THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 192256. September 16, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOSEPH CLETO A.K.A. "TANOT", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 16, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 192256 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. JOSEPH CLETO a.k.a. "Tanot," accused-appellant). — Before this Court is an appeal filed by the accused-appellant Joseph Cleto (accused-appellant) from the Decision 1 dated February 26, 2010 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03614. The assailed Decision dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Decision 2 dated September 12, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Laoag City, Branch 13, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended.
This case stemmed from an Information 3 filed before the RTC charging the accused-appellant of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 17th day of December, 2007 in the City of Laoag, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a police officer who acted as poseur[-]buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic bag of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug popularly known as "shabu," weighing 0.0503 gram, without any license or authority, in violation of the aforecited law.
That the accused was previously convicted by final judgment on September 24, 1996, in Criminal Case No. 7868 of Violation of Section 4, n
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
The accused-appellant was arraigned on January 22, 2008 and assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. 5 After pre-trial, trial proceeded.
The prosecution presented as witnesses: Police Officer 1 (PO1) Sygman Benigno (Benigno) and Senior Police Officer 1 Marlon Nicolas (Nicolas) of the Provincial Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (PAID-SOTG). 6
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses tend to establish that on December 17, 2007, Benigno and PO1 Jeffrey Sulmerin (Sulmerin) were outside their office when a male police informant approached them and asked for Nicolas. Upon being called, Nicolas went out; then he, together with Benigno and Sulmerin, entertained the informant. On the basis of the information given regarding the sale of illegal drugs, Senior Inspector George Depalog (Depalog) formed a buy-bust operation team with Benigno as the poseur-buyer, and Nicolas and Sulmerin as back-up. Benigno was given a marked P500 bill to which he affixed his initial "SB." After the preparations, the team proceeded to the house of the accused-appellant at Barangay 11, Lagasca St., Laoag City. The team parked their vehicle in front of a carinderia along P. Gomez St., alighted the vehicle, and walked casually towards the residence of the accused-appellant. At the back gate of the compound where the accused-appellant's residence is located, the informant called the accused-appellant by yelling "Tanot" several times. The accused-appellant then went out of his room, which is attached to the main house; met with the team and allowed them to go inside the room while asking "Mano man alaen yon?" (How much will you be getting again?). Benigno replied "Balor lima" (Worth five). With this, the accused-appellant brought out a small plastic sachet from his pants' right pocket and handed the same to Benigno who, in turn, gave him the marked P500 bill. When the accused-appellant received the money, Benigno grabbed his right hand and introduced himself as a police officer. The accused-appellant was then handcuffed, informed of his constitutional rights, and frisked, while the informant ran away. Benigno called for back-up. They were able to recover from the accused-appellant the marked P500 bill. The team also conducted a search of the accused-appellant's room in the presence of the accused-appellant's parents and other occupants of the house. The accused-appellant was brought to the PAID-SOTG office where his fingerprints were taken. Nicolas accomplished the booking sheet report and entered the same in the police blotter. The plastic sachet retrieved from the accused-appellant was sent to the crime laboratory. The accused-appellant refused to undergo a drug test, but nonetheless accomplished the following documents: "Confiscation of Seized Items, Letter Request for Laboratory Examination of the substance inside the plastic sachet, and an Affidavit attesting to the circumstances of his arrest. 7
The defense for its part presented the testimonies of Angelita Cleto (Angelita), Michael Felipe (Michael), and the accused-appellant himself. 8
Angelita testified that she is the accused-appellant's mother. She narrated that on December 17, 2007 at around 3:00 p.m., she and her husband were in the living room of their house watching T.V. when she heard a commotion. Thereafter, two police officers in civilian clothes suddenly entered the living room and the bedroom. She claims that she recognized the men as police officers as she often saw them in the house of their neighbor, Gilbert Villamor, a policeman. Then, the police asked them where her son was so she pointed towards her daughter's room where her son was sleeping. The police officers went inside the room, frisked the accused-appellant, and searched the room. The police officers were able to retrieve a cigarette and money, then handcuffed the accused-appellant and brought him outside the house. The accused-appellant and his friend Michael Felipe, who was then staying with his girlfriend at the accused-appellant's room, were then asked to board a van. 9
Michael corroborated the testimony of Angelita. In addition, he averred that the police also went inside the accused-appellant's room which he was then occupying and searched the place. He was also frisked but nothing was retrieved. After being processed, Michael was eventually released. 10
The accused-appellant's testimony is similar to the foregoing testimonies in its main points. In sum, the accused-appellant denies the allegations against him and interposes that he was merely framed-up. 11
On September 12, 2008, the RTC of Laoag City, Branch 13, rendered its Decision 12 finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused Joseph Cleto GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of illegal sale of shabu and is therefore sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of P2,000,000.00, with cost de oficio.
