SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246952. September 27, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. REDENTOR DANDAN y FERNANDO, MAYO ARROJO y GERVACIO AND FREDO DELOS POYOS y ALIPIO, accused,
REDENTOR DANDAN y FERNANDO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated27 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246952 (People of the Philippines v. Redentor Dandan y Fernando, Mayo Arrojo y Gervacio and Fredo Delos Poyos y Alipio, accused; Redentor Dandan y Fernando, accused-appellant). — This ordinary appeal 1 under Rule 124 of the Rules of Court seeks the reversal of the August 24, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08448 and the February 17, 2016 Consolidated Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Fourth Judicial Region, Branch 31 of San Pedro City, Laguna in Criminal Case Nos. 11-8099-SPL and 11-8100-SPL. Both the CA Decision and the RTC Consolidated Judgment found accused-appellant Redentor Dandan y Fernando (Dandan) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the Sale and Possession of methamphetaminehydrochloride or shabu under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 also known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents:
An Information 4 charging Dandan with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 reads as follows:
That on or about December 12, 2011, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court above-named accused, without any legal authority, did, then and there wilfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously trade, dispense, deliver, give away to another or distributed dangerous drugs to the police officers one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) weighing ZERO POINT ZERO TWO (0.02) gram, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Another Information 6 charging Dandan with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 reads thus:
That on or about December 12, 2011, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court above-named accused, without authority of the law, did then and there wilfully (sic), unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control four (4) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as ''shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing zero point zero eight (0.08) gram.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
On February 7, 2012, Dandan pleaded not guilty to the above charges. Thus, a pre-trial conference was held and a consolidated trial on the merits of the cases, which included the cases of co-accused Fredo Delos Poyos y Alipio (Delos Poyos) and Mayo Arrojo y Gervacio (Arrojo), then ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
The version of the prosecution as stated in the CA Decision is as follows:
From the documentary evidence and the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses PO2 Pio Piero Avila (PO2 Avila) and PO2 Rick Jaison Almadilla (PO2 Almadilla) of the San Pedro, Laguna Municipal Police Station, the following facts were established:
In the afternoon of December 12, 2011, at around 3:00 o'clock, (sic) PO2 Avila and PO2 Almadilla, both Intelligence Operatives of the Intelligence Division of the San Pedro Municipal Police Station received information from a confidential informant that a certain Redentor Dandan alias Dentor was illegally trading in illegal drugs at Barangay Riverside, San Pedro, Laguna. Surveillance on Dandan was conducted and it was verified that the latter was indeed involved in illegal trading in shabu.
A buy-bust team was then formed in coordination with PDEA composed of P/Insp. Jaime Pederio as team leader, PO1 Jifford Signap, PO2 Sonny Xyrus De Leon, PO1 Otelio Santos, SPO1 Manuel Abutal, PO2 Avila, PO2 Almadilla as poseur-buyer and the confidential informant. In the team briefing, it was agreed that Almadilla would make a missed call to the cellular phone of P/Insp. Pederio to signal a consummated transaction. PO2 Almadilla was handed buy-bust money consisting of two pieces of P200.00 bills with marking of "8" on each bill.
After the briefing, the buy-bust team proceeded to Brgy. Riverside, San Pedro, Laguna. Thereat, Almadilla and the confidential informant went to the house of Dandan while the rest of the team strategically positioned themselves near the area. aScITE
While Almadilla and the confidential informant were in front of Dandan's house, the confidential informant called out Dandan. Dandan came out and the confidential informant told him that they wanted to buy shabu worth P400.00. Dandan agreed and invited them inside the house. Also inside the house was co-accused Delos Poyos. Dandan picked up two sachets of shabu on top of the table and handed one to Delos Poyos and the other to Almadilla. Almadilla then gave the buy-bust money to Dandan. The transaction completed, Almadilla immediately dialed P/Insp. Pederio's number. It was then that co-accused Arrojo arrived and also bought shabu from Dandan.
With the signal from Almadilla received, the buy-bust team rushed to Dandan's house, Almadilla introduced himself as police officer and arrested Dandan. When Almadilla asked Dandan to empty his pockets, he recovered another four plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. The police also arrested Delos Poyos and Arrojo after confiscating sachets of suspected shabu from them. All the accused were informed of their constitutional rights.
