THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243624. April 26, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 26, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243624 (People of the Philippines v. Juanito Arias Manuel). — Before the Court is an ordinary Appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant Juanito Arias Manuel (Manuel) assailing the Decision 2 dated January 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07300, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated January 20, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lingayen, Pangasinan, Branch 69 in Criminal Case No. L-10105, finding Manuel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Facts
This case stemmed from an Information 5 filed before the RTC accusing Manuel with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the accusatory portion of which state:
Crim. Case No. L-10105
That at or about 8:33 o'clock in the morning of May 30, 2014 in Brgy. Ninoy, Aguilar, Pangasinan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, (sic), unlawfully and feloniously sell one (1) TRANSPARENT HEAT-SEALED PLASTIC SACHETS containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (sic) locally known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug, to a poseur-buyer in exchange for Php500.00, a marked money, without lawful authority to possess and sell the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Upon arraignment, Manuel pleaded not guilty to the charges against him. Subsequently, trial ensued. 7
Evidence of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented Police Officer III Reyjene Roque (PO3 Roque),Police Officer III Dennis Bautista (PO3 Bautista) and Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector Myrna Malojo Todeño (PCI Todeño) as its witnesses. Their testimonies tended to establish the following: 8 CAIHTE
At around 7:00 in the morning of May 30, 2014, the Deputy Chief of Police of the Philippine National Police (PNP)-Aguilar, Pangasinan, Police Inspector Arturo Melchor (P/I Melchor) conducted a briefing to PO3 Roque and PO3 Bautista regarding a planned buy-bust operation against Manuel, being the subject of a test buy for methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu on May 21, 2014. Subsequently, a buy-bust operation team was formed where PO3 Roque was designated as the poseur-buyer while PO3 Bautista as the arresting officer and in charge of the perimeter security. Thereafter, they were instructed to wait for information from their Confidential Informant (CI), who was tasked to communicate with the accused, as to the time and place of the intended transaction. 9
At around 7:40 in the morning of the same day, they received a message from the CI that the transaction would push through with alyas ''Piket" at around 8:30 to 9:00 in the morning. The message reads: "Tuloy yung transaksyon nag text nasa akin si 'Piket' at doon nalang daw natin titingnan na sa mga bandang oras ng 8:30 to 9:00 doon sa may highway ng Barangay Ninoy, sir." 10 With this confirmation, PO3 Roque and PO3 Bautista proceeded with the operation after coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), Region I, and caused the operation to be entered in the police blotter book, including the recording of the serial number of the P500.00 bill to be used in the operation — BF373009. Accordingly, PO3 Roque and PO3 Bautista proceeded to Aguilar Church to fetch the CI and to brief the latter about the buy-bust operation. The police officers and the CI then went to Sitio Dapit-Ilog, Barangay Ninoy where the transaction would take place. 11
Upon the buy-bust team's arrival at the target area, they saw Manuel seated on his tricycle. After alighting from the motorcycle, PO3 Roque and the CI approached Manuel while PO3 Bautista stayed in their parked motorcycle which was three (3) to four (4) meters away from the place of incident. On the other hand, P/I Melchor stayed on his vehicle twenty (20) meters away. The CI further approached Manuel and asked whether the item was with him, to which Manuel responded in the affirmative. Simultaneously, Manuel retrieved from the right front pocket of his short pants one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing the suspected white crystalline granules. After receiving the sachet, the CI handed over to Manuel the marked P500.00 bill. 12
After the transaction was completed, PO3 Roque, who was beside the CI, immediately effected the arrest of Manuel. PO3 Bautista then approached them and assisted in the arrest. At that time, no other person was around, except for P/I Melchor who stayed on the other side of the road. Consequently, PO3 Roque frisked Manuel and recovered from him the marked money. Thereafter, the plastic sachet sold by Manuel was turned over by the CI to PO3 Roque. At that moment, P/I Melchor approached the scene and, after confirming that the operation resulted positively, informed the Chief of Police, Police Senior Inspector Jaojoco Cagaoan, for the purpose of coordinating with representatives from the Department of Justice and the media. 13
