SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243668. July 27, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOSE MEJIA JACINTO a.k.a. "JUN PULIS")accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 27, 2022which reads as follows: CAIHTE
"G.R. No. 243668 (People of the Philippines v. Jose Mejia Jacinto a.k.a. "Jun Pulis"). — This resolves an appeal from the March 23, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08246, which affirmed the March 28, 2016 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 156, Marikina City. The RTC found accused-appellant Jose Mejia Jacinto (Jacinto) guilty of violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165), otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
On July 11, 2014, the prosecution charged Jacinto with violation of Sections 5, 11 and 12, Article II of RA No. 9165, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 2014-4375-D-MK, 2014-4376-D-MK and 2014-4377-D-MK. The accusatory portions of the three Informations read:
Criminal Case No. 2014-4375-D-MK
The undersigned 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor accuses JOSE MEJIA JACINTO also known as "JUN PULIS" of the crime of Selling of Illegal Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 committed as follows:
That on or about the 9th day of July 2014, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly sell, deliver and give away without authority from law to PO2 ROLAND A. PANIS, of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of the Marikina City, posing as a buyer, one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance subsequently marked as, RAP/JMJ-BUY BUST 7-9-14-A, with recorded net weight of 0.32 gram, which gave positive result to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
Criminal Case No. 2014-4376-D-MK
The undersigned 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor accuses JOSE MEJIA JACINTO also known as "JUN PULIS" of the crime of Possession of Illegal Drugs under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 committed as follows:
That on or about the 9th day of July 2014, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, knowingly and unlawfully have in his possession, direct custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets subsequently marked as RAP/JMJ 4-9-14-B and RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-C, with recorded net weight of 0.12 gram and 0.29 gram, respectively, which gave positive result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
Criminal Case No. 2014-4377-D-MK
The undersigned 3rd Assistant City Prosecutor accuses JOSE MEJIA JACINTO also known as "JUN PULIS" of the crime of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia under Section 12, Article II of RA 9165 committed as follows:
That on or about the 9th day of July 2014, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and control of the following:
1. four (4) pieces of improvised tooter subsequently marked as RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-T1, RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-T2, RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-T3 and RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-T4;
2. seven (7) pieces cigarette lighters used as burner subsequently marked as RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-B1, RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-B2, RAP/JMJ 7-9-B3, RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-B4, RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-B5, RAP/JMJ 7-19-B6 and RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-B7;
3. used transparent plastic sachet with traces of shabu subsequently marked as RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-E;
4. unused transparent plastic sachet subsequently marked as RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-F; and
5. three (3) pieces of aluminum foil with traces of shabu subsequently marked as RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-D1, RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-D2 and RAP/JMJ 7-9-14-D3. 2
The CA synthesized the versions of the prosecution and the defense during the trial before the RTC, as follows:
Version of the Prosecution
xxx xxx xxx
On July 8, 2014 at around 1:30 p.m., PO2 Panis was on duty at the SAID-SOTG, PNP Marikina City together with his fellow police officers, when a confidential informant arrived. The latter informed them that a certain "Jun Pulis" was allegedly selling shabu in Sapphire St., Minahan Main, Brgy. Malanday, Marikina City. Acting on the said information, the chief, P/Insp. Flores immediately formed a team and conducted a briefing regarding a buy-bust operation. PO2 Agsawa coordinated their intended buy-bust with the Eastern Police District (EPD) and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) as evidenced by a Pre-Operational Report and Coordination Form with control number (Exhs. "E" & "F"). PO2 Panis was tasked to act as poseur-buyer and was given the buy-bust money consisting of one (1) P500 bill. As a pre-arranged signal that a buy-bust was consummated and back up was needed, it was agreed that PO2 Panis would stamp his feet and wipe them as if he were bitten by ants.
The team together with the informant proceeded to the target area on board a service vehicle and a motorcycle. PO2 Panis and the informant alighted and went ahead to the exact location of Jun Pulis. They saw Jun Pulis lying down on a wooden bed (papag). He asked them of their purpose, and the informant replied, "Kuya Jun, iiskor kami." Jun Pulis said that there was no available drugs or bato and asked them to just return some other time. Thereafter, the team left and returned to their office to conduct operation against other target persons.