Because a curious crowd was gathering around the area, with some of them poised to interfere with the police operation, the buy-bust team immediately brought Dandan, Delos Poyos and Arrojo and the seized items to the police station. The custody of the items confiscated from Dandan remained with Almadilla while in transit to the police station while the ones seized from Delos Poyos and Arrojo were with PO2 Avila and PO1 Signap.
At the station, Almadilla immediately marked the one sachet of shabu that he bought from Dandan with "RD-B1" and the four other sachets of suspected shabu with "RD-P1", "RD-P2", "RD-P3" and "RD-P4", respectively. PO2 Avila marked the sachet of suspected shabu that he recovered from Delos Poyos with "FD-P1" while PO1 Signap marked the sachet seized from Arrojo with "MA-P1." The seized items were photographed, inventoried and listed in a Certificate of Inventory which was witnessed by media representative Nick Luares. Thereafter, Chief of Police Superintendent Kirby John Brion Kraft requested the PNP Crime Laboratory to examine the confiscate[d] sachets of suspected shabu with markings "RD-B1", "RD-P1", "RD-P2", "RD-P3", "RD-P4", "FD-P1" and "MA-P1", respectively.
At 10:55 P.M. on that day, Almadilla, Avila and Signap delivered the laboratory request and the confiscated items to the crime laboratory. The following day, Forensic Chemist Lalaine Ong Rodrigo issued Chemistry Report No. D-742-11 stating that the five transparent plastic sachets with markings "RD-B1", "RD-P1", "RD-P2", "RD-P3", "RD-P4", respectively, each containing 0.02 gram of white crystalline substance, all tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu.
Version of the Defense:
The version of the defense reads as follows:
Dandan, Delos Poyos and Arrojo denied the charges against them.
As Dandan recalled the events, he was at home cooking at noon of December 12, 2011 when two policemen entered his house, poked a gun at him and forced him to lie down. They put a bonnet over his head. When they took off the bonnet, he saw several policemen searching his house. He was later told that he was charged of selling shabu. The police found nothing, yet he was forced to admit that he was engaged in illegal trading of shabu. Dandan ordered his son to go to their neighbor Arrojo's house to get him water to drink. When Arrojo bought water for Dandan, he was arrested as well. Dandan and Arrojo were bought to the police station where Delos Poyos was already being held.
Delos Poyos and Arrojo corroborated Dandan's testimony. 8
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
On February 17, 2016, the RTC rejected the defense's version of events and rendered in its Consolidated Judgement the following against accused-appellant Dandan, among others:
WHEREFORE, foregoing considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 11-8099-SPL, accused Redentor Dandan y Fernando is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The period of his preventive imprisonment should be given full credit.
2. In Criminal Case No. 11-8100-SPL, accused Redentor Dandan y Fernando is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one day as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight months as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The period of his preventive imprisonment should be given full credit.
xxx xxx xxx
Let the six (6) plastic sachets of shabu subject matter of these cases be immediately forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for its disposition as provided by law. The P400.00 buy-bust money is ordered forfeited in favor of the government and deposited to the National Treasury through the Office of the Clerk of Court of San Pedro City, Laguna.
SO ORDERED.
February 17, 2016, City of San Pedro, Laguna. 9
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
Dandan assailed the Consolidated Judgment of the RTC before the CA, assigning the following errors:
1. In finding the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses to be credible despite serious and material inconsistencies between their testimonies that put grave doubts that a buy-bust operation actually occurred; and
2. In convicting the accused-appellant for the offenses charged, despite prosecution's failure to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs allegedly purchased and confiscated from him. 10
In its Decision, 11 the CA held that the RTC properly arrested and convicted Dandan of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Consolidated Judgment dated February 17, 2016 in Criminal Case Nos. 11-8099-SPL, 11-8100-SPL, 11-8101-SPL and 11-8102-SPL of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 31, San Pedro City, Laguna finding accused-appellant Redentor Dandan y Fernando guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 12
On September 10, 2018, Dandan gave Notice 13 to the Court stating that he is appealing the assailed CA Decision dated August 24, 2018 on the ground that the same is contrary to facts, law and jurisprudence.
Our Ruling
The appeal is granted.
The Court has emphasized time and time again the importance of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and Section 21 (a) of the corresponding Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR). The case of People v. Luna14 summarizes the pertinent portions of the provisions clearly:
In sum, the law puts in place requirements of time, witnesses and proof of inventory with respect to the custody of seized dangerous drugs, to wit:
1. The initial custody requirements must be done immediately after seizure or confiscation;
2. The physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of:
a. The accused or his representative or counsel;
b. The required witnesses:
i. a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official for offenses committed during the effectivity of RA 9165 and prior to its amendment by RA 10640, as in this case;
ii. an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service of the DOJ or the media for offenses committed during the effectivity of RA 10640.
