FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252672. June 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOHN/JAN MICHAEL LEGASPI y BAGTAS a.k.a. "MIC-MIC", JOY P. CARDEÑO y PORES a.k.a. "JOY", ET AL., accused,
JOHN/JAN MICHAEL LEGASPI y BAGTAS a.k.a. "MIC-MIC" and LUIGI LEGASPI y BAGTAS a.k.a. "LOUIE", accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252672 (People of the Philippines v. John/Jan Michael Legaspi y Bagtas a.k.a. "Mic-Mic," Joy P. Cardeño y Pores a.k.a. "Joy," et al., accused; John/Jan Michael Legaspi y Bagtas a.k.a. "Mic-Mic" and Luigi Legaspi y Bagtas a.k.a. "Louie," accused-appellants). — Before Us is an appeal 1 filed by John/Jan Michael B. Legaspi a.k.a. "Mic-Mic" (Mic-Mic) and Luigi B. Legaspi a.k.a. Louie (Louie) assailing the Decision 2 dated October 23, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39698 finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 11 and 12 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165.
Facts of the Case
This case arose from nine Informations charging Mic-Mic, Joy P. Cardeño (Cardeño), Ritchie A. Heramis (Heramis), Louie, Jojie A. Soto (Soto), and Joseph S. Navarro (Navarro), who is currently at large. Out of those nine Informations, only four Informations are subject of the present appeal.
In Criminal Case No. 196-V-16, Mic-Mic, Cardeño and Heramis were charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 or for illegal possession of dangerous drugs to wit:
That on or about 29th of January, 2016 in the City of Valenzuela and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, grouping themselves together for one common purpose and without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in their possession and control one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "MIC-MIC 59", containing 0.82 gram of white crystalline substance found to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) and one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "MIC-MIC-1", containing 0.13 gram of white crystalline substance found to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), all of the accused knowing the substance to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
In Criminal Case No. 197-V-16, Mic-Mic, Cardeño, and Heramis were charged with violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. 9165 or for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, to wit: AcICHD
That on or about 29th of January 2016 in the City of Valenzuela and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, grouping themselves together for one common purpose, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in their possession, custody and control the following:
• One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "MIC-MIC 1 w/date and signature";
• One (1) digital scale marked as "MIC-MIC 5 w/date and signature";
• One (1) aluminum foil strip marked as "MIC-MIC-6 w/date and signature";
• One (1) aluminum foil wrapper marked as "MIC-MIC 18 w/date and signature";
• One (1) pc. Black pouch marked as "MIC-MIC-2 w/date and signature" containing:
— One (1) pc. unsealed transparent plastic sachet CALYPSO containing pieces of unsealed transparent plastic sachets marked as "MIC-MIC-3 w/date and signature";
— One (1) pc. unsealed transparent plastic sachet CALYPSO [containing] pieces of unsealed transparent plastic sachets marked as "MIC-MIC-4 w/date and signature";
— One (1) pc. stainless scissors marked as "MIC-MIC-9 w/date and signature";
— Two (2) pcs. disposable lighters respectively marked as "MIC-MIC-10 and 11 w/date and signature";
— Two (2) pcs. disposable lighters respectively marked as "MIC-MIC-12 and 13 w/date and signature";
— One (1) pc. unsealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "MIC-MIC-14 w/date and signature";
— One (1) pc. aluminum foil strip rolled marked as "MIC-MIC-16 w/date and signature";
— One (1) needle marked as "MIC-MIC-17 w/date and signature";
• One (1) pc. black pouch marked as "MIC-MIC-23 w/date and signature" containing:
— One (1) stainless tweezer marked as "MIC-MIC-24 w/date and signature";
— One (1) small stainless spoon marked as "MIC-MIC-25 w/date and signature";
— Nine (9) unsealed transparent plastic sachet respectively marked as "MIC-MIC-27 to 35 w/date and signature";
— One (1) pc. unsealed transparent plastic sachet [marked as] "MIC-MIC-36 w/date and signature";
— One (1) unsealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "MIC-MIC-60 w/date and signature".
