FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252573. June 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. EDWARD GALANG y REYES @ "Munding" and JENER DEBESME y MENDOZA @ "Toto,"accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252573 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. EDWARD GALANG y REYES @ "Munding" and JENER DEBESME y MENDOZA @ "Toto," accused-appellants). — This is an appeal from the October 8, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 11699 which affirmed the Decision 2 dated April 4, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court·(RTC), Branch 285, Valenzuela City, finding appellants Edward Galang y Reyes @ "Munding" (Galang) and Jener Debesme y Mendoza @ "Toto" (Debesme) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Facts
An Information was filed with the RTC of Valenzuela City, charging appellants with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as follows:
On or about November 8, 2016 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused conspiring with one another, for in consideration of ONE HUNDRED PESOS (Php100.00) consisting of one (1) piece of one hundred peso [bill] (Php100.00) with serial number TQ285106 with initials JT, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell and deliver to PO2 Junjay Tumbado who posed as buyer of one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet (marked as JJT with date and signature) containing 0.02 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), knowing it to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Another Information was filed against Galang for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
On or about November 8, 2016 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and control three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic [sachets] all containing 0.02 gram (marked as GBM, GBM-1 and GBM-2[,] respectively, all with date[s] and signature[s], of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), knowing them to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
When arraigned, appellants, assisted by counsel, pleaded not guilty to the charges against them. 5 Thereafter, trial ensued on the merits.
The prosecution witnesses testified that on November 8, 2016, at around 5:00 p.m., the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs, Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of the Valenzuela City Police Station received information from a confidential informant about the illegal drug activities of "Munding" and "Toto" in Area 4, Pinalagad, Malinta, Valenzuela City. SAID-SOTG Chief, Police Senior Inspector Milan Naz, immediately ordered the formation of a team to conduct a buy-bust operation. After coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, the team was authorized to proceed with the operation. Team leader Police Officer (PO) 3 Gary Boy Gallenero (PO3 Gallenero) assigned PO2 Junjay Tumblado (PO2 Tumblado) as the poseur-buyer, who was given a marked P100 bill to be used as the buy-bust money. The team then proceeded to the target area. At around 10:00 p.m., PO2 Tumblado and the confidential informant approached Toto. The informant talked to Toto saying, "Pre, kukuha kami, mabilisan lang." Toto asked, "Magkano naman ang i-iskorin mo pare?" to which PO2 Tumblado replied, "Halagang piso lang" as he gave Toto the P100 marked money. Toto handed Munding the money, who placed it in a coin purse. Munding pulled out from the coin purse a plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, which he gave to PO2 Tumblado. 6
Upon confirming that the sachet contained shabu, PO2 Tumblado made the pre-arranged signal. PO2 Gabby Migano (PO2 Migano) rushed to the scene to assist in the arrest of Munding and Toto. PO2 Migano recovered from the coin purse of Munding the P100 bill and the three heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance suspected to be shabu. Thereafter, PO3 Gallenero directed the police officers to call up the barangay officials and representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to witness the marking and inventory but not one responded. Since a crowd started to gather, the team decided to conduct the marking and inventory at the police station. The conduct of the inventory was witnessed by Kagawad Gloria Pascual. PO2 Tumblado brought the seized items to the Valenzuela Satellite Office, Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for laboratory examination. The plastic sachet subject of the sale, as well as the other three plastic sachets, all tested positive for shabu. 7
On the other hand, Galang testified that at around 10:00 p.m. of November 8, 2016, while he lay in bed with his wife and children at the second floor of their dwelling, he heard people barging into his neighbor's house and looking for Munding. When his neighbor was asked if he knew Edward, he replied, "Opo, diyan po sa kabilang bahay." A few minutes later, Galang's door was forcibly opened by the police officers. They searched his place but found nothing illegal. Thereafter, he was boarded on a vehicle, where he saw his co-accused Debesme. At the police station, several items, such as plastic sachets, a coin purse and money, were presented to them. He asserted that it was his first time to see these items. 8
Meanwhile, Debesme narrated that on the night of November 8, 2016, after coming from a nearby store to look for his daughter, he saw police officers forcibly opening the door of his house. When he asked the police officers who they were looking for, he was told, "Ito na ata iyong hinahanap natin." The police officers pointed a gun at him and frisked him. He was brought near Galang's house where he saw the latter being arrested. Thereafter, he and Galang were brought to the barangay hall. No barangay kagawad arrived at the barangay hall, so they were transferred to the police station. The investigator placed the plastic sachets and the money on the table and took pictures of them. Debesme insisted that no illegal items were found in his possession. 9
The RTC Decision
On April 4, 2018, the RTC rendered its Decision. 10 The dispositive portion of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
1. In Criminal [C]ase No. 2282-V-16, accused Edward Galang y Reyes and Jener Debesme y Mendoza are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and for them to pay a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand [Pesos] (PHP500,000.00) each, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
