People v. Javier

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 231799. September 22, 2020.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. SALVADOR P. JAVIER, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 22, 2020which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 231799 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SALVADOR P. JAVIER

The Case

This appeal assails the Decision 1 dated December 6, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07949 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Salvador Javier y Padua" affirming appellant's conviction for violation of Section 5 and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) 2 and violation of Section 28 (a) Republic Act No. 10591 (RA 10591). 3

Proceedings Before the Trial Court

The Charge and Plea

Under separate Informations, appellant Salvador Javier was respectively charged with violation of Section 28 (a) of RA 10591 (unlawful possession of firearms and ammunitions) and Section 5 (illegal sale of dangerous drugs) and Section 11 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs), Article II of RA 9165, viz.:

CRIM CASE No. 21812-2013-C

That on or about 9 December 2013, in Calamba City, Laguna [,] Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in in his possession, custody and control one [1] improvised shotgun and five (5) pieces 12-gauge live ammunitions, in violation of the aforementioned law.

CRIM CASE No. 21813-2013-C

That on or about 9 December 2013, in Calamba City, Laguna[,] Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 0.08 gram, in violation of the aforementioned law.

CRIM CASE No. 21814-2013-C

That on or about 9 December 2013, in Calamba City, Laguna[,] Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur buyer [one] (1) piece heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 0.10 gram, in violation of the aforementioned law.

On arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to all charges. Joint trial ensued.

Prosecution's Version

SPO1 Apolinario C. Naredo, Jr. (SPO1 Naredo, Jr.) testified that on December 9, 2013, he received information that a certain Dodie later identified as appellant was selling illegal drugs at Sitio Villa Silangan, Brgy. Canlubang, Calamba City. On the basis of this information, Police Senior Inspector (P/S Insp.) Rogel Sarreal (P/S Insp. Sarreal) formed a buy-bust operation on appellant. The buy-bust team was composed of SPO1 Naredo, Jr. as poseur buyer, PO2 Cuevas, PO2 Requinto, Police Insp. Sarreal, and PO3 Castillo as members. P/S Insp. Sarreal gave SPO1 Naredo, Jr. The buy-bust money consisted of three (3) One Hundred Peso bills.

After coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. There, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. and the confidential informant met appellant. The confidential informant introduced SPO1 Naredo, Jr. to appellant as his friend. Appellant asked SPO1 Naredo, Jr. how much drugs he wanted to buy, to which the latter replied Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00). Appellant then invited SPO1 Naredo, Jr. and the confidential informant inside his house. Once inside, he asked SPO1 Naredo, Jr. again how much drugs he intended to buy. SPO1 Naredo, Jr. repeated Three Hundred Peso (P300.00) worth. Appellant stepped out of his house to fetch something. While appellant was outside, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. noticed an improvised shotgun on top of a cabinet inside the house.

After a few minutes, appellant returned. He asked SPO1 Naredo, Jr. once again how much drugs he wanted to buy. SPO1 Naredo, Jr. confirmed his previous answer and handed appellant the buy-bust money worth Three Hundred Pesos (P300.00). In exchange, appellant gave SPO1 Naredo, Jr. a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. SPO1 Naredo, Jr. called P/S Insp. Sarreal to inform him that the sale had been consummated.

When the rest of the buy-bust team arrived, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. arrested appellant. He frisked appellant and recovered from the latter the buy-bust money and another plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance from his pocket. SPO1 Naredo, Jr. also confiscated the improvised shotgun loaded with ammunitions he found on top of the cabinet inside appellant's home.

SPO1 Naredo, Jr. marked the confiscated items inside appellant's home. The team later went to the barangay hall where they did the inventory in the presence of Barangay Councilor Larry Marasigan. PO2 Cuevas took pictures during the inventory. Thereafter, the team returned to the police station where the request for laboratory examination was prepared.

SPO1 Naredo, Jr. brought the specimens and request for examination to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office, Camp Vicente Lim, Calamba City. The same were received by PO1 Durwin who turned them over to Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Donna Villa P. Huelgas (PCI Huelgas).

