SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250176. October 11, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROSIE LACSAMANA y MANUEL, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated11 October 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250176 (People of the Philippines v. Rosie Lacsamana y Manuel). — On appeal 1 is the April 5, 2019 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09224, affirming the February 16, 2017 Consolidated Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pallocan West, Batangas City, Branch 4, in Criminal Case Nos. 18345 and 18346 which found accused-appellant Rosie Lacsamana y Manuel (Rosie) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5 (Illegal Sale) and Section 11 (Illegal Possession), Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents:
On September 13, 2013, two separate Informations were filed against accused-appellant Rosie for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The accusatory portions thereof read:
Criminal Case No. 18345:
That on or about September 12, 2013, at around 9:50 in the evening at Sitio Itlugan, Brgy. Cuta, Batangas City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully, and criminally sell, dispense, or deliver one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as Shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.12 gram, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Criminal Case No. 18346:
That on or about September 12, 2013, at around 9:50 in the evening at Sitio Itlugan, Brgy. Cuta, Batangas City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully, and criminally possess or have under her custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.20 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "Shabu," a dangerous drug, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law. EcTCAD
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Version of the Prosecution:
At about 7:30 p.m. of September 12, 2013, Police Officer 3 Mark Ivan Are (PO3 Are) of the Batangas City Police Station (BCPS) received information from a civilian asset regarding the drug peddling activities of a certain "Rosie," later known as accused-appellant, by the bridge at Sitio Itlugan, Brgy. Cuta, Batangas City. 6 A buy-bust team was formed led by Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Arnold Antenor Delos Reyes (SPO1 Delos Reyes), PO3 Are and PO1 John Kenneth Badiola Bay (PO1 Bay) as arresting officers, and the asset as the poseur-buyer. 7 PO3 Are gave the asset a P500.00 bill which he marked with his initials "MIA" as marked money. 8 The Pre-Operation 9 and Coordination Reports 10 were likewise prepared.
Prior to leaving the police station, the members of the buy-bust team were frisked to ensure they were not in possession of any dangerous drugs. 11 Thereafter, they boarded PO3 Are's vehicle and a black motorcycle, and headed to the barangay hall for coordination. 12
Upon arrival at the target place, PO3 Are parked his car about five meters away from the bridge at Sitio Itlugan. Then, the asset alighted the vehicle and approached Rosie. 13 After what appeared to be a short discussion, the asset handed the buy-bust money to Rosie, who in turn, gave something to her. 14 Upon receipt thereof, the asset gave the pre-arranged signal of raising her shirt. 15 The police officers immediately disembarked from the vehicle and arrested Rosie. 16 When PO3 Are frisked accused-appellant, he recovered the buy-bust money and a sachet of what appeared to be shabu which he marked as "MIA." 17 Meanwhile, the asset handed over the sachet she bought from Rosie to PO3 Are, which the latter marked as "MIA-09-12-13." 18
Thereafter, Rosie was taken to the barangay hall where an inventory of the seized items was conducted in the presence of the accused-appellant, PO3 Are, SPO1 Delos Reyes, Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Evelyn Jovellanos, and Brgy. Councilor Lemuel 19 Perez. 20 At the barangay hall, PO3 Are turned over the seized items to SPO1 Pepito Adelantar (SPO1 Adelantar). 21 The latter also took photographs. 22 Meanwhile, the incidents that night were recorded in the barangay blotter by Brgy. Tanod Hernando Malunas. 23
After conducting the inventory, the police officers took Rosie to the BCPS. Upon arrival at the BCPS, SPO1 Adelantar prepared the requests for laboratory examination and drug testing. 24 He also personally turned over custody of the said requests along with accused-appellant and the specimens to the Barangay Provincial Crime Laboratory Office (BPCLO), which were received by SPO3 Agustin. 25 Thereafter, the two plastic sachets of shabu and urine sample were handed over to Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Herminia Llacuna (PSI Llacuna). After examination, only the two sachets tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 26
During trial, PSI Llacuna's testimony was dispensed with in view of the following stipulations offered by the prosecution and admitted by the defense:
1. That PSI Llacuna is a bonafide member of the PNP and a duly qualified forensic chemist assigned and on duty at the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office on September 13, 2013;
2. That in the performance of her duty on said date, she received from SPO3 Agustin also at the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory, the Letter Request for laboratory examination dated September 12, 2013 coming from the Batangas City Police Station, the specimen described thereto, which are, two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing suspected shabu with marking MIA-09-12-13;
3. That she can identify the letter request and the specimens, which are two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet[s] of shabu with marking MIA-09-12-13;
4. That in the performance of her duty on said date, she conducted a laboratory examination on the said specimen and placed her findings into writing under Chemistry Report No. BD-513-2013;