All of which were used for smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting or introducing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, into their bodies.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
In Criminal Case No. 202-V-16, Soto, Louie and Navarro were charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165, to wit:
That on or about 29th of January 2016 in the City of Valenzuela and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, grouping themselves together for one common purpose and without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in their possession and control:
1. Three (3) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets marked as "EBC-1", "EBC-2" and "EBC-3," respectively containing 0.06 gram, 0.06 gram, and 0.08 gram of white crystalline substance found to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu),
2. One (1) piece unsealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "EBC-12" containing 0.64 grams of dried leaves found to be Marijuana.
All of the accused knowing he items to be dangerous drugs.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Finally, in Criminal Case No. 203-V-16, Soto, Louie and Navarro were charged with violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. 9165, to wit:
That on or about 29th of January 2016 in the City of Valenzuela and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, grouping themselves together for one common purpose, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in their possession, custody and control a wooden box marked as "EBC-37" containing the following:
— One (1) pc. aluminum foil trip marked as "EBC-4 w/date & signature";
— One (1) small aluminum foil crumple marked as "EBC-5 w/date & signature";
— One (1) pc. unsealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "EBC-6 w/date & signature";
— Four (4) pcs. unsealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "EBC-7 w/date & signature" to "EBC-10 w/date & signature";
— One (1) pc. unsealed transparent plastic sachet CALYPSO marked as "EBC-11 w/date and signature";
— One (1) pc. improvised cigarette pipe marked as "EBC-13 w/date & signature";
— One (1) pc. small glass pipe marked as "EBC-14 w/date & signature";
— One (1) pc. glass tube "improvised tooter" marked as "EBC-15 w/date & signature";
— One (1) pc. aluminum foil strip "improvised tooter" marked as "EBC-16 w/date & signature";
— One (1) pc. plastic bottle "improvised burner" marked as "EBC-17 w/date & signature";
— One (1) pc. stainless scissors marked as "EBC-18 w/date & signature";
— Four (4) pcs. disposable lighters marked as "EBC-19 w/date & signature" to "EBC-22 w/date & signature";
— Two (2) pcs. digital scale marked as "EBC-23 w/date & signature" and "EBC-24 w/date & signature";
— One (1) pc. magnifying glass marked as "EBC-25 w/date & signature";
— One (1) self sealing transparent plastic sachet marked as "EBC-37 w/date & signature";
— One (1) pc. plastic marked as "EBC-38 w/date & signature".
All of which were used for smoking, consuming, administering, ingesting or introducing shabu and marijuana, both dangerous drug into their bodies. TAIaHE
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Upon arraignment, all the accused pleaded not guilty.
After the prosecution rested its case, the defense filed a Motion for Leave to file a Demurrer to Evidence with Motion to Dismiss. The RTC partially granted the motion to dismiss insofar as Criminal Case No. 198-V-16 which charged Mic-Mic and Cardeño for illegal possession of firearms. Also, Criminal Case No. 195-V-16 which charged Mic-Mic and Cardeño for violation of Section 6, Article II of R.A. 9165, was dismissed but only as to Cardeño. 7
The prosecution and the defense entered into the following stipulations:
1. PCI Richard Allan Mangalip (PCI Mangalip) is the forensic chemist who examined the seized dangerous drugs. He prepared the Chemistry Report Nos. D-086016 and DT-099-16 to DT-104-16;
2. SPO4 Sanchez was the investigator on the cases. He prepared the letter-referral for inquest, the Affidavit of Investigation, Inventories of Seized Properties/Items, Arrest and Booking Sheets, Chain of Custody Form, Request for Laboratory Examination;
3. SPO1 Estrella, PO3 Terte and PO2 Cabusal turned over to SPO4 Sanchez the seized items;
4. SPO4 Sanchez turned over the seized items to the Crime Lab which were received by PO2 Mauricio M. Bodoso;
