People v. Datumaas y Saad Ben

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252303. June 16, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.HADJI DATUMAAS y SAAD BEN and SANSARONA MACALIMBON y DATUMAAS, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252303 (People of the Philippines v. Hadji Datumaas y Saad Ben and Sansarona Macalimbon y Datumaas). — This is an ordinary appeal 1 filed by accused-appellants Hadji Datumaas y Saad Ben (Datumaas) and Sansarona Macalimbon y Datumaas (Macalimbon; collectively, accused-appellants) of the Decision 2 dated October 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11788. The CA affirmed the Decision 3 dated May 31, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 120 in Criminal Case Nos. C-95552 (2015) to C-95555 (2015), the dispositive portion of which provides:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds and so holds that:

(1) In Crim. Case No. C-95552 (2015), accused Hadji Datumaas y Saad Ben and accused Sansarona Macalimbon y Datumaas GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PHP500,000.00);

(2) In Crim. Case No. C-95553 (2015), accused Hadji Datumaas y Saad Ben GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of IMPRISONMENT OF TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and a FINE OF THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00);

(3) In Crim. Case No. C-95554 (2015), accused Sansarona Macalimbon y Datumaas GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of IMPRISONMENT OF TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and a FINE OF THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00); and

(4) In Crim. Case No. C-95555 (2015), accused Alimoding Panda y Kintuan NOT GUILTY of Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and is thereby ACQUITTED.

The illegal drugs subject matter of these cases are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.

Let the Warrant of Arrest earlier issued against accused Alimoding Panda y Kintuan be RECALLED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED. 4 (Emphasis and italics in the original)

Accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," in an Information dated December 7, 2015. Accused-appellants were likewise respectively charged with violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 in two separate Informations both dated December 7, 2015. 5 The Informations state: cAaDHT

Criminal Case No. C-95552 (2015) — Violation of Section 5

That on or about the 3rd day of December, 2015 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court the above-named accused, conspiring together and mutually helping one another, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to PO3 HERBERT A. BAGAIN, JR., who posed as buyer, METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 1.85 grams, knowing the same to be such, with Sarsarona Macalimbon y Datumaas receiving the buy bust money from said PO3 Herbert A. Bagain, Jr. immediately turned over the same to accused Hadji Datumaas y Saad Ben who handed to PO3 Herbert A. Bagain, Jr. subject plastic sachet and from whom the buy bust money was recovered.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

Criminal Case No. C-95553 (2015) — Violation of Section 11 (Datumaas)

That on or about the 3rd day of December, 2015 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet later marked as HD12-3-15, containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.87 gram, which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in gross violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

Criminal Case No. C-95554 (2015) — Violation of Section 11 (Macalimbon)

That on or about the 3rd day of December, 2015 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet later marked as SM12-3-15, containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 1.09 gram, which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in gross violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 8

In Criminal Case No. C-95555 (2015), Alimoding Panda y Kintuan (Panda) was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 for illegal possession of 1.10 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride. 9 Criminal Case Nos. C-95552 (2015) to C-95555 (2015) were consolidated. Accused-appellants and Panda were arraigned on January 6, 2016. They pleaded not guilty. On the same date, the parties stipulated that accused-appellants and Panda "were arrested in Caloocan City and that all accused, whose names appear in the Informations, are the same accused who pleaded not guilty today." 10

Plaintiff-appellee presented the following as its witnesses: (1) PO3 Herbert Bagain, Jr. (PO3 Bagain, Jr.); (2) SPO4 Rodney Esguerra (SPO4 Esguerra); (3) SPO2 Fidel Cabinta (SPO2 Cabinta); and (4) Forensic Chemist PCI Yelah Apostol (PCI Apostol). 11