Both the defense and the prosecution stipulated on the qualifications of Forensic Chemist PCI Huelgas and the fact that she received the specimens which she tested and found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. They also stipulated that she reduced her findings in Chemistry Report No. D-892-13.

The prosecution further submitted a Certification dated March 30, 2015 issued by the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office Civil Security Group that appellant was not a licensed or registered firearm holder.

Defense's Version

Appellant, on the other hand, testified that on December 9, 2013, around 4 o'clock in the afternoon, he was at the back of his house selling fish balls with his wife when a white van suddenly arrived. Six (6) persons alighted from the vehicle and introduced themselves as police officers. They handcuffed him and asked where his house was. Four (4) of the men searched his house while the two (2) ordered him to bring out the shabu. When he failed to bring out any shabu, he got punched in his stomach. The police officers brought him to the barangay hall where one of the police officers brought out things and declared that the same were seized from him. Thereafter, he was brought to the police station.

Maximo Dela Cruz, appellant's neighbor, corroborated the latter's testimony.

The Ruling of the RTC

By Judgment 4 dated November 16, 2015, the trial court rendered a verdict of conviction, thus:

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, in Criminal Case No. 21812-2013-C, the Court finds the accused, SALVADOR JAVIER y PADUA, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 28 (a) of Republic Act 10591. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of SIX (6) YEARS and EIGHT (8) MONTHS, as minimum, to SEVEN (7) YEARS AND FOUR (4) MONTHS, as maximum.

In Criminal Case No. 21813-2013-C, the Court finds the accused, SALVADOR JAVIER y PADUA, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, paragraph 2(3), Article II of Republic Act 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, as maximum, and to PAY A FINE of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00) PESOS.

In Criminal Case No. 21814-2013-C, the Court finds the accused, SALVADOR JAVIER y PADUA, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and TO PAY A FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) PESOS.

xxx xxx xxx

SO ORDERED. 5

The trial court gave full credence to the testimony of the prosecution witness who was a police officer performing official functions. The trial court found the chain of custody to have been duly established and, thus, rejected appellants' denial and theory of frame up.

The Proceedings Before the Court of Appeals

On appeal, appellants faulted the trial court for rendering the verdict of conviction allegedly despite 1) the prosecution's failure to prove the elements of illegal sale of drugs, illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunitions 2) the alleged procedural omissions during the buy-bust operation: a) the absence of media and Department of Justice (DOJ) representatives during the inventory and photographing of the seized items; and b) the fact that the inventory and photographing were done at the barangay hall, not at the place of arrest.

For its part, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), countered, in the main: 1) the elements of illegal sale of drugs, illegal possession of dangerous drugs, and unlawful possession of firearms and ammunitions were all proven; 2) there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule; and, 3) the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' official functions prevails over appellant's bare denial and theory of frame up.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its assailed Decision 6 dated December 6, 2016, the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification, thus:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Judgment dated November 16, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 37, Calamba City in Criminal Case Nos. 21812-2013-C, 21813-2013-C and 21814-2013-C is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the crime of illegal possession of firearm, accused-appellant Salvador Javier y Padua is meted the indeterminate sentence of six (6) years and eight (8) months of prision mayor in its minimum period, as minimum, to nine (9) years and four (4) months of prision mayor in its medium period, as maximum.

SO ORDERED. 7

The Present Appeal

Appellant now seeks affirmative relief from the Court and prays anew for his acquittal. For the purpose of this appeal, the OSG 8 and appellant 9 both manifested that in lieu of supplemental briefs, they were adopting their respective briefs in the Court of Appeals.

Core Issue

Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court's verdict of conviction against appellant for violation of Section 5 and Section 11 of RA 9165, and violation of Section 28 (a) RA 10591?

Ruling

We acquit.

Illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs

Appellant was charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of dangerous drugs allegedly committed on December 9, 2013. The governing law is RA 9165 before its amendment in 2014.

Section 21 of RA 9165 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

Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, implementing the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines "chain of custody," as follows:

"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of the seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.

