People v. Malanot y Duruin

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252270. February 15, 2022.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. DANTE MALANOT y DURUIN, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated February 15, 2022 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252270 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Dante Malanot y Duruin, accused-appellant).

We resolve this appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the July 5, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11425. The CA affirmed with modification the April 16, 2018 Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan (RTC), finding Dante Malanot y Duruin (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Antecedents

Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in an information, the accusatory portion of which reads:

That on June 16, 2016, in the City of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused DANTE MALANOT y DURUIN alias "Dan," without authority of law and without any permit to sell, transport, deliver, and distribute dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, sell and distribute five (5) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug with a total weight of 0.38 gram, to PO1 JACINTO T. CUSIPAG, who is a member of the PNP, assigned at the Tuguegarao City Police Station, and who acted as a poseur buyer, that when the accused handed to the poseur buyer the five (5) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing the dangerous drug, the poseur buyer in turn gave to the accused the agreed purchase price of the dangerous drug in the amount of P2,500.00, consisting of one (1) piece genuine P500.00 peso-bill bearing Serial No. JD169716, and two (2) pieces fake P1,000.00 peso-bill both bearing [S]erial Nos. MN813197, which were previously marked and used as buy-bust money, that this led to the immediate arrest of the accused and recovery of the buy-bust money from his possession, control, and custody along the Provincial Road, Linao West, this city, by members of the PNP assigned at the Tuguegarao City Police Station, who formed the buy-bust team, and who acted in coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Regional Office No. 02, Camp Marcelo Adduru, Tuguegarao City, that the buy-bust operation also led to the confiscation of the dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

During arraignment on July 13, 2016, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 4 After pre-trial was terminated, trial on the merits ensued. CAIHTE

Version of the Prosecution

On June 15, 2016, at about 7:00 p.m., Police Officer 3 Randy Beran (PO3 Beran) of the Tuguegarao City Police Station received an information from a confidential informant (CI) about a certain "Dan," later identified as accused-appellant, selling dangerous drugs. The CI was instructed to contact accused-appellant and inform him that CI's friend wants to buy shabu worth P2,500.00. Accused-appellant told the CI to accompany his friend and meet him at around 6:20 a.m. the next morning at the waiting shed in front of Soriano's Carinderia at Linao West, Tuguegarao City. 5

Thereafter, PO3 Beran organized his men for the conduct of a buy-bust operation which was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Police Officer 2 Jacinto Cusipag 6(PO2Cusipag) was designated as the poseur-buyer; PO3 Beran, Police Officer 2 Maximo Binarao (PO2 Binarao), and the rest of the buy-bust team were assigned as backup officers. PO2 Cusipag marked the buy-bust money consisting of one (1) genuine P500.00 bill and two (2) fake P1,000.00 bills with his initials "JTC" on the foreheads of the photo images of Benigno Aquino and Vicente Lim on the bills. 7

At about 6:10 a.m., the buy-bust team, together with the CI, arrived at the target area. PO2 Cusipag and the CI stood by the waiting shed while the rest of the team strategically positioned themselves approximately ten (10) meters away. After a few minutes, a tricycle arrived and accused-appellant alighted therefrom. When accused-appellant approached, PO2 Cusipag told him that he would buy shabu worth P2,500.00. Accused-appellant then brought out from his short pants five (5) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance of suspected shabu and handed them to PO2 Cusipag who, in turn, gave him the buy-bust money amounting to P2,500.00. After accused-appellant put the money in his pocket, PO2 Cusipag removed his ball cap as the pre-arranged signal that the transaction had been consummated. The backup officers rushed to where PO2 Cusipag and accused-appellant stood, while PO3 Beran arrested accused-appellant and read him his rights. Meanwhile, PO2 Binarao frisked accused-appellant and recovered the buy-bust money as well as one (1) white Samsung cellular phone. 8

Thereafter, PO2 Cusipag marked the five (5) plastic sachets that he purchased from the accused-appellant with: JTC1, JTC2, JTC3, JTC4 and JTC5, the date 6-16-2016, and his signature. The said items, including the P2,500.00 buy-bust money and the cellular phone, were all marked at the place of arrest. The inventory and the taking of photographs of the seized items were likewise done at the place of arrest in the presence of Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Ferdinand Gangan, Barangay Kagawad members Josefina Quilang and Benito Alan, the arresting officers, and accused-appellant. 9