According to plaintiff-appellee, a confidential informant (CI) went to the District Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Group (DAID-SOTG) of Caloocan City at 10:00 a.m. on December 3, 2015. The CI informed PO3 Bagain, Jr. that a certain Muklo was selling illegal drugs in Baclaran, Quiapo, Monumento, and other areas. PO3 Bagain, Jr. told the CI to inform Muklo that he found a buyer of shabu. The CI did as he was instructed and called Muklo through his cellphone. He introduced PO3 Bagain, Jr. to the latter as a buyer of shabu. PO3 Bagain, Jr. asked Muklo how much he could sell to him. Muklo responded that he could sell kalahating bulto worth P5,000.00. PO3 Bagain, Jr. and Muklo agreed to meet on the same day between 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. near a church in Araneta Avenue corner Samson Road, Caloocan City. 12

PO3 Bagain, Jr. informed DAID-SOTG Chief PCI Ronald Perilla (PCI Perilla) about the conversation. PCI Perilla ordered SPO4 Esguerra to lead a buy-bust team against Muklo 13 composed of PO3 Bagain, Jr., PO3 Roberto Cahilig, Jr. (PO3 Cahilig, Jr.), SPO3 Gomboc, PO2 Juan, PO3 Sy, and PO3 Jimenez. 14 PO3 Bagain, Jr. was designated as the poseur-buyer while PO3 Cahilig, Jr. and SPO4 Esguerra were the back-up operatives. PO3 Bagain, Jr. received five P1,000.00-bills which he marked with "BBM." The buy-bust team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and prepared a coordination form and pre-operation report. 15

At around 5:30 p.m., the buy-bust team and the CI proceeded to the target area. PO3 Bagain, Jr. and the CI positioned themselves near the church while the rest of the team took strategic positions. The CI called Muklo per PO3 Bagain, Jr.'s instruction to inform him that they were at the area. Muklo said that he and his companions were on board a taxicab. Three male persons alighted from a taxicab at around 7:30 p.m. The CI said that the one wearing a grey shirt was Muklo. He was later identified to be Datumaas. Datumaas was accompanied by Macalimbon and Panda. 16

The CI introduced PO3 Bagain, Jr. to Datumaas. Macalimbon was right beside Datumaas while Panda was standing seven meters away from them. Datumaas asked PO3 Bagain, Jr. if he had with him the agreed amount. In response, PO3 Bagain, Jr. counted the buy-bust money in front of Datumaas. Datumaas instructed PO3 Bagain, Jr. to give the money to Macalimbon. After PO3 Bagain, Jr. did so, Datumaas took out two transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from his right pocket. He gave the bigger sachet to PO3 Bagain, Jr. and retained possession of the smaller one. After receiving the sachet, PO3 Bagain, Jr. introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Datumaas. PO3 Bagain, Jr. confiscated the smaller plastic sachet from Datumaas. SPO4 Esguerra arrested Macalimbon and recovered from him one white transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and one brown sling bag containing the buy-bust money. PO3 Cahilig, Jr. arrested Panda and recovered one transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from him. 17 HCaDIS

PO3 Bagain, Jr. marked the sachet subject of the sale "HD/BUY BUST-1-12-3-15" and the smaller sachet "HD-2-12-3-15" at the place of arrest. SPO4 Esguerra marked the sachet taken from Macalimbon with "SM-12-3-15" and the bag "RECOVERED EVIDENCE-12-3-15." PO3 Cahilig, Jr. marked the sachet he confiscated from Panda with "AP-12-3-15." 18

SPO2 Cabinta conducted an inventory of the seized items in the presence of accused-appellants, Barangay Kagawad Anthony Magalona (Brgy. Kgwd. Magalona) of Brgy. 77, Caloocan City, media representative Maeng Santos (Santos) of the CAMANAVA Press Corps, and the buy-bust team at the place of arrest. SPO2 Cabinta also took pictures of the seized items. Thereafter, PO3 Bagain, Jr., SPO4 Esguerra, and PO3 Cahilig, Jr. took custody of the items they seized from accused-appellants and Panda. They proceeded to the police station. 19

