FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 246198. July 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RODEL GUERRERO y AQUINO, ROWELL RAGUINDIN y AQUINO AND SABAS RAGUINDIN y AQUINO, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 246198 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appelleev. Rodel Guerrero y Aquino, Rowell Raguindin y Aquino and Sabas Raguindin y Aquino, Accused-Appellants.) — In this appeal, accused-appellants Rodel Guerrero (Rodel), Rowell Raguindin (Rowell) and Sabas Raguindin (Sabas) seek to reverse and set aside the Decision dated 8 November 2017 1 promulgated by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08462 affirming the Decision dated 20 April 2016 of Branch 72, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Narvacan, Ilocos Sur.
Antecedents
Accused-appellants were charged in separate Informations for violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12 of Republic Act (RA) 9165, hence:
Criminal Case No. 3644-N against Rodel:
That on or about the 29th day of July 2013, in the Municipality of Sta. Maria, Province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to IO1 Chester Oandasan, who acted as poseur buyer, one small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.409 gram (specimen-1) of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 3645-N against Rodel, Sabas and Rowell:
That on or about the 29th day of July, 2013, in the Municipality of Sta. Maria, Province of Ilocos, Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, without having been authorized by law did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession, control and custody (10) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets (specimen B1-B10), three (3) big heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets (specimen C1-C3), three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets (specimen D1-D3), with a total weight of 1.1910 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 3646-N against Rodel, Sabas and Rowell:
That on or about the 29th day of July, 2013, in the Municipality of Sta. Maria, Province of Ilocos, Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, conspiring and confederating together and mutually helping one another, without having been authorized by law did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession, control and custody, one (1) rolled aluminum foil (EXH E5 CPO 7-29-13 with signature), two (2) used aluminum foils (EXH E-8 CPO 7-29-13 with signature), two (2) plastic straws (EXH E-4 CPO 7-29-13 with signature), ten (10) empty plastic sachets, used for repacking (E-3 CPO 7-29-13) with signature), four (4) disposable lighters colored dark blue, light blue, red and white (EXH E-1 CPO 7-29-13 with signature) and two (2) stainless scissors (EXH E-2 CPO 7-29-13), fit for using and sniffing dangerous drugs.
Contrary to law. 2
The factual antecedents of the case, as summarized by the CA, are as follows:
For the prosecution, IO1 Chester Oandasan of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency Ilocos Sur Special Enforcement Team (PDEA ISSET) testified that on July 29, 2013, a Confidential Informant (CI) reported that a certain Rodel Guerrero is selling illegal drugs in Barangay Baliw-Laud, Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur. IO1 Oandasan relayed the information to his team leader IO3 Darnel Bacate and a buy bust team was formed, consisting of IO1 Oandasan as poseur-buyer with agents Francis Lomas-e, Elaine Grace Ordoño and Louie Fernandes as back-ups. Around 8:00 AM, the PDEA team proceeded to the police station in Sta. Maria where they were joined by SPO3 Joel Dasargo and SPO1 Michael Criste who were designated as arresting officers. During the briefing, a P1,000.00 bill with serial number EQ091173 and initials CPO was given to IO1 Oandasan as buy bust money. The team agreed that IO1 Oandasan would ring SPO3 Dasargo's cellphone as a signal that the transaction was consummated.
Around 10:00 AM that day, the CI called Rodel and they agreed to meet at a waiting shed located at a junction before the road going to a church along the national highway in Barangay Baliw-Laud. IO1 Oandasan and the CI went to the waiting shed while the rest of the team secretly followed them in a gray Crosswind, and positioned themselves about 50 meters away. After a minute, Rodel arrived on a green Racal motorcycle. The CI introduced IO1 Oandasan as an interested buyer. Rodel asked IO1 Oandasan how much he was going to buy and he answered P1,000.00. Rodel told them to follow him to a friend's house where the shabu was being repacked.
