FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236365. July 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROSALIE MACERES y JAVIER, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236365 (People of the Philippines,Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosalie Maceres y Javier,Accused-Appellant.) — This appeal assails the Decision 1 dated 11 September 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08174, which affirmed the conviction of Rosalie Maceres y Javier (accused-appellant) for violations of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. HTcADC
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was separately charged for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 under the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. 13-297529
That on or about June 4, 2013 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, transport or distribute or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly sell or offer for sale to a police officer/poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "RM" containing ZERO POINT ZERO FIVE FOUR (0.054) gram [sic] of white crystalline substance commonly known as Shabu, containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 13-297530
That on or about June 4, 2013 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused not having been authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in her possession and under her custody and control three (3) heat sealed transparent plastic sachets with the following recorded net weight to wit:
1. "RM-1" — one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR THREE (0.043) gram [sic]
2. "RM-2" — one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ZERO FIVE ONE (0.051) gram [sic]
3. "RM-3" — one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ZERO SEVEN NINE (0.079) gram [sic] or all with a total net weight of ZERO POINT ONE SEVEN THREE (0.173) gram [sic] of white crystalline substance commonly known as Shabu containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 2
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. During pre-trial, the parties stipulated on the jurisdiction of the court and admitted that accused-appellant is the same person charged in the Informations. 3
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented SPO1 Manuel Garbin (Garbin) and the poseur-buyer SPO2 Ricardo Manansala, Jr. (SPO2 Manansala) as witnesses. According to them, at about 5 P.M. on 04 June 2013, a confidential informant arrived at Police Station 6, Sta. Ana, Manila and reported that accused-appellant, or "Sally" was selling illegal drugs at Onyx Street, Brgy. 775, Zone 84, Manila. 4
After informing Station Commander Police Superintendent Remigio S. Sedanto (P/Supt. Sedanto), SPO2 Manansala, together with the informant, surveilled accused-appellant. Upon reaching Onyx St., the informant showed SPO2 Manansala Sally's operations. SPO2 Manansala went back to the police station and prepared the pre-operation/coordination report, as well as an authority to operate. 5
A buy-bust operation was conducted the following day. Upon reaching Onyx St., the informant told SPO2 Manansala that Sally, wearing a pink sando, was standing near Dagonoy St. Thus, they approached Sally, while the rest of the buy-bust team hid nearby. Sally then asked the informant, "Sakto ang dating ninyo. Kukuha ba kayong item? SPO2 Manansala, replied, "Oo, kukuha kami. . . 500 langkunin namin." He then handed the marked five hundred pesos (Php500.00), while accused-appellant gave him one (1) small heat-sealed sachet containing a white crystalline substance. 6
SPO2 Manansala executed the pre-arranged signal and the rest of the team proceeded to the place of the illegal sale. SPO2 Manansala introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Sally. He then recovered three (3) sachets containing white crystalline substance inside the pockets of Sally, together with the marked money. Thereafter, he marked the sachet he bought from Sally with "RM," while the other remaining sachets were marked "RM-1," "RM-2" and "RM-3," respectively. He likewise signed a Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized, which also contained the signature of one Brgy. Kagawad Allan P. Golles" as witness. 7
SPO2 Manansala then brought the seized items and Sally to the police station where they were photographed. The seized items were then turned over to SPO1 Garbin, who prepared the Chain of Custody form. Meanwhile, the arresting officers executed a Joint affidavit of apprehension/poseur-buyer. 8
SPO1 Garbin submitted the seized evidence to the crime laboratory the following day, or on 06 June 2013, which was received by Forensic Chemical Officer and Police Chief Inspector Elisa Reyes Arturo (PCI Arturo). After the examination, all of the seized items, tested positive for shabu. 9
Evidence for the Defense
For the defense, accused-appellant, Brgy. Kagawad Allan P. Goles (Kagawad Goles), and Brgy. Chairwoman Bernardita Enales (Chairwoman Enales) testified. 10
Accused-appellant offered the defense of denial. She narrated that in the afternoon of 05 June 2013, two (2) men suddenly appeared while she was talking with her niece. They asked her if she was Sally, and when she confirmed that she was, the men asked her to go with them to the police station. Despite initially refusing the invitation, she eventually went with them. She was then detained and accused as a drug pusher. She claimed that SPO1 Manansala asked her for one hundred thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) in exchange for her freedom. Since she was unable to produce the amount, her fingerprints and photograph were taken. 11
Kagawad Goles and Brgy. Chairwoman Enales alleged that at the time of accused-appellant's arrest, they were not in their barangay but at the Manila City Hall inquiring about certain documents. Thus, they claimed that they did not witness the arrest, inventory and marking of the sachets allegedly seized from accused-appellant. Kagawad Goles pointed out that the name indicated in the inventory was misspelled "Golles," and insisted that he could not have misspelled his own name. 12
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
In a Decision 13 dated 29 February 2016, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of the offenses of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of five hundred pesos (Php500,000.00). It also convicted her for violation of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, sentenced her to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to seventeen (17) years, and four (4) months as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00).