At the station, PO3 Bagain, Jr., SPO4 Esguerra, and PO3 Cahilig, Jr. turned over the seized items to SPO2 Cabinta. SPO2 Cabinta placed the four (4) plastic sachets inside the brown sling bag seized from Macalimbon which he then placed inside a brown envelope. He marked the envelope with "DAID SOTG EVIDENCE-12-3-15" together with his name and signature. SPO2 Cabinta prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination on Seized Evidence and delivered it together with the seized items to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Office in Camp Crame, Quezon City. The items were received by PCI Apostol at 9:35 P.M. on December 3, 2015. 20

The parties stipulated that: (1) PCI Apostol is an expert in the field of forensic chemistry; (2) she received the request for laboratory examination on the specimen subject of the case and the request for drug test on accused-appellants and Panda; and (3) PCI Apostol performed a drug test on accused-appellants and Panda. Her findings on the drug test are stated in Initial Laboratory Report with Chemistry Report No. DT-696-15 to DT-698-15 and Chemistry Report No. DT-696-15 to DT-698-15. 21 The urine samples from accused-appellants and Panda tested negative for the presence of methamphetamine and TCH-metabolites. 22

PCI Apostol also conducted an examination on the contents of the four plastic sachets she received from SPO2 Cabinta. She marked the sachets and took representative samples from each sachet. PCI Apostol conducted qualitative tests on the specimens. In Chemistry Report No. D-494-15, 23 PCI Apostol stated that the specimens from the four sachets contain methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 24

Accused-appellants testified for their defense. Datumaas is the uncle of Macalimbon. 25 They are both vendors of clothes in Paniqui, Tarlac. On December 2, 2015, they went to Baclaran to purchase merchandise that they will sell. Macalimbon spent P33,000.00 out of the P35,000.00 that he brought with him. 26 Datumaas did not have any cash on hand because he was going to purchase merchandise on credit. Accused-appellants saw the stall of Panda at Baclaran. Though Panda's wife is the niece of Datumaas, it was their first time to meet him. Panda said that he knows someone who sells merchandise and he could bring accused-appellants to this seller. Accused-appellants agreed to come with Panda to the seller. 27

Accused-appellants and Panda boarded the Light Rail Transit Line 1 and alighted at the Monumento station. 28 They boarded a jeepney going to Araneta Avenue, Quezon City 29 and they disembarked at 2:30 p.m. Several male persons in civilian clothing approached them and pointed guns at them. 30 None of these were PO3 Bagain, Jr., SPO4 Esguerra, and PO3 Cahilig, Jr. 31 These persons said "wag kayong kumilos ng masama." Thereafter, accused-appellants and Panda were handcuffed and boarded inside a green Toyota Innova. They asked why they were arrested but were merely told "dun kayo magpaliwanag sa presinto." Accused-appellants and Panda were brought to a police station in Larangay, Caloocan City. 32 At the station, PCI Perilla asked them if anything illegal was taken from them. Panda responded that there was none but his money amounting to P435,000.00 was taken from him. Macalimbon's money amounting to P2,000.00 was also taken from him. These amounts were given to PCI Perilla's subordinate. 33 AHCETa

While detained, PCI Perilla's right-hand man named Henry told accused-appellants and Panda that they will be charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165. Datumaas was asked to produce P500,000.00 so that he will only be charged with violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165. Macalimbon was likewise asked to give P150,000.00 in exchange for dropping the charges against him. Accused-appellants were unable to produce the demanded amounts. 34 However, Datumaas learned that Panda's wife would give P150,000.00 to the policemen so that he will only be charged with violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165. 35

At 8:00 p.m. on December 3, 2015, accused-appellants and Panda were awoken and boarded on a red Toyota Revo. They were brought beside a barangay hall where the police officers took pictures of them. However, there was no barangay official or a representative from the media present. Panda jumped bail during the pendency of the trial. 36

On May 31, 2018, the RTC rendered its Decision 37 finding accused-appellants guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentenced them to a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. The RTC also found accused-appellants guilty of violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 and sentenced each of them to a 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 P300,000.00. The RTC acquitted Panda. 38