5. That she could identify the Chemistry Report with her name and signature;
6. That she could identify the letter request for drug test;
7. That after conducting the laboratory examination, PSI Llacuna turned over the said specimen to the Evidence Custodian of the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory to SPO3 J.T. Agustin on the same date as evidenced by a Chain of Custody Form;
8. That on March 5, 2014, PSI Llacuna received among others, the specimen, the said sachets of shabu together with the original copy of the Chemistry Report No. BD-513-2013 from the Evidence Custodian SPO3 J.T. Agustin and turned it over to Rodel Espina of the City Prosecutor's Office, Batangas City;
9. That she could identify the Chain of Custody Form;
10. That a receipt of evidence was turned over by PSI Llacuna to Rodel Espina of the City Prosecutor's Office; and
11. That she could identify the said receipt of evidence. 27
Version of the Defense:
At around 4:00 p.m. of September 12, 2013, Rosie was at home with her husband when their neighbor, Gloria Villanueva (Gloria) asked her to run errands for her and buy fruits. 28 While walking towards the bridge in Sitio Itlugan, a vehicle suddenly stopped in front of her and four men in civilian clothes alighted. 29 When she was pulled towards their vehicle, one of the men, later identified by the accused-appellant as PO3 Are, demanded for her to show them illegal drugs. 30 She answered that she had no illegal drugs in her possession but the officers still brought her to the BCPS. 31 At the station, she was asked again about the illegal drugs and she continued to answer that she did not possess any. 32 HSAcaE
At about 9:30 p.m., the police officers brought Rosie to the barangay hall of Brgy. Cuta. 33 Two of the officers went out of the vehicle for a short while. 34 Upon their return, they proceeded to the bridge in Sitio Itlugan, where the police officers brought out a plastic sachet and took photographs. 35 When they went back to the barangay hall, Rosie was made to stand in a corner while the police officers were writing something. 36 After photographs were taken, they went back to the BCPS. 37
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its February 16, 2017 Consolidated Decision, 38 the RTC found Rosie guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged. The dispositive portion of the judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused Rosie Lacsamana y Manuel, who has been charged in the past in this Court for violation of the dangerous drugs law, GUILTY, beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses for Violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of R.A. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for the following period:
Section 5 — Criminal Case No. 18345
I. Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00;
Section 11 — Criminal Case No. 18346
2. Indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 17 years and 4 months as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
The preventive imprisonment of the accused shall be credited in the service of her sentence.
The methamphetamine hydrochloride subject of these cases shall be turned over to the PDEA Region 4A office for proper disposition/destruction.
Let a Commitment Order issue for the transfer of detention of the accused from the Batangas City Jail to the Women's Correctional Facility at Mandaluyong City, Metro Manila.
SO ORDERED. 39
Aggrieved, Rosie elevated the matter before the CA. She argued that the trial court erred in not finding her warrantless arrest as illegal. As a result, she claimed that the allegedly confiscated shabu is inadmissible. 40 Accused-appellant also contended that the prosecution failed to prove the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. She emphasized that it was the asset who acted as the poseur-buyer and not PO3 Are. However, this asset was not presented in court. She insisted that PO3 Are had no personal knowledge of the transaction and his testimony regarding the buy-bust is merely hearsay which cannot be the basis of her conviction. She stressed that the non-presentation of the asset is fatal to the prosecution's case since her testimony is not merely corroborative, but indispensable in establishing the sale of the alleged illegal drugs. 41
Rosie further maintained that the arresting officers failed to comply with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. She argued that the qualifications of the representative from DOJ and the elected official were not properly established by the prosecution. Moreover, there was no representative from the media who witnessed the inventory and photographing of the seized items. 42
Additionally, she argued that there were significant gaps in the chain of custody. First, SPO1 Adelantar failed to testify regarding the circumstances by which he handled the seized evidence when it was turned over to him by PO3 Are. Second, PSI Llacuna's stipulated testimony failed to include how she handled the seized drugs. Third, evidence custodian SPO3 Agustin failed to testify how he handled the seized drugs while he was in possession thereof. 43
Contrariwise, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintained that the prosecution established all the elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of dangerous drugs. It explained that PO3 Are positively identified Rosie as the one who sold shabu to the asset in exchange for P500.00. With regard to accused-appellant's arrest, it argued that a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment where the suspect is caught in flagrante delicto. Hence, Rosie's arrest is valid since she was caught committing an offense. In any case, the OSG averred that any objection to the legality of accused-appellant's arrest is deemed waived for raising it only for the first time on appeal.
