FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252022. June 30, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MARVIN ESUMBRA y OROSCO AND JESSICA SEVILLANO y BONGALBAL, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 30, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252022 (People of the Philippines,Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Marvin EsumbrayOrosco and Jessica SevillanoyBongalbal,Accused-Appellants). — This is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 07 November 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10918, affirming the Joint Decision 2 dated 26 February 2018 of Branch 11, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, in Criminal Case Nos. 12117 & 12118. HTcADC
Antecedents
Accused-appellant Marvin Esumbra y Orosco (Esumbra) was indicted for violation of Section 11 3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 in Criminal Case No. 12117 as follows —
That on or about the 15th day of April 2012, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride popularly known as shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.047 gram, to the damage and prejudice of the public.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
In Criminal Case No. 12118, Esumbra was charged with accused-appellant Jessica Sevillano y Bongalbal (Sevillano) for violation of Section 5 6 of RA 9165 in an Information which reads as follows:
That on or about the 15th day of April 2012, in the City of Legazpi, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and mutually helping each other for a common purpose, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride popularly known as shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.047 gram and marked as RDE "BB" 4-15-12, in consideration of one (1) Five Hundred (P500.00) Pesos bill bearing serial number PV075314 (pre-marked with initials RDE), without authority of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
When arraigned, both Esumbra and Sevillano (collectively referred to as "accused-appellants") entered pleas of "not guilty" to the charges against them. At the preliminary conference, the prosecution and defense agreed to the following stipulations of fact and admissions: (1) the identity of all the accused as the same persons arraigned and charged in the Information in both criminal cases; and (2) that accused-appellants are depicted in the pictures particularly in Exhibit N-2. 8
Version of the Prosecution
The following were established by the prosecution's evidence: At around 7:30 p.m. of 15 April 2012, operatives of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and the Legaspi City Police Station received a tip from a confidential informant (CI) about Esumbra's illegal activities in Barangay San Roque. Upon verification, it was discovered that Esumbra was among the list of drug personalities being monitored by the PDEA.
A team was thereafter formed for purposes of conducting a buy-bust operation against Esumbra. Agent Rowell D. Eduarte (Agent Eduarte) was designated to act as poseur-buyer, with Agent Jonathan Ivan L. Revilla (Agent Revilla) as arresting officer and the rest of the team (which includes Arnel E. Estrellado, Josephine Esteban and intelligence operatives of the Legaspi City Police Station headed by PSI Steve Dela Rosa) serving as back-up.
Agent Estrellado gave Agent Eduarte a five hundred peso (P500.00) bill which the latter marked with his initials "RBE." It was also agreed that Agent Eduarte will put on his baseball cap as a signal of the consummation of the sale of illegal drugs. The CI initially arranged to meet with Esumbra at Rizal Park across Ibayon Elementary School by 10:00 p.m. The transaction, however, did not immediately push through as Esumbra (who arrived there with Sevillano) initially wanted to take the money first and give the item later at the Evangelical Church in Barangay San Roque. When the CI refused and insisted on a simultaneous exchange, accused-appellants agreed to meet with them again after an hour at the Evangelical Church.
At around 10:45p.m., the buy-bust team went to the new target area to wait for Esumbra who arrived with Sevillano approximately forty minutes later. Sevillano thereafter handed one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to Agent Eduarte. In exchange, Agent Eduarte gave her the marked P500.00 bill which she, in turn, gave to Esumbra.
After putting on his baseball cap to inform the rest of the team that the transaction has been consummated, Agent Eduarte drew his service pistol, introduced himself as a PDEA agent, and declared an arrest. Upon seeing the signal, Agent Revilla rushed to the target area and proceeded to arrest accused-appellants.
Shortly thereafter, Barangay Chairman Joselito Martinez and Kagawad Ernesto Ayala arrived. In their presence, Agent Eduarte marked the plastic sachet of suspected shabu he bought from accused-appellants with "RBE BB 4-15-12." Agent Revilla also conducted a body search on Esumbra while Agent Esteban frisked Sevillano. The marked money and another heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was recovered from Esumbra. Agent Revilla marked the plastic sachet confiscated from Esumbra with "JIR 4/15/12." The seized items were also photographed at the crime scene. aScITE
Accused-appellants were thereafter brought to the Legaspi City Police Station where the inventory of the seized items was conducted. Jesus Arsenio Aragon (Aragon), as representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Vince Villar (Villar) as media representative, and elected barangay officials Chairman Martinez and Kagawad Ayala, witnessed the inventory and signed the inventory receipt. Pictures were likewise taken during said inventory.