In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 10 The chain of evidence is constructed by proper exhibit handling, storage, labelling, and recording, and must exist from the time the evidence is found until the time it is offered in evidence. 11

To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 12

Here, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. Consider:

One, the venue for making the inventory and photograph was not properly complied with. Section 21 (a) of the IRR requires that the inventory and photograph be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation, thus it must be done at the place of the arrest. 13

Here, SPO1 Naredo, Jr. testified that upon appellant's arrest, he was brought to the barangay hall where the seized items were inventoried and photographed. He failed to explain, however, why the same were done at a place other than the place of arrest.

In People v. Dela Torre, 14 the inventory was likewise conducted at the barangay hall, without any explanation as to the distance from the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending team. The Court considered this as a breach in the chain of custody.

Two, Section 21 of RA 9165 requires the inventory and photographing to 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 representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official."15

People v. Lim16 stressed the importance of the presence of the three insulating witnesses or in the alternative, the prosecution must allege and prove the reasons for their absence and show that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance. The Court explained:

It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:

(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[d] 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 antidrug 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.

Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v. Ramos teaches:

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 securethe required witnesses 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 full 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 [the] state reasons for their noncompliance, 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. 17

The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily to ensure not only compliance with the chain-of-custody rule but also to remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 18

Here, while the prosecution admitted that marking, inventory, and photographing were not made in the presence of a DOJ representative and media representative, it made no effort, at all, to explain or justify why these required witnesses were absent nor did it show that earnest efforts were exerted to secure their attendance.

Three, there was no evidence showing how the confiscated drug was handled after SPO1 Naredo, Jr. delivered it to the crime laboratory. We note that a certain PO1 Durwin received the specimen from SPO1 Naredo, Jr. There was, however, a break in the chain of custody of the seized drug because PO1 Durwin who supposedly received the specimen was not presented as witness.

In People v. Burdeos, 19 the prosecution failed to show how the specimen was handled while under the custody of the officer who received it and how the same was subsequently turned over to the forensic chemist who conducted the examination. The Court, thus, declared that such glaring gap in the chain of custody tainted the integrity of the corpus delicti.

Finally, there was nothing in the records showing who held the seized drug and how it was handled or stored from the time it was turned over to the laboratory up to its presentation in court.

In People v. Baltazar, 20 the accused was acquitted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs because the records are bereft of any evidence as to how the illegal drugs were brought to court. There was no showing how the alleged seized item was stored after it was examined by the forensic chemist, who handled the specimen after examination, and where the same was kept until it was retrieved and presented in court.

Notably, the parties agreed to dispense with the testimony of Forensic Chemist Abraham Huelgas and instead stipulated that she was a qualified forensic chemist and that she had no personal knowledge about the source of the drug items but only conducted laboratory examination thereon. People v. Miranda citing People v. Cabuhay ordained that the parties' stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist should include:

x x x (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. 21

Here, the parties' stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the Forensic Chemist PCI Huelgas did not contain the vital pieces of information required, i.e., she received the seized drugs as marked, properly sealed, and intact; she resealed the drug items after examination of the content; and, she placed his own marking on the drug items. Absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug allegedly seized herein after its qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the said illegal drug could not be reasonably established. 22

In light of the prosecution's failure to establish with moral certainty the identity and the unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drugs seized from appellant, a verdict of acquittal here is in order. 23

Unlawful possession of firearms and ammunitions

To sustain a conviction for unlawful possession of firearms and ammunitions, the following elements must concur: 1) the firearm subject of the offense exists; and 2) the accused who possessed or owned that firearm had no corresponding license for it. 24

Here, the prosecution presented SPO1 Naredo Jr.'s testimony that he saw the improvised shot gun on top of a drawer inside appellant's house. It also offered in evidence a Certification dated March 30, 2015 issued by the Philippine National Police Firearms and Explosives Office Civil Security Group stating that appellant was not a licensed or registered firearm holder. On the basis of the foregoing, the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, found appellant guilty of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunitions.

