People v. Delos Reyes y Buenaventura

SPECIAL FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 218426. January 13, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ARNEL DELOS REYES y BUENAVENTURA AND JAN-JAN MANINANG y POJAS, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Special First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 13, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 218426 (People of the Philippines v. Arnel Delos Reyes y Buenaventura and Jan-Jan Maninang y Pojas). — This is a Motion for Reconsideration 1 of the Resolution 2 dated July 24, 2019 of this Court dismissing the Appeal 3 of Arnel Delos Reyes y Buenaventura (Delos Reyes) and Jan-Jan Maninang y Pojas (Maninang; collectively, accused-appellants) of the Decision 4 dated August 12, 2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05947. The CA affirmed the Decision 5 dated October 29, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 82 in Criminal Case No. Q-08-153623. The RTC ruled as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused ARNEL DE LOS REYES y BUENAVENTURA and JAN-JAN MANINANG y POJAS "guilty" beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.

Accordingly, they are both hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to each pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos.

The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency the dangerous drug subject hereof for proper disposition and final disposal.

SO ORDERED. 6 (Emphasis 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 7 dated August 22, 2008 which provides:

That on or about the 21st day of August 2008 in Quezon City, accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping each other without lawful authority did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, a dangerous drug, to wit: Zero point one thousand nine hundred five grams [sic] (0.1905) of white white [sic] crystalline substance containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 8

During their arraignment on November 25, 2008, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty. 9

On March 23, 2009, the pre-trial was conducted. 10 Forensic Chemist Elaine Erno (FC Erno) was present and her testimony was dispensed with in view of the following stipulations of fact agreed upon by the parties that:

1. She is a Forensic Chemist of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA);

2. Her office received a request for laboratory examination marked as Exhibits A, A-1, and A-2 together with a brown envelope marked as Exhibit B which contained a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance marked as Exhibit B-1;

3. She conducted the requested laboratory examination and submitted a Chemistry Report marked as Exhibit C stating that the specimen tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride;

4. Thereafter, she turned over the specimen to the evidence custodian. She retrieved it for the pre-trial; and

5. She has no personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the arrest of accused-appellants and the source of the substance subject of her examination. 11

The Office of the Solicitor General, representing the People of the Philippines (plaintiff-appellee), presented SI2 John Jerome Almerino (SI2 Almerino) as its sole witness. He testified that at 4:00 p.m. on August 20, 2008, a male confidential informant (CI) arrived at their office 12 in NIA Road, North Side Road, Barangay (Brgy.) Piñahan, Quezon City and talked to SPO1 Alejandro Manangan (SPO1 Manangan), 13 leader of Team Bravo, Special Enforcement Group, Metro Manila Regional Office of the PDEA. The CI reported the rampant selling of shabu in Calavite St., Brgy. Salvacion, La Loma, Quezon City by alias "Nog Nog" and alias "Mac Mac." SPO1 Manangan relayed this information to the duty alert team composed of IO2 Glen Lagutan, PO3 Anthony Torres, PO3 Mejana, IO1 Arnold Camayang (IO1 Camayang), and SI2 Almerino. Pursuant to the instruction of SPO1 Manangan, the CI sent a text message to alias "Nog Nog" who replied that the item will be available at 8:00 p.m. that same day at Calavite St., Brgy. La Loma, Quezon City. The team prepared the pre-operation report and the authority to operate. They also coordinated with the Quezon City Police District. SPO1 Manangan assigned SI2 Almerino as the poseur-buyer and gave him a genuine P500.00 bill to use for the buy-bust operation. SI2 Almerino placed his initials "JJA" on the bill. 14

At around 6:00 p.m., the buy-bust team arrived at Calavite St., Brgy. La Loma, Quezon City. SPO1 Manangan instructed the CI to contact alias "Nog Nog." He told them that the item was not yet available and asked them to meet him the following day at 10:30 a.m. 15 As such, the team went back to their office. 16

At around 10:20 a.m. of August 21, 2008, the buy-bust team arrived at Calavite St., Brgy. La Loma, Quezon City. SI2 Almerino and the CI approached two men seated on a bench. The CI identified them as alias "Nog Nog" and alias "Mac Mac." The CI introduced SI2 Almerino to alias "Nog Nog" as the buyer. Alias "Nog Nog" inquired if SI2 Almerino had the money. When SI2 Almerino said that he did, alias "Nog Nog" asked for the money. SI2 Almerino refused to give it and demanded to see the item first. Alias "Nog Nog" then introduced SI2 Almerino to alias "Mac Mac" as the buyer. Alias "Mac Mac" pulled out a plastic sachet and gave it to alias "Nog Nog." He in turn handed it over to SI2 Almerino. After examining the sachet, he handed over the P500.00 buy-bust money to alias "Nog Nog" and executed the pre-arranged signal of removing his bull cap. 17

