People v. Japitana y Calawigan

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 233789. March 21, 2022.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JESTRO JAPITANA y CALAWIGAN, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 21 March 2022 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 233789 (People of the Philippines v. Jestro Japitana y Calawigan). — Accused-appellant Jestro Japitana y Calawigan (accused-appellant) hereby seeks the review and reversal of the March 13, 2017 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01976, which affirmed with modifications the October 15, 2014 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 47, Bacolod City, in Criminal Case Nos. 06-28892, 06-28893, and 06-28894, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating, respectively, Section 5, Section 11, and Section 12, of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 3 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

In three separate Informations, accused-appellant was charged with violations of Sections 5, 11, and 12 of Article II of RA 9165, viz.:

Criminal Case No. 06-28894

That on or about the 22nd day of February 2006, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, there herein accused, not being authorized by law to sell, trade, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, give away to a police poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation one (1) transparent plastic bag containing one (1) folded book page which further contains marijuana brick having a total weight of 10.70 grams, in exchange of marked money of one (1) P100.00 bill bearing Serial No. EV769832, in violation of the aforementioned law.

Act contrary to law. 4

Criminal Case No. 06-28893

That on or about the 22nd day of February 2006, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drugs, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) white plastic bag containing one (1) folded newsprint which further contains marijuana bricks weighing 156.90 grams, in violation of the aforementioned law.

Act contrary to law. 5

Criminal Case No. 06-28892

That on or about the 22nd day of February 2006, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to possess equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control the following paraphernalias (sic):

— One (1) improvised water pipe

— One (1) pack of rolling paper

— Five (5) empty plastic sachets

— One scissor

fit or intended for smoking, consuming, ingesting, or introducing marijuana, a dangerous drug, into the body, in violation of the aforementioned law.

Act contrary to law. 6

On March 13, 2006, accused-appellant filed separate motions to quash the Informations in Criminal Case No. 06-28893 and Criminal Case No. 06-28894 7 (for violations of Sections 5 and 11, respectively) and Criminal Case No. 06-28892 8 (for violation of Section 12). The accused-appellant's motions to quash were, however, denied by the RTC in its March 23, 2006 Order. 9 The motion for reconsideration 10 and second motion for reconsideration 11 were likewise denied by the RTC in the Orders 12 dated April 25, 2006 and June 20, 2006, respectively. CAIHTE

Accused-appellant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. 13 Joint trial on the merits then ensued.

The prosecution, on one hand, presented the testimonies of Police Officer Ian S. Piano (PO1 Piano), the poseur buyer, and forensic chemist Police Senior Inspector Alexis Guinanao (PSI Guinanao). The defense, on the other hand, presented the testimonies of accused-appellant, Alberto Nonan (Barangay Kagawad Nonan), and Phoebe Magbanua (Magbanua).

Version of the Prosecution:

The City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Team (CAIDSOT) at Bacolod City received information from a confidential informant that accused-appellant was engaged in the illegal sale of marijuana in Purok Paglaum, Barangay 17, Bacolod City. A meeting was then conducted for the planning and execution of a buy-bust operation. A buy-bust team was constituted with PO1 Piano, designated as poseur buyer, who will be accompanied by the confidential informant. PO1 Piano will proceed to the area of operation with the other members of the buy-bust team already within the area of operation. As marked money, the buy-bust team prepared a P100.00-bill with serial number EV76832 with personal marking of PO1 Piano. It was also agreed upon that a ringing of the mobile phone from a call from PO1 Piano shall be the pre-arranged signal to alert the buy-bust team of the consummation of the crime. 14