5. Gunigundo is the barangay chairwoman in Marulas, Valenzuela. That she witnessed the reading of the search warrant to Mic-Mic. That she can identify the photographs taken during the inventory and that she can also identify the Inventories of Seized Properties/Items; and
6. Prosecutor Jan Erich del Rosario (Pros. del Rosario) is a DOJ representative. He witnessed the inventory conducted on January 29, 2016. He can identify the photographs taken during the inventory and that he can also identify the Inventories of Seized Properties/Items. He however did not witness the actual search of the house. 8
Version of the Prosecution
On January 29, 2016, PCI Allan Ruba (PCI Ruba), chief of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) conducted a briefing for the service of a search warrant at the residence of Mic-Mic in Little Baguio St., Barangay (Brgy.) Marulas. At around 5:00 p.m., PCI Ruba, together with SPO4 Ronald C. Sanchez (SPO4 Sanchez), SPO2 Armin Garcia (SPO2 Garcia), SPO1 Arnold Estrella (SPO1 Estrella), PO3 Jerry Terte (PO3 Terte), PO2 Harison Verde (PO2 Verde), PO2 Edwin Cabusao (PO2 Cabusao), and a SWAT member proceeded to Brgy. Marulas to coordinate with Brgy. Chairwoman Adelma Gunigundo (Gunigundo) about the service of the warrant. Thereafter, they proceeded to Little Baguio St. and since the gate was open, the team entered the premises. 9
PCI Ruba knocked on the door of the house and Mic-Mic opened the same. PCI Ruba introduced himself and informed Mic-Mic that he has a search warrant. PCI Ruba read and served the search warrant to Mic-Mic. The team entered the house to conduct a search. They saw Cardeño and Heramis by the dining table while Soto and Navarro ran upstairs. 10
At the first floor, SPO2 Garcia and PO3 Terte saw two pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing shabu, pieces of opened transparent plastic sachet with traces of shabu and various drug paraphernalia on top of the dining table. SPO2 Garcia then arrested Mic-Mic, Cardeño and Heramis. PO3 Terte frisked Mic-Mic and recovered a black pouch containing P100.00 bills. SPO4 Sanchez took photographs of the accused and the seized items. Thereafter PO3 Terte had sole custody of the seized item and waited for Pros. del Rosario to arrive to conduct the inventory. 11
At the second floor, PO2 Verde saw Soto and Navarro run to the terrace and jump over the back of the house. Soto was apprehended by the police operatives but Navarro escaped. PO2 Verde then helped PO2 Cabusao to search a room at the second floor. 12
PO2 Cabusao entered one room and saw Louie lying on the bed. PO2 Cabusao introduced himself and frisked Louie. He however did not find anything on Louie. PO2 Cabusao searched the wooden cabinet inside the room and found a wooden box containing drug paraphernalia and some documents. 13
Meanwhile, PO2 Verde searched the other cabinet inside the room and found a caliber .38 revolver loaded with four pieces of ammunition. 14
In the other room at the second floor, SPO1 Estrella saw a big cabinet, when he opened the same, he found Villarin hiding inside. SPO1 Estrella asked Villarin to come out and handcuffed him. SPO1 Estrella saw an aluminum foil strip, scissors, lighter and a marijuana cigarette on a table inside the room. 15
After about an hour, Pros. del Rosario arrived at the scene. Upon his arrival, the inventory and marking of the seized items were first conducted at the first floor. At around 9:00 p.m., PO3 Terte placed the markings "Mic-Mic" and series with date and signature on the seized items at the first floor. Thereafter, he placed them in a sealed envelope and turned it over to SPO4 Sanchez. The inventory and marking were witnessed by the accused, Brgy. Chairwoman Gunigundo and Pros. del Rosario. 16
PO3 Terte stated that upon seizure up to its turn over to SPO4 Sanchez, the seized items remained in his custody and control. He also stated that he did not leave the dining area, thus, at all times, he was safeguarding the seized items. 17
After the inventory at the first floor, another inventory was conducted at the second floor where PO2 Cabusao and PO2 Verde were. PO2 Verde placed the markings "HTV" with a date and signature on the gun and the ammunitions. PO2 Verde then placed the same in an evidence bag. 18
Meanwhile, PO2 Cabusao also marked the dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia he seized with "EBC" and series with date and signature. PO2 Cabusao held the seized items until its turnover to SPO4 Sanchez. 19