Meanwhile, Agent Estrellado prepared the requests for laboratory examination of the seized items and a letter to the medical director of Bicol Regional Training and Teaching Hospital for the conduct of medical examination on the persons of accused-appellants.
Agent Eduarte and Agent Revilla delivered the plastic sachet of seized drugs marked as "RBE 4-15-12" and "JIR 4/15/12" to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory in Legaspi City for qualitative examination. These were received by PO3 Rogelio Luneza, Jr. (PO3 Luneza) who, after receiving and signing on the request forms and recording them in the case logbook, placed the items in separate brown envelopes and turned them over to forensic chemist PSI Wilfredo Pabustan, Jr. (PSI Pabustan) for conduct of qualitative examination.
After his conduct of laboratory analysis, PSI Pabustan prepared Chemistry Reports No. D-47-2012 and D-48-2012 confirming that the submitted specimens yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. He thereafter sealed each of the specimens with masking tape and inked the following markings thereon: (1) "SGD and A D-47-2012 16 APR 12 WIP"; and (2) "SGD and A D-48-2012 16 APRE 12 WIP." PSI Pabustan placed these in bigger plastic sachets which he again sealed with masking tape, marked them with "SGD and A D-47-2012 16 APR 12 WIP" and "SGD and A D-48-2012 16 APRE 12 WIP," prior to turn over to the evidence custodian for safekeeping.
Version of the defense
For their part, accused-appellants denied all accusations made against them and claim the defenses of denial and frameup. Their version of the events are as follows: At the time and date in question, they were on their way home after attending mass at the St. Raphael Church in Legaspi City when they were accosted by two (2) men, later identified to be Agents Revilla and Eduarte. Agent Revilla planted a bill in Esumbra's pocket and forced accused-appellants to board a grey vehicle. There, the PDEA agents took Esumbra's cellphone and announced that they found shabu in his pocket. Accused-appellants claim that PDEA agents brought them to Kapuntukan Hill and Silverscreen near Rizal Park, all the while asking for names in exchange for their freedom. Esumbra maintained that he was unable to give any names as he had no idea what the PDEA agents were talking about. Subsequently, accused-appellants were brought to a vacant lot in Barangay San Roque where they were shocked to see a yellow police line bordering the area with pieces of evidence, including shabu, scattered about. There, Esumbra was handcuffed while Agent Esteban frisked Sevillano. Photographs were also taken and barangay officials arrived. Afterwards, accused-appellants were taken to the Community Precinct Action Center (CPAC), then to the PDEA office, until they were finally detained at the Legaspi City Jail.
The defense presented the testimony of one Ronald Roy Pacardo (Pacardo) to corroborate their narration of what happened. Pacardo, a detention prisoner at Legaspi City Jail, testified that he, as a trustee, accompanied the PDEA agents who tasked him to drive accused-appellants' motorcycle during the alleged buy-bust operation on 15 April 2012. According to Pacardo, Esumbra did not have shabu in his possession when he boarded the vehicle on their way to San Roque; the two (2) plastic sachets containing shabu allegedly seized from Esumbra were only planted by the PDEA agents in the vacant lot in Barangay San Roque upon accused-appellants' arrival thereat.
Ruling of the RTC
On 26 February 2018, the RTC rendered a Joint Decision finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.
In Criminal Case No. 12117, the RTC ruled that Esumbra was guilty of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and imposed upon him the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years of prision mayor as minimum and sixteen (16) years of reclusiontemporal as maximum, and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
Meanwhile, in Criminal Case No. 12118, the RTC convicted Esumbra and Sevillano of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and sentenced them to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
Undaunted, accused-appellants interposed an appeal with the CA contending, inter alia, that the apprehending officers failed to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 and establish an unbroken chain in the custody of the seized drug items.
Ruling of the CA
The CA denied this appeal in its assailed Decision dated 07 November 2019. While the RTC imposed the correct penalty upon Esumbra in Criminal Case No. 12117, being within the range of the penalty prescribed by Section 11, the CA nevertheless deemed it appropriate to correct the nomenclature of the penalty imposed to conform with the denomination of the penalty under RA 9165. Thus, the dispositive portion of the CA's Decision reads, to wit: HEITAD
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED.