The seized items were turned over to the duty investigator, Senior Police Officer 1 Melvin Labang (SPO1 Labang), who prepared the request for laboratory examination of the seized plastic sachets and other pertinent documents. The request and the specimens included therein were personally delivered by SPO1 Labang to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 2 in Camp Adduru, Tuguegarao City, and were received by Police Officer 2 Edmar Delayun (PO2 Delayun). Per Chemistry Report No. D-142-2016, the contents of the plastic sachets tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 10

The defense admitted the proposed testimony of Police Chief Inspector Mayra Madria Tulauan (PCI Tulauan) which contained the following stipulated facts:

(1) That on June 16, 2016, she [was] already a member of the Philippine National Police designated as Forensic Chemist at the Regional Crime Laboratory, Camp Adduru, Tuguegarao City;

(2) That on said date at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning, their Office through PO2 Edmar Delayun, the duty PNCO received from PO3 Melvin Labang five (5) pieces transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance or methamphetamine hydrochloride with markings;

(3) That after receipt by PO2 Edmar Dclayun of the said items, she turned [it over] to the said witness, [after which], the witness conducted laboratory examination on the items subject of this case;

(4) That the examination she conducted gave positive result to the test for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug;

(5) That she reduced her findings into writing which is the Chemistry Report No. D-142-2016;

(6) That after the completion of her examination, she placed her personal markings on said items and turned over the same to the Evidence Custodian George Carag on July 1, 2016;

(7) That the items were retrieved by her from the Evidence Custodian just this morning per subpoena from this Court. 11

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant testified that he was placed under the custody of the Cagayan Valley Regional Rehabilitation Center for Youth (CV-RRCY) at Barangay Roma, Enrile, Cagayan, from January 14, 2013 to June 15, 2016, because of a frustrated homicide case. In the afternoon of June 15, 2016, a certain Bryan Aquino (Aquino), a former resident of the CV-RRCY, invited him to attend a birthday celebration of a cousin at Linao, Tuguegarao City. At first, he was reluctant, but he eventually went with Aquino. He escaped from the rehabilitation center by climbing over the fence and they proceeded to Linao on board Aquino's motorcycle. Along the way, they stopped to pick up a lesbian, but a man with a gun accosted them and ordered Aquino to lie down. The man then "strangled" accused-appellant and told him not to move. Moments later, several armed men in motorcycles arrived. He was ordered to board a motorcycle in between two men, with the one at his back poking a gun at him during the travel. 12

When they arrived at the Tuguegarao City Police Station, he was brought to a room where he was electrocuted and lost consciousness. When he regained his senses, he found himself already handcuffed to a folding bed. The next morning, he was brought back to the place where he was taken by the armed men but was not allowed to get out of the patrol car. When the police officer got out of the car, accused-appellant saw him signing papers on the hood of the patrol car. Thereafter, accused-appellant was brought out of the car and he saw plastic sachets with white contents and markings already placed on top of the car hood. He also saw one P1,000.00 bill separated from the documents. He did not know where the items came from and who marked them. He was photographed together with the said items and documents. Thereafter, he was brought back to the police station. 13

Judgment of the RTC

In its April 16, 2018 Judgment, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It held that the prosecution was able to establish the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165. Moreover, the RTC rejected accused-appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up for being incredible. It explained that the police officers were presumed to have regularly performed their official duty. The fallo of the RTC judgment reads: aScITE

WHEREFORE, the Court finds the accused DANTE MALANOT y DURUIN GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the CRIME OF VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II of REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and hereby sentences him to suffer life imprisonment and a FINE of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00).

The dangerous drugs presented before the Court are hereby forfeited and confiscated in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to immediately deliver the said items to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.

The Branch Clerk of Court is likewise directed to deliver the buy-bust money to the Office of the Clerk of Court for proper disposition.

Let a copy of this Judgment be furnished to the Tuguegarao City Police Station for its information and guidance.

SO DECIDED. 14 (boldface omitted)

Dissatisfied with the RTC judgment of conviction, accused-appellant appealed the same before the CA.

