THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238618. October 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ERIC ESPANTO y EPONA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 6, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238618 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. ERIC ESPANTO Y EPONA, accused-appellant). — This Court resolves an Appeal from the Court of Appeals Decision 1 affirming the conviction of Eric Espanto y Epona (Espanto) for violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On October 26, 2015, separate Informations were filed against Espanto for violations of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. The Information in Criminal Case No. 15-3702 charged him with illegal sale of 0.45 gram of shabu:
On the 22nd day of October 2015, in the city of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not being authorized by law and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, zero point forty five (0.45) total gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in consideration of the amount of five hundred (Php500) pesos, in violation of the afore-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
Meanwhile, the Information in Criminal Case No. 15-3703 charged him with illegal possession of 0.50 gram of shabu:
On the 22nd day of October 2015, in the city of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and direct custody and control zero point fifty (0.50) total gram methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the aforesaid law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Upon arraignment, Espanto pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. 4 Pre-trial was then conducted where the following were stipulated:
. . . 1) SPO1 Ramon Esperanzate, the police investigator on case, prepared the investigation report as well as the requests for laboratory examination and drug test conducted on the items allegedly purchased and recovered from the accused and of his urine sample; 2) PCI May Andrea Bonifacio, the forensic chemist and an expert witness, prepared the Chemistry Report Nos. D-1154-15 and DT-1423-15 pursuant to the request for laboratory examination and drug test by SPO1 Ramon Esperanzate; and 3) Brgy. Kgd. Roderick Bien was an independent witness during the conduct of inventory of the items allegedly bought and confiscated from the accused such that he can identify his signature on the inventory form. However, these prosecution witnesses have no personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the alleged confiscation of the items from the accused. 5
During trial, 6 the prosecution presented PO2 Joemar Cahanding (PO2 Cahanding) and PO3 Renie Aseboque (PO3 Aseboque) to establish the following version of events:
On October 22, 2015, prompted by a report from a confidential informant, a team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation to seize Espanto in Barangay Cembo, Makati City. PO2 Cahanding was to act as the poseur-buyer while PO3 Aseboque would be his back-up. The team pre-marked a P500.00 bill as buy-bust money. The team then coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency prior to carrying out the buy-bust. 7
Upon the team's arrival at Barangay Cembo, PO2 Cahanding and the confidential informant proceeded to Kalamansi St., while PO3 Aseboque followed discreetly. The confidential informant identified a man standing in front of a green gate as Espanto. Thereafter, the confidential informant introduced PO2 Cahanding to Espanto, saying that the former wished to purchase P500.00 worth of shabu. After PO2 Cahanding handed over the payment, Espanto handed a plastic sachet from his right pocket containing a white crystalline substance. 8
PO2 Cahanding then signaled his team by scratching his head. Afterwards, he grabbed Espanto and introduced himself as a police officer. PO3 Aseboque rushed to assist in Espanto's arrest. They then searched Espanto's body and recovered another plastic sachet of what looked like shabu, as well as the buy-bust money. After apprising Espanto of the reason for his arrest and his constitutional rights, they took him to the barangay hall of Barangay Cembo where they conducted an inventory of the seized items in front of Barangay Kagawad Roderick Bien. Thereafter, they brought Espanto and the seized items to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for testing and examination. 9
Meanwhile the defense alleged that on the evening of October 22, 2015, Espanto was at home with his girlfriend, Mary Joy Pantang, when he answered a knock on his door and found two people outside. When he asked them what the problem was, he was handcuffed and told not to speak. He was then brought to the barangay hall of Barangay Cembo, where he allegedly saw the sachets of shabu for the first time. 10
In a January 28, 2016 Decision, 11 the Regional Trial Court found Espanto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. Regarding the illegal sale of drugs, it held that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that a buy-bust operation had been conducted, and that during the operation, 0.45 gram of shabu was purchased from Espanto. 12 As to the charge of illegal possession, the Regional Trial Court held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Espanto possessed shabu without the proper authority, license, or prescription. 13
The Regional Trial Court also held that the prosecution established the unbroken chain of custody as follows:
. . . (1) PO2 Joemar Cahanding recovered and marked the sachets containing white crystalline substance with "ERIC" and "ERIC-1"; (2) a request for laboratory examination of the seized items was signed by SPO2 Ramon Esperanzate, the investigator on case to whom the subject pieces of evidence were turned over by PO2 Cahanding after the inventory; (3) the subsequent receipt of the seized items by PO2 Joemar Cahanding from SPO2 Esperanzate for delivery to the PNP laboratory; (4) the delivery of PO2 Joemar Cahanding of the same items to the Southern Police District Crime Laboratory to PCI May Andrea Bonifacio who received the same from Cahanding; (5) Physical Science Report No. D-1154-15 was prepared by PCI May Andrea Bonifacio which confirmed that the marked items seized from the accused were shabu; and (6) the eventual presentation of the items which were brought officially to the court by PCI may (sic) Andrea Bonifacio and marked as Exhibits "Q'' and "R". 14
Further, it ruled that the buy-bust team's non-compliance with the procedure mandated by Republic Act No. 9165 does not affect the chain of custody and is not fatal to the prosecution's case, as there was no showing that the evidentiary value of the seized items had been compromised. 15
The dispositive portion of the Regional Trial Court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 15-3702, the court finds the accused, Eric Espanto y Epona, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00).
2. In Criminal Case No. 15-3703, the court finds the same accused, Eric Espanto y Epona, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.
Let the dangerous drugs subject matter of these cases be disposed of in the manner provided for by law.