The RTC held that all the elements for violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165 were established by plaintiff-appellee. PO3 Bagain, Jr. identified accused-appellants as the persons who sold to him a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 1.85 grams of shabu for P5,000.00. The contents of the shabu tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride according to Chemistry Report No. D-494-15 issued by PCI Apostol. The sachet subject of the sale and the buy-bust money were presented in court and identified by PO3 Bagain, Jr. 39

Accused-appellants' overt acts show that they were acting in concert and had a common interest in selling shabu. Datumaas was the one who transacted with PO3 Bagain, Jr. while Macalimbon received the money from the latter. They clearly conspired with each other to sell and deliver dangerous drug. As such, they are liable as co-principals regardless of their participation in the offense. 40

The RTC ruled that accused-appellants were lawfully arrested without a warrant because they were caught selling dangerous drugs in flagrante delicto during a buy bust operation. PO3 Bagain, Jr. and SPO4 Esguerra respectively frisked Datumaas and Macalimbon. This was reasonable considering that accused-appellants might use a weapon in order to resist arrest or to escape. Both accused-appellants had in their possession illegal drugs. 41 The RTC held that the elements for violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 were proven with moral certainty in this case. Datumaas was in possession of a sachet containing 0.87 gram of white crystalline substance while Macalimbon was in possession of a sachet containing 1.09 grams of white crystalline substance. These substances underwent laboratory examination and tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Accused-appellants did not present evidence that they had legal authority to possess the same. They also failed to disprove that they had animus possidendi. 42

The same cannot be said with respect to Panda. PO3 Cahilig, Jr., the police officer who arrested Panda and confiscated the sachet bearing 1.10 grams of shabu from him, died during the pendency of the case. As such, he was not presented in court. PO3 Bagain, Jr. and SPO4 Esguerra's testimonies were insufficient because they did not have personal knowledge of the confiscation of the illegal drug from Panda. 43

The RTC ruled that the identity and evidentiary value of the prohibited drugs taken from accused-appellants were established with moral certainty. PO3 Bagain, Jr. and SPO4 Esguerra immediately marked the items that they seized from accused-appellants in the latter's presence. SPO2 Cabinta arrived and conducted an inventory of the seized items in the presence of accused-appellants and the representatives of the media and the barangay. Photographs were also taken during the inventory. 44

Plaintiff-appellee was able to prove the chain of custody was not broken. After the marking and inventory of the seized items, PO3 Bagain, Jr. and SPO4 Esguerra took custody of the items they respectively seized. They turned over these items to SPO2 Cabinta at the DAID-SOTG. SPO2 Cabinta placed all the items inside Macalimbon's brown sling bag. He marked the bag and placed it inside an envelope which he also marked. SPO2 Cabinta subsequently brought the seized items to the crime laboratory at Camp Crame where it was received by PCI Apostol. PCI Apostol, PO3 Bagain, Jr., SPO4 Esguerra, and SPO2 Cabinta all identified the subject illegal drugs through their respective markings when they appeared in court. 45 Accused-appellants appealed to the CA.

The CA rendered its Decision 46 on October 21, 2019 with the following fallo:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated May 31, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 120, Caloocan City is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.47 (Emphasis in the original)

The CA was convinced that plaintiff-appellee was able to prove accused-appellants' guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The elements of the crimes of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs are present in this case. PO3 Bagain, Jr. identified accused-appellants as the persons he caught in the act of selling shabu in a buy-bust operation on December 3, 2015. At the meeting place, Datumaas demanded the amount of P5,000.00 from PO3 Bagain, Jr. After PO3 Bagain, Jr. gave the money to Macalimbon, Datumaas gave him a sachet of shabu. Thereafter, PO3 Bagain, Jr. arrested Datumaas and recovered from him one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. SPO4 Esguerra arrested Macalimbon and recovered from him one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. 48 SPO4 Esguerra corroborated the testimony of PO3 Bagain, Jr. 49

