SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 208361. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.TOTOY LARA y NOBLE, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated29 September 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 208361 (People of the Philippines v. Totoy Lara y Noble). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated September 25, 2012 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04729, which affirmed the Judgment 2 dated October 29, 2009 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Branch 28, in Criminal Case No. SC-10964, finding accused-appellant Totoy Lara y Noble (Lara) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
Facts
Lara was charged with selling 0.03 gram of shabu. During his arraignment, he pleaded not guilty and trial ensued. The prosecution witnesses testified that on November 18, 2003, the Pila Municipal Police Station in Laguna, received an information about the illegal activities of Lara. After police operatives conducted a surveillance, Police Superintendent Amado Sadili formed a buy-bust team on November 20, 2003, composed of Police Officer 1 Antonio Dorado (PO1 Dorado) as poseur-buyer, with Senior Police Officer 2 Claro Villador and SPO2 Arnel Mendoza as backup. 3 Two (2) one-hundred-peso bills were given to PO1 Dorado as marked money. The buy-bust team and a civilian agent proceeded to the residence of Lara at Villa Leoncia Subdivision, Barangay Sta. Clara Sur, Pila, Laguna. The civilian agent introduced PO1 Dorado to Lara as a buyer of shabu. After agreeing on the amount to be purchased, PO1 Dorado gave the marked money to Lara. In turn, Lara handed to PO1 Dorado a small plastic sachet which he took from his pocket. PO1 Dorado then executed the pre-arranged signal by putting his left hand on his head. The other police officers arrived to assist in arresting Lara, and they recovered the marked money from him. Lara was brought to the Pila Municipal Police Station, while the small plastic sachet believed to contain shabu was sent to the crime laboratory for examination. 4 The contents of the plastic sachet tested positive for metamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
In his defense, Lara testified that on November 20, 2003, between 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon, he was in his house drinking with his brothers Rico and Larry. At around 1:30 p.m., his six-year-old son, Christian, called him saying that there was someone outside. Lara went out to see who it was when, suddenly, a person poked a gun at him. There were five (5) persons in civilian clothes who pointed their guns at him. They did not inform Lara why he was being apprehended. Lara further stated that he recognized PO1 Dorado because he had occasion to meet him when he secured a police clearance a month prior to his arrest. He was taken to the Pila Police Station and immediately incarcerated. It was only on the following day that he found out that he was being charged for selling illegal drugs. Prior to his arrest, Lara worked as a tricycle driver and a garden landscaper. He denied that he was engaged in any drug activity. 5
The RTC Decision
On October 29, 2009, the RTC rendered its Judgment, 6 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Totoy Lara y Noble GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Php500,000 pesos.
SO ORDERED. 7
Aggrieved, Lara filed a motion for reconsideration. The CA however, denied the said motion.
The CA Decision
On September 25, 2012, the CA rendered its Decision 8 affirming the RTC ruling, as follows:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Branch 28, dated 29 October 2009, in Criminal Case No. SC-10964, as well as the Resolution denying reconsideration thereof, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 9
Issue
The issue is whether accused-appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt despite noncompliance with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
The Court's Ruling
The Court finds the appeal impressed with merit.
For the successful conviction of an accused under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must prove: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. It is likewise essential for a conviction that the drugs subject of the sale be presented in court and its identity established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody over the same. The prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 10 In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law. 11 While it is true that a buy-bust operation is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors, 12 the law nevertheless also requires strict compliance with procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights are safeguarded.
Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 outlines the procedure which police officers must follow when handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. 13 Under the said section, prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 10640, 14 the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately afterseizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his 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 of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination. 15
After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds that the apprehending officers committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from Lara. In this case, there was no mention in the records whether the inventory and photography of the seized plastic sachet were conducted in the presence of a representative from the media, an elected public official, and a representative from the DOJ as required by the rules prevailing at that time (i.e., Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 10640). Not one of the required witnesses was present during the inventory stage. Neither was it shown that earnest efforts were made by the police officers to secure the attendance of these witnesses. Given the time of the surveillance and arrest, the police officers had more than enough time to secure the attendance of the witnesses, had they really wanted to.
In People v. Reyes, 16 the Court enumerated certain instances when absence of the required witnesses may be justified, viz.:
It must be emphasized that the prosecution must be able to prove a justifiable ground in omitting certain requirements provided in Sec. 21 such as, but not limited to the following: (1) media representatives are not available at that time or that the police operatives had no time to alert the media due to the immediacy of the operation they were about to undertake, especially if it is done in more remote areas; (2) the police operatives, with the same reason, failed to find an available representative of the National Prosecution Service; (3) the police officers, due to time constraints brought about by the urgency of the operation to be undertaken and in order to comply with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code in the timely delivery of prisoners, were not able to comply with all the requisites set forth in Section 21 of R.A. [No.] 9165. 17
The failure of the police officers to provide a reasonable excuse or justification for the absence of the required witnesses clearly magnified the lack of concrete effort on their part to comply with the requirements of Section 21. The absence of these witnesses constitutes a substantial gap in the chain of custody and raises doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the item allegedly seized from the accused-appellant. The prosecution's failure to justify its noncompliance with the requirements found in Section 21, specifically, the presence of the three required witnesses during the actual inventory of the seized items, is fatal to their case. Moreover, a stricter adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is minuscule since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration. 18 Considering that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have been compromised, accused-appellant in this case must be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 25, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04729 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Totoy Lara y Noble is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Totoy Lara y Noble, unless he is being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-17; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) with Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court) and Leoncia Real Dimagiba, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 56-58; penned by Presiding Judge Iluminado M. Dela Peña.
3. TSN, August 19, 2004, pp. 13-22.
4.Id. at pp. 9-17.
5. TSN, June 27, 2006, pp. 7-17.
6. CA rollo, pp. 56-58.
7.Id. at 58.
8.Rollo, pp. 2-17.
9.Id. at 16.
10.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448-449 (2018).
11. See People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441, 450-451 (2013).
12.People v. Mantalaba, 669 Phil. 461, 471 (2011).
13.People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 349-350 (2015).
14. 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.
15. See REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, Article II, Section 21 (1) and (2).
16. 830 Phil. 619 (2018).
17.Id. at 632-633.
18. See People v. Abelarde, 824 Phil. 122, 131-132 (2018).