Thereafter, PO1 Piano and the confidential informant proceeded to the location of the buy-bust operation. Upon reaching the area, the confidential informant identified accused-appellant to PO1 Piano who then approached accused-appellant who was standing in front of his house. Both PO1 Piano and the confidential informant inquired from accused-appellant "if he had something." 15 Accused-appellant then asked PO1 Piano and the confidential informant how much they needed, to which PO1 Piano replied P100.00 worth of marijuana. Accused-appellant then invited PO1 Piano and the confidential informant to the second floor of his house where PO1 Piano handed over to accused-appellant the marked money. After receiving the marked-money, accused-appellant then placed an improvised water pipe 16 used in sniffing marijuana on top of a table. He also took out from his pocket a small brick of marijuana wrapped in newsprint and gave it to PO1 Piano. 17

At this point, PO1 Piano immediately executed the pre-arranged signal by calling the other members of the buy-bust team, which prompted them to rush towards the crime scene. PO1 Piano then proceeded to arrest accused-appellant and apprised him of his constitutional rights. After a further body search, PO1 Piano recovered from accused-appellant another big brick of marijuana wrapped in newsprint along with the marked money. Rolled papers, empty sachets, and other paraphernalia, like a pair of scissors, were likewise retrieved from accused-appellant. 18

Immediately after the seizure of the said items, and while inside the house of accused-appellant, PO1 Piano placed his initials "ISP" on the two bricks of marijuana wrapped in newsprint, including the improvised water pipe, the pack of rolling papers, five empty sachets, and the scissors. 19 Barangay Captain Graciano Fuentes, Jr. (Barangay Captain Fuentes), and Barangay Kagawad Alberto Nonan (Barangay Kagawad Nonan) were called to witness the inventory of the seized items. 20

After the arrest, search and inventory, accused-appellant was brought to CAIDSOT office for blotter. After recording the incident, the two bricks of marijuana were submitted to the PNP Criminal Laboratory for chemical analysis and examination. After a qualitative examination, the specimens yielded a positive result for marijuana, a dangerous drug. 21

Version of the Defense:

In his defense, accused-appellant vehemently denied the allegations against him. Accused-appellant alleged that on February 22, 2006 before noontime, he was sleeping on a folding bed with his two-year old child in the living room of his house when he was awakened by four individuals who were in civilian clothing. At that time, accused-appellant was not aware that these four individuals were members of CAIDSOT or buy-bust team who were conducting a buy-bust operation. Two of them conducted a search of accused-appellant's room, while the other two officers conducted a search of the living room. There were no other persons present while the search was being conducted. 22

After the search, the buy-bust team seized the following items from accused-appellant: (1) an air gun; (2) a piggybank of his children; (3) two cellular phones; (4) cash amounting to P2,000.00. All the items were placed inside a paper bag. Thereafter, one of the members of the buy-bust team came back with another big plastic bag and placed the same beside the paper bag. Thereafter, Barangay Captain Fuentes and Barangay Kagawad Nonan arrived at accused-appellant's house. The police officers then showed the seized items to the two barangay officials and informed them that all were considered evidence against accused-appellant. Thereafter, one of the members of the buy-bust team made the barangay officials sign a piece of paper. All this time, accused-appellant was not made aware of the seized items contained inside the big plastic bag. 23 DETACa

Accused-appellant also denied that PO1 Piano frisked him and supposedly found one big brick of suspected marijuana. He also insisted that he did not own the improvised water pipe, the pack of rolling papers, five empty plastic sachets, and the pair of scissors. He also denied having been apprised of his constitutional rights by any of the members of the buy-bust team who conducted the search and seizure. 24

Accused-appellant further testified that the he did not see any of the members of the buy-bust team mark the seized items considering that they were returned to the paper bag immediately after they were shown to the barangay officials. Nor did accused-appellant see the large brick of marijuana and any certification thereof, including the marked money of one P100.00-bill bearing Serial No. EV769832. According to accused-appellant, there was only one document or paper which the barangay officials were made to sign. Accused-appellant averred that he was not given a copy of such document. 25

