FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236836. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.JEPIE*ENDAN y QUINQUIÑO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236836 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. JEPIE ENDAN y QUINQUIÑO, accused-appellant). — Before this Court is an appeal assailing the Decision 1 dated October 6, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01557-MIN. The CA affirmed the Consolidated Judgment 2 dated June 29, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 40, in Criminal Case Nos. 2014-1064 and 2014-1065 finding accused-appellant Jepie Endan y Quinquiño (Endan) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, as amended.
The Facts
Two separate Informations for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 were filed against Endan, the accusatory portions of which state:
Criminal Case No. 2014-1064
That on or about September 10, 2014 at more or less 9:40 o'clock in the evening, at Sta. Cruz, Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, in exchange of the buy-bust money, sell and deliver to the poseur-buyer one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet (marked FMI) containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, with a net weight of 0.2291 gram.
Contrary to and in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165.
Criminal Case No. 2014-1065
That on or about September 10, 2014 at more or less 9:40 o'clock in the evening, at Sta. Cruz, Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with intent to possess, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly, without being authorized by law, have in his possession and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet (marked FMI-1) containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, with a net weight of 0.2409 gram.
Contrary to and in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. [No.] 9165. 3
Endan pleaded not guilty to both charges during his arraignment. Joint trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Senior Inspector Charity Peralta-Caceres, Police Officer I Faruk M. Ismael (PO1 Ismael), and Barangay Chairman Rene Embrado (Embrado).
The prosecution alleged that on September 10, 2014, at around 8:00 p.m., a confidential informant (CI) went to the Tagoloan Municipal Police Station to inform Police Inspector Maricris Mulat (P/I Mulat) of an on-going sale of illegal drugs at Bug-ac, Sta. Cruz, Tagoloan, Misamis Oriental, involving Endan who was a known pusher. PO1 Ismael was instructed to accompany the CI and conduct a surveillance of the area to verify the information.
Upon arriving at the area, PO1 Ismael and the CI saw that plenty of persons riding on motorcycles came in and out of the place. They observed how these persons transacted and made exchanges with a person who the CI identified as Endan. They returned to the police station to report their findings.
Acting on PO1 Ismael's findings, P/I Mulat ordered the immediate execution of a buy-bust operation in the area that same night. The police officers coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and proceeded to the area at around 9:40 p.m. PO1 Ismael, acting as the poseur-buyer, was accompanied by the CI to approach Endan while the other police officers hid approximately 20 meters away. The CI first conversed with Endan about selling drugs. After their chat, PO1 Ismael handed Endan P500.00 and the latter in return gave him a transparent cellophane plastic containing a white crystalline substance.
After the exchange, PO1 Ismael executed the pre-arranged signal for the other police officers to come out as back up. He grabbed Endan and arrested him, told him that he was a police officer, and informed him of his rights. The other police officers then called Barangay Chairman Embrado to come as a witness.
In the presence of Barangay Chairman Embrado, the police officers searched Endan's body and recovered another transparent cellophane plastic containing white crystalline substance from his left pocket. The seized drugs were then immediately marked, inventoried, and photographed by PO1 Ismael in the area in the presence of Endan and Barangay Chairman Embrado.
PO1 Ismael thereafter brought Endan along with the seized drugs to the police station. The incident was recorded in the blotter book and he prepared a request for the laboratory examination of the seized drugs and a drug test of Endan. PO1 Ismael retained custody of the seized drugs during this time and brought it with him as he accompanied Endan to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for examination.
The results of the laboratory examination indicated that the seized drugs was methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu. This was evidenced by the Chemistry Report No. DTCRIM-320-2014 admitted in evidence.
Evidence for the Defense
The defense presented Endan as its sole witness who denied all the allegations against him.
According to Endan, at around 9:40 p.m. on September 10, 2014, he was on his motorcycle on the way to buy milk at Arazo Highway, somewhere between Tagoloan and Villanueva, Misamis Oriental. He stopped momentarily to buy gasoline at the side of the highway. As he was about to leave, PO1 Ismael and another man approached him. PO1 Ismael pointed a gun at him and asked if he was selling drugs. He replied that he was not selling drugs but PO1 Ismael suddenly held his arms behind his back and proceeded to search his body.
