SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242630. November 10, 2021]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. FRANCIS HALIPA y BAGUNDANG, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242630 (People of the Philippines v. Francis Halipa y Bagundang). — Before this Court is an appeal 1 assailing the September 26, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07428, which affirmed the August 27, 2014 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 64.
The appellate court found Francis Halipa y Bagundang (Halipa) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 4
The Antecedents:
On January 2, 2012, Halipa was indicted for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165, specifically for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs.
The Information 5 for Illegal Sale of prohibited drugs in Criminal Case No. 12-010 reads, viz.:
On the 1st day of January 2012, in the city of Makati, the Philippines, accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously without being authorized by law, sell, distribute, and transport zero point twenty-eight gram (0.28) of Methylamphetamine [Methamphetamine] Hydrochloride (shabu) a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
The Information 7 for Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs in Criminal Case No. 12-011 charges, to wit:
On the 1st day of January 2012, in the City of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and control Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing zero point sixty gram (0.60), zero point sixty six gram (0.66), zero point fifty two gram (0.52), and zero point fifty three gram (0.53) or a total of two point thirty one grams (2.31) which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
Halipa entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. 9 Pre-trial followed on September 5, 2012 where the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the following matters:
(1) Subject to the condition that Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Rafael J. Castillo (SPO1 Castillo) had no personal knowledge on how Halipa was arrested, the genuineness and due execution of the Investigation Report 10 that he prepared; that on January 1, 2012, he prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination 11 and a Request for Drug Test; 12 that he prepared an Affidavit of Undertaking 13 attesting to his role as investigator of the case; and that he signed the Inventory Receipt 14 dated January 1, 2012 attesting his receipt of the items subject of the inventory. 15
(2) On the same condition that Forensic Chemist Engr. Richard Allan B. Mangalip (Engr. Mangalip) lacked personal knowledge on how Halipa was arrested, the genuineness and due execution of the Physical Science Report No. D-001-12S 16 which he prepared; that he prepared said document pursuant to SPO1 Castillo's Request for Laboratory Examination; that he is an expert witness or expert Forensic Chemist; that the items reflected on the Physical Science Report No. D-001-12S are the same items attached thereon handed by him. 17
(3) On the same condition of lack of personal knowledge, that SPO1 Castillo officially turned over the items to the Forensic Chemist/Office of the Crime Lab, which appeared in the stamp mark on the Request for Laboratory Examination. 18
Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented Police Officer (PO) 2 Perceival Mendoza (PO2 Mendoza) and PO2 Renie Aseboque (PO2 Aseboque), 19 whereas the defense presented Halipa. 20
Version of the Prosecution:
The prosecution, through the testimonies 21 of PO2 Mendoza and PO2 Aseboque who were tasked as poseur-buyer and back-up officer respectively, established the series of events as follows:
On January 1, 2012, the Police Inspector (P/Insp) that day, P/Insp. Armando Yu (P/Insp. Yu) of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOTG), received a report from a confidential informant (CI) regarding an alleged illegal sale of dangerous drugs involving Halipa alias Franz at the Laperal Compound, Bernardino St., Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City. 22 Subsequently, a buy-bust team was organized with PO2 Mendoza as poseur-buyer, PO2 Aseboque as immediate back-up officer, PO2 Glenn S. Gonzalvo (PO2 Gonzalvo), and PO1 Michelle Gimena (PO1 Gimena) as additional back-ups. 23 Said operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 24 They also prepared three P500 peso bills amounting to P1,500.00 as marked money. 25
At around 4:35 in the afternoon, the buy-bust team proceeded to Bernardino Street. PO2 Mendoza and the informant went near the entrance of Nuestra Señora de Gracia Church while the rest of the team strategically positioned themselves at the side of an alley. 26·When Halipa arrived on board a motorcycle, the CI approached him and introduced PO2 Mendoza as the buyer of shabu. 27 Halipa asked PO2 Mendoza how much shabu he will purchase and the letter responded P1,500.00 worth. Halipa demanded the payment so PO2 Mendoza handed to him the marked money amounting to P1,500.00. Halipa then took one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from the left front pocket of his pants and gave it to PO2 Mendoza. 28 The buy-bust team promptly moved to arrest Halipa when PO2 Mendoza lit a cigarette as the pre-arranged signal of the consummation of the sale. 29