The OSG also contended that contrary to Rosie's claim, the presentation of the poseur-buyer is not indispensable for accused-appellant's conviction. Moreover, it stressed that PO3 Are witnessed the sale transaction between the asset and Rosie from his car, negating the argument that his testimony is hearsay.
As to the alleged non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the OSG countered that the provisions do not state that non-compliance thereto renders the seized items inadmissible in evidence. Additionally, it argued that the chain of custody was duly established by the prosecution. Absent any showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof that the evidence had been tampered with, it claimed that the integrity of the evidence is presumed to have been preserved.
Lastly, the OSG posited that Rosie's defense of denial is weak and self-serving. It maintained that her defense cannot overcome the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties. 44 HESIcT
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its assailed Decision, the CA affirmed Rosie's judgment of conviction. The fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Consolidated Decision dated February 16, 2017 of Branch 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Pallocan West, Batangas City in Criminal Case Nos. 18345 and 18346 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.45
Discontented, Rosie filed the present appeal before this Court. 46
Issue
Whether or not Rosie is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
Generally, findings of fact of the trial court are accorded great respect, even finality when affirmed by the CA, absent any clear showing that certain facts and circumstances of weight or substance that could have affected the result of the case have been overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied. 47 If by evidence or the lack thereof, it seems that the trial court erred, such factual findings may be reversed. 48
After careful review of the records of the case, We are constrained to reverse the findings of both lower courts.
For an accused to be convicted of the offense of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 49 What matters is proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, as evidence of the corpus delicti. 50 In buy-bust operations, the receipt by the poseur-buyer of the dangerous drug and the corresponding receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 51 On the other hand, the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs are: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a dangerous drug; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 52
In both offenses, the integrity and identity of the dangerous drug seized from the accused must be preserved as it constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. 53
In the case at bar, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal sale of shabu took place. Records show that the arresting officer, PO3 Are, admitted that he was inside his vehicle and more or less five meters away from the asset and Rosie when the alleged sale took place. His testimony reveals as much:
Q: When you arrived there, you actually park[ed] your car on the right side of the road near the bridge in Sitio Itlugan, Batangas City?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: When your asset arrived, she proceeded to where the accused was?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And you were then five (5) meters away from the arrest?
A: More or less, ma'am.
Q: While you were inside your car?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: You stated here that they talked but [is] it not correct that you actually did not hear what they were talking about?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: After the two talked, while the headlights of your car was on, then you saw the asset giving the money to Rosie Lacsamana?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: And in return Rosie took something from her pocket which [s]he handed to your asset, you do not know of what Rosie Lacsamana actually took from her pocket at that point, is that correct?
A: I know, ma'am.
Q: What is that?
A: Shabu, ma'am.
Q: Why do you know?
A: Our operation is regarding the selling of shabu.
Q: Because the subject matter of your operation is shabu, did you actually see this item taken out by Rosie from her pocket?
A: Yes, ma'am. I saw when she took it from her pocket.
Q: What is that, that she took out from her pocket, can you describe that to us?
A: I saw when Rosie Lacsamana took out that plastic sachet from her pocket and [handed] it to the asset because the light of my car [was] not that far and the light was [focused] on them.
Q: That was already night time, about what time was it?
A: 9:50 p.m. ma'am.54 caITAC
Based on PO3 Are's testimony, there is reasonable doubt that the sale transaction happened. We note that during the alleged sale, it was nighttime and PO3 Are was inside his vehicle at a considerable distance of about five meters from accused-appellant and the asset. Considering the miniscule amount of 0.12 gram of alleged shabu inside a plastic sachet from Rosie's pocket, it would be difficult to identify with reasonable accuracy that the contents thereof were illegal drugs. 55 Admittedly, PO3 Are did not even hear the conversation or transaction between the asset and accused-appellant. Significantly, it was the asset, acting as the poseur-buyer, who could have testified on the alleged transaction. Unfortunately, the asset was not presented during trial.