Ruling of the CA

In its July 5, 2019 Decision, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. It ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The CA opined that accused-appellant was positively identified by the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation as the person who sold the shabu that was later presented in court. PO2 Cusipag testified that, as the poseur-buyer, he purchased the sachets of shabu from accused-appellant during a legitimate buy-bust operation. According to the CA, PO2 Cusipag credibly narrated the circumstances leading to the consummation of the sale of the shabu during a legitimate buy-bust operation, as well as the subsequent arrest of accused-appellant. 15

The CA held that the police officers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items from the moment the items were taken from accused-appellant until they were presented in court as evidence. The CA sustained the RTC's finding that the police officers had regularly performed their duties as accused-appellant failed to destroy the credibility of the poseur-buyer of the buy-bust team, PO2 Cusipag, duty investigator SPO1 Labang, and backup officers PO3 Beran and PO2 Binarao who directly and completely testified with respect to the details of the buy-bust incident. It was also not shown during trial that PO2 Cusipag or any member of the buy-bust team had been impelled by improper motive. 16 The fallo of the CA decision reads:

WHEREFORE, we DENY the appeal. The decision appealed from is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that in Criminal Case No. 18192, [accused-appellant] Dante D. Malanot shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment, without eligibility for parole and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.

IT IS SO ORDERED.17

Undaunted, accused-appellant appealed the CA decision insisting that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt of the crime charged beyond reasonable doubt.

In its September 2, 2020 Resolution, 18 the Court required the parties to submit their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its December 23, 2020 Manifestation and Motion, 19 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief because its appellee's brief filed before the CA had already discussed the propriety of accused-appellant's conviction. In his November 6, 2020 Manifestation in lieu of Supplemental Brief, 20 accused-appellant averred that he would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that he had thoroughly discussed his defense in his appellant's brief filed before the CA.

ISSUES

Accused-appellant raises the same assignment of errors he previously interposed before the CA, to wit:

I.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S QUESTIONABLE VERSION OF THE BUY-BUST OPERATION AND ITS FAILURE TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED.

II.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS DESPITE THE ARRESTING POLICE OFFICERS' VIOLATION OF SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, AS AMENDED.

III.

THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS DESPITE THE BROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED DRUG ITEM IN THIS CASE. 21

In his Appellant's Brief, 22 accused-appellant claims that the prosecution failed to prove all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. He also maintains that the prosecution failed to prove that the insulating witnesses were indeed a representative of the NPS and barangay kagawads. He points out that the marking of the allegedly seized drugs did not comply with the 2014 Revised Philippine National Police (PNP) Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation, and that he was not even made to sign the inventory of the seized items. He likewise claims that the police officers' non-use of the evidence bag rendered the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti doubtful. Lastly, he argues that the stipulation as to the testimony of the forensic chemist did not include measures taken to preserve and protect the integrity of the seized drugs. HEITAD

In its Appellee's Brief 23 before the CA, the OSG seeks for the affirmation of the judgment of conviction of accused-appellant because the prosecution had duly proven all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The OSG contends that the chain of custody rule was complied with and that the law enforcers were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. It submits that the prosecution had proven the continuous whereabouts and safekeeping of the shabu from the time it came into the possession of the apprehending officers and brought to the police station for investigation until it was delivered to the crime laboratory for examination and its subsequent presentation in court. 24

The Court's Ruling

It is a well-established rule that an appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review. 25 Thus, the appellate court has the competence to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 26

After careful examination, the Court finds the appeal meritorious.

To sustain a conviction for the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the necessary elements are: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 27 It is essential that a transaction or sale be proved to have actually taken place coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of the corpus delicti. 28 The corpus delicti in cases involving dangerous drugs is the dangerous drug itself and its presentation as evidence.

It is essential that the identity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty, and the substance bought during the buy-bust operation be proven to be exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. 29 This requirement is known as the chain of custody rule under R.A. No. 9165, created to safeguard doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs. 30

Chain of custody means the duly recorded, authorized movements, and custody of the seized drugs at each state, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt at the forensic laboratory for examination until the items are presented to the court. 31

As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. 32 The law further requires that the said 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 R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, 33 a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official; 34 or (b) if after the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) 35OR the media. 36 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." 37

In the instant case, since the offense charged was committed on June 16, 2016, the provisions of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, shall apply. Thus, three persons mandated by law must be present during the inventory and taking of photographs, particularly: (1) the accused or his representative or counsel, (2) an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the NPS or the media.