At the other room, SPO1 Estrella also marked the drug paraphernalia he seized with his initials "AME" and series with date and signature. SPO1 Estrella placed them in a brown envelope and held the same until its turnover to SPO4 Sanchez. 20
All the inventory and marking at the second floor were witnessed by the accused, Brgy. Chairwoman Gunigundo and Pros. del Rosario. 21
Thereafter, the police operatives went to the Valenzuela Medical Center to subject the accused for medical verification. After, they proceeded to the SAID-SOTG office. There, PO3 Terte, PO2 Verde, PO2 Cabusao, and SPO1 Estrella turned over the seized items to SPO4 Sanchez. They then all signed the Chain of Custody Form. 22
SPO4 Sanchez turned over the seized items to the Crime Laboratory. PCI Mangalip conducted the test on the dangerous drugs and the same were contained in Chemist Report Nos. D-086016 and DT-099-16 to DT-104-16. 23
Version of the Defense
Around 9:00 a.m. of January 29, 2016, Mic-Mic and Cardeño, together with Louie, Heramis and Soto went to clean the house at No. 21 Little Baguio St., Brgy. Marulas Valenzuela City. The house was allegedly owned by Mic-Mic's godfather, Roberto Abad, who was then in Taguig. 24
When they finished cleaning the house around 4 p.m., Louie, Mic-Mic, and Cardeño went outside to have snacks. Louie then went to the second floor and entered a room and lied down to sleep. Cardeño also went back inside the house to take a bath. 25
While Mic-Mic was waiting for Cardeño at the gate, a police mobile arrived and asked if he is Mic-Mic. After he confirmed his identity, the police handcuffed him. Villarin, who was then fixing a motorcycle at the garage was also arrested and handcuffed. They were brought to the kitchen area and started to search the house. 26
Meanwhile, Heramis who was at No. 24 Little Baguio St. cleaning the room of two elderly persons he was taking care of, was also suddenly held by a man who poked an armalite at him. 27
The police forcibly opened the bathroom door at No. 21 Little Baguio St. where Cardeño was taking a bath and forced her to go out. She hurriedly dressed and was handcuffed. 28
At the second floor, Louie was awakened by a man holding a long gun. He was also handcuffed and was brought to the dining area with Mic-Mic, Villarin, Cardeño and Heramis. 29
Soto was then cleaning the gutter of the roof at the side of the terrace. Soto heard a noise and turned around. When he turned around, Navarro bumped him and they both fell on the neighbor's vacant lot. Navarro was able to run away, but Soto could not move because he broke his left foot. Thereafter, police officers arrived and arrested him. 30
After the police officers searched the house, they gathered all the evidence recovered on the dining table. At around 8:00 p.m., PCI Ruba and Brgy. Chairwoman Gunigundo arrived. PCI Ruba read and served the search warrant to Mic-Mic. The items found on the dining table were marked, photographed and placed in an envelope. Thereafter, they were brought to the Valenzuela Medical Center for medical check-up. After about thirty minutes, they were brought to the SAID-SOTG. 31
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In a Decision 32 dated November 17, 2016, the RTC of Valenzuela, Branch 269, dismissed Criminal Case Nos. 195-V-16 and 199-V-16 for violation of Sections 6 and 7 of R.A. 9165, respectively. The RTC held that the prosecution failed to prove that the house was being maintained as a drug den, dive or resort. The apparent use of prohibited drugs in the house on a single occasion is not sufficient to establish that Mic-Mic has been maintaining the house as a drug den. The prosecution did not rebut the evidence of the defense that the accused were in the subject house for only two days and prior thereto, it was being rented by third parties. Corollarily, Villarin, Soto and Heramis could not be convicted as employees or visitors of a drug den since the nature of the house as a drug den was not established. 33 ASEcHI
As to the charge of Sections 11 and 12 of R.A. 9165, the RTC held that all the seized items were physically inventoried, marked and photographed at the place of the incident. Between the seizure of the illegal items up to the time it was marked, inventoried and photographed, they were physically guarded and secured by the corresponding seizing officers. In fact, the defense already stipulated that the chain of custody was followed. First, they stipulated that Pros. del Rosario and Brgy. Chairwoman Gunigundo witnessed the inventory. Second, that SPO1 Estrella, PO3 Terte and PO2 Cabusao turned over the seized items to SPO4 Sanchez and the latter, in turn, delivered them to the crime laboratory. The RTC also observed that the seized items still bore the corresponding marking that the seizing officers had placed on them. Thus, the recovered items were secured in such a way that their identity and integrity were preserved. 34