Rodel, IO1 Oandasan and the CI walked about a hundred meters and entered a semi-concrete bungalow. Inside the house, IO1 Oandasan noticed two men sitting on a foam mattress on the floor. Several small plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were scattered on the mattress. The two men were repacking the white substance into smaller sachets. Rodel joined the two on the floor and started repacking. He also told IO1 Oandasan to choose from the smaller sachets. Rodel handed one of the sachets to IO1 Oandasan who, in turn, handed the P1,000.00 bill to Rodel. IO1 Oandasan placed the sachet in his pocket and surreptitiously dialed his cellphone to call SPO3 Dasargo. IO1 Oandasan and the CI stood quietly while the three accused continued repacking. After around 20 seconds, the arresting officers entered from the open door. They introduced themselves as PDEA and PNP officers and ordered the three accused to drop on the floor. The officers arrested the men, frisked them and searched the house. They recovered the buy bust money from Rodel's pocket. They also recovered sachets of shabu and drug paraphernalia which IO1 Oandasan, using a table in the house, marked and inventoried as follows:
EXH A — one heat-sealed sachet believed to contain shabu and sold to IO1 Oandasan by Rodel
EXH B1 to B10 — ten small heat-sealed sachets believed to contain shabu
EXH C1 to C3 — three big heat-sealed sachets believed to contain shabu
EXH D1 to D3 — three plastic sachets believed to have shabu residue
EXH E-1 — four lighters colored blue, white and red
EXH E-2 — two stainless scissors
EXH E-3 — ten empty plastic sachets used for repacking
EXH E-4 — two plastic straws
EXH E-5 — one rolled aluminum foil
Each of the items seized were additionally marked with IO1 Oandasan's initials "CPO", his signature and the date. The inventory was witnessed by media representative Geoffrey Barredo, DOJ representative Glenn Tulas and Barangay Kagawad Gerry Cabanilla. Photographs were taken by Agent Ordoño. The seized items remained in IO1 Oandasan's custody until he brought the 17 sachets to Forensic Chemist Lei-Yen Valdez Ganat at the Regional Crime Laboratory. The paraphernalia were turned over to the Prosecutor's Office.
SPO3 Joel Dasargo corroborated IO1 Oandasan's testimony regarding the buy bust operation. He and the rest of the buy bust team positioned themselves along the national highway where they could monitor the transaction between IO1 Oandasan and Rodel. They followed Rodel, IO1 Oandasan and the CI to the house and waited until his cellphone rang, which was the pre-arranged signal. He and the rest of the team entered through the cloth-covered doorway. He saw Sabas and Rowell repacking shabu. IO1 Oandasan was holding a sachet for them while the CI was watching. They confiscated plastic sachets of shabu and paraphernalia. IO1 Oandasan took custody of the seized items. Subsequently, they brought the three accused to the Police Station in Sta. Maria.
Forensic Chemist Lei Yen Valdez Ganat testified that she received 17 heat sealed transparent plastic sachets from IO1 Oandasan on July 20, 2013. She started conducting examinations at 3:35 PM and weighed the plastic sachets as follows: EXH A has a weight of 0.0409 gram; EXH B1 to B3 has a total weight of 0.2773; EXH C1 to C3 has a total weight of 0.9137 gram. The contents of these sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The same with the residues in EXH D1 to D3. She finished the examination around 10:00 PM and executed Chemistry Report No. PDEARO1-DD013-0017.
Ganat further testified that after the examination, she sealed the 17 sachets with masking tape and marked them with the Chemistry Report Number, her initials, signature and date. She then placed all the items in a self-sealing plastic bag, sealed it again with a masking tape, then placed the bag inside a steel cabinet in the evidence room. She took out the plastic bag at 6:30 AM on February 11, 2014 for presentation in court.
During Ganat's initial testimony, the plastic bag containing the sachets of shabu was opened in court. Ganat identified EXH A, B1 to B9, C1 to C3 and D1 to D3. EXH B10, however, was missing. Upon clarification by the trial court, Ganat promised to look for the missing specimen. When Ganat was recalled to the witness stand, she presented EXH B10 which was sealed with a masking tape with the marking "PDEA RO1-EEO1-0017 LV Ganat." According to Ganat, she found EXH B10 in the steel cabinet after she took out the other evidence from other cases, also composed of methamphetamine hydrochloride, from the steel cabinet.
For the defense, Sabas testified that he and his wife Shirley were inside the house on July 29, 2013. Sabas was resting in his room around 10:30 AM when his son Rowell knocked on his door and told him that he had a visitor. The visitor was his friend Rodel, who came to collect the motorcycle that he parked in front of Sabas' house the day before. While he and Rodel were talking in the living room, the police arrived and told them to lie down. Sabas, Rodel and Rowell were handcuffed and frisked. The PDEA allegedly found shabu and drug paraphernalia, although they had no search warrant or witnesses from the media, DOJ or the barangay. Sabas did not know that Rodel was selling shabu. He does not know the police officers and does not have any quarrel with them.
Rowell corroborated his father's testimony regarding the search and their arrest. Rowell denied knowing Rodel and only met him on July 29, 2013 when Rodel visited Sabas.