The case of People v. Conlu56 is instructive:
In this case, there is serious doubt that the sale of the 0.01 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu between appellant and the poseur-buyer ever took place. The poseur-buyer, whose testimony would have clearly established that the illegal transaction occurred, was not presented before the court. While the prosecution argues that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer was not fatal to its case because there were eyewitnesses, we deem otherwise. The ten or seven-meter distance between the police officers waiting for the pre-arranged signal from the poseur-buyer and the appellant made it difficult for the supposed eyewitnesses to see (and hear) what exactly was happening between appellant and the poseur-buyer.
xxx xxx xxx
While PO2 Libo-on testified that he saw appellant and the poseur-buyer "transacting" and that appellant "took something from his right side," he failed to describe clearly what he actually saw. PO2 Libo-on merely stated that he "believed that [the something] was shabu," without giving any description of the "something." In other words, PO2 Libo-on's testimony hardly qualifies as an eyewitness account of what kind of "transaction" actually transpired between appellant and the poseur-buyer. Specifically, PO2 Libo-on's testimony did not clearly establish that he saw and heard that appellant was selling shabu to the poseur-buyer, and the latter was buying shabu from appellant. 57 (Emphasis supplied)
In a similar case where the poseur-buyer was not presented, this Court held in People v. Andaya58 that:
Proof of the transaction must be credible and complete. In every criminal prosecution, it is the State, and no other, that bears the burden of proving the illegal sale of the dangerous drug beyond reasonable doubt. This responsibility imposed on the State accords with the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, who has no duty to prove his innocence until and unless the presumption of innocence in his favor has been overcome by sufficient and competent evidence.
Here, the confidential informant was not a police officer. He was designated to be the poseur-buyer himself. It is notable that the members of the buy-bust team arrested Andaya on the basis of the pre-arranged signal from the poseur-buyer. The pre-arranged signal signified to the members of the buy-bust team that the transaction had been consummated between the poseur buyer and Andaya. However, the State did not present the confidential informant/poseur buyer during the trial to describe how exactly the transaction between him and Andaya had taken place. There would have been no issue against that, except that none of the members of the buy-bust team had directly witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur-buyer due to their being positioned at a distance from the poseur-buyer and Andaya at the moment of the supposed transaction. 59 (Emphasis supplied)
Notably, the CA erred in relying on People v. Otico60 to justify the non-presentation of the asset/poseur-buyer. In the said case, the prosecution's proof of the alleged sale transaction consisted of the testimonies of the arresting officers, neither of whom was the poseur-buyer, and who were 10 meters away from where the poseur-buyer allegedly transacted with the accused. The asset, who was assigned as the poseur-buyer, was never presented as a witness. In acquitting the accused, the Court held that:
While informants are usually not presented in court because of the need to hide their identity and preserve their invaluable service to the police, and the non-presentation of the confidential informant is not fatal to the prosecution, as where the testimony of the informant will merely be corroborative of the apprehending officers' eyewitness testimonies so that there is no need to present the informant in court where the sale was actually witnessed and adequately proved by prosecution witnesses, their presentation is necessary, if not indispensable, when the accused vehemently denies selling prohibited drugs and there are material inconsistencies in the testimonies of the arresting officers, or there are reasons to believe that the arresting officers had motives to testify falsely against the accused, or when the informant was the poseur-buyer and the only one who actually witnessed the entire transaction.
xxx xxx xxx
The version of PO3 Saquibal is incredible. Given the distance of 10 meters, it is unbelievable that a very small or tiny plastic sachet can be seen being handed from one person to another. To be able to see the "white crystalline substance" with a weight of 0.02 gram inside such tiny plastic sachet is utterly impossible, unless one has "bionic eyes" or x-ray vision. Also, PO3 Saquibal's testimony wherein he was able to identify from 10 meters that the P500-bill, which the civilian asset allegedly handed to Otico, was the same one previously marked at the police station means that he was able to either read the serial number of the bill or see the marking "MO" thereon. Of course, that is again impossible. ICHDca
PO1 Villasurda's version that he saw the handing of "money" from the civilian asset to Otico is too tentative given the fact that he used "something" as his initial description. Also, the use of the word "something" in describing what Otico handed to the civilian agent creates reasonable doubt because the description is equivocal.
