FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248009. July 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JULIUS FEDERICO y SANTOS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 6, 2021which reads as follows: CAIHTE
"G.R. No. 248009 (People of the Philippines v. Julius Federico y Santos).
This Appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the March 29, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 10484. The CA affirmed the November 10, 2017 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 26 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 11543, finding Julius Federico y Santos (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
In an Information 4 dated June 27, 2016, accused-appellant was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
That on or about the 26th day of June 2016, in the City of San Fernando, La Union, Philippines[,] and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without first securing the necessary permit, license or authority from the proper government agency did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, deliver and sell One (1) piece of [heat-sealed] transparent plastic [sachet] containing methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as "shabu" with a net weight of Zero Point ONE SIX NINE ZERO (0.1690) [gram] to PO2 Francisca Munar, who posed as [poseur-buyer], and in consideration of said shabu, used marked money, consisting of two (2) pieces genuine Five Hundred peso bills with serial numbers GD587316 and GB898112.
[CONTRARY TO LAW.] 5
During his arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the charge. Thus, trial on the merits ensued. 6
Evidence for the Prosecution
The prosecution presented as witnesses Police Senior Inspector Roanalaine Baligod (PS/Insp. Baligod), Police Officer III Jose Bucasas (PO3 Bucasas), Police Officer II Francisca Munar (PO2 Munar), Barangay Kagawad Philip Cañeda (Kagawad Cañeda), Police Officer I Jerry Orfano (POI Orfano), and Police Officer III John Baniaga (PO3 Baniaga). 7
On June 26, 2016, at around 2:50 p.m., a confidential informant (CI) arrived at the San Fernando City Police Station and reported that a certain Julius Federico alias "Batas," later on identified as accused-appellant, was engaged in illegal drug activities. PO2 Munar, the police officer on duty at that time, immediately checked the Barangay Anti-Drugs Abuse Council List and found accused-appellant's name in said list. PO2 Munar thus instructed the CI to call accused-appellant and tell him of a prospective buyer of shabu. During the call to accused-appellant, and after the CI told him of an interested buyer of shabu, the cellphone was handed to PO2 Munar, who then ordered shabu worth P1,000.00. Accused-appellant agreed to meet them that afternoon, at around 4:00 p.m. at Y-Inn Foods. 8
Police Senior Inspector Eddie Suyat (PSI Suyat) formed a team for the buy-bust operation. The team was composed of PO2 Munar as the poseur-buyer, POI Orfano as the backup officer, and other police officers as perimeter security. The team agreed that the pre-arranged signal would be when PO2 Munar opened her umbrella. 9
At around 3:50 p.m., the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. PO2 Munar and the CI approached Y-Inn Foods and saw accused-appellant. After being introduced to accused-appellant, PO2 Munar asked him about the "item." Accused-appellant then gave PO2 Munar one (1) small transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, which she placed inside her pocket while simultaneously giving accused-appellant the marked money. While the CI talked to accused-appellant, PO2 Munar executed the pre-arranged signal. The buy-bust team approached PO2 Munar and assisted her in arresting accused-appellant. 10
The team conducted a body search which yielded the marked money used as payment in the transaction. 11 Meanwhile, PSI Suyat coordinated with Kagawad Cañeda and media representative Raul Supsupen (Supsupen) in order for them to witness the marking and inventory of the seized items. 12 Upon their arrival, and while still at the crime scene, PO2 Munar marked and conducted the inventory of the seized items in the presence of accused-appellant, Kagawad Cañeda, and Supsupen, while POI Orfano took photographs. 13
After the inventory, accused-appellant was brought to the City Health Office for medical examination and then to the San Fernando City Police Station. PO2 Munar prepared the request for laboratory examination and delivered the same, together with the seized evidence, to the Philippine National Police Regional Crime Laboratory Office. PO3 Baniaga received the request and the seized items from PO2 Munar and turned these over to PS/Insp. Baligod for forensic examination. In PS/Insp. Baligod's Chemistry Report No. D-268-2016, she reported that the specimen brought by PO2 Munar tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 14 PS/Insp. Baligod placed her own markings on the plastic sachet and then put it inside an envelope. She sealed the envelope with masking tape, affixed her signature, and submitted it to PO3 Bucasas, the evidence custodian, for safekeeping. 15 PO3 Bucasas then immediately placed the sealed envelope, together with the report prepared by PS/Insp. Baligod, in a cabinet in the evidence room, which was secured by a padlock at all times. 16 According to PO3 Bucasas, although the Regional Chief and the forensic chemist also had keys to the evidence room, said officers may only access the room in his presence. 17 By virtue of the subpoena he received, PO3 Bucasas brought to court a sealed envelope with PS/Insp. Baligod's markings thereon; and only saw the contents of the sealed envelope when he submitted it to the court for identification. 18
Evidence for the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellant as its sole witness who denied the accusations and claimed that he was framed by the police officers. He testified that on June 26, 2016, at around 2:00 p.m., he was at a carwash in Monumento for a job application when two (2) police officers approached him and asked if he had been recently released from jail. When accused-appellant answered in the affirmative, the police officers invited him to the police station. He resisted, but was handcuffed and forced to board their van. They brought accused-appellant to the Canaoay Police Station and asked him if he was engaged in the sale of drugs. When accused-appellant denied it, PO2 Munar brought out a plastic sachet containing a white substance and two (2) pieces of P500.00-bills. She ordered accused-appellant to sign a piece of paper but the latter refused. Thereafter, the police officers brought accused-appellant back to Y-Inn Foods. A barangay captain and a media representative arrived thereat and signed the piece of paper. Afterwards, the police officers brought accused-appellant back to the police station where he was detained. 19
The RTC Ruling
In its November 10, 2017 Decision, 20 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of the offense charged. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of [violation] of Section 5[,] Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 for Sale of Dangerous Drugs and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
Meantime, the subject item [is hereby] forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with the law.
