FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252891. March 18, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ALFRED DUFOURT y ROMERO, VINJO PERINO y BETONIO, and RYAN CIRUELA y CAJES, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 18, 2021 which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 252891 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Alfred Dufourt y Romero, Vinjo Perino y Betonio, and Ryan Ciruela y Cajes, accused-appellants). — This is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated February 27, 2019 of the Court of Appeals and the Resolution 2 dated November 25, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09943. The assailed Decision and Resolution affirmed the Decision 3 dated September 22, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 203, finding accused-appellants Alfred Dufourt y Romero (Dufourt), Vinjo Perino y Betonio (Perino), and Ryan Ciruela y Cajes (Ciruela) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Dufourt, Perino, and Ciruela were charged with violation of Sec. 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 as follows:
That on or about the 10th day of December, 2014 in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping and aiding one another, without authority of law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully dispense, trade, deliver and give away to another Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, with a total weight of 984.13 grams contained in masking tape-sealed scotch tape-wrapped silver foil bag, in violation of the above-cited law."
Contrary to law. 4
Accused-appellants, through counsel, filed a Petition for Bail 5 dated January 6, 2015. When arraigned, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the crime charged against them. 6 In an Order 7 dated December 28, 2015, the RTC denied accused-appellants' petition for bail for lack of merit. 8 During pre-trial conference, the following were stipulated:
1. The identities of accused-appellants as the same persons charged;
2. The accused-appellants were arrested within the City of Muntinlupa and within the jurisdiction of the RTC; and
3. The expertise of the forensic chemist who conducted the laboratory examination. 9
During the hearing held on April 19, 2016, the prosecution manifested that it "is adopting all the evidence and testimonies of the witnesses presented, including the formal offer of evidence, during the Petition for Bail." 10 The prosecution presented at that time: (a) PCINSP Jocelyn Belen Julian (PCINSP Julian); (b) PO3 Albert H. Salvan (PO3 Salvan); (c) SPO2 Roderick Quiton (SPO2 Quiton); and (d) SPO2 Manuel Tuliao (SPO2 Tuliao) as its witnesses. 11 The testimony of SPO2 Quiton was dispensed with after the prosecution and defense stipulated on the following matters:
1. SPO2 Quiton is the investigator of the present case;
2. As such, he prepared several documents for the case which included the (i) Spot Report, (ii) Progress Report, and (iii) After Operation Report; and
3. He submitted said documents to the proper offices. 12
On the other hand, (a) Dufourt; (b) Perino; (c) Ciruela; and (d) Melanie Capin (Capin) testified for the defense. 13
SPO2 Tuliao testified that on December 10, 2014 at 9 a.m., he was at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs, Special Operations Task Group office in Camp Crame, Quezon City when a confidential informant (CI) arrived and reported to PINSP Elvin S. Ballesteros (PINSP Ballesteros) that an alias "Alfred" was looking for a potential buyer of shabu. Acting on the information, PINSP Ballesteros instructed the CI to call and inform alias "Alfred" that he found a potential buyer of a kilo of shabu for P1,000,000.00. 14
For the entrapment operation, PINSP Ballesteros prepared: (i) 10 bundles of boodle money; and (ii) two P1,000.00-bills. As the designated poseur-buyer, SPO2 Tuliao marked both P1,000.00-bills on their upper left corners with his initials "MET." During the briefing: (a) SPO4 Allan Lising and SPO2 Cesar Cajandab were assigned as SPO2 Tuliao's back-up; and (b) they agreed that the pre-arranged signal to indicate the consummation of the sale would be SPO2 Tuliao calling either of his two back-ups on their cellular phone. 15 The Coordination Form 16 and Pre-Operation Report 17 were prepared and the corresponding Certificate of Coordination 18 dated December 9, 2014 was issued by the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) stating that a buy-bust operation will be conducted against alias "TONY and cohorts." 19