IO1 Camayang and the other members of the buy-bust team rushed to the scene. SI2 Almerino introduced himself as a PDEA agent while IO1 Camayang arrested accused-appellants and informed them of their constitutional rights. SI2 Almerino recovered the buy-bust money from alias "Nog Nog." 18 Thereafter, they proceeded to the brgy. hall of Brgy. Salvacion, La Loma, Quezon City where an inventory of the seized items was conducted in the presence of accused-appellants, members of the buy-bust team, 19 and Brgy. Chairman Juanito Miranda (Brgy. Chairman Miranda). SI2 Almerino marked the plastic sachet as "JJA 08-21-08." Alias "Nog Nog" was identified as Delos Reyes while alias "Mac Mac" was identified as Maninang. The buy-bust team then went to their office where SPO1 Manangan prepared a request for laboratory examination. SI2 Almerino delivered the request together with the plastic sachet to the PDEA Laboratory Service where it was received by FC Erno. FC Erno examined the contents of the plastic sachet weighing 0.1905 gram and found it positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 20 She recorded her findings in Chemistry Report No. DD-151-08. 21 FC Erno turned over the plastic sachet to the evidence custodian and retrieved it for the pre-trial of this case. 22

Accused-appellants testified for their defense. Delos Reyes claimed that on August 21, 2008, he was standing in front of a lechon store at Calavite St., La Loma, Brgy. Salvacion, Quezon City together with Maninang, his brother-in-law. Maninang was looking for his wife. Two vehicles suddenly arrived and four armed men in civilian clothes alighted from it. They approached accused-appellants and handcuffed them. Accused-appellants were brought to the brgy. hall where they were asked to sign a document. Delos Reyes cannot read and can only sign his first name but not his surname. The arresting officer accused him of following them but he denied this. Thereafter, accused-appellants were brought to the police precinct where they were mobbed. Delos Reyes was told to admit that he is alias "Nog Nog" but he refused. Accused-appellants were charged with selling drugs. 23

On October 29, 2012, the RTC rendered its Decision 24 finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. The RTC sentenced them to a penalty of life imprisonment and to each pay a fine of P500,000.00. 25 The RTC held that accused-appellants were caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation. SI2 Almerino positively identified them as the persons who sold and delivered shabu to him for P500.00. The subject of their transaction was sufficiently identified as the one submitted to the PDEA Laboratory Service for examination and whose contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Its identity and integrity have been established beyond reasonable doubt. 26

The RTC also held that accused-appellants did not present clear and convincing evidence that the members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty. They even admitted that they did not know the members of the buy-bust team before their arrest. As such, the RTC ruled that accused-appellants' denial holds no weight and cannot prevail over the positive testimony of SI2 Almerino. 27

Accused-appellants appealed to the CA. The CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC in its Decision 28 dated August 12, 2014. The CA ruled that plaintiff-appellee was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, namely: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. SI2 Almerino testified that Maninang pulled out a sachet of shabu from his pocket and gave it to Delos Reyes. Delos Reyes handed it over to SI2 Almerino who in exchange gave him the P500.00 marked money. Thereafter, accused-appellants were arrested. 29 The contents of the plastic sachet were examined and tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. During his testimony, SI2 Almerino identified accused-appellants, the buy-bust money, and the plastic sachet with the marking "JJA 08-21-08." 30

In contrast, accused-appellants were not able to show proof of previous circumstances that would explain why they were supposedly subjected to baseless accusations by the apprehending officers. In fact, they admitted that they did not know the identity of the members of the buy-bust team. Moreover, the lack of a prior surveillance does not affect the validity of the buy-bust operation if there is no clear and convincing evidence of ill-motive on the part of the apprehending officers. The CA stated that it shall uphold the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty by the law enforcement agents and shall not appreciate the defense of denial. 31

The CA also held that plaintiff-appellee was able to show substantial compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The chain of custody was established as follows: (1) SI2 Almerino marked the plastic sachet while SPO1 Manangan prepared a request for laboratory examination of this item; (2) SI2 Almerino delivered the request and the plastic sachet to the PDEA Laboratory Service where it was received by FC Erno; (3) according to Chemistry Report No. DD-151-08, the specimen tested positive for shabu; and (4) FC Erno turned over the specimen to the evidence custodian and retrieved it from the evidence custodian for the pre-trial. The specimen was offered in evidence as Exhibit B-1. The CA found that the identity of the seized drugs was duly proven because each link in the chain of custody and its possession were accounted for. 32

Accused-appellants appealed to this Court. Both parties manifested 33 that they are adopting their respective briefs 34 before the CA in lieu of filing a supplemental brief.