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the plastic sachets containing shabu subject matter of these cases to the PDEA for said agency's appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED. 16
Espanto filed a Notice of Appeal 17 and the records of the case were elevated to the Court of Appeals. 18
In his Appellant's Brief, Espanto pointed out that the seized items were not marked immediately upon seizure, 19 and that the inventory was made not at the place of arrest and without the witnesses required by law. 20 He claimed the only justification offered by the prosecution — that several bystanders began emerging from their residences, as testified to by PO2 Cahanding — without further explanation, was not a justifiable ground for noncompliance. 21 Moreover, the testimonies regarding the appearance of the confidential informant were inconsistent. 22
In its Appellee's Brief, the People through the Office of the Solicitor General, argued that the Implementing Rules of Republic Act No. 9165 do not have specific guidelines pertaining to the marking of seized drugs. 23 PO2 Cahanding and PO3 Aseboque's Joint Affidavit of Arrest, the contents of which were stipulated upon by the defense, narrated that they seized the plastic sachets of shabu from Espanto. 24 Further, the inconsistencies in the witnesses' description of the confidential informant's appearance were minor details which do not detract from the witnesses' credibility. 25
In its Decision, 26 the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court Decision, stating that the prosecution proved the elements necessary to establish the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. It held that non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 was excusable in this case considering there were justifiable grounds, namely, the "presence of several male individuals in the area, which might compromise the integrity of the evidence," and that the seized items' integrity and evidentiary value had been preserved. 27
The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, this Court AFFIRMS the Decision dated 28 January 2016 of the RTC in Criminal Case No. 15-3702-03.
SO ORDERED. 28 (Emphasis in the original)
Thus, accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal 29 and the records of the case were elevated to this Court. 30 Thereafter, both parties manifested that they would no longer file supplemental briefs. 31
The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that accused-appellant Eric Espanto y Epona is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Innocence is presumed until guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof falls on the prosecution, and the failure to meet this burden warrants the accused's acquittal. 32
Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 penalizes, among other things, the sale of dangerous drugs. Meanwhile, Section 11 penalizes the possession of dangerous drugs. Before courts may convict an accused for these crimes, they must be certain that dangerous drugs were seized, and that the drugs submitted in evidence were the very ones seized from the accused. 33
To convince a court that the drugs presented as evidence were the same ones recovered from the accused, the prosecution must show that the procedure laid down by law were followed in the seizure and custody of the items. Pertinently, Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, provides:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
Thus, the first step that must be observed is the immediate marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized drugs. This must be done in the presence of the accused or their representative and certain witnesses, namely, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media.
In this case, the marking, physical inventory, and photographing were not immediately conducted. Moreover, when it was conducted at the barangay hall of Barangay Cembo, no representative of the National Prosecution Service or media was present.
The Court of Appeals correctly observed that noncompliance with the requirements in Section 21 does not affect the evidentiary value of the seized items when attended to by justifiable grounds. 34 However, it erred in not ruling that for these justifiable grounds to be considered, these grounds, as well as the earnest efforts of the arresting team to comply with the requirements, must be proven as facts. 35
This Court has pointed out that the requirements under the law are clearly set out, and that the duty to prove reasons for noncompliance with such requirements lies with the prosecution. They cannot be simply brushed aside or ignored. 36
In the seminal case of People v. Lim, 37 the prosecution explained that it did not conduct the inventory at the place of arrest due to the time of night as well as the heavy downpour, and that no witnesses were present because none were available despite efforts to contact them. There, this Court held that such explanation revealed how the apprehending officers did not earnestly attempt to comply with the law.
Similarly, this Court is not convinced that the buy-bust team here intended to follow the procedure. Granting for the sake of argument that the buy-bust team realized, upon accused-appellant's arrest, that the inventory had to be conducted somewhere else due to the presence of several men at the time of the arrest, this Court notes that the witnesses required to be present for the inventory were not even near the place where the arrest was made. Moreover, only one of the two required witnesses was at the barangay hall during the inventory. This belies claims of earnest effort on the part of the buy-bust team to comply with the law. 38
Thus, due to the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, accused-appellant must be acquitted of the charges for illegal sale and possession of drugs.
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08120 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Eric Espanto y Epona is hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes charged for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution, the action taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
SO ORDERED." (Gaerlan, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated August 25, 2021)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 2-11. The September 25, 2017 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08120 was penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Pablito A. Perez of the Fourteenth Division of the Court of Appeals, Manila.
2. CA rollo, p. 10.
3. Id. at 11.
4. Id. at 13.
5. Id. at 68.
6. Id. at 13.
7. Id. at 69.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id. at 69-70.
11. Id. at 67-74. The Decision in Crim. Case Nos. 15-3702 to 15-3703 was penned by Presiding Judge Edgardo M. Caldona of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 65.
12. Id. at 15.
13. Id. at 71.
14. Id. at 72.
15. Id. at 72.
16. Id. at 18-19.
17. Id. at 20.
18. Id. at 21.
19. Id. at 53.
20. Id. at 55.
21. Id. at 56.
22. Id. at 59.
23. Id. at 90.
24. Id. at 90-91.
25. Id. at 93-94.
26. Rollo, pp. 2-11.
27. Id. at 7.
28. Id. at 10.
29. Id. at 12.
30. Id. at 1.
31. Id. at 21-24 and 25-28.
32. People v. Royal, G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65005 [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
33. People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division] citing People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010) [Per J. Carpio-Morales, First Division].
34. Rollo, p. 7.
35. People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416 (2018) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
36. People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042 (2018) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
37. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64400> [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
38. People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 225325, August 28, 2019, <http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65497> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].