After some time, SPO2 Tuliao together with the CI and the rest of the buy-bust team left for Festival Mall located at Barangay (Brgy.) Alabang, Muntinlupa City. Upon arriving at Festival Mall, SPO2 Tuliao and the CI looked for alias "Alfred" while the members of the buy-bust team strategically positioned themselves. At past 6 p.m., SPO2 Tuliao and the CI found alias "Alfred" inside a van parked at the parking lot of Festival Mall. SPO2 Tuliao and the CI approached the van and saw that alias "Alfred," who was later on identified as Dufourt, had two companions at that time. The person on the driver seat was later on identified as Ciruela. The one seated behind Ciruela and seated with Dufourt on the second row was later on identified as Perino. Dufourt introduced Ciruela and Perino to SPO2 Tuliao and the CI. 20
Subsequently, Ciruela said, "Halika pasok kayo." SPO2 Tuliao and the CI entered the van using its right-side sliding door. After a brief chitchat, Dufourt asked, "Dala mo ba?" (SPO2 Tuliao clarified that Dufourt was asking about the money.) SPO2 Tuliao replied, "Eto, dala dala ko. Saan muna iyong items?" Dufourt then took from Perino a plastic bag which he handed to SPO2 Tuliao. SPO2 Tuliao opened the plastic bag and saw a silver foil pack used to store shabu. Ciruela demanded, "Akin na iyong pera." SPO2 Tuliao responded by handing over the money to Ciruela and then he pressed the re-dial button on his cellular phone. 21
Within 15 seconds, SPO2 Tuliao's back-up arrived. After introducing themselves as police officers, SPO2 Tuliao and his back-up arrested accused-appellants and informed the latter of their rights. SPO2 Tuliao kept the plastic bag while his back-up recovered the buy-bust money. Unnamed members of the buy-bust team sought a brgy. official and a media representative — which turned out to be Brgy. Kagawad Jeff Hilapo (Hilapo) and TV 5 correspondent Rocel Lopez (Lopez) — to witness the inventory at the parking lot of Festival Mall and to sign the Receipt/Inventory for Property Seized. 22 SPO2 Tuliao shared that during the inventory, the silver pack was pierced to show its contents 23 and that pictures 24 of the seized items were taken and marked as follows: CAIHTE
1. One (1) white plastic printed Mini Stop was marked as MET12-10-14A1;
2. One (1) white plastic printed Mini Stop was marked as MET12-10-14A2;
3. One (1) silver foil tea pack with Chinese character containing white crystalline substance was marked as MET12-10-14A3;
4. One (1) La La fish crackers was marked as MET12-10-14A4;
5. One (1) Piattos potato crisps was marked as MET12-10-14A5; and
6. One (1) Milo tonic food drink pack was marked as MET12-10-14A6. 25
Thereafter, SPO2 Tuliao, accused-appellants, and the buy-bust team went back to Camp Crame. SPO2 Tuliao assured that he was in possession of the plastic bag that he bought from accused-appellants from the parking lot of Festival Mall until they arrived at their office in Camp Crame, before turning it over with the boodle money to the investigator, SPO1 Quiton (now SPO2 Quiton). 26 SPO2 Tuliao's group likewise brought to their office the Kia Besta van with plate number XCK 264, which SPO1 Quiton took pictures of. 27 SPO1 Quiton handed over the seized evidence to crime laboratory. 28
During cross-examination, SPO2 Tuliao admitted that coordination with PDEA was made on December 9, 2014, prior to the arrival of the CI on December 10, 2014. 29 When confronted why the Certificate of Coordination named as targets alias "TONY" and cohorts not alias "ALFRED," SPO2 Tuliao explained that the target person uses different aliases. 30
For her part, PCINSP Julian shared that she received the specimen — referred to in the Request for Laboratory Examination 31 and Chain of Custody Form 32 — from SPO1 Quiton. After conducting the requested laboratory examination, PCINSP Julian found that the contents of the silver foil bag yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 33
To support their defense that a buy-bust operation against them did not take place, Dufourt testified — which was later on corroborated by Perino 34 and Ciruela 35 — that on December 9, 2014 at 5:00 p.m., he, Perino and their friends Jeff, Sid, and Karl agreed to get together at Cowboy Grill in Las Piñas. At 11:00 p.m., Ciruela and his live-in-partner, Capin, followed them at Cowboy Grill. On the following day at 1:00 a.m., the group decided to continue their revelry at Padi's Point in South Station, Alabang. When Padi's Point closed its operations for the night, the group transferred at daybreak to the Jollibee restaurant right across South Station to eat. Capin invited then the group to go to Batangas but Karl, Sid, and Jeff turned down the invitation since they have work for that day. Since they just drank alcohol a few hours before and they needed to rest for their Batangas trip, Dufourt, Perino, Ciruela, and Capin headed to Sun Bay Apartelle on-board Capin's Kia Besta Van. 36