Barangay Kagawad Nonan, a witness for the defense, testified that it was almost 4:00 p.m. when he was instructed by the buy-bust team to be a witness to a raid. He later proceeded to the house of accused-appellant together with Barangay Captain Fuentes. Upon arriving at accused-appellant's house, he saw accused-appellant and two members of the buy-bust team. He also saw an air gun, plastic, and a matchbox on a table placed beside accused-appellant. He also saw four or five items on top of the table but he could no longer remember what these items were, or where these items came from as these were only shown to him by some of the members of the buy-bust team. 26

Thereafter, the buy-bust team escorted him and Barangay Captain Fuentes to search the rooms. However, they did not find anything other than those items already placed on top of the table beside accused-appellant. A member of the buy-bust team then prepared a certification for them to sign. According to Barangay Kagawad Nonan, the air gun which was part of the items seized by the buy-bust team was not indicated in the said certification. He further testified that before he signed the certification, he did not see the police officers mark the items seized from the house of accused-appellant, and no marking appeared on the said certification. He also added that there were more than items on top of the table but he signed only for two items and that he does not know what happened with the other seized items. 27

Magbanua, a third witness for the defense, was presented to corroborate the alibi of accused-appellant. She testified that on February 22, 2006 at around 1:00 p.m., she was doing her laundry at a spot where she could see the house of accused-appellant. She likewise testified that when she was doing her laundry, she saw around 10 unidentified persons enter the house of accused-appellant. She did not know what happened thereafter. 28

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:

On October 15, 2014, the RTC rendered a Decision 29 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Section 11, and Section 12, of RA 9165, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, finding accused Jestro Japitana y Calawigan GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of: (a) Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs) in Criminal Case 06-28894; (b) Violation of Section 11, Article II of the same law (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) in Criminal Case 06-28893; and (c) Violation of Section 12, Article II of the same law (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and other paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) in Criminal Case 06-28892, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing him to suffer: (1) Life Imprisonment, and to pay a fine of PhP500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 06-28894; (2) an indeterminate prison term of Twelve (12) Years and One (1) day, as minimum, to Fifteen (15) years, as maximum, and to pay a Fine of Php300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 06-28893; and (3) an indeterminate prison term of Six (6) Months and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Three (3) Years, as maximum and to pay a fine of Php10,000.00, in Criminal Case No. 06-28892. He is also to bear the accessory penalties provided by law. Costs again accused.

The subject one folded book page containing 10.70 grams of marijuana brick (Exhibit "N-1-A" — 10.70 grams) and one folded newspaper containing marijuana brick weighing 156.90 (Exhibit "O-1" — 156.90 grams), being dangerous drugs, and the improvised water pipe (Exhibit "J"), and one pack of rolling papers (Exhibit "K"), being drug paraphernalia, are hereby ordered confiscated and/or forfeited in favor of the government and to be forthwith delivered or turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) provincial office for immediate destruction or disposition in accordance with law.

The prompt commitment of the accused to the national penitentiary for service of sentence is hereby furthermore ordered.

SO ORDERED. 30

Giving credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the RTC held that all the elements of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs, and equipment, instrument, apparatus and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs, had been duly established, and that there was proper compliance with the chain of custody rule. 31 The RTC particularly gave importance to the straightforward testimony of PO1 Piano. It also upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duty, finding no evidence that showed that PO1 Piano was stirred by ill motive to falsely testify against accused-appellant. aDSIHc

The RTC further held that the identity and evidentiary value of the seized marijuana leaves have been duly preserved and established by the prosecution. While the RTC recognized that no pictures were taken of the seized items, and only a certification was made by the buy-bust team, which was signed only by the barangay officials, it ruled that such inadequacy did not render accused-appellant's arrest illegal, or that the items seized from him are inadmissible in evidence.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:

On March 13, 2017, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction with modification. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision 32 states:

WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 47, Bacolod City dated October 15, 2014 is hereby MODIFIED.

The decision in Criminal Case No. 06-28894 and Criminal Case No. 06-28893 finding appellant JESTRO JAPITANA y CALAWIGAN guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. 9165, respectively, is AFFIRMED.