As a rule, strict compliance with the foregoing requirements is mandatory. However, following the IRR of RA 9165, the courts may allow a deviation from these requirements if the following requisites are availing: (1) the existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. If these two elements concur, the seizure and custody over the confiscated items shall not be rendered void and invalid; ergo, the integrity of the corpus delicti remains untarnished. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Following a plain reading of the law, it is now settled that non-compliance with the mandatory procedure in Section 21 triggers the operation of the saving clause enshrined in the IRR of RA 9165. Verba legisnon est recedendum — from the words of a statute there should be no departure. Stated otherwise, in order not to render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the evidence obtained, the prosecution must, as a matter of law, establish that such non-compliance was based on justifiable grounds and that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Hence, before the prosecution can rely on this saving mechanism, they (the apprehending team) must first recognize lapses, and, if any are found to exist, they must justify the same accordingly.15 (Emphasis supplied)
Since the alleged crimes were committed before the effectivity of RA 10640, the amendment to RA 9165, the latter law still applies. Thus, the three-witness rule would still apply to the case.
The CA erred in affirming the finding of the RTC that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved by substantial compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and Section 21 (a) of the IRR. Not only did the apprehending team fail to physically inventory and photograph the seized items in front of the required three witnesses, namely a media representative, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and a public officer, the apprehending team likewise failed to establish the non-compliance as justifiable. The CA itself stated that the marking was done only before the accused, Dandan, to wit: HEITAD
As testified to by Almadilla, after the arrest and confiscation of the items, they immediately brought Dandan to the police station and the confiscated shabu remained in his possession. At the police station, Almadilla marked the five transparent plastic sachets of shabu with "RD-B1", "RD-P1", "RD-P2", "RD-P3", "RD-P4", respectively, in the presence of Dandan. Almadilla conducted an inventory of evidence and photographing thereof was likewise made. After a laboratory request was prepared, Almadilla turned over the seized shabu to Forensic Chemist Rodrigo for laboratory examination. 16 x x x (Emphasis supplied)
Additionally, the CA did not even look for an explanation from the prosecution on why the required three witnesses were not present. The appellate court merely held that the prosecution sufficiently explained why the marking, inventory and photographing of the drugs were made at the police station. Nothing more.
The RTC, ruling similarly, did not mention whether the specimens were marked, inventoried and photographed in front of the required witnesses, an important detail to note under the law. Neither did the RTC discuss why it found no material gaps on the chain of custody:
The court further finds the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs sold and possessed by accused Dandan and possessed by Delos Poyos to have been preserved and safeguarded. Applying the chain of custody rule, every link in the chain of custody was indubitably shown from the time that these items were first bought and possessed from the accused Dandan by PO Almadilla and from accused Delos Poyos by PO Avila up to the time that these were presented to the court for identification. Both police officers testified that after the arrest, they returned to the police station where the specimens were marked with RD-B1 for the item bought by PO Almadilla from Dandan and RD-P1 to RD-P4 for the items seized from accused Dandan by PO Almadilla, while the specimen confiscated from accused Delos Poyos was marked with FD-P1. While the court notes that the specimens were not marked at the place of arrest but at the police station, the police officers have satisfactorily explained that it was for security reasons as a crowd had started to gather at the place of arrest.
Also at the police station, all the necessary documents were prepared such as certificate of inventory, request for laboratory examination; and pictures of the accused as well as the illegal drugs were taken. The items from the buy-bust and illegal possession seized by POs Almadilla and Avila were subsequently forwarded to the PNP Crime laboratory for examination to determine the presence of dangerous drugs. x x x 17 (Emphasis supplied)
After a thorough perusal of the records of the case, the Court finds that indeed the three-witness rule was not followed; neither did the prosecution establish justifiable grounds for such deviation and prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. The testimony of PO2 Almadilla before the RTC is telling:
Q77. Who was in possession of the [plastic] sachet that you recovered from Alias Dentor as well as the plastic sachet that you bought from Dentor?
A. In my possession, sir.
Q78. When you arrived at the police station, what if any did you do?
A. We [marked] the confiscated evidence, sir.
Q79. Who [placed] the markings on the items bought from Alias Dentor?
A. I, sir.
Q81. How about the items recovered from him, who made the markings?
A. I, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q86. Aside from the markings of the items, what else did you do while at the police station?
