FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 223680. March 18, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs. ARSENIA DE GUZMAN y SERRANO a.k.a. "Anda" and JOSE AMARO y CAINTOC a.k.a. "Tony", accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 18, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 223680 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. ARSENIA DE GUZMAN y SERRANO a.k.a. "Anda" and JOSE AMARO y CAINTOC a.k.a. "Tony," accused-appellants). — Before this Court is an Appeal filed by accused-appellants Arsenia de Guzman y Serrano a.k.a. "Anda" (De Guzman) and Jose Amaro y Caintoc (Amaro) a.k.a. "Tony" (collectively, accused-appellants), from the Decision 1 dated May 14, 2015 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05561. The assailed Decision dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Joint Decision 2 dated April 29, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 171, in Criminal Case Nos. 89-V-07 and 91-V-07 which found the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended.
This case stemmed from two (2) Informations charging the accused-appellants and one Jimmy dela Cruz y Rebo (Dela Cruz) of the crime of illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs, allegedly committed as follows:
Criminal Case No. 89-V-07
That on or about January 20, 2007, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to PO1 Freddie Lim, who posed as buyer of zero point zero four gram (0.04) of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drug, also accused Jose Camaro Caintoc in conspiracy with accused Arsenia de Guzman y Serrano have in his possession zero point zero three gram (0.03) of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Criminal Case No. 91-V-07
That on or about January 20, 2007, in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and control one (1) pc. heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero two gram (0.02) of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Dela Cruz and accused-appellants were arraigned on February 5 and June 4, 2007, respectively. Assisted by counsel, they entered a plea of not guilty. 5 After pre-trial, trial proceeded. TIADCc
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses tend to establish that at around 8:00 p.m. of January 20, 2007, a confidential informant (CI) went to the office of the Special Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Unit (SAID-SOU) of Valenzuela City and reported to Police Officer 1 Freddie Lim (PO1 Lim) the rampant selling of shabu at the San Francisco Compound, Karuhatan, Valenzuela City, by a certain "Anda" and "Tony." 6
PO1 Lim relayed the information to Police Chief Danilo Bugay (P/Chief Bugay) who immediately convened a buy-bust operation team led by Police Inspector Rhoderick Juan (P/Insp. Juan), and composed of PO1 Lim as poseur-buyer and police officers Soriano, Malinao, Martinez, Cunanan, Pael, and Sanchez as back up. The team coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and prepared three (3) one hundred peso bills to be used as buy-bust money which were marked with "FL." 7
At around 10:00 p.m., of the same day, the buy-bust team, together with the CI, proceeded to San Francisco Compound. Upon arrival, the team first surveyed the area. Later, the CI and PO1 Lim returned and found four persons, including herein accused-appellants, talking to one another, whom they approached. PO1 Lim then signified his intention to buy P300.00 worth of shabu. De Guzman whispered to Amaro, who then pulled out from his pocket a small transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance and handed the same to De Guzman, who, in turn, immediately handed the same to PO1 Lim. PO1 Lim then preformed the pre-arranged signal to indicate that the transaction had been completed. Thereafter, he held De Guzman, introduced himself as a police officer, and apprised her of her rights. PO1 Lim frisked De Guzman and recovered in her possession the marked three (3) one hundred peso bills which he marked with De Guzman's initials. Meanwhile, PO3 Malinao who responded at the scene was the one who arrested Amaro, searched his person, and retrieved as a result thereof a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which he marked with Amaro's initials. The accused-appellants' other companions fled, but PO1 Pael succeeded in arresting one of them, identified as Dela Cruz, who was also found in possession of a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. The accused-appellants, Dela Cruz, and the items seized were then brought to the barangay hall in Karuhatan. Therein, the plastic sachet retrieved from Dela Cruz was marked by PO1 Pael with the latter's initials and all the items seized were inventoried in the presence of Kagawad Russel Padrinao. 8
Afterwards, the buy-bust team returned to the police station where they prepared the request for the laboratory examination of the seized items. They were received by Forensic Chemist Jesse A. Dela Rosa who concluded in his Physical Science Report No. D-028-07 that the seized items tested positive for the presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride. 9
For the defense, it presented as witnesses: Dela Cruz, the accused-appellants, and De Guzman's daughter, Gladys.