However, the decision in Criminal Case No. 06-28892 finding the appellant guilty of violation of Section 12 of R.A. 9165 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

SO ORDERED. 33

The CA held that the prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused-appellant illegally sold and possessed dangerous drugs, and that the buy-bust operation was validly carried out against him.

In finding accused-appellant guilty of Section 5 and Section 11 of RA 9165, the CA, on one hand gave credence to the straightforward and consistent testimony PO1 Piano. On the other hand, the CA disfavored accused-appellant's self-serving defenses of alibi and frame-up. Moreover, the CA emphasized that the bricks of marijuana recovered from accused-appellant during a legitimate buy-bust operation are admissible and are properly admitted as evidence against him. 34 In this regard, the CA noted that accused-appellant failed to successfully contest the identity of the corpus delicti. 35

Anent the allegation that the chain of custody of the bricks of marijuana seized from accused-appellant was not firmly established, the CA held that the chain of custody was otherwise continuous and the identity and evidentiary value of the bricks of marijuana seized from him were preserved. In particular, the CA observed that the prosecution has shown that the seized drugs marked by PO1 Piano were the same specimens made subject of the letter-request for examination, submitted to forensic chemist PSI Guinanao for examination, and presented by the prosecution to the RTC as evidence against accused-appellant. 36 The CA also held that the non-presentation, as a witness, of the officer who received the specimens of the illegal drug at the crime laboratory does not necessarily break the chain of custody considering that PSI Guinanao positively identified the signature of the said receiving-officer. 37 In any event, the CA emphasized that "non-compliance does not invalidate the seizure or render the arrest of the accused illegal or the items seized from him as inadmissible as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved." 38

The CA, however, held that the prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt accused-appellant's guilt for violation of Section 12 of RA 9165. The CA further observed that there is absence of evidence which would establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drug paraphernalia from accused-appellant.

Proceedings before this Court:

Accused-appellant now seeks affirmative relief from this Court and pleads for his acquittal.

This Court, in its November 8, 2017 Resolution, 39 notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desire. For the purpose of this appeal, both accused-appellant and the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that in lieu of supplemental briefs, they were adopting their respective briefs filed before the CA. 40

Issues

The issues for the Court's resolution are: (1) whether accused-appellant's arrest was illegal; (2) whether the search and seizure undertaken where the subject marijuana was seized was valid; and (3) whether the chain of custody rule provided under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 was complied with.

Our Ruling

The appeal is meritorious.

As basis for his acquittal, accused-appellant stresses that his arrest was illegal, which thus makes the bricks of marijuana supposedly seized from him inadmissible in evidence. In this regard, accused-appellant insists that the buy-bust team did not have probable cause to suspect and conclude that he was committing or intending to commit a crime considering that he was sleeping at the time of the arrest. Accused-appellant also insists that they did not have personal knowledge of his activities considering that they did not conduct any prior surveillance or test buy. Consequently, since the arrest of accused-appellant was illegal, the warrantless search should also be considered illegal. ETHIDa

Accused-appellant also contends that the prosecution was unsuccessful in establishing an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs considering that the buy-bust team or apprehending officers allegedly deviated from the mandatory procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. In particular, accused-appellant raises the following errors:

First, the forensic laboratory personnel who allegedly received the seized items, including the illegal drugs, was not presented in court. Thus, there is no concrete proof that the items received by the laboratory were the very same items turned over to PSI Guinanao. Second, after the seized items were received by PSI Guinanao for examination, there was no evidence, testimonial or documentary, presented by the prosecution which would show who handled, stored, and preserved the evidence after it was examined by PSI Guinanao. 41 Given the foregoing, accused-appellant maintains that the prosecution failed to establish every link in the chain of custody of the seized items.

Simply put, in order to assert his claims that his arrest was illegal, and that the search and seizure undertaken was invalid, accused-appellant essentially attacks the validity of the buy-bust operations conducted in his place of residence last February 22, 2006. Accused-appellant also avers that the prosecution was unsuccessful in establishing an unbroken chain of custody of the marijuana bricks and drug paraphernalia.