Rodel testified that he was in Dalit, Pilar, Abra on July 28, 2013. He rode his motorcycle and left Abra around 9:00, and reached Sta. Maria, Ilocos Sur around 10:00 or 11:00 AM. He bought items which he sent to Abra through a passenger jeepney. At past noon, he went to Sabas' house to park his motorcycle since he was going to Manila. He boarded a bus to Manila around 4:00 to 5:00 PM. He reached Manila around 11:00 to 12:00 midnight but did not stay long since his purpose for going there was postponed. He boarded a Partas bus at 2:30 AM and reached Ilocos Sur around 9:00 AM of July 29, 2013. He kept the bus tickets for both trips. He went to a restaurant to eat, then proceeded to Sabas' house to get his motorcycle. They were talking in the living room when several persons suddenly entered the house. Rodel was shocked because the persons were looking for guns and shabu, and they had no search warrant.
Radel denied IO1 Oandasan's allegation that he was riding his motorcycle when they met since it was parked near Sabas' house. He did not invite IO1 Oandasan to enter the house. Rodel also denied selling and repacking shabu. He used to know SPO3 Dasargo but they did not have any misunderstandings. He does not know the other police officers. 3
Ruling of the RTC
On 20 April 2016, the RTC rendered a decision convicting accused-appellants of the crimes charged, to wit:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 3644-N, the Court finds accused RODEL GUERRERO y AQUINO GUILTY of the charge for violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) pesos;
2. In Criminal Case No. 3645-N, the Court finds accused RODEL GUERRERO y AQUINO, SABAS RAGUINDIN y AQUINO and ROWELL RAGUINDIN y AQUINO GUILTY of the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 and sentences them to suffer the indeterminate sentence of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day to Fourteen (14) years and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00);
3. In Criminal Case No. 3646-N, the Court finds RODEL GUERRERO y AQUINO, SABAS RAGUINDIN y AQUINO and ROWEL RAGUINDIN y AQUINO GUILTY of the charge for violation of Section 12, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 and sentences them to suffer the indeterminate sentence of Six (6) months and one (1) day to Two (2) years and to pay a fine of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) pesos.
In all cases, the period during which all the accused were under detention shall be considered in their favor pursuant to existing rules.
With costs de oficio.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 4
The RTC found all the elements for the crimes charged present in this case. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses clearly established how his transaction with Rodel came about. This led to the arrest of accused-appellants, who were also found in possession of dangerous drugs and other paraphernalia. Further, the prosecution was able to sufficiently prove that the chain of custody of the seized items were unbroken. 5
Ruling of the CA
The CA, through the assailed Decision dated 08 November 2017, affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants, viz.:
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is DENIED. The April 20, 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Ilocos Sur, branch 72, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 6
According to the CA, the RTC did not err in its finding of the presence of all the elements of the crimes charged to be present in the case. The police officers followed the procedural guidelines in the preservation of the chain of custody of the confiscated drugs. The marked sachets and drug paraphernalia were inventoried, photographed and remained in the custody of IO1 Oandasan until he brought the sachets to the forensic chemist for examination. 7
Issues
The primordial issue for resolution of the Court is whether accused-appellants were correctly convicted of the crimes charged.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
To eliminate doubt, and even abuse, in the handling of seized substances, Section 21 of RA 9165, the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged offenses, established the procedural safeguards covering the seizure, custody and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, to wit:
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 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; 8 (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 has reiterated the statutory safeguards, hence:
(a) The apprehending officer/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: 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, further, that non-compliance 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 of and custody over said items; 9 (Emphasis supplied)
The State bears not only the burden of proving the elements of the crime charged, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. The illicit drugs confiscated from the accused comprise the corpus delicti of the charges. Hence, the State must present the seized drugs, together with proof that there were no substantial gaps in the chain of custody thereof as to raise doubts about the legitimacy of the evidence presented in court. The State and its agents are therefore mandated to strictly comply with procedures laid down by the law even if they carry out a legally effective buy-bust operation 10 or implement a search warrant over the premises controlled by the accused.
A perusal of the records show the witnesses were not present at the time of apprehension and were merely called in to witness the inventory:
Q Who were present during the conduct of the inventory?
A The whole team, the arrested suspects, the representative from the media, representative from the DOJ and the elected public officials, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Before the operation, were these witnesses already with the arresting officers?
A No, sir.
Q So, they were called only to witness the inventory?
A Yes, sir.11 (Emphasis supplied)
During cross-examination, IO1 Chester Oandasan (IO1 Oandasan) further elucidated his testimony anent the presence of the insulating witnesses, to wit:
Q Did you invite any barangay officials when you entered the house?
A No, sir.
Q How about police officers?
A No, sir.
Q How about media representative?
