FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 229838. June 23, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. DOMINGO JAPZON MANAOG alias "OME", accused-appellant.
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. 229838 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, v. DOMINGO JAPZON MANAOG alias "Ome," accused-appellant). — Before this Court is an Appeal filed by Domingo Japzon Manaog alias "Ome" (accused-appellant) from the July 29, 2016 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) Cebu City Station in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 02000. The assailed Decision dismissed the appeal and affirmed the October 6, 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Catbalogan City, Samar, Branch 28, in Criminal Case No. 6610, finding the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.
This case stemmed from an Information filed before the RTC charging the accused-appellant of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 27th day of August 2007, at around 5:30 o'clock in the afternoon, more or less, at Purok 6, Barangay Canlapwas, Municipality of Catbalogan, Province of Samar, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent to gain, and without appropriate prescription thereto, and not being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously hand and sell one (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as 'shabu,' a dangerous drug, weighing zero point zero four (0.04) gram, more or less, and marked 'A-V-A-1' to one PO2 Pedrito Albat, who acted as poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation, conducted by the Philippine National Police, Intelligence AID-SOTF Operative, this municipality in coordination with the PDEA, as evidenced by Drug Field Test of SPO4 Eduardo Zeta Villanueva dated August 28, 2007 and five (5) pieces of Php100.00 bills with Serial Nos. PH081540, FA54748, CA498977, NV557327 and NP211652, respectively.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
Accused-appellant was arraigned on August 20, 2010 and assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. 3 After pre-trial, trial proceeded.
The prosecution presented as witnesses: Police Inspector Viviene Mae Salvatierra Del Pilar (P/Insp. Del Pilar), Police Officer 3 Edwin N. Unay (PO3 Unay), PO2 Juanito Malabarbas (PO2 Malabarbas), PO2 Pedrito B. Albat (PO2 Albat), PO3 Alvin P. Quitalig (PO3 Quitalig), Senior Police Officer 4 Eduardo Zeta Villanueva (SPO4 Villanueva). 4
Their testimonies tend to establish that sometime in August 2007, a civilian asset went to the Catbalogan Police Station to report the drug activities of accused-appellant. On the basis of the information, surveillance activities were conducted by the police officers which verified that accused-appellant was indeed selling shabu. 5
On August 27, 2007, a buy-bust operation team led by SPO4 Villanueva was convened. PO2 Albat was designated as the poseur-buyer while PO3 Ubay and PO2 Malabarbas served as backup. After the necessary preparations, the buy-bust team proceeded to Purok 6, Brgy. Canlapwas, Catbalogan, Samar. Upon arrival, PO2 Albat positioned himself at a sari-sari store near accused-appellant's house, while the rest of the team were within viewing distance. Later, accused-appellant appeared and approached PO2 Albat. The sale transaction ensued. PO2 Albat handed the five marked P100.00 bills; accused-appellant, in turn, handed him a sachet containing a white crystalline substance. With this, PO2 Albat performed the pre-arranged signal indicating that the transaction had been consummated. PO3 Unay and PO2 Malabarbas then rushed to the scene and arrested accused-appellant. PO2 Malabarbas frisked accused-appellant and found the marked money which he still clutched in his hand. On the other hand, PO2 Albat handed the sachet to SPO4 Villanueva who conducted a field test on its contents and found the same positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride. Thereafter, accused-appellant and the seized items were brought to the Catbalogan Police Station. 6
At the police station, SPO4 Villanueva handed the plastic sachet to PO3 Quitalig who marked the same with "A-V-A-1" and prepared an inventory in the presence of the accused-appellant, the members of the buy-bust team, Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Alfredo A. Bardaje, and Catbalogan City Councilor Joselito G. Mendoza. 7
The next day, P/Supt. Ramirez prepared a request for laboratory examination of the seized plastic sachet. Afterwards, the members of the buy-bust team filed a complaint against the accused-appellant for illegal sale of dangerous drugs and then proceeded to submit the plastic sachet to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, Regional Office VII, Baras, Palo, Leyte. The sachet was received by Criminal Intelligence Officer I David Mark D. Maramba who made another request for laboratory examination. PO3 Quitalig and PO2 Albat went to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Crime Laboratory in Kangleon, Palo, Leyte, and submitted the request and the plastic sachet to PO1 Fabella, the receiving clerk. PO1 Fabella handed the same to P/Insp. Del Pilar who conducted the physical and chemical examination. The test concluded, as contained in her Chemistry Report No. D-117-2007, that the specimen on the plastic sachet is positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 8