Halipa was resisting and shouting during his arrest. PO2 Mendoza recovered the marked money from him. PO2 Aseboque also conducted a body search on Halipa and found four plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from the same pocket. 30 PO2 Mendoza then apprised Halipa of his constitutional rights and the nature and cause of arrest. 31 Subsequently, they brought Halipa and the confiscated items to the barangay hall of Guadalupe Viejo. 32 At the barangay hall, PO2 Mendoza marked the plastic sachet sold to him with "PCM" while PO2 Aseboque marked the four other plastic sachets with "REA-1" to "REA-4." 33 The marking and inventory, photographed by PO1 Gimena, was conducted in the presence of Halipa, the arresting officers, and Barangay Kagawad Jason A. Jacome. (Kagawad Jacome). 34 Thereafter, PO2 Mendoza and PO2 Aseboque brought Halipa and the confiscated items to the SAID-SOTG for turn over of the confiscated items to investigating officer SPO1 Castillo. 35
SPO1 Castillo then prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination, 36 and brought said request, together with the confiscated items, to the crime laboratory. 37 PO2 Daracan received the request and the confiscated items which he turned over to forensic chemist Engr. Mangalip. The Physical Science Report No. D-001-12S 38 revealed that the confiscated items tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 39
Version of the Defense:
Halipa, a cellphone technician, testified that he went to Greenhills to buy cellphone parts at around 8:00 in the morning of January 1, 2012. When he found no compatible touch screen part in Greenhills, he decided to proceed to Guadalupe Mall to his Muslim brothers who might have the cellphone parts he needed. On his way to Guadalupe Mall, he turned right to Bernardino St. while traversing EDSA 40 where he saw several persons who stalled him and told him to park at the side of the street. 41
When Halipa stopped, two individuals introduced themselves as police officers and asked for his driver's license and the registration of his motorcycle. He responded, "Sir, ano po violation ko?" to which the two police officers replied, ''Hindi mo ba alam bawal ang ganyan sa Makati." Subsequently, Halipa was asked to go with them to their headquarters. He voluntarily went with them so they boarded him inside a van while another police officer drove his motorcycle. 42
At the headquarters, the police officers told him to sit in a corner. A police officer then approached and told him to give them P5,000.00 so he can go home with his motorcycle. When he informed the police officers that he had no such amount one of them uttered ''tutuluyan daw ako'' if he could not produce the amount. Thereafter, he was brought to the barangay hall. 43
At the barangay hall, the police officers instructed the barangay tanod to call the barangay chairman. When the latter arrived, the police officer said "inventory lang to" then took Halipa's photograph together with the plastic sachet and the money. 44 Halipa contended that he saw those items for the first time in the barangay hall. 45
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In a Decision 46 dated August 27, 2014, the trial court held that the prosecution sufficiently established the elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. It also ruled that each link in the chain of custody was observed, thus, preserving the corpus delicti or the confiscated items from the time Halipa was arrested until the seized items were presented in court. 47 The trial court noted that PO2 Mendoza positively identified Halipa as the seller of the P1,500.00 worth of shabu. Moreover, accused-appellant was found in possession of four plastic sachets of shabu when he was searched incidental to his arrest. The contents of these sachets turned out to be shabu, a prohibited drug. Moreover, Halipa's possession was not authorized by law. 48
The trial court did not give credence on Halipa's denial and alibi. It found that the police officers regularly performed their functions in the handling and movement of the confiscated items. The RTC concluded that the integrity of the seized items was preserved there being no showing of bad faith or ill motive on the part of police officers. 49
The dispositive portion of the trial court's Decision reads, viz.:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 12-010, finding the accused Francis Halipa y Bagundang, GUILTY of the charge for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and sentencing him to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
2. In Criminal Case No. 12-011, finding accused Francis Halipa y Bagundang, GUILTY of the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and sentencing him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS ([Php]400,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED. 50
In his Brief for the Appellant, 51 Halipa challenged the trial court's ruling on the following grounds: (1) non-compliance with the equipoise rule and reasonable doubt rule; (2) failure to impose the mandatory procedures in drug operation and to apply the Chain of Custody rule; (3) reliance on the elements of sale; and (4) disregard of the Supreme Court admonitions and other irregularities. 52
