FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251871. July 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ABELARDO CUSTODIO y DAPITO and KING LANZILUT ALEGRIA y RAMOS, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251871 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Abelardo Custodio y Dapito and King Lanzilut Alegria y Ramos, Accused-Appellants). — This appeal 1 assails the Decision 2 dated 09 May 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08900, which affirmed the conviction of Abelardo Custodio y Dapito (Custodio) and King Lanzilut Alegria y Ramos (Alegria) (accused-appellants, collectively) for violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. HTcADC
Antecedents
Custodio and Alegria were both charged for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 under the following Information:
Criminal Case No. 18029
That on or about April 12, 2013 at around 11:00 in the evening at Batangas City, Grand Terminal, Brgy. Alangilan, Batangas City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully and criminally, sell, dispense, transfer or deliver three (3) bricks of dried Marijuana leaves and fruiting tops with a total weight of 171.16 grams, a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Likewise, Alegria was separately charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, viz.:
Criminal Case No. 18030
That on or about April 12, 2013 at around 11:00 in the evening at Batangas City, Grand Terminal, Brgy. Alangilan, Batangas City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully and criminally, possess or have under his custody and control one (1) folded paper containing 200.22 grams of Indiam Hemp, more commonly known as "Marijuana," a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
When arraigned, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. 3 Trial on the merits ensued, thereafter.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented PSI Herminia Llacuna (Llacuna), PO1 John Kenneth Bay (Bay), SPO1 Pepito Adelantar (Adelantar), PO3 Carlos Llegado (Llegado), PO3 Joryel Alo (Alo), BarangayKagawad Michael Clet (Clet), PO3 Adrian Endozo (Endozo) and Barangay Tanod Jaime De Veyra (De Veyra).
The testimonies of the prosecutions' witnesses tended to establish that on the evening of 12 April 2013, PO1 Bay and PO3 Alo received information from their confidential informant that Custodio would be selling marijuana at the Grand Terminal, Barangay Alangilan, Batangas City. PO3 Alo and PO1 Bay immediately called PO3 Endozo and asked him for a Five Hundred (Php500) Peso bill to be used in the buy-bust operation. PO3 Endozo handed the Php500-bill with serial number WT822613. PO1 Bay placed his initials "JKB" on the left portion of the bill. 4
After the preparation of the Pre-operation report and coordination form, which were sent to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the buy-bust team, composed of PO1 Bay, PO3 Alo and PO3 Endozo, went out in a Honda Civic car and proceeded first to Lawas to pick up the confidential informant. The buy-bust team then went to the barangay hall of Barangay Alangilan to coordinate and record the buy-bust operation. 5
Upon arriving, the team positioned themselves at a mango tree beside the Grand Terminal and waited. As they were waiting for Custodio to arrive, they noticed two (2) women and a man, passing a cigarette among them. 6
After a while, Custodio and Alegria arrived. PO1 Bay and the informant approached Custodio and informant advised him that they wanted to purchase marijuana worth Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00). PO1 Bay handed the marked money to Custodio, who then passed the money to Alegria. Thereafter, Alegria handed a folded paper containing dried marijuana leaves to PO1 Bay. 7
PO3 Alo and PO1 Bay then introduced themselves as police officers and arrested accused-appellants. PO1 Bay then marked the paper containing the marijuana leaves with his initials and date "JKB-1 4-12-13." Meanwhile, after frisking Alegria, PO3 Alo found bricks of marijuana in his possession, which he marked with his initials and date "JBA-1 4-12-13." 8
The police brought every one they arrested to the barangay hall where the incident was recorded on the barangay blotter. An inventory was thereafter conducted in the presence of accused-appellants, Prosecutor Maricel Magpantay-Ng (Ng) of the Department of Justice and Barangay Kagawad Clet. PO3 Endozo thereafter took photographs of the inventory taking and the items seized from accused-appellants. 9
PO1 Bay and PO3 Alo brought the confiscated items to SPO1 Adelantar. The buy-bust team then went back to the Batangas City Police Station where SPO1 Adelantar prepared the Requests for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test, Booking Sheet/Arrest Report, Chain of Custody form, as well as the Joint Statement of PO1 Bay and PO3 Alo. SPO1 Adelantar then delivered the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was received by SPO3 Lito Vargas (Vargas) and examined by PSI Llacuna. The specimens examined turned out positive for marijuana. 10
Version of the Defense