Accused-appellants point out that the buy-bust team did not verify the credibility of the information given by the CI before deciding to conduct an operation. They also did not ascertain the identities of alias "Nog Nog" and alias "Mac Mac" beforehand. Delos Reyes testified that the arresting officer wanted him to admit that he was "Nog Nog" even though he was not. 35 Accused-appellants further argue that plaintiff-appellee failed to show compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The marking and inventory were not immediately done at the place of seizure. No photographs were taken when it was conducted. There was also no representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media. As for Brgy. Chairman Miranda, he was not present when the items were seized. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are doubtful. Accused-appellants contend that their presumption of innocence should prevail over the presumption that police officers performed their duties in a regular manner. 36 As such, they pray for their acquittal. 37

Plaintiff-appellee asserts that it was able to present overwhelming evidence to prove accused-appellants' guilt. 38 The evidence showed that accused-appellants conspired with each other to sell shabu to SI2 Almerino for P500.00 during the buy-bust operation. 39 Plaintiff-appellee also argues that it was able to establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were preserved. 40 Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 provides that the physical inventory and taking of photographs may be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. Hence, the conduct of the inventory at the brgy. hall did not make the evidence inadmissible. 41 Moreover, the chain of custody rule was observed in this case. 42 After Delos Reyes gave him the plastic sachet of shabu, SI2 Almerino retained custody of it until they reached the brgy. hall where the marking and inventory were conducted. Thereafter, SI2 Almerino brought the sachet together with accused-appellants to the PDEA headquarters where SPO1 Manangan prepared the request for laboratory examination. SI2 Almerino brought the request and the sachet to the PDEA Laboratory Service where it was received by FC Erno. After conducting the examination, FC Erno turned over the specimen to the evidence custodian. The evidence was retrieved for the pre-trial and was marked as Exhibit B-1. SI2 Almerino identified the plastic sachet of shabu in court. 43 In consideration of the foregoing, plaintiff-appellee prays for the affirmation of the Decision of the CA. 44

On July 24, 2019, We resolved to dismiss accused-appellants' appeal due to their failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed reversible error in rendering its Decision. We agreed with the CA that the testimony of SI2 Almerino established that accused-appellants conspired with each other and sold him shabu. No ill motive on his part or on the part of the other officers was established. We also concurred with the CA that the chain of custody was sufficiently established in this case. 45

Accused-appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 46 They argued that Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was not complied with in this case. First, the seized sachet of shabu was not immediately marked after its seizure and no explanation was given for this. Thus, it is possible that the sachet subject of the inventory was not the same sachet allegedly sold by accused-appellants. Second, there were no witnesses from the DOJ and the media and there was likewise no explanation for their absence. 47 Due to these unjustified lapses, plaintiff-appellee failed to establish the identity of the corpus delicti in this case. 48 It also follows that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties cannot apply. Accused-appellants contended that the presumption of their innocence should be upheld. 49 Accordingly, accused-appellants insisted that they should be acquitted.

The sole issue before Us is whether We should uphold the finding that accused-appellants are guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. 50

We grant the motion. In light of recent rulings 51 requiring strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, We are re-evaluating this case.

Section 21 of R.A. 9165 provides the procedure that must be observed in order to preserve the identity and integrity of drug specimens, which in this case is contained in a plastic sachet marked as Exhibit B-1. Considering that the buy-bust operation was conducted prior to the enactment of RA No. 10640, Section 21 of R.A. 9165 applies in this case, and it 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 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;

xxx xxx xxx

Section 21 is not a mere procedural technicality but is a matter of substantive law. It cannot be disregarded as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 52 Thus, the prosecution must show compliance with Section 21 and must acknowledge and justify any perceived deviations from its requirements. 53 In addition, the prosecution must show that: (1) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 54 The justification must be proven as a fact. 55

Strict compliance with Section 21 is more imperative when the amount of drug involved is miniscule, 56 as in this case. However, plaintiff-appellee failed to show that the requirements of Section 21 were met here. First, the marking and inventory were not done immediately at the place of arrest. Marking is important because it separates the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings. It is also intended to prevent switching, planting or contamination of evidence. 57 With respect to where the inventory may be conducted, the Court held in People v. Fayo58 that the conduct of the inventory and photographing at the barangay hall or office where the required witnesses are brought in is not allowed under the law. In this case, no explanation was given as to why the marking and inventory were conducted at the brgy. hall. Therefore, these lapses are inexcusable.