A. We prepared a request for laboratory examination, certificate of inventory, photographs, booking sheet and chain of custody form, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q100. You mentioned that you and your companions brought the request at the crime laboratory, will you please tell us, who were with you in bringing the request?
A. The mobile crew, PO2 Avila and PO2 Signap, sir. 18
It was PO2 Avila who finally mentioned the requirement of a media representative, among others, however the testimony still revealed that the apprehending team reneged on their duty under RA 9165 and its IRR:
q. Upon arrival at the office, do you recall what your office [did] next?
a. We immediately called up the media representative to conduct the inventory, sir.
q. What else?
a. We took pictures of the accused, the confiscated items and the buy-bust money, sir. 19
PO2 Avila's testimony did not clearly show whether the media representative was present. Neither did he mention the presence or absence of a DOJ representative or a public officer. Finally, he also failed to explain why they reneged on their duties under the law. People v. Luna20 elaborated on the importance of the three-witness rule in this wise:
[T]he three (3) witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension — a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team, considering that buy-bust operations, by their very nature, entail meticulous planning and coordination.
[I]n case of warrantless seizures, while the physical inventory and photographing is allowed to be done "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable," this does not dispense with the requirement of having the DOJ or media representative and an elected public official to be physically present at the time of apprehension.
The reason for this is dictated by simple logic: these witnesses are presumed to be disinterested third parties insofar as they buy-bust operations is concerned. Hence, it is at the time of arrest — or at the time of the drugs' "seizure and confiscation" — that the insulating presence the witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time seizure and confiscation that would foreclose the pernicious practice of planting evidence. Without the actual presence of the representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the confiscated drugs, the evils of switching, planting or contamination of the corpus delicti that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425, otherwise known as the "Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972," could again be resurrected. 21 (Emphasis supplied)
ln the case before the Court, none of the witnesses required under Section 21 was present at the time the plastic sachets were allegedly recovered from Dandan. Neither were the witnesses present during the preparation of the inventory at the police station. The testimonies of the police officers categorically admitted the absence of the three witnesses.
Relatedly, the prosecution also failed to satisfy the two-pronged requirement under the saving clause of Section 21 (a), IRR of RA 9165 which are: first, present justifiable ground for the non-compliance, and second, show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item were properly preserved.
As to the first requirement, the prosecution did not proffer any explanation as to why none of the insulating witnesses was present. As to the second, considering that the first prong of Section 21 (a) was not complied with, any and all evidence tending to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs become immaterial. Given that there were already irregularities present at the point of seizure — the supposed "first link" in the chain — there is no more practical value to establishing an unbroken chain of custody to show that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. 22
The Court stresses the doctrine in the Luna case:
[I]f there is already non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165 and no justifiable grounds are presented therefor, proving a chain of custody beginning only with the poseur-buyer is pointless because the planting of evidence is naturally done at the point of seizure. Once more, the entire rationale of placing witnesses at the scene and conducting an inventory and photographing in their presence immediately after seizure of the dangerous drugs is to guarantee with moral certainty that the items were indeed recovered from the accused and not planted by the police officers. 23 ATICcS
In the end, Dandan deserves an acquittal as the prosecution breached the mandatory requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and subsequently failed to present justifiable grounds for such non-compliance under Section 21 (a) of the IRR of RA 9165. The procedure in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 24
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The August 24, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08448 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Redentor Dandan y Fernando is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be FURNISHED to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken.
Let an entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (J. Carandang designated as additional Member per September 28, 2020 Raffle vice J. Inting who recused due to prior action in the Court of Appeals.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 23-26.
2.Id. at 3-22, penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo and Danton Q. Bueser.
3. CA rollo, pp. 49-58, penned by Judge Sonia T. Yu-Casano.
4. Records, p. 1.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Rollo, p. 8.
9. CA rollo, pp. 56-57.
10.Id. at 33-34.
11.Rollo, pp. 3-22.
12.Id. at 20.
13.Id. at 23-26.
14. 828 Phil. 671 (2018).
15.Id. at 685-687.
16.Rollo, p. 18.
17. CA Rollo, p. 55.
18. TSN, November 13, 2013, pp. 11-13.
19. TSN, October 17, 2012, p. 10.
20.Supra note 16.
21.Id. at 688-689.
22.Id. at 695.
23.Id.
24.Id. citing Gamboa v. People, 799 Phil. 584, 597 (2016) and People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1038-1039 (2012).