De Guzman v. People25 held:

The Regional Trial Court was quick to conclude that the first element was shown merely when the prosecution presented a .38 caliber revolver and ammunition, and had them identified by SPO1 Estera. Offering nothing but a singular paragraph as reasoning, it stated:

In the instant case, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the crime. The subject firearm and ammunitions recovered from the accused were duly presented to the Court and identified by SPO1 Estera, the one who arrested the accused. The same were marked as Exhibits "C" and "D" to "D-4".

On the second element, the Regional Trial Court noted not only a Certification issued by the Firearms and Explosive Division of the Philippine National Police belying petitioner's license or registration to possess, but also petitioner's own declaration that he had no such license to possess a .38 caliber revolver:

[A]ccused even admitted in his testimony that he has no license to own, possess or carry any caliber .38 or ammunition which are the subject matter of this case.

xxx xxx xxx

x x x It was, therefore, inadequate for it to have relied on the single testimony of the police officer whose credibility had been put into question not only with respect to the veracity and accuracy of his version of events leading to petitioner's arrest, but even with respect to a supposed prior vendetta against petitioner, and an attempt to extort from him. x x x

This is not to say that petitioner's own allegations against SPO1 Estera are all true. Still, the requisite of moral certainty demanded that petitioner's reservations against SPO1 Estera be addressed. In what amounted to a contest between two (2) vastly different accounts, the standard of proof beyondreasonable doubt could not have been met by the prosecution by wagering itscase on no one but SPO1 Estera. (Underscoring supplied).

So must it be in the case at bar. The lone testimony of a police officer who claimed to have seen and found the unlicensed gun inside appellant's house on the same occasion the supposed buy bust operation was launched cannot stand alone to support a verdict of conviction for unlawful possession of unlicensed firearm against appellant. In the words of De Guzman v. People "(it) was, therefore, inadequate for it to have relied on the single testimony of the police officer whose credibility had been put into question" not only to the veracity of the so called buy-bust operation, but most important, to his compliance with the rule of laws.

On another point, the alleged drugs and firearm were seized in a singular instance, i.e., the buy-bust operation. As discussed, the prosecution's factual allegations were unreliable to warrant a finding of guilt for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The same, therefore, should be applied to the charge of unlawful possession of firearms and ammunitions.

On this score, Trinidad v. People26 held:

x x x An examination of the ruling in the drugs cases (which Trinidad offered as evidence and the RTC admitted as part of his testimony) confirms that the drugs cases and this case are so interwoven and interdependent of each other since, as mentioned, the drugs, as well as the subject firearms and ammunition, were illegally seized in a singular instance, i.e., the buy-bust operation. Hence, the Court may take judicial notice of the circumstances attendant to the buy-bust operation as found by the court which resolved the drugs cases. To recall, in the drugs cases, the finding of unreasonableness of search and seizure of the drugs was mainly based on the failure of PO1 Sanoy's testimony to establish the legitimacy of the buy-bust operation against Trinidad as said testimony was found to be highly doubtful and incredible. x x x

Applying De Guzman and Trinidad, the prosecution failed to prove appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of RA 10591. Verily, an order of acquittal on this score is also in order.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 6, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07949 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Appellant Salvador Javier y Padua is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. 21812-2013-C, 21813-2013-C, and 21814-2013-C. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ordered to a) immediately release him from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause; and b) submit his report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia with the concurrence of Associate Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez, rollo, pp. 2-23.

2. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

3. Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.

4. Penned by Presiding Judge Caesar C. Buenagua, CA rollo, pp. 14-31.

5.Id. at 30-31.

6.Rollo, pp. 2-23.

7.Id. at 22.

8.Id. at 31-33.

9.Id. at 36-38.

10.People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542 (2017).

11.People v. Balibay, 742 Phil. 746, 753 (2014).

12.People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.

13.Id.

14.Id.

15.People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 239000, November 05, 2018.

16. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.

17.People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229509, July 3, 2019.

18.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 236304, November 05, 2018.

19. G.R. No. 218434, July 17, 2019.

20. G.R. No. 229037, July 29, 2019.

21. G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019.

22.Id.

23.People v. Villojan, Jr., G.R. No. 239635, July 22, 2019.

24.De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. 240475, July 24, 2019.

25.Id.

26. G.R. No. 239957, February 18, 2019.