It is a settled rule that factual findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the appellate court, are binding on this Court, unless there is a clear showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or palpable error. 42 Moreover, the trial court's calibration of the testimonies of witnesses, including its assessment of their credibility and probative value, are accorded great respect, more so when their findings thereon have been affirmed by the appellate court. 43

Thus, as correctly held by the RTC and CA, the warrantless arrest effected by the CAIDSOT agents against accused-appellant was pursuant to a legitimate buy-bust operation. At the time accused-appellant was apprehended, he was supposedly committing the crime of selling marijuana, a dangerous drug. At this point, the legitimacy of the buy-bust operations is already beyond question. Accordingly, the subsequent warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure upon the person of the accused-appellant are valid. 44

Anent accused-appellant's contention that the prosecution failed to establish every link in the chain of custody of the seized drugs and paraphernalia, the CA made a categorical finding that the non-presentation of the officer who received the specimens of the seized drugs from PO1 Piano at the crime laboratory did not break the chain of custody, more so in this case when PSI Guinanao herself positively identified the signature of the forensic laboratory personnel who received the said specimens. Moreover, both the CA found that the identity of the seized drugs has been preserved from the time she received such specimens up to the time she submitted the same to the RTC. 45

Since the accused-appellant failed to show any arbitrariness, palpable error, or capriciousness on these specific findings of fact of the RTC and the CA, these findings deserve great weight and are deemed conclusive and binding.

The foregoing notwithstanding, and as will be discussed hereunder, it appears that both the RTC and the CA manifestly overlooked an apparent unjustified deviation from the witness requirement under the chain of custody rule.

The four-witness rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165.

In cases for Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Failing to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal. 46

Thus, to establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized from the accused up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime committed. 47 In this regard, chain of custody means "the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each state, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until it is presented to the court." 48

RA 9165 lays down the procedure on the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. This makes up the chain of custody rule. In particular, Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 provides that:

(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 supplied)

Simply put, the law requires that the inventory and photography of the seized items or illegal drugs be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, such as a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official. AIDSTE

The above-quoted provision was further expounded under Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165:

(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; x x x (Emphasis Supplied)

The foregoing recitals present the four-witness requirement under RA 9165. Prior to the amendment of RA 9165, this requirement mandates the buy-bust or apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation of the illegal drugs, to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items in the presence of four witnesses, namely: "(1) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) a representative from the media and (3) the DOJ, and (4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof." 49

This four-witness requirement, however, was amended by RA 10640 50 which took effect in 2014. 51 In this regard, RA 10640 "requires only three witnesses to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized evidence, namely: (1) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media." 52

Thus, in People v. Suarez, 53 this Court held that:

The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "a representative from the media AND the [DOJ], and any elected public official"; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 54 (Emphasis supplied)

Considering, however, that the alleged crime was committed on February 22, 2006, the old law and its corresponding implementing rules and regulations shall apply. Thus, the four witnesses mandated by law to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs must be complied with.

This Court, however, is well-aware that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be feasible. Accordingly, the IRR of RA 9165 provides a saving clause in case there is non-compliance with the chain of custody rule, viz.:

[N]on-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[.] 55

Thus, while it may be true that failure of the apprehending officers to strictly comply with the requirements set forth under Section 21 of RA 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, 56 it must be shown, however, that "earnest efforts were exerted by the [apprehending] officers involved to comply with the mandated procedure so as to convince the Court that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances." 57 While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. 58

Pertinently, the Court in People v. Lim, 59 explained that the absence of any of the required witnesses must be justified based on acceptable reasons, such as the following: "(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape." 60

In this case, the Court finds that the CAIDSOT or members of the buy-bust team committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed four-witness requirement under the chain of custody rule. AaCTcI

Non-compliance of the witness

An examination of the records reveal that while the seized marijuana bricks were duly marked by PO1 Piano immediately after their seizure and confiscation at the place of arrest and in the presence of accused-appellant, the physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items were not made in the presence of the required witnesses.