The testimonies of PO3 Bagain, Jr. and SPO4 Esguerra established that accused-appellants executed overt acts showing their conspiracy to commit the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The CA held that the RTC duly gave weight to the testimonies of PO3 Bagain, Jr. and SPO4 Esguerra whose answers were intelligible, candid, and unwavering. Their testimonies were consistent with each other regarding the significant details and did not have any contradictions. The chemistry report prepared by PCI Apostol supported their testimonies. Notably, accused-appellants did not claim that they had a previous disagreement with these officers. In addition, they did not allege that PO3 Bagain, Jr. and SPO4 Esguerra extorted money from them. 50 ScHADI

The CA further held that there was no break in the chain of custody. The items seized from accused-appellants were marked, inventoried, and photographed in their presence and that of Brgy. Kgwd. Magalona and media representative Santos. The markings made were sufficient to separate the specimens from other related evidence. Brgy. Kgwd. Magalona and Santos both signed the Inventory. The CA pointed out that Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires the presence of these witnesses only during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items. The photos presented proved that the inventory was conducted in accused-appellants' presence. Accused-appellants and Panda's failure to sign the inventory is of no moment because it is not unusual for suspects to refuse to sign the inventory. 51

Thereafter, PO3 Bagain, Jr. took custody of the sachets purchased and seized from Datumaas while SPO4 Esguerra took custody of the sachet from Macalimbon. PO3 Cahilig, Jr. had custody of the sachet he took from Panda. They turned over these items to SPO2 Cabinta who then placed the sachets inside the seized brown sling bag. The bag was placed inside a brown envelope which SPO2 Cabinta marked. After preparing the request for laboratory examination, SPO2 Cabinta brought the request together with the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory where it was received by PCI Apostol at 9:35 p.m. She conducted the necessary physical, chemical, and confirmatory tests on the specimens. In compliance with the RTC's order, PCI Apostol delivered the sachets to the RTC on March 10, 2016. 52

The CA found that accused-appellants failed to substantiate their self-serving defense. They did not even file a complaint against their illegal arrest. With respect to the penalties imposed by the RTC, these were affirmed by the CA for being in accordance with R.A. 9165 as well as Section 1 of Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the "Indeterminate Sentence Law." 53

Accused-appellants appealed to this Court. On August 26, 2020, the Court issued a Resolution 54 notifying the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs. Plaintiff-appellee and Datumaas manifested that they will no longer file a supplemental brief because their brief before the CA is sufficient. 55 Macalimbon submitted a supplemental brief. 56

Accused-appellants argued in their brief 57 before the CA that plaintiff-appellee failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offenses charged against them. Plaintiff-appellee did not present evidence that Brgy. Kgwd. Magalona and media representative Santos were indeed in attendance during the conduct of the inventory and if they were a legitimate barangay official and media representative, respectively. Moreover, these witnesses were not present when accused-appellants were apprehended. 58 The Court held in the case of People v. Luna59 that the required witnesses should be present at the time of apprehension. Plaintiff-appellee did not offer any justification for their absence. In fact, it appears that the witnesses were only summoned upon the arrival of the investigator. 60

Further, the lack of accused-appellants' signature in the inventory shows that they were not present when it was conducted. Therefore, it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt that the inventoried items were indeed confiscated from the accused. 61

Furthermore, PO3 Bagain, Jr. and SPO4 Esguerra did not secure the items they seized in an evidence bag. They did not provide the steps they undertook to secure the seized items while these were in their possession. PO3 Bagain, Jr. and SPO4 Esguerra also failed to comply with the requirement under the 2014 Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation that the initials of the seizing officers and the place of seizure must be indicated on the marked evidence. As such, the seized items lost their evidentiary value because there is a high possibility that these were altered, tampered, contaminated, or even exchanged. 62

Macalimbon pointed out that SPO2 Cabinta could not recall the markings he made when the items were turned over to him. This means that the link of the turnover to the investigating officer in the chain of custody is broken. 63 Accused-appellants also argued that plaintiff-appellee did not offer any evidence as to how the specimens were kept and stored after PCI Apostol concluded her examination and before these were presented in court. Thus, the evidentiary value of the sachets of shabu was compromised. 64