It gave credence to the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses over accused-appellant's denial that she committed the offenses hurled against her. aScITE
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA agreed with the RTC's findings and affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. 14 It ruled that the elements of both illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs were established, and that the chain of custody of the seized item was not broken. 15 Hence, the resort to this Court.
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for illegal drugs offenses.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 state:
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
Parenthetically, to secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 16
On the other hand, for the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs to prosper, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of said drugs.
In addition to the elements of the drug offenses, the State is also burdened with the responsibility of identifying, proving and adducing in court the corpus delicti, or the drug subject of the offense. 17
In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug that constituted the corpus delicti.
The required witnesses were
As part of the chain of custody procedure, RA 9165 requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation of the same. The law further requires that the inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 18 "a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "[a] elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 19
The Information charges accused-appellant of committing the offenses charged on 04 June 2013, prior to the effectivity of the amendatory RA 10640. 20 Section 21 of RA 9165, as complemented by Section 21 (a) of Article II of its Implementing Rules and Regulations, require that immediately after seizure and confiscation of the suspected drug the same should be physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the following witnesses: (a) the accused or person/s from whom the items were seized and confiscated, or his representative or counsel; (b) a representative from the media AND the DOJ; and (c) any elected public official.
In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the presence of ALL the insulating witnesses at the crucial time of the supposed seizure of drugs. It is undisputed that there were no representatives from the DOJ and media at the time of the arrest and supposed seizure of sachets of shabu. Further, even the presence of an elected public official during the buy-bust operation remains doubtful.
To be sure, the inventory receipt was signed by one Kagawad Golles. However, the accused-appellant was able to present Brgy.Kagawad Allan Gales who denied that he was present at the buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. His testimony that he was at the Manila City Hall the entire afternoon on the day of accused-appellant's arrest was further corroborated by Brgy. Chairwoman Enales. This Court notes that Kagawad Goles even presented his identification card showing a different signature from that contained in the inventory receipt. Thus, contrary to the findings of the RTC and the CA, this Court is not convinced that there were any witness present at the time of accused-appellant's arrest.