A No, sir, just after the operation.12 (Emphasis supplied)
In People v. Adobar, 13 the Court stressed that the presence of the three (3) insulating witnesses is essential to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Hence, their presence must be secured not only during the inventory of the confiscated drugs but at the time or near the place of apprehension and confiscation to belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drugs. The three (3) witnesses are most needed during this time to insulate against the police practices of planting evidence. 14
Moreover, the Certificate of Inventory presented by the prosecution was irregularly executed. To emphasize, the law requires that copies of the inventory shall be signed by all the witnesses including accused-appellants. Here, the Certificate of Inventory 15 was not signed by any of the accused-appellants or by their counsel or representative. When asked for the reason why the certificate does not bear the signatures of accused-appellants, IO1 Oandasan simply stated that they prepare their standard form of Certificate of Inventory without having the accused sign it. 16 In other words, their standard procedure for making an inventory does not involve asking the accused to sign said document. However, such explanation is not sufficient to justify the blatant disregard of the rules. There was no reasonable explanation why they could not have asked accused-appellants to sign the inventory in accordance with the law.
It also bears stressing that the prosecution failed to show how IO1 Oandasan, who took custody of the drug paraphernalia subject of Criminal Case No. 3546-N, maintained its integrity before their submission to the court. It was not established how the drug paraphernalia, which is the basis for accused-appellants' conviction for Section 12 of RA 9165, was handled and kept before it was presented in court. In fact, the prosecution failed to prove that the aluminum foils, plastic straws, plastic sachets, disposable lighters, and stainless scissors are instruments, equipment or apparatus fit or intended for consuming or "introducing any dangerous drug into the body" since the officers did not subject the said seized items for examination to find traces of dangerous drugs. To recall, these are common household items, and it is not unusual to find them in a house. Without any proof linking their use for illegal drugs, the Court cannot conclude that these items can be considered instruments or equipment within the meaning of Section 12 of RA 9165.
The IRR of RA 9165 offers a saving clause allowing leniency whenever justifiable grounds exist which warrant deviation from established protocol. 17 However, the saving clause is only triggered upon proof of justifiable grounds and as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must first recognize any lapses on the part of the apprehending officers and thereafter explain the cited justifiable grounds. The justifiable explanation must also be credible. Thereafter, the prosecution must show all the links in the chain of custody. 18 The prosecution must also show how the police officers exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure thereby leading to reasonable actions under the given circumstances. 19
Yet, a perusal of the records shows no justifiable grounds given by the prosecution for the lapses incurred by the police officers. The evident result of the lapses and actuations of the police officers was the non-preservation of the chain of custody, which, in turn, raised serious doubt on the identity and integrity of the drugs seized. Breaches of the procedure contained in Section 21 of RA 9165 insufficiently explained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity of the corpus delicti would have been compromised. Serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the corpus delicti introduced by the prosecution into evidence to convict the accused. 20 Hence, the Court finds proper to acquit accused-appellants of the crimes charged against them.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated 08 November 2017 promulgated by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08462 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Rodel Guerrero y Aquino, Rowell Raguindin y Aquino and Sabas Raguindin y Aquino are ACQUITTED of the crimes charged. They are ORDERED immediately released unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is likewise ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.
The compliance of Atty. Alfredo F. Benzon, counsel de parte of accused-appellant Rodel Guerrero y Aquino, with the Resolution dated January 12, 2021, submitting a compact disc containing the manifestation dated August 23, 2019, is NOTED; and the petitioner is hereby directed to SUBMIT, within five (5) days from notice hereof, a soft copy in compact disc, USB or e-mail containing the PDF file of the signed compliance pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC.
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. 3-17; penned by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now, a Member of this Court), and concurred in by Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court) of the First Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2.Id. at pp. 3-4.
3.Id. at 5-9.
4. CA rollo, pp. 78-79.
5.Id. at 66-76.
6.Rollo, p. 17.
7.Id. at 10-16.
8. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Republic Act No. 9165, 07 June 2002.
9. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, IRR of RA 9165, 30 August 2002.
10.People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 234273, 18 September 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
11.Id. at pp. 60-61.
12. TSN for Crim. Case Nos. 3644-N, 3645-N, 3646-N, p. 93.
13. G.R. No. 222559, 06 June 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
14.People v. Adobar, G.R. No. 222559, 06 June 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
15.Records, p. 17.
16. TSN, Crim. Case Nos. 3644-N, 3645-N, 3646-N, pp. 61-62.
17.People v. Sanico, G.R. No. 240431, 07 July 2020 [Per CJ Peralta].
18.Supra at note 14.
19.People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, 20 June 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
20.Supra at note 17.