SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 207518. November 24, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. NELSON DAPITAN, MELODINA DAPITAN, ROMUALDO ITON AND DENNIS YUSON, accused,
NELSON DAPITAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated24 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 207518(People of the Philippines v. Nelson Dapitan, Melodina Dapitan, Romualdo Iton and Dennis Yuson, accused; Nelson Dapitan, accused-appellant). — Before the Court is an ordinary appeal filed by accused-appellant Nelson Dapitan (Dapitan) assailing the Decision 1 dated February 12, 2013, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01286, which affirmed the October 11, 2010 Joint Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 28, Mandaue City, in Criminal Case Nos. DU-10279 and DU-10280, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 6, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Facts
This case stemmed from an Information 3 filed before the RTC charging Dapitan and his wife Melodina Dapitan (Melodina) with violation of Section 6, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for maintenance of a drug den, as follows:
That on or about the 19th day of June 2003, at about 5:00 o'clock in the morning, more or less, at Sitio Tuburan, Brgy. Jubay, Municipality of Liloan, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping with one another without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously maintain a den their house, where dangerous drugs is used or sold in any form.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
A warrant of arrest was issued against Melodina; however, the same was returned to the RTC with the notation that "the subject person could no longer be found at the given address." Thus, on August 15, 2003, only Dapitan was arraigned with the assistance of his counsel. He entered a plea of "not guilty" to the charge against him. Thereafter, a joint trial ensued with Criminal Case No. DU-10280 for violation of Section 7, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 against Romualdo Itol (Itol) and Dennis Yuson (Yuson). CAIHTE
Version of the Prosecution
Elements of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG) of the Philippine National Police, Region 7, at Camp Sotero Cabahug, Cebu City, received reports from a concerned citizen that spouses Nelson Dapitan and Melodina Dapitan were engaged in the selling or distribution of shabu. Thus, from June 4, 2003 until June 12, 2003, they conducted a surveillance at Sitio Tuburan, Barangay Jubay, Lilo-an City, Cebu. On June 12, 2003, they applied for a search warrant, and on that same day, Judge Soliver C. Peras of the RTC of Cebu City, Branch 10, issued Search Warrant No. 15-06-1203-10. On June 19, 2003, at around 5:00 a.m., Senior Police Officer 2 Edmund Junco (SPO2 Junco), Police Officer (PO) 3 Delfin Bontuyan (PO3 Bontuyan), PO2 Alvin Bayo (PO2 Bayo) and PO2 Roel Leyson (PO2 Leyson), accompanied by Barangay Councilor Silvestre Pepito and Barangay Tanod Martin Sitoy, implemented the search warrant. Upon reaching the target area, people scampered away in different directions. They saw Itol and Yuson running away from the porch of Dapitan's house and chased them.
The police officers knocked on the door of Dapitan's house, but no one answered. They forced the door open and introduced themselves to the occupants therein. Dapitan was sitting on his bed with his two (2) children. PO2 Leyson searched Dapitan's room but found nothing. He then went to the porch where he found four (4) empty plastic packs with suspected shabu residue, three (3) pieces of disposable lighters, two (2) pieces improvised clips, twelve (12) pieces of small unused tin foil, one (1) big unused rolled tinfoil, two (2) pieces of improvised tooter, and two (2) pieces of used tin foil. Meanwhile, SPO2 Junco recovered P5,660.00 cash from Dapitan's wallet. The police then prepared a Receipt for Property Seized, which was signed by Barangay Tanod Martin Sitoy, Barangay Councilor Silvestre Pepito and team leader SPO2 Junco. Together with the confiscated items, Dapitan, Itol, and Yuson were brought to the police station, where SPO2 Junco marked the items.