SO ORDERED. 21
The RTC gave credence to the testimony of PO2 Munar that a buy-bust operation occurred and that accused-appellant sold her a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, which later on tested positive for the presence of shabu. The RTC also noted PO2 Munar's positive identification of accused-appellant as the seller of the shabu. It also ruled that the apprehending officers successfully preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence through the markings made by PO2 Munar and the inventory conducted by the buy-bust team. The RTC observed that PO2 Munar had uninterrupted possession of the seized evidence from its confiscation until its delivery to the crime laboratory by PO2 Munar herself. 22
Accused-appellant thereafter appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its March 29, 2019 Decision, 23 the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for the offense charged, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED.
The November 10, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 26, San Fernando, La Union in Crim. Case No. 11543, convicting accused-appellant Julius Federico y Santos for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 24
In upholding appellant's conviction, the CA affirmed the finding of the RTC that the requisites for illegal sale of shabu were duly proven by the prosecution through the testimony of PO2 Munar. The CA held that there were no gaps in the chain of custody and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence were preserved by the apprehending officers. The CA noted that accused-appellant did not raise before the RTC the alleged noncompliance by the apprehending officers with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. As to the accused-appellant's defense of frame-up, the CA ruled that it could not prevail over the positive assertions of the prosecution witnesses. 25
Hence, this appeal.
Assignment of Errors
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SEC. 5, ART. II OF R.A. NO. 9165 DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS THEREOF.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE CORPUS DELICTI DUE TO IRREGULARITY IN THE HANDLING OF PLASTIC SACHET WITH PURPORTED SHABU; GAPS IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY THEREOF, AND NONCOMPLIANCE WITH SEC. 21 OF R.A. NO. 9165. 26
In a September 11, 2019 Resolution, 27 this Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. Accused-appellant filed his Manifestation (in Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 28 dated January 3, 2020, and manifested that he was adopting his Brief for the Accused-Appellant 29 dated September 4, 2018, as his supplemental brief. The appellee, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), averred in its Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 30 dated December 11, 2019, that it would no longer file a supplemental brief as it had exhaustively discussed the issues of the case in its Brief for the Appellee 31 dated January 14, 2019.
Accused-appellant asserted that there was no valid buy-bust operation due to lack of coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). There were also inconsistencies in PO2 Munar's testimony which negate the conduct of the buy-bust operation. Accused-appellant also asserts that there were lapses in the handling of the seized evidence that raise doubts as to its integrity and evidentiary value. Specifically, PO2 Munar's act of placing the seized evidence in her pocket for safekeeping seriously compromised its integrity and evidentiary value. 32
The OSG, on the other hand, contends that the prosecution adequately established the chain of custody of the seized evidence. Moreover, accused-appellant failed to raise before the RTC the issue on noncompliance with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. Thus, accused-appellant may no longer question the manner by which the police officers took custody of the seized evidence. Nonetheless, accused-appellant's claims deserve scant consideration since he failed to overcome the presumption of regularity and to substantiate his defense of denial and frame-up. 33
The Court's Ruling
The appeal has merit considering the buy-bust team's failure to strictly follow the mandate of Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640 which, in turn, compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence.
In order to be convicted of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, which refers to illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (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. 34 In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, proving that the transaction actually took place is essential, coupled with the presentation before the court of the corpus delicti. 35 Since the confiscated drug constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense, it is essential that its identity and integrity must be established with moral certainty. 36
To remove doubts in the custody and handling of the seized illicit drugs, police or PDEA officers must strictly comply with Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640:
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 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: 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 [with] 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.