Endan claimed that PO1 Ismael recovered nothing from the search conducted. However, he was surprised that PO1 Ismael took his wallet and a five hundred peso bill from his money and placed it on the ground together with two cellophane plastics which he had never seen before. A patrol vehicle with more police officers arrived and his wallet, money, and the two cellophane plastics were placed on top of the hood of the vehicle. They showed him the cellophane plastics and told him it contained shabu.
The police officers made a phone call and after a while Barangay Chairman Embrado arrived. Endan was brought to the police station where he stayed for two to three days. He was thereafter brought to the Hall of Justice and then transferred and detained at the Provincial Jail.
RTC Ruling
The RTC rendered its Consolidated Judgment 4 dated June 29, 2016 convicting Endan for both illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the court hereby finds accused Jepie Endan y Quinquiño:
1. In Crim. Case No. 2014-1064, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the offense charged in the information (violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165). He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
2. In Crim. Case No. 2014-1065, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Par. 2(3), Article II of R.A. 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to twelve years (12) and two (2) days as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00, with no subsidiary imprisonment in case of non-payment thereof.
The period of his preventive detention shall be credited in his favor. The sachets of shabu are hereby ordered forfeited in favour of the government for proper disposal in accordance with the rules.
SO ORDERED. 5
The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of PO1 Ismael and Barangay Chairman Embrado which prevailed over Endan's self-serving allegations. There was also no evidence presented that the arresting officers were improperly motivated to falsely impute a crime against him.
CA Ruling
The CA rendered its Decision 6 dated October 6, 2017 which affirmed Endan's conviction for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs:
WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Consolidated Judgment dated 29 June 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Special Drugs Court, Branch 40, Cagayan de Oro City is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 7
The CA held that all the links in the chain of custody of the seized drugs were established through PO1 Ismael's testimony. Any issue on PO1 Ismael's credibility as a witness could no longer be reviewed as this was already determined by the RTC. The determination by the RTC is a factual finding accorded great weight and respect, and is binding absent palpable error.
Hence, the instant appeal. 8
The Court issued its Resolution 9 dated March 7, 2018 acting on the appeal and informing the parties that they may file supplemental briefs.
The parties filed their respective Manifestations 10 that they will no longer file supplemental briefs and adopt the arguments in their briefs filed before the CA.
The Court noted the parties' Manifestations in its Resolution 11 dated August 15, 2018 and the case was deemed submitted for resolution.
Issue
The issue is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in affirming Endan's conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Ruling of the Court
Endan in his Appellant's Brief 12 argued that the prosecution failed to establish the identity and authenticity of the seized drugs from an unbroken chain of custody. 13 The police officers failed to comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. PO1 Ismael also allegedly mishandled the seized drugs when he lumped these together as he kept it in his possession.
It was further claimed that the occurrence of the alleged sale transaction of the illegal drugs is highly doubtful. PO1 Ismael admitted that he was not able to hear the conversation between the CI and Endan before allegedly paying for the illegal drugs. It is unbelievable that PO1 Ismael would give money in exchange for drugs without knowing what was going on between the CI and Endan and without anything being said to him beforehand. 14 This raises doubts on the truthfulness of his testimony and credibility as a witness.
On the contrary, the State in its Appellee's Brief 15 argued that PO1 Ismael's testimony sufficiently established all the required links in the chain of custody. PO1 Ismael testified that he had possession of the seized drugs from the moment he seized it and marked it with his initials, to its transfer to the police station, and eventual turnover to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination.
After reviewing the case, the Court grants the appeal and acquits Endan.
At the outset, it bears stressing that the appeal filed by Endan opened the entire case for review. The Court in its appellate jurisdiction may resolve questions of fact or law, and consider even matters not raised by the parties. 16 In this regard, this case is an exceptional circumstance when the Court must consider factual matters to reach a proper resolution in accordance with law and justice.
