People v. Icot

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 202979. September 29, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RANDEL RIVERA ICOT, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 29 September 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 202979 (People of the Philippines v. Randel Rivera Icot). — Before Us is an Ordinary Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated November 17, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cebu City in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 01024, which affirmed the February 12, 2009 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaue City, Branch 28 in Criminal Case No. DU-9696, finding accused-appellant Randel Rivera Icot (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, 4 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 5

Facts

In an Information 6 dated October 2, 2002, accused-appellant was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, allegedly committed as follows:

That on or about the 27th day of July 2002 at about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon, at Sitio Looc, Barangay Calero, Municipality of Liloan, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent and without any permit and/or license issued by any government agency, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and distribute two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic packets each containing white crystalline substance, having a total net weight of 0.04 gram, to a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation, for and in consideration of Two Hundred (P200.00) peso bills, with Serial Nos. BX082261 and DZ042950 as payment thereof, which when subjected to laboratory examination gave positive result for the presence of Met[h]amphetamine Hydrochloride, classified as regulated drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

On arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty 8 and trial ensued. The prosecution presented as witnesses Senior Police Officer 3 Florencio Apuado (SPO3 Apuado), Police Officer 2 Marlon Yrog-irog (PO2 Yrog-irog), and SPO2 Alex Pepito (SPO2 Pepito). 9 Only accused-appellant testified for and in his defense. 10

Version of the Prosecution

As summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General, the prosecution established the following: CAIHTE

Sometime two (2) weeks prior to July 27, 2002, the Liloan Police in Cebu province conducted a surveillance operation on [accused-appellant] based on the information provided by a police asset that [accused-appellant] was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs in the area of Sitio Looc, Barangay Calero, Liloan, Cebu[.] x x x

The surveillance operation validated the information that [accused-appellant] was indeed selling illegal drugs to "habal-habal" drivers who parked their motorcycles in the area[.] x x x Accordingly, the police planned a buy-bust operation wherein [PO2 Yrog-irog] was designated as the poseur-buyer and who would pretend to be a habal-habal driver, while [SPO3 Apuado) and [SPO2 Pepito] were to act as back-ups. Two (2) One Hundred peso bills intended to be used in the buy-bust operation were likewise marked with the initials of SPO3 Apuado on each bill. It was also agreed that the pre-arranged signal was for [PO2] Yrog-irog to light a cigarette to indicate the consummation of the transaction[.] x x x

At about 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of July 27, 2002, the buy-bust team proceeded with the planned buy-bust operation. SPO3 Apuado and SPO2 Pepito went ahead at the alluded place and stayed at about a hundred meters away [.] x x x Minutes later, PO2 Yrog-irog, pretending to be a habal-habal driver, arrived at the alluded place and parked his motorcycle. Thereat, he was met by [accused-appellant]. PO2 Yrog-irog then told him that he wanted to buy shabu worth P200 pesos, to which the latter agreed. PO2 Yrog-irog gave the pre-marked P200 (sic) peso bills to [accused-appellant], who in turn delivered to him two (2) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance[.] x x x It was at this juncture that PO2 Yrog-irog lighted a cigarette to send the message to his back-ups that the transaction was already consummated. In no time, SPO3 Apuado and SPO2 Pepito rushed to the area and introduced themselves as police officers[.] x x x

The police officers then apprehended [accused-appellant] and immediately conducted a body search on him. As a result, the two (2) pre-marked One Hundred peso bills were recovered from his pocket. After which, [accused-appellant] was brought to the police station for proper investigation. It was also at the police station where the two [2] plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were marked as R1 and R2 by SPO3 Apuado[.] x x x

Consequently, a request for qualitative examination to be conducted by the police crime laboratory of the confiscated drugs with the above markings was prepared and the two [2] plastic sachets were brought by PO2 Yrog-irog himself to the Police Crime Laboratory[.] x x x The corresponding examination conducted on the subject drugs yielded positive results to the tests of methylamphetamine hydrochlorine [sic] or shabu[.] x x x 11

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant, on the other hand, testified that:

[I]n the morning of July 27, 2002, he was in the house of his girlfriend named Mary Ann Gomez at Sitio Looc, Calero, Liloan. He had been there since morning. He left the house at around 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon. A gay approached him on the road while he was walking on his way home. [SPO2 Pepito], [SPO3 Apuado] and [PO2 Yrog-irog] jumped out from the car. [SPO2 Pepito] held him and searched his body. The P200.00 given by his girlfriend was confiscated. He complained because he did not commit anything. But [SPO2 Pepito] told him that they were able to buy from him [accused-appellant]. They handcuffed him and loaded him into their car. He was brought to the Municipal Hall of Liloan and was lodged in jail in relation to the shabu allegedly bought from him.