Accused-appellants consistently testified that they were charged because they failed to give the money that the police officers were trying to extort from them. Though buy-bust operations can be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions, it is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. In light of the unjustified non-compliance with R.A. 9165 as well as the broken chain of custody, accused-appellants should be acquitted. 65

Plaintiff-appellee argued in its brief 66 that it was able to prove that the transaction took place through the testimonies of SPO4 Esguerra, PO3 Bagain, Jr., and SPO2 Cabinta. 67 PO3 Bagain, Jr.'s testimony also established that PO3 Bagain, Jr. seized one plastic sachet from Datumaas. SPO4 Esguerra confiscated the buy-bust money and one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. PCI Apostol confirmed that these sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. The records do not show that accused-appellants were authorized to use or possess these sachets. 68 aICcHA

Plaintiff-appellee also argued the chain of custody was proven in this case. PO3 Bagain, Jr. testified that he marked the sachet sold to him by Datumaas as well as the sachet he seized from the latter. SPO4 Esguerra marked the sachet he seized from Macalimbon. The markings were done at the place of arrest and in the presence of accused-appellants. Thereafter, the items were turned over to SPO2 Cabinta who conducted an inventory in the presence of accused-appellants, media representative Santos, and Brgy. Kgwd. Magalona. SPO2 Cabinta placed the seized items in a brown envelope which he marked. He forwarded the specimens together with the request for laboratory examination to the PNP Crime Laboratory. PCI Apostol personally received the specimens. Accused-appellants were unable to disprove that the specimens examined by PCI Apostol were the same specimens presented in court. Therefore, plaintiff-appellee concluded that the CA did not err in upholding the conviction of accused-appellants. 69

Issues

The issues before this Court are:

I. Whether the CA erred in finding accused-appellants guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165; and

II. Whether the CA erred in finding accused-appellants guilty of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165.

Ruling of the Court

The Court grants the appeal.

The corpus delicti of the charge of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 in this case is the sachet weighing 1.85 grams marked as "HD/BUY BUST-1-12-3-15" and offered as Exhibit D. With respect to the charge of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 against Datumaas, it is the sachet weighing 0.87 gram marked as "HD-2-12-3-15" and offered as Exhibit E. For Macalimbon's charge of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165, it is the sachet weighing 1.09 grams marked as "SM-12-3-15" and offered as Exhibit F. 70 Plaintiff-appellee must establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of these seized items have been preserved in order to sustain the conviction of accused-appellants. To do so, compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640, is imperative. The provision states:

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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items. x x x

Section 21, as amended, requires the presence of two witnesses, namely: (1) an elected public official; and (2) a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media. The Court has clarified that the presence of these witnesses is required not only during the conduct of the inventory but more importantly, at the time of the warrantless arrest. This is to ensure that there will be no planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Calling the witnesses in after the operation to witness the inventory defeats the purpose of requiring their presence. 71

In this case, Brgy. Kgwd. Magalona and media representative Santos were not present when the buy-bust operation took place. They were likewise absent when the items were seized from accused-appellants. SPO4 Esguerra testified that Santos arrived together with SPO2 Cabinta 30 minutes after the operation was conducted. 72 This is consistent with PO3 Bagain, Jr.'s testimony that only accused-appellants and the arresting officers were present when the seized items were marked. He testified that Santos and Brgy. Kgwd. Magalona arrived after the markings were placed. 73 SPO2 Cabinta confirmed during his testimony that the items were already marked when he arrived the place of arrest. 74

PO3 Bagain, Jr. testified that the CI arrived at their office at 10:00 A.M. on December 3, 2015. 75 He agreed to meet with Datumaas on the same day sometime between 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. 76 In fact, they arrived at the agreed meeting place at 6:00 p.m. 77 Clearly, PO3 Bagain, Jr. and the rest of the buy-bust team had plenty of time to secure the presence of the witnesses beforehand. However, it does not appear that an attempt was made to do so. PO3 Bagain, Jr. said that it was SPO2 Cabinta who called Brgy. Kgwd. Magalona. 78 SPO2 Cabinta said that SPO4 Esguerra only told him to come to the area after the buy-bust operation was already conducted. 79 He went to the area together with Santos. 80 This goes to show that the witnesses were only called in after the items subject of this case were seized and marked. Therefore, the purpose of requiring the presence of the witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was not achieved. Brgy. Kgwd. Magalona and Santos could not guarantee that the items were indeed seized from accused-appellants. EHaASD