When they reached Sun Bay Apartelle, the quartet was advised by the cashier to go to the apartelle's outlet since their branch did not offer family rooms. 37 While traversing an alley on their way to Sun Bay Apartelle's outlet, multiple vehicles suddenly blocked the van that the group was riding in. Armed men alighted from the vehicles, surrounded the van, and forced the four of them out. The four of them were separated and placed inside different vehicles while handcuffed. Inside these vehicles, Dufourt, Perino, Ciruela, and Capin were separately beaten, slapped, and forced to confess. 38 After some time, Dufourt disclosed that he was brought to Figaro at Lakefront, Sucat and he was again forced to confess to something he doesn't know and he isn't aware of. 39
When it was about to get dark, Dufourt was led out of the vehicle and he finally saw his other male companions, Perino and Ciruela. Riding together with the unknown men who took them captive, Dufourt, Perino, and Ciruela went to Festival Mall and they arrived there at 6:00 p.m. Dufourt stated that media practitioners also arrived at the scene. Dufourt revealed that he saw SPO2 Tuliao for the first time and that the latter: (i) went inside their vehicle; (ii) introduced himself to them; (iii) shook their hands; and (iv) told them, "Lahat ng nandiyan, 'wag ninyong aaminin. Hindi iyan sa inyo." Dufourt added that SPO2 Tuliao held a Mini Stop bag which he placed on the vehicle while pictures of Dufourt, Perino, and Ciruela were being taken. SPO2 Tuliao uttered, "Kahit anong itanong sa inyo 'wag kayong aamin." Dufourt responded, "Ano bang, anong aaminin namin?" At this juncture, the media was feasting on them and Dufourt realized that what lies inside the plastic bag on the vehicle are illegal drugs. 40
Dufourt shared that he hasn't seen Capin since they were abducted and when he asked about her, he is told that she is "nandiyan lang, nandiyan lang." From Festival Mall, Dufourt, Perino, and Ciruela were brought to the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force office in Camp Crame. The three of them were: (i) asked to pee to be tested; (ii) fingerprinted; and (iii) brought to a detention cell. Inside their detention cell, SPO2 Tuliao came and assured them that he will help them. Frustrated, Dufourt retorted, "Tutulungan mo kami eh hinuli mo nga kami nang hindi naming alam tas ngayon sasabihin mo sa amin na tutulungan mo kami." Inquest proceedings were conducted the following day. 41
Capin, for her part, validated Dufourt's testimony until the part when they were separately held captive in different vehicles. She bared that she was forced to board a Toyota Fortuner and she was brought to Lakefront in Sucat. 42 She was repeatedly slapped by a man to force her in confessing to something she wasn't aware of. 43 Afterwards, she was instructed to look for P2,000,000.00 as ransom money for her 3 male companions. She said, "Sir, saan po kami kukuha ng ganyan kalaki, mga ordinaryong tao lang po kami." The man reacted, "Basta gawan mo ng paraan yan." Capin was told to alight from the Toyota Fortuner and to take a jeep going to Alabang. Her captors took her cellular phone number since they will call her before 6:00 p.m. of that day. 44 Capin proceeded to the house of Dufourt's family in TS Cruz, Las Piñas, to inform them of what just happened. 45 A few hours later, Capin received a call with the person on the other end of the line asking her if she already had the money. She answered, "Wala po akong pera, wala po kaming pera" to which the other person countered, "Antayin mo na lang yung mga kaibigan mo sa balita." Capin's friend called and informed her that Dufourt, Perino, and Ciruela were arrested and were being held for drug charges based on a Channel 7 flash report. Capin claimed that the arrest happened early morning of December 10, 2014, and not 6:00 p.m. as stated in the Affidavit of Arrest. 46
On September 22, 2017, the Muntinlupa RTC rendered a Decision 47 finding accused-appellants guilty and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to each pay a fine P500,000.00. 48
The RTC emphasized that the "buy-bust procedure was well-documented" and rejected the defense's assertion that a buy-bust operation did not take place. The prosecution presented a completed and detailed picture of the buy-bust operation: from the time the CI information was received until the consummation of the sale when the illegal drugs were delivered to the poseur-buyer. 49 The RTC disregarded accused-appellants' claim of extortion since they failed to substantiate their claim. The RTC took into account the absence of administrative or criminal charges against the arresting officers. 50 The RTC declared that: (i) a prior surveillance or test buy is not required for a valid buy-bust operation as long as informant is with the operatives; and (ii) it is sufficient to use initials — not just ultraviolet powder — to mark the money. The RTC ruled that the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs was sufficiently established by the prosecution. The RTC found that Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was complied with when Hilapo and media representative Lopez witnessed the inventory. 51 aScITE