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its September 26, 2017 Decision, 53 the appellate court affirmed Halipa's conviction for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. It found all the elements of said offenses present and sufficiently proven by the prosecution. 54 As regards the procedural requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the appellate court held that any slight deviation in the procedure may be excused as long as it can be shown that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated items were preserved. 55
The appellate court also found that every link of the chain was properly observed — from the consummation of the illegal sale, to the marking, inventory, turn over to investigating officer SPO1 Castillo, until the items were tested for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and positively identified as the same confiscated illegal drugs when presented as evidence in court. 56 Finally, Halipa's defenses of denial, frame-up, and his allegations of planting of evidence and extortion failed to persuade the appellate court. 57
The fallo of the appellate court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 27 August 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 64 in Criminal Case Nos. 12-010 to 12-011 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 58
Aggrieved, Halipa brought the case before Us via this appeal. 59
Issue
The two-pronged issue to be resolved: first, whether the elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs were sufficiently proven by the prosecution; and second, whether the mandatory procedure laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 was complied with thus preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
Our Ruling
The appeal is impressed with merit. Consequently, Halipa is acquitted of the offenses charged.
The remedy of appeal throws the entire case open for review. In People v. Estonilo, 60 the Court emphasized the latitude given to the reviewing tribunal, which may examine the records, correct unassigned errors, revise the judgment, cite proper penal provision, increase the penalty, and significantly reverse a conviction into an acquittal, as in this case.
We reviewed the records of the case and found that reasonable doubt exists as to Halipa's culpability. While the prosecution substantially established the elements of the crimes, it nonetheless fell short of demonstrating full compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, which casts doubt on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti.
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are the following: (1) 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. On the other hand, Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11 of RA 9165 has the following elements: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of such dangerous drugs. 61 Undoubtedly, the prosecution satisfactorily established these elements.
However, the prosecution is still required to prove its compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. We find that the prosecution utterly failed in this regard.
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, prior to its amendment by RA 10640, 62 requires the presence of the following during the conduct of the inventory and taking of photographs: (1) a media representative; (2) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (3) any elected public official, who shall sign the copies of the inventory report. In addition, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) provided a saving clause in case of non-compliance, viz.:
(a) The apprehending office/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; (Emphasis Supplied)
The prosecution had fallen short of proving compliance with the three-witness rule, and it missed to advance reasonable justification for said deviation. The Inventory Receipt 63 dated January 1, 2012 showed that only the elected official was present. There were no representatives from the DOJ and the media.
The testimony of PO2 Mendoza confirms this deviation, to wit:
[ATTY. PUZON]:
After that, where did you bring the accused?
[PO2 MENDOZA]
At the barangay hall of Brgy. Guadalupe Viejo, ma'am.
Q: Where was the marking made, Mr. Witness?
A: At the barangay hall of Brgy. Guadalupe Viejo, ma'am.
Q: And, it was not made at the place of arrest?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Who were present at the time when the inventory was being prepared?
A: Me, PO2 Renie Asebogue, the barangay kagawad and the accused, ma'am.
Q: And, during the preparation of the inventory there was no representative coming from the DOJ?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Likewise, there is no representative coming from the media?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And, there is no representative of the accused at the time of the preparation of the inventory'?
A: Yes, ma'am.64 (Emphasis supplied)
In his cross-examination, PO2 Aseboque also confirmed that no representatives from the DOJ and the media were present during the inventory at the barangay hall of Brgy. Guadalupe Viejo, viz.:
[ATTY. PUZON]
The inventory was prepared at the barangay hall?