The witnesses enumerated under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 must be present during the seizure and confiscation of the contraband in order to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity. 37 Considering that a buy-bust operation is a planned activity, the buy-bust team can easily comply with the witness requirement under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. 38 Furthermore, the phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized drugs must be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. 39 Hence, this also means that the three (3) required witnesses must be physically present at the time of arrest, as it is the very occurrence that they must witness in order to unequivocally affirm that the illegal drugs seized undoubtedly came from the accused and to guarantee the integrity of the seized illicit drugs.
In this case, PO2 Munar testified that it was only after accused-appellant's arrest that PSI Suyat coordinated with Kagawad Cañeda and Supsupen. The witnesses thus arrived at the place of arrest to merely witness the marking of the seized evidence and the conduct of the inventory. They were not, however, witnesses to the seizure of the sachet and to appellant's apprehension which would have insulated the proceedings to the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence that had tainted buy-bust operations. 40
The required presence of the insulating witnesses cannot be taken lightly. In Pimentel v. People, 41 the Court acquitted the petitioner therein when the prosecution failed to explain his absence in the photographs and the lack of his signature in the Certificate of Inventory. The Court held that the witnesses, who were only present during the conduct of the inventory, could have easily explained petitioner's absence in the photographs had they witnessed the actual buy-bust operation.
The Court is well aware that strict compliance with the requirements of Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 is not always possible as actual ground conditions may render its compliance impractical. 42 Thus, the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 and the amendment, under R.A. No. 10640, provides for an exception when substantial compliance is excusable, such that the prosecution must show a justifiable ground for noncompliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. 43 Without any justifiable explanation, which must be proven as a fact, the evidence of the corpus delicti becomes unreliable and the accused's acquittal is in order. 44
In the present case, the prosecution presented no justifiable ground for the absence of the mandatory insulating witnesses during the actual buy-bust operation. In fact, the prosecution did not show that the police officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the attendance of the required witnesses at the time of accused-appellant's apprehension despite having sufficient time to prepare for the operation. 45
Considering the foregoing, the Court is constrained to rule that the integrity and evidentiary value of the sachet of shabu allegedly seized from accused-appellant have been compromised, which perforce warrants accused-appellant's acquittal.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The March 29, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10484, which affirmed the November 10, 2017 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, La Union, Branch 26, in Criminal Case No. 11543, finding Julius Federico y·Santos guilty of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Julius Federico y Santos is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Let Entry of Judgment be issued immediately. DETACa
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE the accused-appellant from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM this Court of his action hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED." Zalameda, J., no part; Rosario, J., designated Additional Member per Raffle dated May 26, 2021.
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. 22-25.
2. CA rollo, pp. 98-116; penned by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of this Court), concurring.
3.Id. at 49-53; penned by Judge Caroline S. Rojas Jaucian.
4.Rollo, p. 4.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7. Also referred to as "POI John Baniaga" in some parts of the rollo.
8.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
9.Id. at 5.
10.Id. at 6.
11.Id.
12. TSN dated September 5, 2017, pp. 7-8.
13.Rollo, p. 6.
14.Id. at 7-8.
15. TSN dated June 20, 2017, p. 5.
16.Id.
17. TSN dated March 28, 2017, pp. 6-8.
18.Id. at 6.
19.Rollo, pp. 8-9.
20. CA rollo, pp. 49-53.
21.Id. at 53.
22.Id. at 51-53.
23.Rollo, pp. 3-21.
24.Id. at 20-21.
25.Id. at 14-20.
26.Id. at 10.
27.Id. at 29-30.
28.Id. at 32-34.
29. CA rollo, pp. 30-47.
30.Rollo, pp. 37-39.
31. CA rollo, pp. 59-77.
32.Id. at 36-46.
33.Id. at 66-75.
34.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
35. See People v. Dela Cruz, 666 Phil. 593, 605-606 (2011).
36. See People v. Deliña, G.R. No. 243578, June 30, 2020.
37.People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 761-762 (2014).
38.Tañamor v. People, G.R. No. 228132, March 11, 2020.
39.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 405 (2018).
40. See People v. Mendoza, supra note 37, at 761-762.
41. G.R. No. 239772, January 29, 2020.
42.People v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 241950, April 10, 2019, 901 SCRA 600, 616 (2019).
43.Id. at 616-617.
44.People v. Escaran, G.R. No. 212170, June 19, 2019.
45.People v. Patacsil, 838 Phil. 320, 334 (2018).