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed their conviction to the CA. In their Brief, 52 they alleged that the RTC seriously erred in its appreciation of the evidence when it concluded that the "subject buy-bust was well documented." During direct examination, SPO2 Tuliao maintained that coordination with PDEA was made right after the CI shared the information. However, SPO2 Tuliao impeached his own direct testimony when he disclosed during cross examination that coordination was done already the day before. This revelation casts doubts on SPO2 Tuliao's narration and the presumption of regularity afforded to him in the performance of his duty. Related thereto, accused-appellants highlighted the fact that according to the PDEA Certificate of Coordination, the named targets of the buy-bust operation are alias TONY and cohorts while the CI referred to an alias ALFRED. 53 Accused-appellants argued that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that sale of dangerous drugs transpired between them and the arresting officers. Aside from the arresting officer's self-serving statements, no direct proof reciting the details of the transaction was presented in court. SPO2 Tuliao's account was also limited in particulars for the RTC to be "convinced with moral certainty that all the accused conspired in selling shabu to SPO2 Tuliao." 54 Accused-appellants noted that apart from the two marked P1,000.00-bills, the bundle of boodle money — as consideration of the sale — was not presented during trial. 55
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appearing for the prosecution, stated that the prosecution proved with moral certainty that accused-appellants sold 984.13 grams of shabu to poseur-buyer SPO2 Tuliao with the latter using two marked P1,000.00-bills mixed with boodle money. SPO2 Tuliao positively identified accused-appellants as the persons who sold to and handed him the shabu for P1,000,000.00. 56 The OSG averred that the chain of custody rule was sufficiently complied with in the present case. 57 The OSG claimed that accused-appellants bear the burden to show that there was bad faith, ill will, or tampering of evidence to overcome the presumption that the police officers handled the seized drugs with regularity and that they properly discharged their duties. 58 The OSG asserted that accused-appellants failed to present strong, clear, and convincing evidence to support their defense of frame-up. 59
In its Decision 60 dated February 27, 2019, the CA affirmed accused-appellants' conviction. The CA found that all of the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were established. The prosecution proved that a valid buy-bust operation transpired between SPO2 Tuliao as poseur-buyer and accused-appellants as shabu sellers. SPO2 Tuliao clearly testified that he received the suspected shabu from Dufourt and he gave the marked money to Ciruela. The CA declared that the failure to present the boodle money in court will not affect the prosecution's evidence as long as the drugs subject of the illegal transaction were presented during trial. 61 For the CA, the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the subject drug from the time SPO2 Tuliao received it from Dufourt, until it was presented in court by PCINSP Julian. The CA asserted that the minor contradictions in SPO2 Tuliao's testimony are inconsequential and the proven elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs remain unaffected. The CA added that coordination with the PDEA is not an indispensable requirement for buy-bust operations; the lack of coordination will not invalidate a buy-bust operation. 62
The CA stated that accused-appellants' defense of denial and frame-up, which are unsupported by strong and convincing evidence, cannot overcome the prosecution's evidence that accused-appellants were caught in flagrante delicto in a legitimate buy-bust operation. The CA concluded that absent any proof of ill will or malice on the part of the police officers, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty and the trial court's findings on the credibility of witnesses should be upheld. 63
With the CA's denial of their Motion for Reconsideration, accused-appellants filed a Notice of Appeal. 64 Both the OSG and accused-appellants manifested that they will no longer file any supplemental brief. 65
The sole issue to be determined is whether the prosecution established accused-appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165.
