, 2015, pp. 11-14.
35. Records, p. 92.
36. People v. Arellaga, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020, citing People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 234151, December 5, 2018.
37. Id.
38. People v. Cabrellos, supra note 33 at 445.