There is no evidence establishing the
In addition to the transfer of the custody of the seized illegal drugs from the accused-appellant to the police investigators, the prosecution must also prove that proper safeguards were observed while the seized items were in the possession of the forensic chemist until their submission in court. In People v. Pajarin, 21 the Court ruled that in stipulating to dispense with the attendance of the police chemist, the parties should state that he: 1) received the seized article marked, properly sealed and intact; 2) resealed it after examination of the content; 3) and placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. 22
In this case, the parties merely stipulated on the qualification and competence of the chemist, that the same specimens/evidence brought over by SPO1 Garbin is the same as those presented in court, and genuineness and due execution of the documents brought by the chemist to court. Evidently, the aforesaid stipulations do not comply with the requirements set forth in People v. Pajarin. It does not contain information on the handling, safekeeping, and preservation of the seized items upon receipt and after examination of the chemist.23 HEITAD
The saving clause does not
It is true that Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, contains this proviso:
x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements [the presence of the required witnesses, and the time and place of inventory and photography] under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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;·x x x 24
To warrant the application of this saving mechanism, however, the prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses, and justify or explain them. 25 Failure to provide sufficient justification will create doubt as to the identity and evidentiary value of the seized items when presented in court. 26
In this case, the prosecution failed to acknowledge the lapses in the procedures and explain their failure to strictly follow them. Face with these various irregularities, this Court cannot indiscriminately apply the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty. Such presumption only applies when there is nothing to suggest that the police officers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law. 27 It does not apply when the arresting officers failed to comply with the mandatory language of Section 21 of R.A. 9165. In the same manner, it cannot serve to cure the lapses and deficiencies on the part of the arresting officers. 28
The RTC and CA gravely erred in hastily applying the presumption of regularity of the performance of official duties. The prosecution failed to acknowledge or even explain whether the buy-bust team attempted to seek the presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media. Even for the alleged barangay official, the records reveal that SPO2 Manansala readily allowed the person who introduced himself as Kagawad "Golles" to sign the inventory without verifying his identity. To this Court, such fact underscores the lack of coordination with the DOJ, media, and the local government, and the disregard of proper protocol.
For failure to strictly comply with the requirements of a valid buy-bust operation, the prosecution was not able to establish the corpus delicti of the offenses. Accused-appellant's acquittal should, thus, follow. Indeed, the absence of insulating witnesses at the time of seizure creates a reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the seized items, and consequently on the guilt of accused-appellant on the crime charge.
Verily, the legal requirement of third-party witnesses is a safeguard meant to establish the nexus between the accused-appellant and the drug offense/s. The absence of witnesses during seizure casts reasonable doubt on the actual origin and identity of the drugs introduced in evidence as those allegedly seized from accused-appellant. 29 In this case, considering the police officers' lapses, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. Thus, this Court is duty-bound to acquit accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 11 September 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08174, finding Rosalie Maceres y Javier guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of RA 9165, is REVERSEDand SET ASIDE. She is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt and is ordered immediately released, unless she is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is DIRECTED to implement the immediate release of accused-appellant and to report on her compliance 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, pp. 02-19; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario, and Ramon A. Cruz.
2. CA rollo, p. 46.
3.Rollo, p. 04.
4.Id. at 05.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.CA rollo, p. 49.
8.Id. at 49-50.
9.Id. at 50.
10.Id. at 51.
11.Id. at 49.
12.Id. at 51-52.
13.Id. at 46-56; penned by Presiding Judge Sarah Alma M. Lim.
14.Rollo, p. 17.
15.Id. at 13-16.
16.People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 243944, 15 March 2021 [Per J. Gesmundo].
17.People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 229099, 27 February 2019 [Per J. Del Castillo].
18.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 15 July 2014.
19.People v. Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, 03 September 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
20. In People v. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 236304, 05 November 2018 [Per. J. Perlas-Bernabe]), this Court noted that RA 10640 was approved on 15 July 2014, and published on 23 July 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Metro Section, p. 21) and the Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23, World News Section, p. 6). Thus, it became effective 15 days thereafter or on 07 August 2014, pursuant to Section 5 of the law. See also People v. Bangalan, id.
21. 654 Phil. 461 (2011), G.R. No. 190640, 12 January 2011 [Per J. Abad].
22.People v. Galisim, G.R. No. 231305, 11 September 2019 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier] citing People v.Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461 (2011), G.R. No. 190640, 12 January 2011 [Per J. Abad].
23. See People v. Caringal (Notice), G.R. No. 236585, 05 December 2019.
24. See also Casona v. People, 818 Phil. 76 (2017), G.R. No. 179757, 13 September 2017 [Per J. Bersamin].
25.People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 199271, 19 October 2016, [Per J. Bersamin].
26.People v. Velasco, G.R. No. 219174, 21 February 2018 [Per J. Bersamin].
27.People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 228825, 28 July 2020 [Per J.C. Reyes, Jr.].
28.People v. Said (Notice), G.R. No. 237774, 04 December 2019.
29.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, 07 August 2019 [Per J. Leonen].