The defense, for its part, presented the testimonies of the accused-appellant and her daughter Ritchel Manaog. 9
Accused-appellant vehemently denied the charges against him. He claimed that on August 27, 2007, at about 5:00 p.m., he was walking towards the market when he was approached by three police officers: PO3 Unay, PO2 Albat, and PO2 Malabarbas. He was invited to the police station in order to speak to the Chief of Police. Accused-appellant requested to speak with his wife but the police officers refused. He was forced to board a tricycle and was brought to the police station. Therein, he was bodily searched but nothing was recovered from him. The following day, accused-appellant was brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory for drug testing. Accused-appellant was surprised to learn the next day that a criminal case for illegal sale of dangerous drugs has been filed against him. 10
Accused-appellant's testimony was corroborated on its material points by her daughter. 11
On October 6, 2014, the RTC rendered its Decision, 12 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds accused Domingo Japzon Manaog Alias 'Ome' GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, and thus sentences him to suffer a penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00). With cost de officio.
Mr. Victor Templonuevo, Provincial Warden of the Samar Provincial Jail, Catbalogan, Samar, is hereby directed to bring the living body of accused Domingo Japzon Manaog Alias 'Ome' to Abuyog, Leyte, immediately upon receipt of this judgment, unless otherwise, detained for some other causes.
SO ORDERED. 13
The RTC held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were able to establish the elements of the crime charged. In the absence of proof of ill motive on the part of the police officers to falsely testify, the RTC ruled that the prosecution's evidence prevail over the accused-appellant's denial which is "flimsy and weak." 14
The accused-appellant appealed to the CA, which rendered the herein assailed Decision, 15 affirming the accused-appellant's conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated 6 October 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Catbalogan City, Samar, 8th Judicial Region, Branch 28, in Criminal Case No. 6610, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 16
In upholding the RTC's Decision, the CA held that the links in the chain of custody were preserved and proven intact. Moreover, the failure by the members of the buy-bust team to mark, inventory, and photograph the dangerous drug at the scene of the crime cannot exculpate the accused-appellant from liability inasmuch as the same was done at the nearest police station. 17
Thus, this appeal.
The petitioner opted not to file a supplemental brief and instead adopted the brief which it filed before the CA. 18
Accused-appellant in his Supplemental Brief 19 argues that there are irregularities in the buy-bust operation and gaps in the chain of custody that create reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
The appeal is meritorious.
In order to sustain conviction for the sale of illegal drugs under Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the following elements must be established beyond reasonable doubt: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place, and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 20
The element of corpus delicti is established by showing compliance with the requirements for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia as set forth under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, viz.:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
In the same vein, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 provides for the proper procedure to be observed in accordance with the foregoing provision and the effect of non-compliance therewith, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items;
xxx xxx xxx
These requirements must be strictly complied with as they ensure the possibility of planting or substitution of evidence. 21 Simply, this chain of custody requirements goes into the integrity of the corpus delicti. 22
Among others, the aforesaid rules demand that the apprehending team immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the drugs after their seizure and confiscation in the presence of no less than three witnesses. In the case at bar, accused-appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation. The simulated sale involved one heat-sealed plastic bag containing methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 0.04 gram. While there was an initial testing done on the contents of the sachet immediately upon seizure and in the scene of the crime, the inventory was done only when the item was brought along with accused-appellant to the police station in the presence of a DOJ representative and an elected public official.