[PO2 ASEBOQUE]
Yes, ma' am.
Q: Who was present?
A: The barangay kagawad.
Q: What is the name of the Brgy. Kagawad?
A:WXWXJayson, ma'am.
Q: Who else were present aside from the Brgy. Kagawad?
A: PO2 Mendoza, SPO1 Castillo, and the suspect Halipa, ma'am.
Q: Was there a representative coming from the DOJ?
A: None, ma'am.
Q: From the media?
A: None, ma'am.
Q: There was no likewise representative of the accused at that time of the inventory receipt?
A: None, ma'am. 65 (Emphasis Supplied)
All these indisputably show the prosecution's non-compliance with the mandate of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Worse, the prosecution did not offer any justification for its failure to comply with the three-witness rule. It is worthy to reiterate that the principle behind this rule is to insulate the accused from abuse as this Court pronounced in People v. Abbas. 66 As much as the government' aims to eradicate the ill effects of dangerous drugs by holding perpetrators liable for their condemnable criminal acts, the law-abiding citizens should likewise be protected from false and unfounded indictment.
This Court cannot tolerate the evident lapses committed by the law enforcers particularly in a coordinated and planned buy-bust operation where the required witnesses can be secured and notified before the actual operation. These missteps cannot escape Our lenses as they immensely affect the integrity of the corpus delicti, and cast doubt on the culpability of the perpetrator. Hence, for failure of the prosecution to prove Halipa's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence remains in his favor and he should be absolved of the offenses charged against him.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The September 26, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07428 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Francis Halipa y Bagundang is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for 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 is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Gaerlan, J., no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Lopez, M.V. J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 17-18.
2.Id. at pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of this Court).
3. CA rollo, pp. 55-60. Penned by Judge Gina M. Bibat-Palamos.
4.Rollo, p. 16.
5. Records, pp. 3-4.
6.Id. at 3.
7.Id. at 7-8.
8.Id. at 7.
9.Id. at 54.
10.Id. at 14-15.
11.Id. at 16.
12. Id. at 18.
13.Id. at 152.
14.Id. at 23.
15.Id. at 70.
16.Id. at 17.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Rollo, p. 4.
20.Id. at 6.
21.Id. at 4.
22. TSN, November 6, 2013, p. 104; TSN, September 25, 2013, pp. 53-54.
23.Id. at 105 and 109; id. at 54-55.
24.Id. at 105; Id. at 55.
25. TSN, November 6, 2013, p. 107.
26.Id. at 109.
27.Id. at 110-111.
28.Id. at 111-112.
29.Id. at 113; TSN, September 25, 2013, p. 71.
30. TSN, September 25, 2013, pp. 59-60.
31. TSN, November 6, 2013, pp. 113-114.
32.Id. at 114.
33.Id., TSN, September 25, 2013, pp. 59-61.
34.Id. at 114-117; Id. at 63.
35.Id. at 118; Id. at 64-65.
36. Records, p. 16.
37. TSN, November 6, 2013, p. 120.
38. Records, p. 17.
39.Id. at 136.
40. TSN, August 6, 2014, p. 171.
41.Id. at 172.
42.Id. at 172-173.
43.Id. at 173-174.
44.Id. at 174.
45.Id. at 175.
46. CA rollo, pp. 55-60.
47.Id. at 58-59.
48.Id.
49.Id. at 60.
50.Id.
51.Id. at 30-54.
52.Id. at 39-40.
53.Rollo, pp. 2-16.
54.Id. at 10.
55.Id. at 10-12.
56.Id. at 12-14.
57.Id. at 14-15.
58.Id. at 16.
59.Id. at 17-18.
60. G.R. No. 248694, October 14, 2020.
61.People v. Buesa, G.R. No. 237850, September 16, 2020.
62. 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,'' approved on July 15, 2014.
63. Records, p. 42.
64. TSN, November 28, 2012, pp. 21-22.
65. TSN, September 25, 2013, pp. 73-74.
66. G.R. No. 248333, September 8, 2020, citing People v. Luna, 828 Phil. 671, 689 (2018).