[Accused-appellant] x x x already knew the arresting police officers prior to his arrest. He used to go to the market every week and used to pass by them in the town. At the time of the incident[,] he was just walking in the area. He came from the house of his sweetheart. The father of his girlfriend is Menio Gomez. Menio is the one engaged in selling drugs.

x x x [Accused-appellant] x x x used to go to the house of his girlfriend almost every week. He saw the father of his girlfriend sell shabu inside the house every time he went there. [Accused-appellant] x x x confronted his girlfriend about it but she denied that her father was engaged in selling drugs.

x x x [Accused-appellant's] x x x girlfriend was not present when her father sold drugs. Even if he had witnessed the father of his girlfriend sell drugs[,] n he did not break up with her.

[Accused-appellant] x x x was never into drugs. He knew that the father of his girlfriend sold shabu because the buyers said they bought the shabu as if they were buying ordinary things in the market. 12

The RTC Ruling

On February 12, 2009, the RTC rendered Judgment, 13 the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, this Judgment is rendered finding the accused RANDEL RIVERA ICOT guilty beyond reasonable doubt for sale of shabu, a dangerous drug. Pursuant to Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165, this Court hereby imposes upon RANDEL RIVERA ICOT, the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) together with accessory penalties under Section 35, Article II thereof and costs.

RANDEL RIVERA ICOT shall be given full credit of the period of his preventive detention.

The Court directs the destruction of the packs of shabu marked as Exhibit "C".

IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

The RTC was convinced that accused-appellant was caught, inflagrantedelicto, selling shabu in a legitimate buy-bust operation. 15 The RTC further held that the identity and integrity of the two plastic sachets containing shabu with the markings R1 and R2 were preserved notwithstanding the absence of inventory and photograph of said pieces of evidence, as required under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 16

The CA Ruling

The CA, through the assailed Decision, 17 affirmed with modification the RTC Judgment, viz.:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the decision dated 12 February 2009 rendered in Crim. Case No. DU-9696 by Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court in Mandaue City is hereby AFFIRMED except as to the fine imposed, which is MODIFIED to Five Hundred Thousand Pesos.

SO ORDERED. 18

Sustaining the findings of the RTC, the CA held that indeed, the two packs of shabu were marked only at the police station and not at Sitio Looc, Brgy. Calero, Liloan where the buy-bust occurred. 19 But, according to the CA, an examination of the records shows that the chain of custody of the shabu was not broken and that the seized drug was not contaminated. 20 Also, the CA noted that the defense did not raise before the RTC the absence of justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the requirement of physical inventory and photograph. 21 Neither did accused-appellant present corroborative evidence on his alleged frame-up. 22

Hence, the present appeal before this Court. DETACa

Issue

The crux of the appeal is whether the CA correctly affirmed the RTC Judgment finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.

The Court's Ruling

We acquit.

The elements for conviction under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (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. The burden is on the State to prove not only these elements but also the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. 23 In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law. Consequently, compliance with the rule on chain of custody over the seized illegal drugs is crucial in any prosecution that follows a buy-bust operation. 24 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, the law nevertheless also requires strict compliance with procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights are safeguarded. 25

Corollarily, the original provision of Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165, provides:

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[.] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

In People v. Claudel, 26 We held that 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 (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. Necessarily, the three (3) 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. 27

Here, records show that the apprehending police officers failed to mark the seized two (2) plastic sachets of purported shabu immediately after confiscation at the place of accused-appellant's arrest. The marking of the seized items was only done at the police station by SPO3 Apuado. Further, records are bereft of evidence that SPO3 Apuado marked the confiscated items in the presence of accused-appellant. To be sure, not one of the prosecution witnesses testified that SPO3 Apuado made the marking in the presence of accused-appellant. 28 Worse, the apprehending officers did not conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of accused-appellant and the three (3) required witnesses, in clear violation of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.