Deviations from Section 21 may be excused if there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance and if the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 81 The justification should be proven as a fact. 82 This is because Section 21 is not simply a procedural technicality. It is a matter of substantive law that cannot be disregarded as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 83 Plaintiff-appellee did not offer any justification for its failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165. In People v. Rivera, 84 the Court held that "[b]reaches of the procedure contained in Section 21 committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised." 85

Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved." The presumption of innocence may only be set aside when there is proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Plaintiff-appellee failed to prove accused-appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt because of the failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended. The Court cannot sustain the conviction of accused-appellants in light of the doubts surrounding the identity and integrity of the illegal drugs in this case. As such, accused-appellants must be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 21, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11788 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Hadji Datumaas y Saad Ben and Sansarona Macalimbon y Datumaas are ACQUITTED of the crimes charged against them and are ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED, unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to inform this Court of the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED."

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. 26-27.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, id. at 3-25.

3. Penned by Judge Aurelio R. Ralar, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 74-93.

4.Id. at 92-93.

5.Id. at 4.

6. Records, pp. 2-3.

7.Id. at 36-37.

8.Id. at 60-61.

9.Id. at 86.

10.Id. at 169-171.

11.Rollo, p. 6.

12.Id. at 7.

13.Id.

14. TSN dated August 4, 2016, p. 9.

15.Rollo, p. 7.

16.Id. at 7-8.

17.Id. at 8.

18.Id.

19.Id. at 8-9.

20.Id. at 9.

21.Id.

22. Records, p. 184.

23.Id. at 181.

24.Rollo, p. 10.

25. TSN dated May 7, 2018, p. 4.

26.Id. at 9.

27.Rollo, p. 10.

28.Id.

29. CA rollo, p. 81.

30.Rollo, p. 10.

31.Id. at 11.

32.Id. at 10.

33. CA rollo, p. 82.

34.Rollo, pp. 10-11.

35. CA rollo, p. 82.

36.Rollo, p. 11.

37. CA rollo, pp. 74-93.

38.Id. at 92.

39.Id. at 84-85.

40.Id. at 86.

41.Id. at 88-89.

42.Id. at 87, 89.

43.Id. at 89.

44.Id. at 89-90.

45.Id. at 91.

46.Rollo, pp. 3-25.

47.Id. at 25.

48.Id. at 15-16.

49.Id. at 18.

50.Id. at 18-20.

51.Id. at 20-22.

52.Id. at 20-21.

53.Id. at 23-25.

54.Id. at 37.

55.Id. at 55-58, 61-63.

56.Id. at 69-93.

57. CA rollo, pp. 50-72.

58.Id. at 61-62; rollo, p. 83.

59. G.R. No. 219164, March 21, 2018.

60.Rollo, pp. 84, 86-87.

61. CA rollo, p. 62.

62.Id. at 65-66.

63.Rollo, p. 88.

64. CA rollo, pp. 67-68.

65.Id. at 70.

66.Id. at 99-123.

67.Id. at 111.

68.Id. at 117.

69.Id. at 118-120.

70. Records, p. 297.

71.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385 (2018).

72. TSN dated August 4, 2016, pp. 27-28.

73. TSN dated October 9, 2017, p. 19.

74. TSN dated May 4, 2017, p. 13.

75. TSN dated October 9, 2017, p. 5.

76.Id. at 7.

77.Id. at 9.

78.Id. at 37.

79. TSN dated May 4, 2017, p. 5.

80.Id. at 11.

81.Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019.

82.People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018.

83.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018.

84. G.R. No. 225786, November 14, 2018.

85.Id. Italics in the original.