Second, the presence of witnesses at the time of arrest is crucial to ensure that there will be no planting of evidence. 59 However, witnesses were not present when accused-appellants were arrested. And even during the inventory, only Brgy. Chairman Miranda was present. Section 21 clearly requires the presence of not just an elected public official but also representatives from the DOJ and the media. Plaintiff-appellee should have explained the reason for their absence and shown that efforts were made to secure their presence but it did not do so. SI2 Almerino only admitted that there was no representative from the DOJ during the inventory. 60 That being the case, We cannot simply overlook the absence of the required witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

Third, the evidence custodian that FC Erno gave the specimen to was not identified. It was not shown where said evidence custodian stored the specimen after receiving it from FC Erno. It was also not established who was the evidence custodian that FC Erno retrieved the specimens from. Consequently, it cannot be said that all the links of the chain of custody were duly established in this case.

Aside from non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165, plaintiff-appellee's narration of events is incredulous. When SI2 Almerino demanded to see the sachet of shabu before giving the payment, Delos Reyes informed Maninang that SI2 Almerino was the buyer even though the CI already introduced him beforehand. 61 And despite being in close proximity to each other, Maninang handed over the sachet to Delos Reyes instead of giving it directly to SI2 Almerino. 62 It is difficult to believe that accused-appellants would needlessly turn over the sachet in a circuitous manner. Though We generally respect the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the CA, We cannot uphold it when there are facts and circumstances that have been overlooked or misinterpreted which, if considered, would affect the disposition of the case in a different manner. 63 In this case, We cannot give credence to plaintiff-appellee's allegations as to how the sale took place.

Plaintiff-appellee's failure to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 has rendered the integrity and evidentiary value of the drug specimen in this case questionable. In addition, plaintiff-appellee's version of what took place inspires disbelief. Accordingly, We cannot uphold the conviction of accused-appellants for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165. Accused-appellants must be acquitted.

WHEREFORE, the motion is GRANTED. The Resolution dated July 24, 2019 of this Court affirming the Decision dated August 12, 2014 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05947 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Arnel Delos Reyes y Buenaventura and Jan-Jan Maninang y Pojas are ACQUITTED of the crime charged against them and are ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED, unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. The Director 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. 54-61.

2.Id. at 49-52.

3.Id. at 15.

4. Penned by Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Noel G. Tijam (Former Member of this Court) and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (Former Member of this Court); id. at 2-14.

5. Penned by Presiding Judge Severino B. De Castro, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 40-46.

6.Id. at 45-46.

7. Records, p. 1.

8.Id.

9. CA rollo, p. 40.

10. Records, p. 45.

11.Id.

12. CA rollo, pp. 41-42.

13.Id.

14.Rollo, p. 4.

15.Id.

16. CA rollo, p. 42.

17.Rollo, p. 5.

18.Supra.

19. CA rollo, pp. 42-43.

20.Rollo, pp. 5-6.

21. Records, p. 17.

22.Rollo, p. 6.

23.Id. at 7.

24.Supra note 5.

25. CA rollo, pp. 45-46.

26.Id. at 44-45.

27.Id. at 45.

28.Supra note 4.

29.Rollo, p. 8.

30.Id. at 8-9.

31.Id. at 13.

32.Id. at 11.

33.Id. at 32-34, 37-39.

34. CA rollo, pp. 28-39, 57-87.

35.Id. at 34-36.

36.Id. at 37.

37.Id. at 38.

38.Id. at 70.

39.Id. at 72.

40.Id. at 76-77.

41.Id. at 79.

42.Id. at 79-80.

43.Id. at 83-84.

44.Id. at 85.

45.Supra note 2.

46.Rollo, pp. 54-61.

47.Id. at 55-56.

48.Id. at 56-57.

49.Id. at 58.

50.Id. at 59.

51.People v. Carpio, G.R. No. 233200, September 9, 2019; People v. Placiente, G.R. No. 213389, August 14, 2019.

52.People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1059 (2018).

53.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

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

55.People v. Gamboa, 833 Phil. 1055, 1069 (2018).

56. See People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 99 (2014).

57.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 232 (2015).

58. G.R. No. 239887, October 2, 2019.

59. See People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 405 (2018).

60. TSN dated April 27, 2011, p. 24.

61.Id. at 11.

62.Id. at 12.

63.People v. Alboka, 826 Phil. 487 (2018).