The following day, July 9, 2014, the team returned to the target area to pursue their operation against Jun Pulis. At around 12:30 p.m., the informant and PO2 Panis again met Jun Pulis at the front door of his house. The informant introduced PO2 Panis to Jun Pulis as a buyer of shabu. Jun Pulis recognized them and even asked where they got shabu yesterday. PO2 Panis replied that they [were] not able to use shabu yesterday, hence, they returned to his place. Jun Pulis asked how much shabu they would get, and they replied that they wanted to buy P500 worth of shabu for the two of them. PO2 Panis handed the P500 buy-bust money to Jun Pulis. The latter accepted and put it in the right pocket of his pants. He took the shabu from his left pocket. PO2 Panis saw that there were three (3) pieces of sachet containing suspected shabu. Before Jun Pulis handed to him one sachet, he first asked whether it was okay for him to use the shabu in his place; if not, he would not sell it to him and would just return the money. PO2 Panis agreed to use the shabu inside the suspect's house. Jun Pulis went inside to prepare things on the papag, while PO2 Panis and the informant waited outside the door. PO2 Panis then executed the pre-arranged signal. Seeing that his companions were about to approached (sic), PO2 Panis arrested Jun Pulis. He informed the suspect of his rights and the crimes he committed. He learned that the name of the suspect was Jose Mejia Jacinto (accused in this case), and his alias was "Jun Pulis" since he was a former police officer. The team leader, P/Insp. Flores, contacted Councilor Ayuson, Vice Mayor Cadiz and the Brgy. Chairman of Malanday, who would be witnesses to the inventory of seized evidence.
In the same area where he arrested Jun Pulis, PO2 Panis marked the evidence he bought, and other evidence he confiscated consisting of the buy-bust money recovered from the suspect, drug paraphernalia (cigarette lighter, aluminum foil and used and unused plastic sachets), two (2) more sachets of suspected shabu, personal money of the suspect in different denominations all worth P500. Present during the (sic) Cadiz, Councilor Ayuson, and the Brgy. Chairman of Malanday, as shown in the photographs taken during the marking of seized evidence (Exhs. "J" to "J-8"). PO2 Panis also prepared an inventory of confiscated evidence at the crime scene (Exh. "I"). The inventory was signed by the accused, PO2 Panis, the media representative and barangay official. They brought the accused and the confiscated evidence to the PNP office. SPO1 Dionese Salcedo, the duty investigator, prepared a request for laboratory examination of the evidence recovered. PO2 Panis personally submitted the request together with the specimen to the crime laboratory, where they were received by PO1 Rico and endorsed by the latter to PCI Margarita Libres.
Accused was brought to the hospital for medical examination, then to the crime laboratory for urine testing. Accused tested positive to the test for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Story of the Defense
xxx xxx xxx
On July 29, 2014, at around 9:00 o'clock in the morning, accused Jose Mejia Jacinto, a former police officer at Marikina Police Station and Camp Karingal, Quezon City, was at his house, located at No. 31 B, Sapphire St., Bilaang, Malanday, Marikina City, when a man wearing maong shorts, black t-shirt and a cap hurriedly moved towards his neighbor's (Toti's) house located at the dead end, knocked on the door of the said house and entered.
Minutes later, two (2) men wearing white t-shirts walked towards Sapphire Street and tattered, "Nawala, baka pumasok dyan." The two (2) talked to somebody on the cellphone stating, ''Sir positive, Sir pumasok sa bahay." Thereafter, about twenty (20) armed policeman (sic), some in civilian clothes and others in SWAT uniform went towards the accused's house while the two (2) men wearing white t-shirts left.
The policemen entered the accused's house and searched the first man the latter saw. When the said man was not inside the house, one of the policemen said, ''Pare andiyan na yan e, sasabit tayo diyan." When the policemen learned that he (accused) was a former policeman, one of them, later known as PO2 Panis, stated, "Sorry, Sir, nagkamali kami ng pasok. Saka andiyan na yan e, tutulungan ka na lang namin." Despite the insistence of the accused that the policemen entered the wrong house, the latter still coordinated with the barangay, Councilor Ayuson and Vice Mayor Cadiz; and arranged the alleged evidence, which came from the belt bag of PO2 Agsawa, by placing them on the "papag" inside the accused's house. Photographs were then taken.