In People v. Colabres, 29 We reiterated that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible. In fact, the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 — which is now crystallized into statutory law with the passage of R.A. No. 10640 30 — provides that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 — on justifiable grounds — will not automatically render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. 31

Stated differently, the seizure and custody over the seized items is not ipso facto rendered void by the failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the procedure under R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR as long as the prosecution duly proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 32 Further, the prosecution must duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses; and 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. 33 To warrant the application of the saving mechanism, the prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses, and justify or explain them. Such justification or explanation would be the basis for applying the saving mechanism. 34

In the present case, the prosecution offered no explanation or justifiable reasons for the apprehending officers' non-compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR. In fact, records reveal that the prosecution neither recognized nor acknowledged the lapses and fatal omissions on the part of the apprehending police officers. 35 Clearly, the RTC and the CA erred in applying the saving clause found in Section 21 — that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been properly preserved. It must be stressed that a stricter adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is minuscule, as in the instant case where 0.04 gram of shabu was allegedly obtained from accused-appellant, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence. 36 Indeed, the law deserves faithful compliance especially since the small volume of the suspected drugs made it easier for the items to be corrupted or tampered with. It is only for justifiable and unavoidable grounds that deviations from the required procedure are excused. 37

Breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21 committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti would have been compromised. 38 Simply put, the police officers' failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the law, and to give justifiable grounds for their deviations had compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, warranting accused-appellant's acquittal for reasonable doubt. 39

On a final note, Our pronouncement in People v. Año40 is timely more than ever, viz.:

[P]rosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended. As such, they must have the initiative to not only acknowledge but also justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings before the trial court. Since compliance with this procedure is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same was not raised, or even threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court, including this Court, from fully examining the records of the case if only to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If no such reasons exist, then it is the appellate court's bounden duty to acquit the accused, and perforce, overturn a conviction. 41 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 17, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-H.C. No. 01024, which affirmed the February 12, 2009 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 28, finding accused-appellant Randel Rivera Icot guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Randel Rivera Icot is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE Randel Rivera Icot from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to report compliance within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. aDSIHc

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. CA rollo, p. 87.

2.Rollo, pp. 3-22; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles and concurred in by Associate Justices Pampio A. Abarintos and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr.

3. CA rollo, pp. 32-39; penned by Judge Marilyn Lagura-Yap.

4. Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. x x x

5. Otherwise known as the COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, which took effect on July 4, 2002.

6. Records, pp. 1-2.

7.Id. at 1.

8.Id. at 20.

9.Rollo, p. 8.

10.Id.

11. CA rollo, pp. 49-51.

12.Id. at 25-26.

13.Id. at 32-39.

14.Id. at 39.

15.Id. at 38.

16.Id. at 39. (No actual page number was indicated in the rollo.)

17.Rollo, pp. 3-22.

18.Id. at 22.

19.Id. at 15.

20.Id. at 15-19.

21.Id. at 19.

22.Id. at 21.

23.People v. Tanes, G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019.

24.Id. Citations omitted.

25.People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019. Citation omitted.

26. G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019.

27.Id. Citation omitted.

28. CA rollo, p. 33.

29. G.R. No. 240752, January 19, 2021.

30. Entitled "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, and became effective on August 7, 2014.

31.People v. Colabres, supra note 29, citing People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 449-450 (2018).

32. See People v. Año, supra at 450.

33.Id., citing People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010) and People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 63, 649 (2010).

34.People v. Manabat, supra note 25, citing People v. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671, 690 (2016).

35. CA rollo, pp. 49-51.

36. See People v. Colabres, supra.

37. See Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020.

38.People v. Manabat, supra note 25.

39.People v. Colabres, supra note 29.

40.Supra note 31.

41.Id. at 452-453.

n Note from the Publisher: Written as "dugs" in the official document.