The appeal is meritorious.
This Court repeats that "an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned." 66 "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law." 67
Before discussing the apprehending team's non-compliance with the requirements for the proper custody of seized dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165, the Court will re-examine how the buy-bust operation against accused-appellants began. Ordinarily, the CI will share information to the authorities regarding the drug activities of an individual or a group. From this information, the authorities will adopt a plan and then coordinate with the PDEA and the local police.
The Court has misgivings that a legitimate buy-bust operation was carried out against accused-appellants. In this case, it was established that prior to the CI's arrival on December 10, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs, Special Operations Task Group office in Camp Crame, SPO2 Tuliao disclosed that coordination was done already the day before as evidenced by the Pre-Operation Report, 68 Coordination Form, 69 and Certificate of Coordination 70 which are all dated December 9, 2014. In addition, the CI reported to PINSP Ballesteros on December 10, 2014 that an alias "Alfred" was looking for a potential buyer of shabu. However, the named targets of the buy-bust operation on the Pre-Operation Report 71 and Certificate of Coordination 72 are an alias TONY and cohorts with the Pre-Operation referring to these targets as being Chinese/Filipino nationals. 73 Based on the Booking Mug Shots 74 and the Booking and Information Sheets 75 of accused-appellants, none of them are: (i) named or referred to as TONY; and (ii) Chinese/Filipino nationals.
From the foregoing, the Court observes that it is highly irregular to start coordination sans the information from the CI, the latter being the trigger that starts the whole process. SPO2 Tuliao tried his best to explain the irregularity by reasoning that there was already prior coordination so they cannot "double" 76 the coordination. However, the prior coordination named as targets an alias TONY and cohorts. SPO2 Tuliao tried again to justify this anomaly that the alias Alfred that they went after during the December 10, 2014 operation is the same alias TONY since he uses many aliases. 77 Yet, this detail was conveniently omitted in the coordination documents. With the amount and volume of dangerous drugs involved in the present case, the Court finds SPO2 Tuliao's excuses lamentable and the arresting team's actions indubitably inferior to the standards exacted and expected from law enforcement authorities. DETACa
To successfully prosecute illegal sale of prohibited drugs: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor must be established. 78
The Court recognizes the penchant of police officers in using boodle money in the conduct of buy-bust operations. As defined in People v. Lacdan, 79 "'boodle' money means bundles of cut-out newspapers in the size of money bills. They are not counterfeit money so they do not appear as though they are genuine bills. Hence, even to an ordinary person who sees genuine money on a regular basis, they would appear obvious as newspaper cut-outs and not genuine peso bills." 80
In the present case, only the marked two pieces of P1,000.00-bills were presented and identified in court. The boodle money referred to by the prosecution that was allegedly: (i) prepared beforehand by PINSP Ballesteros; (ii) handed to Ciruela by SPO2 Tuliao as consideration for the sale; and (iii) recovered by SPO2 Cajandab was never presented during the trial. The Court is sceptical that such boodle money existed. At best, the only glimpse the Court was given of the supposed boodle money (marked as Exh. "S-2") is through a photograph (marked as Exh. "S"). Inspection of the photograph reveals that this is not boodle money — as defined jurisprudentially and which is commonly-known among law enforcers — but pieces of paper with the likeness of P1,000.00-bills whose genuineness cannot be determined.