At around 10:30 to 11:00 o'clock in the morning, Barangay Chairman Briones of Malanday and Ex-O Maneli arrived. Pictures of the accused, together with the planted evidence were again taken. When Councilor Ayuson and Vice Mayor Cadiz arrived at around 2:30 o'clock in the afternoon, photographs were again taken. Thereafter, at around 3:20 o'clock the afternoon, the accused was brought to the police headquarters, along with the alleged confiscated items. Thereat, a media representative took pictures of him together with some personalities and the Deputy Chief of Police. Thereafter, he was detained. During the inquest proceedings, the accused was left outside the prosecutor's office while the police officer and the prosecutor talked to each other. 3
On March 28, 2016, the RTC rendered its decision 4 convicting Jacinto for violation of Sections 5, 11, and 12 of R.A. No. 9165, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 2014-4375-D-MK, finding the accused, JOSE MEJIA JACINTO a.k.a. "Jun Pulis," guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165. Accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and to pay a fine of P500,000.00;
2. In Criminal Case No. 2014-4376-D-MK, finding the accused, JOSE MEJIA JACINTO a.k.a. "Jun Pulis," guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165. Accused is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS as maximum. Accused is also ordered to pay a fine of P300,000.00;
3. In Criminal Case No. 2014-4377-D-MK, finding the accused, JOSE MEDIA JACINTO a.k.a. "Jun Pulis," guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 12, Article II, R.A. No. 9165. Accused is sentenced to suffer an indeterminate prison term of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to TWO (2) YEARS and SEVEN (7) MONTHS, as maximum and to pay a fine of P10,000.00.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 5
In convicting Jacinto for illegal sale of shabu, illegal possession of shabu, and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, the RTC opined that the prosecution proved its case through the testimonies of Police Officer (PO) 2 Roland Panis (PO2 Panis), PO2 Ronnel Agsawa (PO2 Agsawa) and Police Inspector Jerry Flores (P/Insp. Flores). The trial court noted that the poseur-buyer PO2 Panis was able to testify that Jacinto sold shabu to him during a buy-bust operation. PO2 Panis recovered the buy-bust money and two more sachets of shabu as well as the drug paraphernalia from Jacinto after the search as an incident of the arrest. PO2 Agsawa and P/Insp. Flores corroborated the testimony of PO2 Panis as they testified that their team conducted a buy-bust operation in compliance with the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 6
The RTC likewise found that the State was able to prove that the chain of custody was intact. The trial court noted five important points in justifying its findings. First, the police operatives marked and inventoried the seized shabu and paraphernalia at the crime scene right after the arrest of Jacinto. Second, the buy-bust team inventoried the confiscated items in the presence of three elected officials. Third, PO2 Panis handled the seized items from the crime scene, the police station, and up to the crime laboratory. Lastly, the forensic chemist PCI Libres testified that the items submitted tested positive to the presence of shabu. 7
Overall, the RTC opined that members of the buy-bust team and the forensics team, who handled the evidence, were able to state how they safeguarded the seized sachets of shabu and paraphernalia in open court. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence presented were preserved. 8
Aggrieved, Jacinto filed an appeal with the CA asking for the reversal of his conviction.
On March 23, 2018, the CA issued its Decision upholding the judgment of the RTC as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated March 28, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 156, Marikina City in Criminal Cases No. 2014-4375-D-MK, 2014-4376-D-MK, 2014-4377-D-MK are AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED.9
The CA found that the prosecution was able to prove all the elements to uphold a conviction for illegal sale of shabu, illegal possession of shabu, and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia from a legitimate buy-bust operation. 10 The CA found that the evidence on record sufficiently established that PO2 Panis as the poseur-buyer purchased shabu from Jacinto and that he further conducted a body search that yielded two more sachets and drug paraphernalia.
The CA also stated that the prosecution sufficiently established every link in the chain of custody of the seized items, starting with the markings and inventory done by PO2 Panis in the presence of the accused and the required witnesses, then the subsequent transfer to the police station of the items, followed by the transportation of the confiscated drugs and paraphernalia to the crime laboratory, until the turnover of the pieces of evidence to the court. 11
The CA likewise remarked that the defense of bare denial proffered by Jacinto was a lame exculpation and unsubstantiated. The CA noted that the defense of frame up or denial in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of the presumption that the law enforcement agencies acted in the regular performance of their official duties. 12
Hence, Jacinto filed a Notice of Appeal. Accordingly, the CA gave due course to the appeal and elevated the case records to this Court. 13
The Public Attorney's Office representing Jacinto submitted a manifestation to the effect that it is adopting the appellant's brief as Jacinto's supplemental appellant's brief. 14 The Office of the Solicitor General also manifested that it is adopting its brief filed before the CA as its supplemental brief. 15 Thus, the case was deemed submitted for decision.