For the defense, accused-appellants, along with their witnesses, Edilberto Garcia and Roseane Pilapilan testified. Their testimonies established that in the early evening of 12 April 2013, accused-appellants were at the Grand Terminal in Batangas City. Alegria was selling panutsa while Custodio was making bonsai plants. 11
Accused-appellants and their witnesses claimed that three (3) men suddenly arrived, later on identified as PO1 Bay, PO3 Alo and one Willy Hernandez. The men asked them where the marijuana was, told them not to run, and instructed them to lie on the floor facing down. Accused-appellants were then brought back to the provincial camp and returned to the Grand Terminal where photos were taken. 12
Ruling of the RTC
In a Decision dated 17 November 2016, the RTC found both accused-appellants guilty of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, sentenced them to suffer life imprisonment, and ordered to pay a fine of Php500,000.00 The trial court also convicted Alegria for violation of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, sentenced him to suffer the 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 Pesos (Php300,000.00).
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA agreed with the RTC's findings and affirmed accused-appellants' conviction. 13 It ruled that the elements of both illegal sale and possession delivery of drugs were established, and that the chain of custody of the seized item was not broken. 14 Hence, the resort to this Court. aScITE
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellants' conviction for illegal drugs offenses.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA No. 9165 state:
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
Parenthetically, to secure a conviction for 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 its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 15
On the other hand, for the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs to prosper, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of said drugs.
In addition to the elements of the drug offenses, the State is also burdened with the responsibility of identifying, proving and adducing in court the corpus delicti, or the drug subject of the offense. 16
In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug that constituted the corpus delicti.
The required witnesses were
As part of the chain of custody procedure, RA 9165 requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation of the same. The law further 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, 17 "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, "[a] elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 18
Accused-appellants were charged of committing the offenses on 12 April 2013, prior to the effectivity of the amendatory RA 10640. 19 Section 21 of RA 9165, as complemented by Section 21 (a) of Article II of its Implementing Rules and Regulations, require that immediately after seizure and confiscation of the suspected drug the same should be physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the following witnesses: (a) the accused or person/s from whom the items were seized and confiscated, or his representative or counsel; (b) a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (c) any elected public official.
In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the presence of ALL the insulating witnesses at the crucial time of the supposed seizure of drugs. Moreover, there appears to be no representative of the media present to witness the inventory. The record shows that the barangay official and representative from the DOJ arrived at the barangay hall to witness the inventory and photographing only after accused-appellants' arrest and the seizure of drugs. This was clear from the testimony of Barangay Tanod De Veyra:
Q Mr. Witness, you said a while ago that when the police officers arrived at the barangay hall, they showed to you the items, is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q When they showed you the items confiscated from all the accused, could you please describe them?
A They were wrapped and there were already markings on the confiscated items from the accused, sir.
Q What are these markings?
A The markings "JKB [sic] 1 04-12-13 [sic] 822613
Q So you mean to say, Mr. Witness, that when the police officers arrived and showed you those items, there were already those markings?
A Yes, sir.
Q To whom did they show them first, to you or to Brgy. Councilor Clet?
A When they arrived, we called Brgy. Councilor Clet to witness the inventory, sir.
Q What I mean, Mr. Witness, is to whom were these items showed first, to you or to Brgy. Councilor Clet?
A To me, sir, because Brgy. Councilor Clet was inside the other room.
When the police officers arrived, we informed Brgy. Councilor Clet about the arrest of the accused, sir. 20
The two (2), out of the required three (3) insulating witnesses, were merely called in after the supposed buy-bust operations. Evidently, their belated presence in the operation does not eliminate reasonable doubt to the possibility that planting of evidence may have occurred at the time of the arrest.