The acquittal of Otico is warranted on the ground that the evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that the illegal sale of dangerous drug really took place falls terribly short of the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt.61 (Emphasis supplied)
Based on the foregoing, the testimony of the asset acting as a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation is indispensable when the poseur-buyer is the only one who actually witnessed the entire transaction, such as in the present case. Non-presentation of the poseur-buyer under the aforementioned circumstances is fatal to the prosecution's case.
Even assuming that the transaction took place, the substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the alleged seized shabu raises doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.
To establish an unbroken chain of custody, four links must be duly proven: 1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the seized and marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 62
In this case, the identity of the dangerous drug that Rosie allegedly sold to the asset/poseur-buyer cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. We note that there is nothing on record which proves that the drugs allegedly sold by Rosie to the asset/poseur-buyer is the same drugs handed over by the latter to PO3 Are. Thus, there is nothing to prove that the drugs marked by PO3 Are were the very same ones which Rosie allegedly sold to the poseur-buyer due to the latter's non-presentation as a witness. Consequently, the very first link in the chain of custody is broken.
Another lapse that creates doubt as to the identity of the seized shabu is the failure to indicate the weight of the illegal drugs in the documents presented by the prosecution. We, again, turn to the case of People v. Otico, 63 where the weight of the seized drugs was not indicated in any of the testimonies of the police officers, their affidavits, the Spot Report, Certificate of Inventory, or the Request for Laboratory Examination:
In the PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation (PNP Manual), approved by the National Police Commission in its Resolution No. 2010-094 on February 26, 2010, which provides for the standard rules to be followed by PNP members and units engaged in the enforcement of RA 9165 in support of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), part of the handling of drug evidence is "the weighing of dangerous drugs, and if possible under existing conditions, with the registered weight of the evidence on the scale focused by the camera, in the presence of persons required, as provided under Section 21, Art. II, RA 9165."
Given the failure to indicate the weight of the shabu in the documents required to be accomplished in the handling of the drug evidence starting from recovery of the shabu from the civilian agent to the request for laboratory examination to prove the regularity of the buy-bust operation and preserve the integrity of the recovered shabu, and to comply with the requirement in the PNP Manual on the weighing thereof, the object of the illegal sale has clearly not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is thus reasonable doubt that the alleged shabu, which was recovered from the civilian agent and bought by the latter from Otico, might not be the same one that was delivered to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office 7 for examination. 64
Moreover, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides for the procedural safeguards in the seizure, custody, and handling of confiscated illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia. While RA 10640 65 amended Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 on July 15, 2014, the alleged crime in the present case took place prior to the amendment. Hence, the old provisions apply. The pertinent portion of Section 21 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. (Emphasis supplied)
Furthermore, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 provides:
(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[.] 66 (Emphasis supplied). TCAScE
Based on the foregoing, the marking, photography, and inventory of the seized items should be done immediately after seizure and confiscation of the items, and in the presence of the (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media; (3) a representative from the DOJ; and (4) any elected public official. The presence of these insulating witnesses is necessary to negate any suspicion of the evils of switching, planting or contamination of the evidence. 67 In the case at bar, the officers failed to comply with the three-witness rule due to the absence of the media representative. During the inventory of the seized items, only DOJ representative Evelyn Jovellanos and Brgy. Councilor Lemuel 68 Perez were present.
Concededly, non-compliance with Section 21 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as invalid, as long as the prosecution proves: 1) a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and 2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 69 Moreover, the failure to follow the procedure laid down in Section 21 must be adequately explained, proven as a fact, and supported by competent evidence. 70 In fact, the arresting officers must not simply mention a justifiable ground for its deviation from Section 21, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, together with an explanation of the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item. 71
In People v. Sipin, 72 this Court laid down the following justifiable grounds that may exempt the apprehending officers from failure to secure the required witnesses: (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. 73
Notably, in this case, the prosecution failed to explain, much less acknowledge the absence of the media representative during the conduct of the inventory. Neither was it shown that the officers exerted earnest efforts to secure their presence. Accordingly, this substantial gap casts doubt upon the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item and renders the seized drugs inadmissible in evidence.