Their testimonies tended to establish that on January 20, 2007, Amaro was on his way home when he met his classmate, Dela Cruz, whom he invited to his house to share some drinks. At around 7:00 p.m., police officers suddenly barged into the house of Amaro as he was having dinner with his live-in partner, De Guzman, the latter's daughter, Gladys, and Dela Cruz. The accused-appellants and Dela Cruz were arrested and brought to the police headquarters. The following day, the three were brought to the barangay hall wherein a barangay kagawad was called to identify the evidence and to sign an inventory. 10
On April 29, 2011, the RTC of Valenzuela City, Branch 171, rendered its Decision, 11 finding as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, in Criminal Case No. 89-V-07, accused ARSENIA DE GUZMAN y SERRANO alias ANDA and co-accused JOSE AMARO y CAINTOC are found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Consequently, accused De Guzman and co-accused Amaro are hereby ordered to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment plus a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00) each.
However, in Criminal Case No. 91-V-07, this Court hereby resolves to ACQUIT accused JIMMY DELA CRUZ y REBO alias GIAMO of the offense charged.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to turn over to PDEA the drugs used as evidence in this case for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 12
In convicting the accused-appellants, the RTC found credible the testimony of PO1 Lim which it found sufficient to establish that they were in conspiracy in the commission of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The RTC opined that the accused-appellants' bare denial do not stand as the same are unsubstantiated by convincing evidence. 13
Nonetheless, the RTC acquitted Dela Cruz finding that his arrest without warrant is unlawful as he was not committing a crime when arrested. 14
The accused-appellants appealed to the CA, which rendered the herein assailed Decision, 15 affirming the accused-appellants' conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED and the Joint Decision dated April 29, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 171 of Valenzuela City is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 16
In so ruling, the CA held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of a valid buy-bust operation. Through the testimony of PO1 Lim, the CA opined that the identity of the accused-appellants as perpetrators of the crime and the consummation of the transaction were proven. 17 Moreover, the accused-appellants' bare denial cannot stand, as the presumption of regularity in favor of the police officers prevails. 18
Relating to compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the CA found that the attendant circumstances constitute substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. 19
Thus, this appeal.
The parties manifested that they would no longer file their respective supplemental briefs as they have already exhaustively discussed the issues in their briefs before the CA. 20
The appeal is meritorious.
In order to sustain conviction for the sale of illegal drugs under Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the following elements must be established beyond reasonable doubt: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place, and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 21
The element of corpus delicti is established by showing compliance with the requirements for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia as set forth under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, viz.:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the same vein, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 provides for the proper procedure to be observed in accordance with the foregoing provision and the effect of non-compliance therewith, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items;
xxx xxx xxx
In the case at bar, the accused-appellants were arrested inflagrante delicto of selling shabu during a buy-bust operation. The plastic sachets seized was marked at the scene, in the presence of the accused-appellants and the members of the buy-bust team. There was no indication where the seized items were photographed. The accused-appellants and the plastic sachets were then brought to the barangay hall, it was only during that time when the seized items were inventoried in the presence only of a barangay kagawad. 22
Clearly, the apprehending officers committed procedural lapses that justify the accused-appellants' acquittal. In particular, there was no third person present at the time of confiscation and seizure of drugs. For which, no justification was offered by the PDEA agents. Neither was any attempt made to explain whether the presence of the required representatives were sought but could not be obtained. At the barangay hall, the seized items were inventoried with only an elected public official present. To be sure, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to allege and establish the details of an earnest effort to coordinate with and secure the presence of the required witnesses. 23 The failure by the prosecution to justify or explain such lapses raises doubts into the integrity and evidence of the corpus delicti.24
In the case of People v. Que, 25 the Court emphasized that "[t]he presence of third persons is imperative, not only during the physical inventory and taking of pictures, but also during the actual seizure of items." 26 This would eliminate or at least lessen the possibility of "switching, planting, or contamination." 27 Herein, the seizure and marking were unwitnessed, as well, the inventory was made with only one of the required representatives present.