Accordingly, the assailed Joint Decision dated 26 February 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Legaspi City, in Criminal Cases No. 12117 and 12118, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. As modified, appellant Marvin Esumbra y Orosco is sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years as minimum to sixteen (16) years as maximum for having been found guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. 12117.
The rest of the appealed Joint Decision STANDS.
SO ORDERED. 9
Hence, the present recourse. On 16 November 2020, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation and Motion 10 on behalf of the People stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief because all of its contentions have been amplified in full in its Appellee's Brief filed before the CA. The Court, on 07 October 2020, 11 noted the undated supplemental brief earlier filed by accused-appellants.
Issue
The Court now resolves whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellants' conviction.
Ruling of the Court
We GRANT the appeal. Accused-appellants are ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellants are charged with the crimes of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, respectively. To convict an accused for the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the concurrence of the following elements: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. On the other hand, for a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs to prosper, the following must be established: (a) accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs. 12 In both cases, the corpus delicti or illicit drugs must be presented in court as evidence. 13
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure to be followed by police officers in the handling of seized drugs to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. 14 This Section provides:
SEC. 1. 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;
(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 under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the 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 on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours; [Emphasis supplied]
xxx xxx xxx
Thus, under Section 21, the apprehending team is mandated, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to conduct a physical inventory of, and photograph, the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: a representative from the media and the DOJ and any elected public official. The requirement of the presence of these witnesses is intended to "remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 15
Here, there is doubt on the integrity of the seized items due to the alleged non-compliance by the arresting officers with Section 21. The arresting officers failed to conduct the inventory of the sold drugs and photograph the same immediatelyupon arrest. The inventory was admittedly conducted at the Legaspi City Police Station, instead of at the Evangelical Church at Barangay San Roque where accused-appellants were arrested. Furthermore, only Barangay Chairman Martinez and Barangay Kagawad Ayala were present at the place of arrest. Although media representative Villar and DOJ representative Aragon were at the police station during the conduct of the inventory, neither were present when the search was conducted on accused-appellants immediately after apprehension.
In Lescano v. People, 16 we stressed that the matters spelled out in Section 21 are imperative: "Even the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actually comply with the requirements of Section 21 does not suffice." 17 The presence of the required witnesses at the time of arrest, in particular, are important as they would be able to attest that the buy-bust operation, seizure and inventory of the seized drugs were done accordingly. 18 ATICcS
While a saving clause in the IRR of RA 9165 allows for some deviation from established protocol, there must be a showing that justifiable grounds exist and that "the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved." 19 The justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 20 In this case, no explanation appears on the records which sufficiently justifies the deviation from the procedure required under the law.
Thus, the prosecution's notable efforts notwithstanding, reasonable doubt persists as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs. This leaves us with no choice but to acquit accused-appellants. 21
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 07 November 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 10918, finding accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants MARVIN ESUMBRA yOROSCO and JESSICASEVILLANOyBONGALBAL are hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. They are ORDERED IMMEDIATELYRELEASED from detention, unless they are detained for any other lawful cause.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections and the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women are DIRECTED to implement this Resolution and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
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. 3-21; penned by CA Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Gabriel T. Robeniol of the Special Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2. CA Rollo, pp. 68-80; penned by RTC Presiding Judge Ignacio N. Almodovar, Jr.
3. Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
4. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
5. CA rollo, p. 68.
6. Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
7. CA Rollo, p. 68.
8.Id. at 69.
9.Rollo, p. 66.
10.Id. at 88-90.
11.Id. at 101.
12.Id. at 101.
13.Peoplev. Ismael, G.R. No. 208093, 20 February 2017, 818 SCRA 122, 132, [Per J. Del Castillo] citing Reyes v. CA, 686 Phil. 137 (2012).
14.Ramos v. People, G.R. No. 233572, 30 July 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
15.People v. Alfredo Doctolero, Jr., G.R. No. 243940, 20 August 2019.
16. G.R. No. 214490, 13 January 2016, 778 Phil. 460 [Per J. Leonen].
17.Lescano v.People, supra.
18.People v. Caranto, G.R. No. 217668, 20 February 2019 [Per J. Caguioa] citing People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, 18 April 2018.
19.People v. Caringal, G.R. No. 236585, 05 December 2019 [Notice].
20.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, 31 January 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe] citing People v.De Guzman, G.R. No. 186498, 26 March 2010, 630 Phil. 637 (2010).
21.People v. Miranda, supra.