The RTC did not accept the defense of denial by the accused. They claimed that the house was owned by a certain Roberto Abad and that they were merely cleaning the same on the day they were arrested. However, the defense witness Lalyn Chungtayco claimed that they were staying at the house for two days and they were cleaning the same only on the second day. Thus, the defense failed to explain the continued presence of prohibited items in the house which they claimed they were tasked to clean. The allegation of Heramis that he was not even inside the subject house because he was at the house of the two elderly persons was no considered by the RTC since it was not corroborated. 35
As such, the RTC found Mic-Mic, Cardeño, Heramis and Louie guilty of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Further, the RTC also convicted Mic-Mic, Cardeño, Heramis, Louie and Villarin for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. Villarin was also found guilty of use of dangerous drugs after his urine sample tested positive for shabu. The RTC however acquitted Soto since the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove his guilt. He is charged with possession of drug paraphernalia and dangerous drugs that were recovered inside Louie's room, there is however no evidence that Soto was even in that room. He was seen by PO2 Verde running towards the terrace but there is no indication as to his participation or knowledge of the illegal drug activities of his co-accused. Therefore:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 195-V-l 6, accused JOHN OR JAN MICHAEL LEGASPI y BAGTAS, also known as Mic-Mic, is hereby found NOT GUILTY of violation of Section 6 of Republic Act No. 9165, due to insufficiency of evidence. Similarly, in Criminal Case No. 199-V-16, accused ISAGANI VILLARIN y WARNER, also known as GANI, JOJIE or GEORGE SOTO y ABAD and RICHIE HERAMIS y ANGELES are hereby found NOT GUILTY of violation of Section 7 of the same law, due to insufficiency of evidence.
However, in Criminal Case Nos. 196-V-16 and 197-V-16, accused JOHN OR JAN MICHAEL LEGASPI y BAGTAS, JOY CARDEÑO y PORES AND RICHIE HERAMIS y ANGELES, also known as CHIE, are hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 11 and 12 of RA 9165. Each of the said accused is hereby SENTENCED to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one day, as minimum, to 15 years, as maximum, and to PAY a fine of P300,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 196-V-16 and another indeterminate penalty of six months and one day as minimum to two years as maximum and a fine of P10,000.00 in Crim Case No. 197-V-16.
Similarly, in Criminal Case Nos. 202-V-16 and 203-V-16, accused LUIGI LEGASPI y BAGTAS, also known as LOUIE is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 11 and 12 of RA 9165, and is hereby SENTENCED to an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of 12 years and one day as minimum to 15 years, as maximum and to PAY a fine of P300,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 202-V-16; and another indeterminate penalty of six months and one day as minimum to two years, as maximum, and a fine of P10,000.00 in Crim. Case No. 203-V-16. In both cases, accused JOJIE or GEORGE SOTO y ABAD is ACQUITTED, due to insufficiency of the evidence against him.
In Criminal Case No. 200-V-16, accused ISAGANI VILLARIN y WARNER, also known as GANI, is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 12 of RA 9165 and hereby SENTENCED to an indeterminate penalty of six months and one day as minimum to two years as maximum and a fine of P10,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. 201-V-16, accused ISAGANI VILLARIN is further found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 15 of the same law, and hereby SENTENCED to six months of rehabilitation in a government center.
The accused may be credited with the corresponding period that they have respectively served under preventive imprisonment in accordance with Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended and applicable rules.