Considering further that accused-appellants were described in the Pre-Operation Report as "engaged in wide-ranged distribution of dangerous drugs within Metro Manila, PRO-3 and PRO-4A area," plain mixing of genuine money with fake/scanned money bills renders highly doubtful the story of the police that there was a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted against accused-appellants. Painted as such and given the scale of the transaction, accused-appellants — in accord with conventional human experience — would have demanded to see the money first or at the very least, they would have checked if the money they are receiving as payment is genuine before handing over the illicit item.
In cases of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 81
An accused shall only be convicted of the crime charged once it has been established with "certainty that the drugs examined and presented in court were the very ones seized." 82 To satisfy this requirement, the procedure under Section 21 83 of R.A. 9165 must be complied with. This provision was later amended by R.A. 10640 which took effect in 2014. Since the offenses charged were allegedly committed on December 10, 2014, the apprehending team is required to conduct immediately a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as required witnesses, namely: an elected public official, and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. All of these people are required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. As amended, a representative from the NPS and a media representative are alternates of each other. "This must be so because with the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." 84
In People v. Delina, 85 this Court reaffirmed its ruling in People v. Tomawis86 "that the presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug." 87 The purpose of the law in having these witnesses is to prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs. They are required to be at or near the intended place of arrest so they can readily witness the inventory and photograph-taking of the drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."
The prosecution failed to show that the buy-bust team strictly complied with the procedure and neither did it justify the buy-bust team's non-compliance.
The buy-bust team failed to explain why the media representative and the elected public official were not present during accused-appellants' warrantless arrest nor did it show that earnest efforts were in fact exerted to secure or obtain their presence or attendance at that time given that SPO2 Tuliao disclosed that even before the CI arrived at their office on December 10, 2014: (i) the CI and PINSP Ballesteros were already communicating with each other regarding the target; and (ii) coordination has already been made with PDEA a day before the buy-bust operation. SPO2 Tuliao himself revealed that it was only after the arrest and the appraisal of accused-appellants' rights did members of the buy-bust team set off to find witnesses for the inventory. 88 The buy-bust team could have easily gathered beforehand the required witnesses, considering that drug operations are, by their nature, a planned activity.
A cursory examination of the Receipt/Inventory for Property Seized (marked as Exh. "K") prepared by SPO2 Tuliao exposes that while media representative Lopez witnessed the inventory on December 10, 2014 at 6pm (marked as Exh. "K-1"), elected public official Hilapo witnessed the same activity on December 10, 2014 at 8pm (marked as Exh. "K-2"). If the required witnesses were indeed present during the entire marking, photographing, and inventory of the evidence, obviously, they would have been present also at the same time to comply with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 as amended by R.A. 10640. Yet, this was not so. Notably, Hilapo was the sole witness (marked as Exh. "L-1") to the Receipt/Inventory for Property Seized (marked as Exh. "L") prepared by SPO2 Caesar T. Cajandab (SPO2 Cajandab) for the marked money and boodle money.
To repeat, Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires that copies of the inventory should be signed by the following persons: (a) accused or his/her representative or counsel; (b) an elected public official; (c) a representative from the media; and (d) a representative from the NPS. In the present case, both the Receipt/Inventory for Property Seized prepared by SPO2 Tuliao and the Receipt/Inventory for Property Seized prepared by SPO2 Caesar T. Cajandab were unsigned by accused-appellants or by their counsel or representative. The prosecution did not acknowledge such defect nor did it provide any explanation whatsoever as to why accused-appellants were not able to sign aforesaid documents.