It is incumbent upon the prosecution to present sufficient reasons or justifiable grounds which would exculpate the CAIDSOT agents from their failure to strictly comply with the witness rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution offered no justification as to the absence of a public official, and representatives from the DOJ and the media at the time of the inventory of the seized illegal drugs. Nor do the facts of the case show that the CAIDSOT agents exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the absent witnesses.

As the Court sees it, the CAIDSOT agents did not faithfully comply with the standards set forth by law and, unfortunately, the prosecution failed to justify non-compliance thereof. In view of the failure of the prosecution to provide a justifiable ground for non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, which creates doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, the Court is constrained to acquit the accused-appellant based on reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. Judgment is hereby rendered REVERSING and SETTING ASIDE the March 13, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01976 in Criminal Case No. 06-28893 and Criminal Case No. 06-28894.

Accordingly, accused-appellant Jestro Japitana y Calawigan is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged and ordered immediately RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director General is ORDERED to inform the Court of the action he has taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, S.A.J., on official leave; Hernando, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2882 dated March 17, 2022).

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 4-26. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (now a retired Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Edward B. Contreras and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig.

2. CA rollo, pp. 82-95. Penned by Judge Therese Blanche A. Bolunia.

3. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: June 7, 2002.

4. Criminal Case No. 06-28894, Records, pp. 1-2.

5. Criminal Case No. 06-28893, Records, pp. 1-2.

6. Criminal Case No. 06-28892, Records, pp. 1-2.

7. Criminal Case No. 06-28893, Records, p. 16.

8. Criminal Case No. 06-28892, Records, p. 18.

9. Records, p. 27.

10.Id. at 29.

11.Id. at 48.

12.Id. at 38 and 51, respectively.

13. Criminal Case No. 06-28892, Records, p. 59.

14. CA rollo, pp. 136-137.

15.Id. at 137.

16. This is a C2 bottle of about one-half foot with cover and an improvised torch on top and on the side of the bottle is a plastic tube of about eight (8) to ten (10) inches long. See TSN, March 15, 2007, p. 14.

17. TSN, March 15, 2007, p. 10.

18.Id. at 11.

19.Id. at 15.

20.Id. al 12.

21. CA rollo, p. 138.

22. TSN January 21, 2014, pp. 3-4.

23.Id. at 4.

24.Id. at 7.

25.Id. at 5-7.

26. TSN, April 29, 2014, pp. 3-4.

27.Id. at 5-6.

28. TSN, July 31, 2014, pp. 5-6.

29. CA rollo, pp. 82-95.

30.Id. at 94-95.

31.Id. at 91-94.

32.Rollo, pp. 4-26.

33.Id. at 25-26.

34.Id. at 18.

35.Id. at 19.

36.Id. at 20.

37.Id. at 23.

38.Id. at 19.

39.Id. at 33.

40.Id. at 35-36 and 42-unpaginated.

41. CA rollo, pp. 76-78.

42.People v. Bontuyan, 742 Phil. 788, 798 (2014).

43.People v. Alia, G.R. No. 202182 (Notice), July 23, 2014.

44. See People v. Agulay, 588 Phil. 247, 273 (2008).

45.Rollo, pp. 21-23.

46.Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.

47.People v. Tecson, G.R. No. 243786, October 9, 2019.

48.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019.

49.People v. Balubal, 837 Phil. 496, 506 (2018).

50. 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.

51. In Matabilas v. People (G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019), the Court determined that RA 10640 became effective on August 7, 2014.

52. TSN, July 31, 2014, pp. 5-6.

53.People v. Suarez, G.R. No. 249990, July 8, 2020.

54.Id.

55. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, IRR of RA 9165, August 30, 2002.

56.People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 588-589 (2018).

57.Id. at 591.

58.Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019.

59. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, citing People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 93 (2018).

60.Id.