The Acting Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to turn over with dispatch the dangerous drugs and paraphernalia subject of these cases to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 36
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its Decision 37 dated October 23, 2019, the CA affirmed the conviction of Mic-Mic and Louie but acquitted Cardeño and Heramis. 38
At the outset, Villarin did not appeal his conviction for violation of Sections 12 and 15 of R.A. 9165. 39
On the allegation of Mic-Mic and Louie that the search warrant was belatedly served and read to them after they were already handcuffed and the house was already searched, the CA found the same without factual and legal basis. The CA found no reason to doubt the credibility of the police officers who are presumed to be performing their duties regularly and in good faith. The defense failed to establish that the search warrant was belatedly served when Brgy. Chairwoman Gunigundo testified. It even failed to raise this as an issue especially since it was established that PCI Ruba arrived together with Brgy. Chairwoman Gunigundo. 40 ITAaHc
The CA affirmed that the chain of custody was unbroken as such, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. 41
In this case, the dangerous drugs were found on the dining table at the first floor and in one of the rooms at the second floor, thus the prosecution must prove the constructive possession of Mic-Mic and Louie. It is not necessary that the accused be the owner of the house where the drugs were found, so long as he occupies the same or has dominion or control over it. 42
The CA found that Mic-Mic and Louie had dominion and control over the subject house because the one-week surveillance conducted by PO2 Cabusao where he posed as a tricycle driver coupled with Mic-Mic and Louie's actual presence in the house at the time the police officers served the search warrant is sufficient proof that they had dominion and control over the place. Thus, they cannot feign ignorance of the presence of various drugs and drug paraphernalia all over the house. 43
The CA however acquitted Cardeño and Heramis because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had constructive possession of the dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. Neither of them was named as respondents in the search warrant and thus were not previously seen in the subject house during surveillance. They cannot be presumed to have prior knowledge of the presence of the dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia in the subject house before their arrival on the day they were apprehended. 44
Thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal filed by accused-appellants Joy P. Cardeño and Richie A. Heramis y Angeles is GRANTED. The Decision dated 17 November 2016 of Branch 269, Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, National Capital Judicial Region in Criminal Case Nos. 196-V-16, 197-V-16, 202-V-16 and 203-V-16 is AFFIRMED with respect to Jan Michael B. Legaspi y Bagtas and Luigi L. Legaspi y Bagtas. Accused-appellants Joy P. Cardeño and Richie A. Heramis y Angeles are hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. 196-V-16 and 197-V-16 and are ordered RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Decision with the corresponding Entry of Judgment be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections of the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City and Correctional Institution for Women, Nueve de Pebrero, Mandaluyong City for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to the Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken thereon.
SO ORDERED. 45 (Emphasis omitted)
Arguments of Accused-Appellants
Mic-Mic and Louie claimed that the police officers searched the house without a search warrant. The search warrant was belatedly read and served to Mic-Mic after the police had already finished searching the house and after they were arrested and handcuffed. The belated presentation of the search warrant cannot cure the illegality of the search and therefore any dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia seized cannot be admitted for being fruits of the poisonous tree. 46
Further, the prosecution failed to prove that Mic-Mic had possession and control of the house. While there was a prior surveillance of the subject house, the prosecution failed to show facts on how Mic-Mic had been in possession and control of the house before they apprehended him. 47
Also, the accused claimed that the prosecution failed to prove that Louie was in possession of the dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia. The prosecution failed to prove that the drugs and drug paraphernalia were recovered in the room where Louie was sleeping. 48
Issue
The issue in this case is whether Mic-Mic and Louie are guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 11 and 12 of R.A. 9165. CHTAIc
Ruling of the Court
At the outset, the instant appeal is a wrong mode of remedy to question the decision of the CA.
Under Section 3 (e), 49 Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, appeal to the Supreme Court in criminal cases, where the penalty is NOT reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death, SHALL be by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Further, in Section 5 (f), 50 Rule 56 of the Rules of Court, an appeal may be dismissed motu proprio when the choice or the mode of appeal is wrong.
In this case, the penalty involved ranges only from twelve (12) years to twenty (20) years imprisonment for illegal possession of illegal drugs and from six (6) months to four (4) years for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. Clearly the mode of appeal in assailing the decision of the CA is through a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. Since the mode of appeal availed by the accused is through an ordinary appeal, the instant case should be dismissed for being a wrong mode of appeal.
Nevertheless, where the rigid application of the rules of procedure would tend to obstruct justice rather than serve the broader interest of justice, the Court may relax the application of the rules of procedure where strong considerations of substantial justice is manifest in the case, especially so when the deprivation of liberty of the accused is what is at stake. 51
To be convicted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the prosecution prove that: (1) the accused was in possession of the dangerous drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 52 On the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia are: (1) possession or control by the accused of any equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming, administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug into the body; and (2) such possession is not authorized by law. 53
It is also essential that the identity of the dangerous drugs be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drugs itself form an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 54 In order to establish the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs with moral certainty, the observance of the chain of custody rule enshrined in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 is necessary.