The shabu seized in this case is hereby confiscated, the same to be disposed as the law prescribes.
SO ORDERED. 13
The accused-appellant appealed to the CA, which rendered the herein assailed Decision, 14 affirming the accused-appellant's conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the assailed decision dated September 12, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Laoag City in Criminal Case No. 13556-13 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 15
Thus this appeal.
Adopting the Brief that he filed before the CA, 16 the accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the illegal drug as the mandatory procedure in handling the seized plastic sachet was not observed. He argues that the mere presentation and identification of the illegal drugs in open court is not sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of showing that chain of custody has been complied with. 17
The appeal is meritorious.
In order to sustain conviction for the sale of illegal drugs under Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the following elements must be established beyond reasonable doubt: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place, and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 18
The element of corpus delicti is established by showing compliance with the requirements for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia as set forth under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 must be complied with, viz.:
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 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; (Emphasis and underscoring supplied.)
In the same vein, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 provides for the proper procedure to be observed in accordance with the foregoing provision and the effect of non-compliance therewith, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx
(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 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;
xxx xxx xxx
The foregoing demands that the apprehending team immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the drugs after their seizure and confiscation in the presence of no less than three (3) witnesses. These requirements must be strictly complied with as they ensure the possibility of planting or substitution of evidence. 19 These chain of custody requirements goes into the integrity of the corpus delicti. 20
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation. The simulated sale involved one (1) heat-sealed plastic bag containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing 0.0503 gram. The accused-appellant was brought to the PAID-SOTG office where he was booked and processed. Clearly, the operation involved various procedural lapses that warrant the accused-appellant's acquittal. First, the item was not marked immediately after seizure. Benigno testified that he placed the marking on the plastic sachet before he sent it to the crime laboratory. 21 Similarly, there is no indication that the same was done in the presence of the accused-appellant, a representative from media and the DOJ, and an elected public official. Strikingly, as well, the testimonies of the police officers who participated in the buy-bust operation did not explain who had taken custody of the sachet of shabu after the same was seized, who brought the same to the police station, and later on to the laboratory. Not one witness was likewise present during the course of the operations. No justification was offered for these procedural lapses. Given the minuscule amount of the seized item involved, there is no assurance that the one presented as evidence in court was the same article that was the subject of sale by the accused-appellant. 22
In view of the glaring and numerous procedural lapses in the case at bar, the customary presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties would not suffice. The presumption applies only when the officers have shown compliance with the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise or be relied upon. 23
Finally, while the accused-appellant has only offered the defense of "denial and frame-up," still, the burden is upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In doing so, it must rise on its own merits, without regard to the weakness of the defense. 24 Should the prosecution fail to discharge this burden, as in the case at bar, acquittal must follow.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 26, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 03614, which in turn affirmed the Decision dated September 12, 2008 of Branch 13, Regional Trial Court of Laoag City in Criminal Case No. 13556-13, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant Joseph Cleto a.k.a. "Tanot" is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to: (a) cause the immediate release of accused-appellant Cleto, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause; and (b) inform this Court of the date of his release, or the reason for his continued confinement as the case may be, within five (5) days from notice.
Copies of this Resolution must be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-26; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Francisco P. Acosta, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 22-37; penned by Presiding Judge Philip G. Salvador.
3.Id. at 7-8.
4.Id. at 7.
5.Id. at 22.
6.Id. at 23.
7.Rollo, pp. 4-8.
8. CA rollo, p. 23.
9.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
10.Id. at 12-13.
11.Id. at 14-15.
12. CA rollo, pp. 22-37.
13.Id. at 37.
14.Rollo, pp. 2-26.
15.Id. at 23.
16.Id. at 38-39.
17. CA rollo, pp. 72-76.
18.People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, citing People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 225 (2010).
19.People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 129 (2013).
20.People v. Que, supra note 18, citing People v. Morales, supra note 18 and People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476, 500-501 (2012).
21.Rollo, p. 8.
22.People v. Que, supra note 18.
23.Id., citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 311 (2010).
24.Daayata, et al. v. People, 807 Phil. 102, 118 (2017).
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. With Missing Portion.