Notable, too, not all of the four links of the chain of custody were established. As enunciated in People v. Nandi, 28 the essential links of chain of custody which must be proven, are the following: SDAaTC
[F]irst, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 29
Here, while the police officers who seized the items from the accused-appellants were indicated, it was not shown whether they were the same persons who carried the same during transport to the barangay hall, and thereafter to the police station. Likewise, there was no submission as to who took custody and turned over the said items to the forensic chemist. Finally, no allegation was made to establish the last link, that is, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court.
In view of the foregoing procedural lapses, there is no assurance that the items that what was marked at the crime scene, inventoried, examined, and later submitted in evidence were the same item that was the subject of sale.
The importance of observing the chain of custody requirements in this case is underscored by the miniscule amount obtained from the accused-appellants, i.e., 0.04 gram and 0.03 gram of shabu. This renders the situation more susceptible to substitution, planting, or contamination, the very evils R.A. No. 9165 seeks to prevent.
While the miniscule amount of dangerous drugs seized is not per se a badge of innocence on the part of the accused-appellants, nevertheless, they demand that the Court exert extreme caution in determining their guilt, considering that the possibility of switching, planting, or contamination is high. Thus, when a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is involved, the Court must be rigorous in ensuring that Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is strictly complied with. 30
In view of non-compliance with the prescribed procedure in the handling of the seized drugs, the customary presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties would not suffice. The presumption applies only when the officers have shown compliance with the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise or be relied upon. 31
While the accused-appellants have only offered the defense of "denial and frame-up," the burden still lies upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, relying on its own merits, without regard to the weakness of the defense. 32 Should the prosecution fail to discharge this burden, as in the case at bar, acquittal must follow.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 14, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05561, which in turn affirmed the Joint Decision dated April 29, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 171, in Criminal Case Nos. 89-V-07 and 91-V-07, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE* in so far as Criminal Case No. 89-V-07 is concerned.
Accused-appellants Arsenia de Guzman y Serrano a.k.a. "Anda" and Jose Amaro y Caintoc a.k.a. "Tony" are ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to: (a) cause the immediate release of the said accused-appellants unless they are being lawfully held for another cause; and (b) inform this Court of the date of their release, or the reason for their continued confinement as the case may be, within five (5) days from notice.
Copies of this Resolution must be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* REVISION: "in so far as Criminal Case No. 89-V-07 is concerned." ADDED.
1.Rollo, pp. 2-19; penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon, with Associate Justices Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (now a retired Member of this Court) and Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court), concurring.
2.Id. at 55-68; penned by Presiding Judge Maria Nena J. Santos.
3. CA rollo, p. 55.
4.Id. at 55-56.
5.Rollo, p. 3.
6.Id. at 2-3.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 4-5; CA rollo, pp. 57-60.
9.Id. at 5; id. at 66.
10.Id. at 5-6.
11. CA rollo, pp. 55-68; rendered by Presiding Judge Maria Nena J. Santos.
12.Id. at 68.
13.Id. at 65-67.
14.Id. at 67.
15.Rollo, pp. 2-19.
16.Id. at 19.
17.Id. at 8-10.
18.Id. at 13.
19.Id. at 16-18.
20.Id. at 31-32, 36-37.
21.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882 (2018), citing People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 236 (2010).
22.Rollo, p. 5.
23.People v. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671, 690 (2016).
24.Id.
25.Supra note 20.
26.Id. at 891-892.
27.Id. citing People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 771 (2014).
28. 639 Phil. 134 (2010).
29.Id. at 144-145.
30.People v. Que, supra note 20, citing Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 472 (2016).
31.Id., citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 301 (2010).
32.Daayata, et al. v. People, 807 Phil. 102, 118 (2017).