Clearly, the operation involved various procedural lapses that warrant accused-appellant's acquittal. First, the item was not marked, inventoried, or photographed immediately after seizure. Similarly, it was not shown that the required witnesses were present at the time of confiscation to ensure that what was seized as indicated in the inventory was the same item that was retrieved from the accused-appellant. Notably, the prosecution neither admitted, more so tried to justify or explain such non-observance with the required procedure. Thus, the prosecution cannot seek refuge from the saving mechanism under Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 on substantial compliance and preservation of chain of custody. 23
At the police station, during inventory, a representative from media was not present. The police officers explained that "they extended all their efforts but no one was available to stand as witness." 24 Strikingly, however, the police officers had ample time to secure the presence of the required witnesses as they themselves admitted that accused-appellant had been under surveillance "for more or less two weeks" prior to the actual conduct of the buy-bust operation. 25
In People v. Que, 26 the Court emphasized and reiterated that "[t]he presence of third persons is imperative, not only during the physical inventory and taking of pictures, but also during the actual seizure of items" 27 to ensure against the possibility of "switching, planting, or contamination." 28
Apart from the foregoing, there are missing links in the chain of custody of the seized item that raise serious doubts on its integrity. Specifically, the testimonies of the police officers who participated in the buy-bust operation did not explain who had taken custody of the sachet of shabu after inventory and prior to the preparation of the request for laboratory the following day. Given the lapse of time and the miniscule amount of the seized item involved, there is no assurance that the one subjected to laboratory examination and presented as evidence in court was the same article that was the subject of sale by accused-appellant. 29
In view of the glaring and numerous procedural lapses in the case at bar, the customary presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties would not suffice even if accused-appellant merely offered the defense of "denial and frame-up." The presumption applies only when the officers have shown compliance with the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise or be relied upon. 30 While the defenses of "denial and frame-up" are inherently weak, still, it must be emphasized that the burden is upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In doing so, it must rise on its own merits, without regard to the weakness of the defense. 31 Should the prosecution fail to discharge this burden, as in the case at bar, acquittal must follow.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 29, 2016 of the Court of Appeals Cebu Station in CA-G.R. CEB-CR-HC No. 02000, which, in turn, affirmed the Decision dated October 6, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Catbalogan City, Samar, Branch 28, in Criminal Case No. 6610, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant Domingo Japzon Manaog alias "Ome" is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to: (a) cause the immediate release of accused-appellant Manaog, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause; and (b) inform this Court of the date of his release, or the reason for his continued confinement as the case may be, within five (5) days from notice.
Copies of this Resolution must be furnished the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-19; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Pablito A. Perez, concurring.
2.Id. at 5-6.
3. CA rollo, p. 32.
4.Id. at 32-33, 35, 37, 39.
5.Rollo, p. 6.
6.Id. at 6-7.
7.Id. at 7.
8.Id. at 8, CA rollo, p. 33.
9. CA rollo, pp. 42, 49.
10.Rollo, pp. 8-9.
11.Id. at 9.
12. CA rollo, pp. 32-48; rendered by Judge Sibanah E. Usman.
13.Id. at 48.
14.Id. at 46-48.
15.Rollo, pp. 4-19.
16.Id. at 18.
17.Id. at 13-15.
18.Id. at 31-33.
19.Id. at 35-44.
20.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 893 (2018), citing People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 236 (2010).
21.People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 129 (2013).
22.People v. Que, supra note 20 at 902, citing People v. Morales, supra note 20 and People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476, 500-501 (2012).
23.People v. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019, citing People v. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671, 690-691 (2016).
24. CA rollo, p. 37.
25.Id.
26.Supra note 20.
27.Id. at 911.
28.Id., citing People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749-771 (2014).
29.People v. Que, supra note 20 at 914.
30.Id., citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289 (2010).
31.Daayata, et al. v. People, 807 Phil. 102, 118 (2017).