Noncompliance with the

At the outset, it must be pointed out that the certificate of inventory that was produced by the prosecution was irregularly executed. Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 10640 requires that copies of the inventory be signed by the following persons: the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, an elected public official and a representative of the NPS or the media.

The Receipt and Inventory of Confiscated Item/s 38 itself reveals that the document was not signed by accused-appellant or by his counsel or representative. Upon perusal of the records of the instant case, the prosecution did not acknowledge such defect. Nor did the prosecution provide any explanation whatsoever as to why accused-appellant was not able to sign the certificate of inventory. ATICcS

Evidently, this constitutes a violation of the mandatory requirement of Sec. 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded "not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law." 39 This is because "[t]he law has been crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment." 40

In People v. Banding, 41 the fact that accused-appellant did not sign the inventory receipt, casts doubt that the dangerous drug allegedly seized from him was the same drug delivered to the investigating officer for documentation. 42 The accused therein was eventually acquitted.

The saving clause

Nevertheless, the Court acknowledges that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. 43 The third and final portion of Sec. 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, refers to the saving clause. It states that:

x x x Provided, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.

This portion was initially found in the Implementing Rules & Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165. However, in the advent of R.A. No 10640, it is now included in the text of the law. While the chain of custody has been a critical issue leading to acquittals in drug cases, the Court has nevertheless held that noncompliance with the prescribed procedures does not necessarily result in the conclusion that the identity of the seized drugs has been compromised so that an acquittal should follow. 44 The last portion of Sec. 21 (1), provides a saving mechanism to ensure that not every case of noncompliance will irretrievably prejudice the prosecution's case. 45 Accordingly, before the prosecution can invoke the saving clause, they must satisfy the two requisites:

1. The existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing departure from the rule on strict compliance; and

2. The integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.

In this case, the Court finds that the saving clause cannot be invoked by the prosecution. The first prong of the saving clause was not satisfied. The prosecution did not provide any justifiable ground for its noncompliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. As stated earlier, the prosecution did not acknowledge the defect of the accused's lack of signature on the inventory receipt as mandated by the law. Nor did the prosecution provide any explanation whatsoever as to why accused-appellant was not able to sign the certificate of inventory.

Likewise, the second prong was also not satisfied. It requires that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items be properly preserved by the apprehending team. According to People v. Adobar, 46 the integrity of the seized illegal drugs — despite noncompliance with Sec. 21 — requires establishing the four links in the chain of custody: First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 47

In this case, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were not preserved as early as the first link. The Court notes that the marking of the plastic sachets allegedly recovered was irregularly done. It was not compliant with paragraph 2.35, Sec. 2-6 of the Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation, which provides:

xxx xxx xxx

2.35 The Seizing Officer must mark the evidence with his initials indicating therein the date, time and place where the evidence was found/recovered or seized.

xxx xxx xxx. 48

Here, as irrefutably revealed by the photographs of the plastic sachets allegedly retrieved from accused-appellant, the time and place of the buy-bust operation were not indicated in the markings, in clear contravention of the PNP's own set of procedures for the conduct of its operations.

It must be pointed out, however, that contrary to accused-appellant's claim, the use of the evidence bag is immaterial since the same is not included as one of the requisites under Sec. 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and the rule on the chain of custody of evidence. 49

The Court too finds that the fourth link in the chain of custody was not clearly established by the prosecution.

The last link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 50 In this case, PCI Tulauan failed to testify on how the illegal drugs were safeguarded, if at all, after she received the same and following her qualitative examination thereof, and prior to her appearance in court. It was also stipulated that the specimens were turned over to the evidence custodian. However, the custodian's stipulation was lacking as to how he preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. As such, the prosecution was not able to establish with clarity and certainty the proper handling and custody of the specimens by the custodian. Absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs allegedly seized after their qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established. 51 This casts serious doubts on the identity and the integrity of the corpusdelicti and leaves several questions unanswered. In People v. Angeles, 52 the Court held:

Clearly, the third and fourth links in the chain of custody are sorely lacking. PO2 Saez's lone testimony leaves several questions unanswered. What happened to the drugs from the time Relos received it from PO2 Saez until it was eventually transmitted to the forensic chemist for examination? Were there other persons who came into contact with the drugs before the forensic chemist subjected it to examination? Who handed the drugs to the forensic chemist? How did Relos and the forensic chemist handle the drugs? Who ultimately transmitted the drugs seized from Angeles to the trial court to be used as evidence against him? The necessary details to prove the preservation of the integrity of the drugs recovered from Angeles remain a mystery. All these are left open to the realm of possibilities such that the evidentiary value of drugs presented in court was unduly prejudiced; considering that it cannot be said with certainty that the drugs were never compromised or tampered with. 53 (emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

Also, in Mallillin v. People, 54 the Court explained:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 55

In view of the foregoing, it appears there were significant gaps in the chain of custody to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Given the procedural lapses, serious uncertainty hangs over the identification of the corpus delicti that the prosecution introduced into evidence. 56 Consequently, the prosecution's failure to justify such lapses entitles the accused to an acquittal based on reasonable doubt. 57

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The July 5, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11425, which affirmed with modification the April 16, 2018 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, Branch 1, in Criminal Case No. 18192, finding accused-appellant Dante Malanot y Duruin guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Dante Malanot y Duruin is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Director General of the New Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant from detention, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to INFORM the Court of the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. TIADCc

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. 3-30; penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig, concurring.

2. CA rollo, pp. 53-60; penned by Presiding Judge Raymond Reynold R. Lauigan, promulgated on April 19, 2018.

3. Records, pp. 1-2.

4.Id. at 27.

5.Rollo, pp. 5-6.

6. Also referred to as "PO1" Jacinto Cusipag in other parts of the Records (Information, pp. 1-2; DOJ Inquest-Resolution, p. 3; Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer, pp. 7-8; RTC Order, pp. 31-33).

7.Id. at 6.

8.Id. at 6-7.

9.Id. at 7.

10.Id. at 7-8.

11.Id. at 10.

12.Id. at 11.

13.Id. at 11-12.

14. CA rollo, p. 60.

15.Rollo, p. 14.

16.Id. at 28.

17.Id. at 29.

18.Rollo, pp. 38-39.

19.Id. at 48-50.

20.Id. at 43-45.

21. CA rollo, pp. 34-35.

22.Id. at 31-51.

23.Id. at 72-91.

24.Id. at 89.

25.People v. Ygoy, G.R. No. 215712, August 7, 2019.

26.Cunanan v. People, G.R. No. 237116, November 12, 2018.

27.People v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147, 157 (2011).

28.Id.

29.People v. Alon-Alon, G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019; citing People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626, 634 (2016).

30.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 226 (2015); People v. Climaco, 687 Phil. 593, 603-604 (2012).

31. Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.

32.Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.

33. 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.'" As the Court noted in People v. Gutierrez (see G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018) and Matabilas v. People (see G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019), R.A. No. 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014. Under Sec. 5 thereof, it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." R.A. No. 10640 was published on July 23, 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6). Thus, R.A. No. 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014.

34.See Section 21 (1) and (2), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR.

35. Which falls under the DOJ. (See Sec. 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled "REORGANIZING THE PROSECUTION STAFF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, REGIONALIZING THE PROSECUTION SERVICE, AND CREATING THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE" [April 11, 1978] and Section 3 of R.A. No. 10071, entitled "AN ACT STRENGTHENING AND RATIONALIZING THE NATIONAL PROSECUTION SERVICE" otherwise known as the "PROSECUTION SERVICE ACT OF 2010" [lapsed into law on April 8, 2010].

36.See Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.

37.SeeMatabilas v. People, supra note 31.

38. Records, p. 16.

39.Fernandez v. People, G.R. No. 254320, July 5, 2021.

40.Id.

41. G.R. No. 233470, August 14, 2019.

42.Id.

43.Fernandez v. People, supra.

44. See People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1178 (2009).

45.Id.

46. 832 Phil. 731 (2018).

47.Id. at 763.

48. Revised PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation, September 2014.

49.Reyes v. People, G.R. No. 239583, August 15, 2018.

50.People v. Dahil, supra note 29 at 237.

51.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018).

52. 833 Phil. 822 (2018), as cited in People v. Labadan, G.R. No. 237769, March 11, 2019.

53.Id. at 836.

54. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).

55.Id. at 587.

56.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019.

57.People v. Abdula, G.R. No. 212192, November 21, 2018.