A conviction for both Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs requires proof beyond reasonable doubt of the corpus delicti of the crime. This Court has emphasized that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs constituting the corpus delicti of the crime must be safeguarded. The seized drugs illegally possessed or sold must be the same drugs presented in court as evidence. It is sufficient proof of the unbroken chain of custody which ensures that doubts on the identity of the evidence are removed in order to sustain a guilty verdict. 17
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, provides for the requirements which must be complied with to establish the proper chain of custody, to wit:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the 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 person/s from which 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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.]
Notably, Section 21 (1) requires the following persons to be present to witness the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs: (1) the accused or the person/s from whom the items were seized, or his or her representative, (2) an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or media.
Non-compliance with the requirements under Section 21 casts serious doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti of the crime and ultimately, on the accused's guilt. 18 The Court in Limbo v. People19 held that there must be strict compliance with the three-witness rule under Section 21 since it is not merely a procedural technicality, but a matter of substantive law.
This Court in People v. Oliva,20 thus acquitted the accused on account of the police officers' unjustified failure to ensure the presence of a representative from the NPS or media as a witness to the inventory of the seized drugs. The prosecution had the burden to allege and prove a valid cause for the non-compliance with Section 21. This must be strictly adhered to since if the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration:
In this case, the absence of a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media during the inventory of the seized items was not justifiably explained by the prosecution. A review of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes does not yield any testimony from the arresting officers as to the reason why there was no representative from the DOJ or the media. The only one present to witness the inventory and the marking was an elected official, Barangay Captain Evelyn Villamor. Neither was there any testimony to show that any attempt was made to secure the presence of the required witness.
In People v. Angelita Reyes, et al., this Court enumerated certain instances where the absence of the required witnesses may be justified, thus:
x x x It must be emphasized that the prosecution must be able to prove a justifiable ground in omitting certain requirements provided in Sec. 21 such as, but not limited to the following: 1) media representatives are not available at that time or that the police operatives had no time to alert the media due to the immediacy of the operation they were about to undertake, especially if it is done in more remote areas; 2) the police operatives, with the same reason, failed to find an available representative of the National Prosecution Service; 3) the police officers, due to time constraints brought about by the urgency of the operation to be undertaken and in order to comply with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code in the timely delivery of prisoners, were not able to comply with all the requisites set forth in Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
xxx xxx xxx
Certainly, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to show valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that, during the proceedings before the trial court, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. The rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item. A stricter adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied, citations omitted)
The accused in People v. Fulgado21 was similarly acquitted due to non-compliance with the three-witness rule. The prosecution failed to provide any justifiable ground for the absence of a representative from the NPS or media during the physical inventory of the seized drugs. It was pertinently held:
First, it is evident from the foregoing that the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were not executed immediately at the place of arrest. Second, when the apprehending officers conducted the physical inventory at the police station, the presence of all the required witnesses was not secured. Only an elected official was present during the inventory of the confiscated drugs. There were no representatives from the media and the DOJ present at the time.
Admittedly, strict compliance with the requirements of law may not always be possible and the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. No 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items void, this has always been with the caveat that the prosecution still needs to satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In the landmark case of People v. Lim, the Court held that:
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven.
Regrettably, nowhere in the records does it show that the prosecution even attempted to explain the non-compliance with the strict requirement of immediate inventory and photograph at the place of arrest nor justify why two of the three required witnesses were not present during the marking and inventory. Further, there is no iota of evidence to show that the police officers exerted effort to contact and secure the other witnesses, notwithstanding the fact that buy-bust operations are usually planned out ahead of time. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied, citations omitted)
In this case, the police officers failed to comply with the mandatory three-witness rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. The records indicate that only an elected official, Barangay Chairman Embrado, was present to witness the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs. The required witness from the NPS or media was not present. This is clearly deduced from PO1 Ismael's testimony where he could testify only as to Barangay Chairman Embrado's presence and no other witnesses:
Q After you executed that pre-arranged signal what did you do next?
A I grabbed Mr[.] Endan and arrested hims [sic] and inform[ed] [him] of his rights.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Having arrested Mr[.] Endan, what else did you do with respect to Mr[.] Endan?
A I arrested him and my fellow officer came to me to back [me up] and we call[ed] Chairman Rene Embrado to witness the search.
Q Did Chairman Embrado arrived [sic] at the area?
A Yes sir.