PO2 Bayo delivered the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory as well as the Request for Laboratory Examination, which were received by PO3 Rias. Thereafter, Forensic Chemical Officer Police Inspector David Alexander T. Patriana, RMT, issued Chemistry Report No. D1009-2003 with the findings that the qualitative examination conducted on the specimens containing traces of white crystalline substance yielded positive result to the tests for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Version of the Defense
For his part, Dapitan testified that on June 19, 2003, at around 5:00 a.m., he was sleeping at home in Sitio Tuburan, Barangay Jubay, Lilo-an City, Cebu, with his wife and two (2) children, when he was awakened by the impact coming from his door. He then saw PO3 Bontuyan and PO2 Leyson aiming their guns at him. PO2 Leyson went inside his house and led his wife and children to the porch. The police officers showed him the search warrant, which he was not able to read. PO2 Leyson searched his house but found nothing. PO2 Leyson then searched a cabinet, where he took the P5,660.00 cash and proceeded to the porch. He saw PO3 Bontuyan place the money inside a small pail, which also contained the foil, plastic, and lighter. The items were then listed on a piece of paper which Dapitan was made to sign in the presence of PO3 Bontuyan, PO2 Leyson and the Barangay Captain, who arrived after the search. Dapitan was loaded to the truck where he saw Itol and Yuson already inside it. According to Dapitan, it was his first time to meet the two other accused.
The RTC Decision
On October 11, 2010, the RTC rendered a Joint Judgment 5 finding Dapitan guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Maintenance of Drug Den punished under Section 6, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, thus:
WHEREFORE, this Joint Judgment in DU-10279 is hereby rendered finding the accused NELSON DAPITAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Maintenance of Drug Den punished under Section 6, Article II, R.A. 9165. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced the penalty of life imprisonment and fine in the amount P500,000.00 together with the accessory penalties under the law and with costs against the accused.
The court orders the destruction of dangerous drugs paraphernalia offered as Exhibits "E", "G", "J", "K", "L", and "M".
The wallet containing P5,660.00 marked as Exhibit "N" shall be returned to the accused as these are not drug paraphernalia.
Nelson Dapitan shall be credited of the period of his preventive detention.
In DU-10280 this Joint Judgment is hereby rendered acquitting ROMUALDO ITON and DENNIS YUSON of the charge of Violation of Section 7, Article II, R.A. 9165 for insufficient evidence and with costs de oficio.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 6
Aggrieved, Dapitan filed a Notice of Appeal. He argued that the RTC erred in convicting him despite the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The CA Decision
On February 12, 2013, the CA promulgated the assailed Decision, 7 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, October 11, 2010 Joint Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Mandaue City in Criminal Case Nos. DU-10279 and DU-10280, finding accused-appellant Nelson Dapitan, guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 6, Article II of RA 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED.
Let the Station Commander, Philippine National Police of San Isidro, Leyte, be furnished with a certified true copy of the Warrant of Arrest issued against co-accused Melodina Dapitan on December 21, 2007. He is ordered to make a return within ten (10) days from its receipt to the Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Branch 28, Mandaue City.
SO ORDERED. 8
The CA explained that it is of no moment that at the time of the implementation of the search warrant, there were no persons or group of persons actually seen using any prohibited drug inside appellant's house. The mere presence of the drug paraphernalia scattered around the porch, like plastic packs with notable traces of suspected shabu and used tin foils, raises the presumption that somebody has just consumed the prohibited drugs in the premises. The CA concluded that Dapitan was indeed maintaining his house as haven for drug users. It held that when prohibited and regulated drugs, and drug paraphernalia are found in a house or building belonging to and occupied by a particular person, the presumption arises that such person is in possession of such drugs in violation of the law. Furthermore, the CA found that although the prescribed procedure laid down in Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was not strictly complied with, the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the raiding team under the chain of custody rule. 9
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
The issue is whether the prosecution proved Dapitan's guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the offense charged. HEITAD
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and, thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 10 Case law instructs that it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody, from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 11
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the procedure which the police officers must follow when handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. Under the said section, prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 10640, the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of: the accused or his representative or counsel; a representative from the media; a representative from the DOJ; and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same; and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination.