In fine, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the apprehending team's deviation from the rules laid down in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 which raises doubts as to whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug had been preserved. The prosecution's sweeping guarantees as to the identity and integrity of the seized drug will not secure a conviction. 89 "While law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is merely just that — a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof and which when challenged by evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth." 90
All told, with a doubtful buy-bust operation and with the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti having been compromised, the guilt of the accused is not proven with moral certainty.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 27, 2019 and the Resolution dated November 25, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09943 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellants Alfred Dufourt y Romero, Vinjo Perino y Betonio, and Ryan Ciruela y Cajes are ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and are ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless they are being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director General is DIRECTED to REPORT the action taken to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. HEITAD
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and Gabriel T. Robeniol; rollo, pp. 3-18.
2. CA rollo, pp. 164-165.
3. Penned by Presiding Judge Myra B. Quiambao; id. at 57-74.
4. Records, p. 1.
5.Id. at 41-43.
6.Id. at 48-50.
7.Id. at 115-124.
8.Id. at 124.
9.Id. at 128.
10.Id. at 133.
11.Id. at 189.
12.Id. at 107.
13.Id. at 192.
14. TSN dated June 9, 2015, pp. 10-11.
15. Records, pp. 12-13.
16.Id. at 9.
17.Id. at 10.
18.Id. at 8.
19. TSN dated June 9, 2015, pp. 10-17.
20.Id. at 18.
21.Id. at 19-20.
22.Id. at 20-23.
23.Id. at 29.
24.Id. at 40.
25. Records, p. 11.
26. TSN dated June 9, 2015, pp. 32, 34.
27.Id. at 35.
28.Id. at 38.
29.Id. at 51-52.
30.Id. at 56.
31. Records, p. 19.
32.Id. at 30-33.
33. Exhibits, p. 3.
34. TSN dated October 21, 2016; TSN dated March 24, 2017.
35. TSN dated August 4, 2017.
36. TSN dated November 10, 2015, pp. 5-8.
37.Id. at 8.
38.Id. at 9-10.
39.Id. at 11-13.
40.Id. at 12-15.
41.Id. at 15-16.
42. TSN dated June 9, 2017, p. 6.
43.Id. at 7.
44.Id. at 8.
45.Id. at 9.
46.Id. at 10-11.
47.Supra note 3.
48. CA rollo, p. 73.
49.Id. at 69-70.
50.Id. at 70.
51.Id. at 70-73.
52.Id. at 35-55.
53.Id. at 46-48.
54.Id. at 50-52.
55.Id. at 53-54.
56.Id. at 89-90.
57.Id. at 91.
58.Id. at 93-95.
59.Id. at 95-96.
60.Supra note 1.
61.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
62.Id. at 15-16.
63.Id. at 16-17.
64.Id. at 166-167.
65.Id. at 33-35, 37-38.
66.Rivac v. People, 824 Phil. 156, 166 (2018), citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015). Citation omitted.
67.Id.; see People v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187 (2016).
68. Records, p. 10.
69.Id. at 9.
70.Id. at 8.
71.Id. at 10.
72.Id. at 8.
73.Id.
74.Id. at 27-29.
75.Id. at 24-26.
76. TSN dated June 9, 2015, p. 67.
77.Id.
78.People v. Pantallano, G.R. No. 233800, March 6, 2019.
79. G.R. No. 208472, October 14, 2019.
80.Id.
81.Id., citing Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752 (2012), citing People v. Gutierrez, 614 Phil. 285 (2009).
82.People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 225325, August 28, 2019, citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134 (2010).
83. 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, 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.
84.People v. Santos, 562 Phil. 458, 471 (2007), citing People v. Tan, 401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000).
85. G.R. No. 243578, June 30, 2020.
86. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
87.Id.
88. TSN dated June 9, 2015, p. 21.
89.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1033 (2017), citing People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 94 (2014).
90.Id., citing People v. Sabdula, 733 Phil. 85, 100-101 (2014).