Q He is a Chairman of what Mr[.] witness?
A Barangay Sta. Cruz.
Q When he arrived at the area what did the team do with respect to Mr[.] Endan?
A I search[ed] Mr[.] Endan.
Q What if anything was the result in searching him?
A I found another white crystalline substance.
Q Where was that contained Mr[.] witness?
A In his pocket sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q When you seized that other transparent cellophane containing white crystalline substance from the pocket of Mr[.] Jepie Endan, where was Barangay Chairman Rene Embrado?
A In his [sic] presence of Mr[.] Endan while conducting the search.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Who made the marking FMI on one of the sachets Mr[.] witness the one marked as exh. "B-1"?
A I personally made that sir.
Q What do the words stands [sic] for the FMI?
A My initial sir.
Q When you made those mark[s] on the sachet where was Mr[.] Jepie Endan?
A In front of me.
Q How about Barangay Chairman Embrado where was he when you made this marking on this particular sachet?
A He was also there.
Q How far was he from Mr[.] Endan and from you?
A One meter.
Q Concerning the other sachet bearing the mark FMI-1, who made this marking?
A I also made that sir.
Q When you made the marking on the other sachet [marked as] Exh. "B-2", where was Mr[.] Jepie Endan?
A In front while I was marking.
Q How about Barangay Chairman Embrado where was he when you were doing the marking?
A In front of me.
xxx xxx xxx
Q After you mark[ed] those two sachets Mr[.] witness what else did you do [in] the area?
A We do [sic] the Inventory sir. 22
This is corroborated by Barangay Chairman Embrado's testimony 23 wherein he could not specify any other witnesses present during the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized drugs. There was also no indication that a witness from the NPS or media signed the Seizure Receipt executed by the police officers.
While this Court has recognized exceptional cases when non-compliance with Section 21 may be excused, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that (1) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must at least also show that the police officers exerted earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the required witnesses. 24
It is regrettable in this case that the prosecution did not attempt to prove any justifiable ground for the police officers' failure to secure the presence of a witness from the NPS or media. There was also no explanation given of any earnest efforts to do so.
The records show that police officers conducted their surveillance of Endan and proceeded with a buy-bust operation all within a span of 2-3 hours on the night of September 10, 2014. In their haste they disregarded the mandatory requirement of securing a representative from the NPS or media as a witness and contacted only Barangay Chairman Embrado as the required elected official. Unfortunately, as this Court has steadfastly held, the requirements of Section 21 are a matter of substantive law for the benefit and protection of the accused and thus cannot be lightly brushed aside. The unjustified failure with the three-witness rule under Section 21 cannot be condoned and strongly militates against a conviction.
Consequently, Endan is acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to justify non-compliance with the three-witness rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. This resulted in the failure to establish the corpus delicti of the crime with certainty through an unbroken chain of custody.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated October 6, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01557-MIN, affirming the Consolidated Judgment dated June 29, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 40, in Criminal Case Nos. 2014-1064 and 2014-1065, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Jepie Endan y Quinquiño is hereby ACQUITTED for the failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections and the Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, for immediate implementation. Said Director General and Superintendent are ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) working days from receipt of this Resolution the action they have taken.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Also spelled as Jeppie in some parts of the records.
1.Rollo, pp. 4-15; penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Oscar V. Badelles.
2. CA rollo, pp. 34-42; penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Corazon B. Gaite-Llanderal.
3.Rollo, p. 5.
4.Rollo, pp. 34-42.
5.Id. at 41-42.
6.Id. at 4-15.
7.Id. at 15.
8.Id. at 83-85.
9.Id. at 22-23.
10.Id. at 24-28, 33-36.
11.Id. at 38.
12. CA rollo, pp. 20-33.
13.Id. at 27.
14.Id. at 29-30.
15.Id. at 54-67.
16.People v. Fulgado, supra note 21.
17.People v. Sebilleno, G.R. No. 221457, January 13, 2020.
18.Id.
19. G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019.
20. G.R. No. 234156, January 7, 2019.
21. G.R. No. 246193, February 19, 2020.
22.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
23.Id. at 7.
24.People v. Fulgado, supra note 21.