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was subsequently amended by R.A. No. 10640, "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," which was approved on July 15, 2014. Based on the Information, the alleged violation of R.A. No. 9165 occurred on June 19, 2003. Thus, the original version of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is applicable:
SEC. 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 supplied)
Moreover, Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 (IRR), which added provisos to Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, provides:
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, fix proper disposition in the following manner:
(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 noncompliance 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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, the Court resolves to acquit Dapitan as the prosecution failed to prove that the arresting officers complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and its implementing rules. The facts of the case as found by the CA reveal that, after PO2 Leyson recovered the drug paraphernalia from Dapitan's porch, a Receipt of Confiscated items was prepared and signed by Barangay Tanod Martin Sitoy, Barangay Councilor Silvestre Pepito, and team leader SPO2 Junco. Dapitan then received a copy of the Receipt. Thereafter, the confiscated items were brought to the police station by their team leader SPO2 Junco; and upon arrival thereat, SPO2 Junco marked the said items. We note that, except for the elected official, Barangay Councilor Silvestre Pepito, the other required witnesses were not present during the inventory and taking of photographs. Only one of the three third-party witnesses was present. It must be stressed that the presence of the witnesses mandated by Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 safeguards the accused from any unlawful tampering of the evidence against him. ATICcS
Furthermore, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 applies whether the drugs were seized either in a buy-bust operation or pursuant to a search warrant. The venues of the physical inventory and photography of the seized items differ and depend on whether the seizure was made by virtue of a search warrant or through a warrantless seizure such as a buy-bust operation. When the drugs are seized pursuant to a search warrant, then the physical inventory and taking of photographs shall be conducted at the place where the said search warrant was served. In contrast, when the drugs are seized pursuant to a buy-bust operation or a warrantless seizure, then these can be conducted at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending team. Other than that, there is no other difference between seizure and confiscation of drugs with a search warrant and without it (such as a buy-bust operation). 12
Nevertheless, there is a saving clause under the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 in case of non-compliance with the chain of custody rule. This saving clause, however, applies only (1) where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds, and (2) when the prosecution established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. The prosecution, thus, loses the benefit of invoking the presumption of regularity and bears the burden of proving — with moral certainty — that the illegal drug presented in court is the same drug that was confiscated from the accused during his arrest. 13
The Court notes that the confiscated items were marked at the police station and not at the place where the search warrant was implemented. However, the police officers in this case did not present any justifiable grounds for their noncompliance with the required procedure and proof that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. There was no sufficient explanation why they failed to conduct the inventory and photographing at the place of seizure considering that they had confiscated the items by virtue of a search warrant. Neither did the prosecution offer a justification as to the absence of a representative from the DOJ and the media during the inventory and photograph taking as mandated by Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165.
As a rule, strict compliance with the prescribed procedure is required because of the illegal drug's unique characteristic rendering it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 14 Hence, the Court finds that the prosecution indubitably failed to establish an unbroken link in the chain of custody, creating a reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of Dapitan.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated February 12, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01286, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Nelson Dapitan 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 the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director 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 thereon. A copy shall also be furnished the Director General of the Philippine National Police for his information.
SO ORDERED." (Hernando, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated November 15, 2021.) TIADCc
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-23. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, with Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of the Court) and Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 25-39. Penned by Judge Marilyn Lagura-Yap.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 25.
5.Id. at 25-39.
6.Id. at 38-39.
7.Id. at 78-79.
8.Id. at 98.
9.Id. at 95-96.
10. See People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
11. See People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018), citing People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593,601 (2014).
12. See Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.
13.People v. Carlit, 816 Phil. 940, 951-952 (2017), citing People v. Cayas, 789 Phil. 70, 80 (2016).
14. See People v. Pagaduan, 641 Phil. 432, 444 (2010).