Anent the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties of the police officers, such presumption stands only when there is nothing on record to cast doubt on the regularity of the performance of their duties. Due to the significant lapses in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, the presumption cannot apply. Besides, the presumption of regularity in the performance of the arresting officers' duties cannot prevail over the constitutionally enshrined presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 74
Lastly, We recognize that the OSG is correct in saying that any objection to the legality of accused-appellant's arrest is deemed waived for raising it for the first time on appeal. However, a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. 75
All told, the prosecution failed to prove Rosie's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The non-presentation of the asset/poseur-buyer, who is the only one who actually witnessed the sale transaction, casts serious doubt on whether the sale of illegal drugs really took place. The failure to indicate the weight of the seized shabu in any of the prosecution's testimonies and evidence, coupled with the failure to justify the absence of the media representative during inventory, casts doubt on the identity of the seized drugs. Consequently, the presumption of regularity in the performance of the officers' official duties cannot apply. Hence, accused-appellant must be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed April 5, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09224, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Rosie Lacsamana y Manuel is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause. cTDaEH
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Superintendent, Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Superintendent, Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (SAJ. Perlas-Bernabe, on Official Leave; J. Hernando, Acting Chairperson per S.O. No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021; J. Zalameda is designated as additional Member per October 6, 2021 raffle vice J. Gaerlan who recused due to prior action in the Court of Appeals.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 19-21.
2.Id. at 3-18; penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Maria Filomena D. Singh and Pablito A. Perez.
3. CA rollo, pp. 62-68; penned by Presiding Judge Albert A. Kalalo.
4. Records, Criminal Case No. 18345, p. 1.
5. Records, Criminal Case No. 18346, p. 1.
6. Records, Criminal Case No. 18345, p. 4; Records, Criminal Case No. 18346, p. 3.
7. TSN, August 19, 2015, pp. 4-5.
8.Id. at 5.
9. Records, Criminal Case No. 18345, p. 16.
10.Id. at 17.
11. TSN, August 19, 2015, pp. 14-16.
12. TSN, July 30, 2014, pp. 3-5.
13. TSN, August 19, 2015, p. 16.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 18.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 6-7.
18.Id.
19. Also referred as Howard in some parts of the records.
20. TSN, August 19, 2015, pp. 8-10; Records, Criminal Case No. 18345, p. 14.
21. TSN, August 19, 2015, pp. 11-12; TSN, July 30, 2014, pp. 11-12; Records, Criminal Case No. 18345, p. 15.
22. TSN, July 30, 2014, p. 13.
23.Id. at 5-7.
24. Records, Criminal Case No. 18345, pp. 5, 8.
25. TSN, July 30, 2014, pp. 14-18.
26. Records, Criminal Case No. 18345, p. 6.
27. TSN, May 21, 2014.
28. TSN, June 8, 2016, pp. 3-5.
29.Id. at 5.
30.Id. at 6.
31.Id. at 7-8.
32.Id.
33.Id. at 9.
34.Id. at 10.
35.Id.
36.Id. at 11.
37.Id.
38.Supra note 3.
39. CA rollo, pp. 67-68.
40.Id. at 52-53.
41.Id. at 53.
42.Id. at 55.
43.Id. at 56.
44.Id. at 94-101.
45.Rollo, p. 18.
46.Id. at 19.
47.People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 644 (2010) citing Valdez v. People, 563 Phil. 934, 945 (2007).
48.Id. citing Zarraga v. People, 519 Phil. 614 (2006).
49.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017) citing People v. Alberto, 625 Phil. 545, 554 (2010) citing People v. Dumlao, 584 Phil. 732, 739 (2009).
50.People v. De Guzman, supra note 46.
51.Id. citing People v. Nazareno, 559 Phil. 387, 392-393 (2007).
52.People v. Seguiente, 833 Phil. 811, 817 (2018), citing People v. Eyam, 699 Phil. 384, 391 (2012).
53.People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 591 (2017).
54. TSN, August 19, 2015, pp. 16-17.
55.People v. Otico, 832 Phil. 992, 1013 (2018).
56. G.R. No. 225213, October 3, 2018.
57.Id.
58. 745 Phil. 237 (2014).
59.Id. at 247.
60. CA rollo, p. 14.
61.Supra note 54 at 1002-1003, 1013.
62.People v. Mammad, 769 Phil. 782, 790 (2015) citing People v. Salvador, 726 Phil. 389, 405 (2014).
63.Supra note 54.
64.Id. at 1015.
65. An Act to Further 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."
66. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," August 30, 2002.
67.People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
68. See note 18.
69.People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052 (2012).
70.People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 144 (2017).
71.Id.
72. 833 Phil. 67 (2018).
73.Id. at 93.
74.Supra note 66 at 769-770 (2014).
75.Sindac v. People, 794 Phil. 421, 436 (2016) citing Homar v. People, 768 Phil. 195, 209 (2015).