2. In Criminal Case No. 2283-V-16 accused Edward Galang y Reyes is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.
The dangerous drugs involved in the case is declared forfeited in favor of the Government and ordered to be turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper and appropriate disposition in accordance with the provisions of the law.
SO ORDERED. 11
The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers. It also found that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. However, the RTC acquitted Galang of illegal possession of dangerous drugs because there was a variance between the amount of shabu indicated in the information and the weight thereof as reflected in the Chemistry Report.
The CA Decision
On October 8, 2019, the CA rendered a Decision affirming the RTC ruling, as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated April 4, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 285, Valenzuela City is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 12
The CA was convinced that the prosecution had sufficiently proven appellants' guilt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs beyond reasonable doubt. It gave weight to the findings and conclusions of the RTC with regard to the credibility of witnesses, considering that it had the advantage of observing their demeanor as they testified. Moreover, the CA ruled that there was no break in the chain of custody over the illegal drug, thus, preserving its integrity and evidentiary value. It further explained that the absence of either a DOJ or media representative during the inventory of the seized evidence is not fatal to the case since the police officers attempted to call them twice, but no one responded.
Hence, the present appeal.
The issue is whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC Decision convicting the appellants of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds it appropriate to acquit the appellants in this case as their guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt.
In order to convict a person charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution is required to prove the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 13 The State bears not only the burden of proving these elements, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law. 14 While it is true that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors, 15 the law nevertheless also requires strict compliance with procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights are safeguarded.
To maintain the integrity of the confiscated drugs used as evidence, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 requires that: (1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It is assumed that the presence of these three persons will guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame-up," i.e., they are "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." 16
It must be emphasized that the physical inventory must be done in the presence of the aforementioned required witness, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. 17
On July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 18 was approved to amend R.A. No. 9165. The amendatory law mandates that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
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. The prosecution failed to show that earnest efforts were made by the police officers to secure the presence of the required witnesses. The police officers merely testified that their team leader, PO3 Gallenero, directed them to call up the barangay officials and representatives from the media and the DOJ but no one responded. In People v. Manabat, 19 the Court held that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension — a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. Verily, a buy-bust team normally has enough time to gather and bring with it the said witnesses.
Lastly, 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. 20 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. 21 Considering that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have thus been compromised, appellants in this case must be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated October 8, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 11699, which affirmed the Decision dated April 4, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 285, Valenzuela City, is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Appellants Edward Galang y Reyes @ "Munding" and Jener Debesme y Mendoza @ "Toto" are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections and the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, for immediate implementation. Said Director 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
1.Rollo, pp. 3-24; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 63-72; rendered by Presiding Judge Orven Kuan Ontalan.
3.Id. at 63.
4.Id. at 64.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 64-65.
7.Id. at 65-66.
8.Id. at 66-67.
9.Id. at 67-68.
10.Id. at 63-72; rendered by Presiding Judge Orven Kuan Ontalan.
11.Id. at 72.
12.Rollo, p. 21.
13.People v. Opiana, 750 Phil. 140, 147 (2015).
14. See People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441, 450-451 (2013).
15.People v. Mantalaba, 669 Phil. 461, 471 (2011).
16. See People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 372-373 (2017).
17. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, Article II, Section 21 (a).
18. AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002."
19. G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.
20.People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 143 (2017).
21. See People v. Abelarde, 824 Phil. 122, 131-132 (2018).