Be it noted that search warrant was served on January 29, 2016. 55 Thus, the provisions of R.A. 10640 are now applicable since the said law was enacted on July 22, 2014. Under R.A. 10640, the apprehending team is mandated to immediately after seizure and confiscation of the dangerous drugs, to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items: (1) in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) with an elected public official; and (3) with a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Further, if the seizure of the dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia was by virtue of a search warrant, the inventory must be made at the place of apprehension. 56
After a review of the evidence on record, We hold that the prosecution was not able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
However, in this case, the apprehending team did not immediately mark the seized items and did not even immediately conduct the inventory and photograph of the same. In fact, there is a considerable lapse of time from the moment the seized items were seized until they were marked. As testified to by the seizing officers they still waited for Pros. del Rosario for one hour before they even marked the seized items. 57
Marking of the seized items is crucial in proving chain of custody. Certainly, the marking after seizure by the arresting officer, being the starting point in the custodial link, should be made immediately upon the seizure. 58 Here, one hour had lapse before the seized items were even marked. Thus, there is a possibility of planting, switching, or contamination of the evidence in that span of time that the seized items were not marked. Be it noted that the confiscation of the illegal items and the arrest of the accused were by virtue of a search warrant. The apprehending team had more time to prepare and acquire the necessary witnesses to the marking, inventory and photograph of the items. The apprehending team cannot even invoke the saving clause under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640. Such saving clause only applies only: (1) where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds; and (2) when the prosecution established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. 59 The apprehending team did not even offer any explanation as to why it took one hour for Pros. del Rosario to arrive considering that the seizure and the arrest of the accused was by virtue of a search warrant where the police officers had more time to ensure compliance with Section 21.
Additionally, the Court already held that the presence of the required witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest because it is at this point in which their presence is most needed. Their attendance at the time of seizure and confiscation would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. 60 Since the same doctrine is applied in search and seizure by virtue of search warrants, the presence of the required witnesses should also be at the time of the implementation of the search warrant and not merely during the inventory of the seized dangerous drugs.
If the presence of the insulating witnesses and compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 are strictly enforced in buy-bust operations, this should all the more be required in the search and arrest of persons in possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia by virtue of a search warrant. The reason for this is that, in implementing the search warrant, the police officers are better prepared and have more time in making sure that the requirements of Section 21 are complied with. Be it noted that during the implementation of the search warrant, only Gunigundo was present. 61 Thus, the absence of the required witnesses during the implementation of the search warrant was fatal to the prosecution's case.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 23, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39698 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellants John/Jan Michael B. Legaspi a.k.a. "Mic-Mic" and Luigi B. Legaspi a.k.a. "Louie" are hereby ACQUITTED of the charge against them for violation of Sections 11 and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Accused-appellants John/Jan Michael B. Legaspi a.k.a. "Mic-Mic" and Luigi B. Legaspi a.k.a. "Louie" are ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody, unless they are being held for another lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation, who is then also DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
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.Rollo, p. 9.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas; CA rollo, pp. 242-271.
3.Id. at 243.
4.Id. at 244-245.
5.Id. at 246-247.
6.Id. at 247-248.
7.Id. at 65.
8.Id. at 61-62.
9.Id. at 63.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id. at 63-64.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 64.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.Id.
21.Id.
22.Id.
23.Id. at 65.
24.Id.
25.Id.
26.Id. at 46-47.
27.Id.
28.Id. at 47.
29.Id. at 252.
30.Id. at 46.
31.Id. at 253.
32. Penned by Presiding Judge Emma C. Matammu; id. at 57-77.
33.Id. at 67-68.
34.Id. at 69-72.
35.Id. at 72-73.
36.Id. at 76-77.
37.Supra note 2.
38. CA rollo, p. 271.
39.Id. at 259.
40.Id. at 259-261.
41.Id. at 261-264.
42.Id. at 265.
43.Id. at 267-268.
44.Id. at 268-271.
45.Id. at 271.
46.Id. at 49-51.
47.Id. at 51-52.
48.Id. at 52-53.
49. Section 3. How appeal taken. — x x x
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Except as provided in the last paragraph of Section 13, Rule 124, all other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
50. Section 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — The appeal may be dismissed motu proprio or on motion of the respondent on the following grounds:
xxx xxx xxx
(f) Error in the choice or mode of appeal[.]
51.Curammeng v. People, 799 Phil. 575, 582-583 (2016).
52.People v. Eda, 793 Phil. 885, 898 (2016).
53.Saraum v. People, 779 Phil. 122, 128 (2016).
54.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
55. CA rollo, p. 63.
56.Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.
57. CA rollo, p. 63.
58.People v. Yagao, G.R. No. 216725, February 18, 2019.
59.Tumabini v. People, supra note 56.
60.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018).
61. CA rollo, p. 62.