The saving clause does not
It is true that Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, contains this proviso:
x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements [the presence of the required witnesses, and the time and place of inventory and photography] 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;·x x x 21
To warrant the application of this saving mechanism, however, the prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses, and justify or explain them. 22 Failure to provide sufficient justification will create doubt as to the identity and evidentiary value of the seized items when presented in court. 23 HEITAD
In this case, the prosecution failed to acknowledge the lapses in the procedures and explain their failure to strictly follow them. Faced with these various irregularities, this Court cannot indiscriminately apply the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. Such presumption only applies when there is nothing to suggest that the police officers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law. 24 For failure to strictly comply with the requirements of a valid buy-bust operation, the prosecution was not able to establish the corpus delicti of the offenses. The acquittal of the accused-appellants should, thus, follow. Indeed, the absence of insulating witnesses at the time of seizure creates a reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized items, and consequently on the guilt of accused-appellant on the crime charge.
Truly, the government's campaign against illegal drugs is consistent with the Constitutional policy of maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare. 25 However, the Constitution also ensures protection of the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizens. These sacred individual rights, fortified further under statutory law, should not be sacrificed for the sheer sake of convenience and expediency. 26
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision promulgated on 09 May 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08900, finding accused-appellants AbelardoCustodioyDapito and King Lanzilut AlegriayRamos guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, and King Lanzilut Alegria yRamos guilty for violating Section 11 of Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellants are hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. They are ORDERED immediately released, unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to implement the immediate release of accused-appellants and to report on his compliance within five (5) days from receipt.
The accused-appellants' manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief), filed pursuant to the Resolution dated July 13, 2020; the Office of the Solicitor General's manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief), filed pursuant to the Resolution dated July 13, 2020; and the letter dated October 3, 2020 of CInsp. Jeremy L. Argonza, Officer-in-Charge Superintendent, New Bilibid Prison East, Muntinlupa City, in compliance with the Resolution dated July 13, 2020, stating that accused-appellant Abelardo Custodio y Dapito was received in their Institution on March 22, 2017, are all NOTED.
The Office of the Solicitor General is hereby directed to SUBMIT, within five (5) days from notice hereof, a soft copy in compact disc, USB or e-mail containing the PDF file of the signed manifestation in lieu of supplemental brief pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC.
SO ORDERED." (Carandang, J., no part; M. Lopez J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated 14 July 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA Rollo, pp. 119-121.
2.Rollo, pp. 3-19; Penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez and concurred in by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of this Court), and Pedro B. Corales.
3.Id. at 5.
4.Id. at 5-6.
5.Id. at 6.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 7.
9.Id. at 8.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 9.
13.Id. at 17.
14.Id. at 13-18.
15.People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 243944, 15 March 2021 [Per J. Gesmundo].
16.People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 229099, 27 February 2019 [Per J. Del Castillo].
17.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 15 July 2014.
18.People v. Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, 03 September 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
19. In People v. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 236304, 05 November 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe]), this Court noted that RA 10640 was approved on 15 July 2014, and published on 23 July 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Metro Section, p. 21) and the Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23, World News Section, p. 6). Thus, it became effective 15 days thereafter or on 07 August 2014, pursuant to Section 5 of the law. See also People v. Bangalan y Mamba, id.
20. TSN dated 02 February 2015, pp. 7-8.
21. See also Casona v. People, 818 Phil. 76 (2017), G.R. No. 179757, 13 September 2017 (Per J. Bersamin].
22.People v. Reyes, supra.
23.People v. Velasco, G.R. No. 219174, 21 February 2018 [Per J. Bersamin].
24.People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 228825, 28 July 2020 [Per J.C. Reyes, Jr.].
25. See People v. Narvas, G.R. No. 241254, 08 July 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
26.People v. Narvas, supra.