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether the CA erred in convicting Jacinto for illegal sale of shabu, illegal possession of shabu, and illegal possession drug paraphernalia.
Our Ruling
After a meticulous examination of the records, this Court concludes that a reversal of the conviction is justified and called for.
It is worthy to note that the buy-bust operation took place before the amendatory provisions of Republic Act No. 10640 came into effect. Thus, the requirements with regard the handling of the seized drugs and paraphernalia shall be covered by the old provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. It reads:
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; x x x
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 further requires:
Section 21. (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.
There are four crucial links in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drug: (i) its seizure and marking, if practicable, from the accused, by the apprehending officer; (ii) its turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (iii) its turnover by the investigating officer to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (iv) its turnover by the forensic chemist to the court. 16
This Court focuses on the first link.
In the case under consideration, this Court finds that the State committed a major faux pas in the marking, inventory and photographing of the items. It is true that the law enforcers marked, inventoried, and photographed the items at the locus criminis in the presence of the accused, the representative of TV News Five, Vice-Mayor Cadiz, the barangay captain of Malanday, and Kagawad Ayuson. However, the buy-bust team failed to get a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to witness the marking, inventory taking, and the photographing of the confiscated articles.
As we have stated in the past, it is imperative that the presence of the three insulating witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but also more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. 17 The logic for this is that these witnesses are disinterested third patties insofar as the buy-bust operation is concerned. 18 Simply put, the law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily to obviate the claim of drug suspects that the law enforcers planted the evidence. Hence, in every buy-bust operation, the three witnesses should be at a close proximity to serve the intended purpose of the law of having them witness the marking, inventory taking, and the photographing.
This Court is aware of the saving clause under the Section 21 (a) of R.A. No. 9165 which provides that non-compliance with the prescribed requirement shall not invalidate the seizure and custody of the items provided that: 1) such non-compliance is justified; and 2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers. 19 In order for the saving clause may be applied, the State must clearly demonstrate that it exerted earnest efforts to comply with the requirements of the law and such failure to comply was due to excusable circumstances. 20
In Paras v. People, 21 we remarked:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witness under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state the reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable.
Here, the State failed to secure the presence of the representative of the DOJ despite having sufficient time to plan and execute the buy-bust operation. This Court observes that the operatives were able to secure multiple local government officers and a representative from the media while surprisingly failing to have a DOJ representative to be present. To make matters worse, the prosecution did not even submit an explanation as to why such crucial witness was not present. Hence, considering that the prosecution did not even bother to recognize such fact and did not claim substantial compliance, the saving clause of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is inapplicable. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to discuss anymore the other links in the chain of custody. The failure to account for the DOJ representative is already sufficient to create a doubt on the integrity of the seized items.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 23, 2018 or the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08246 is REVERSEDAND SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Jose Mejia Jacinto is hereby ACQUITTED. This Court ORDERS the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections to immediately release Jose Mejia Jacinto from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to REPORT the action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. Copies shall also be furnished to the Chief of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. DETACa
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a member of this Court) and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring; rollo pp. 2-18.
2.Id. at 3-5.
3.Id. at 5-9.
4. Penned by Judge Agjanette N. De Leon Ortile; records, pp. 229-239.
5.Id. at 238-239.
6. CA rollo, p. 65.
7.Id. at 66.
8.Id. at 67.
9.Rollo, p. 17.
10.Id. at 12.
11.Id. at 13.
12.Id. at 15.
13.Id. at 22.
14.Id. at 29-31.
15.Id. at 44-45.
16.People v. Crisostomo, G.R. No. 252488, May 12, 2021.
17.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
18.People v. Luna, 828 Phil. 671 (2018).
19.People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 231875, July 29, 2019, 911 SCRA 304, 315.
20.People v. Wisco, G.R. No. 237977, August 19, 2019, 915 SCRA 1.
21. G.R. No. 250415, April 28, 2021. (Emphasis supplied).