In due time, reporter of Northwest Sun Emil Toledo, Prosecutor Raul Campos and the Barangay Captain of Ninoy arrived at the scene to witness the marking and documentation of the evidence recovered. In the presence of the said individuals, PO3 Roque indicated the markings "RTR-A dated 05/30/14" on the seized transparent plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu and "RTR-B dated 05/30/2014" 14 on the marked money. Other elements from PNP-Aguilar arrived at the scene and took photographs. PO3 Roque likewise prepared the Receipt/Inventory of Property/ies Seized and Chain of Custody. 15
Manuel, together with the items seized and the latter's tricycle, was brought to the police station of Aguilar. There, the desk officer, Police Officer III Rodolfo Dumaoal (PO3 Dumaoal), to whom the case was indorsed for recording, with Police Officer III Wayne dela Cruz (PO3 dela Cruz) prepared the request for laboratory examination and drug test. 16 At about 1:10 in the afternoon of that day, Manuel was brought to the Community Hospital or Lingayen for medical examination and drug testing. About an hour later, PO3 Roque and PO3 Bautista brought the plastic sachet to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Lingayen, Pangasinan. 17 DETACa
In her report, PCI Todeño, the chemist who conducted the quantitative and qualitative examination of the seized white crystalline substance, confirmed that the seized sachet contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu. After examination, PCI Todeño sealed the specimen and marked the same. She later turned over the specimen to the evidence custodian. 18
Evidence of the Defense
The defense presented Manuel and Sherwin Sagles as its witnesses. Manuel denied the charges against him and claimed that at about 8:00 in the morning of May 30, 2014, he and his two (2)-year old son were on board his tricycle and on their way to Buer, Aguilar to deliver the bibingka ordered by one Francisco Brilliones. While traversing the highway, Manuel noticed from the side mirror that somebody onboard a motorcycle was following him. He identified the man as PO3 Roque, whom he already knew at that time to be an intelligence officer of PNP-Aguilar. Eventually, PO3 Roque stopped Manuel and asked him if he knew of a person, surnamed Macalanda, to which Manuel answered in the affirmative. Consequently, PO3 Roque informed Manuel that he had something to say to the latter and asked Manuel to follow him on the left side of the road. 19
Upon positioning their vehicles at the road side, PO3 Roque proceeded to ask more questions as to how Manuel was related to Macalanda, to which Manuel replied that Macalanda is the husband of one of his relatives. In the course of their conversation, PO3 Roque called somebody on his cellphone. Moments later, two (2) policemen onboard a motorcycle arrived. PO3 Roque suddenly handcuffed Manuel without any warning. Alarmed, Manuel inquired as to why he was being handcuffed but the police officers only apprised him not to resist. Thereafter, Manuel saw a sachet of shabu and a P500.00 bill in the hands of PO3 Roque which the latter pocketed afterwards. After the Chief of Police and Barangay Officials arrived, pictures of Manuel were taken. Thereafter, Manuel was made to board a tricycle going to the police station. 20
To corroborate his statement, Manuel presented one Sherwin Sagles (Sherwin) who testified that he saw PO3 Roque and Manuel converse at the roadside. Being acquainted with both PO3 Roque and Manuel, Sherwin approached and had a short talk with them. However, he eventually left to ply his route. About 15 minutes later, Sherwin saw Manuel struggling with his hands handcuffed. Seeing Sherwin, Manuel shouted at him for help. This prompted Sherwin to park his bus and approach the scene. At that time, people were already converging. Not long after, PO3 Bautista, whom Sherwin knew to be a policeman as he usually saw him manning the police checkpoint and sometimes conducting the traffic, arrived aboard a motorcycle, followed by a group of policemen headed by P/I Melchor. Sherwin stayed at the scene for a while, but was unable to go near as it was made off limits to the public. 21
The RTC Ruling
In a Decision 22 dated January 20, 2015, the RTC found Manuel guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 in Crim. Case No. L-10105, for illegal sale of shabu and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of P500,000.00. 23
The RTC held that all the elements for the prosecution of sale of dangerous drugs, namely: the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and consideration, and the delivery of the thing sold, and the payment therefor, were established. The prosecution through the testimonies of PO3 Roque, PO3 Bautista and PCI Todeño had clearly established the existence of a sale transaction, involving methamphetamine hydrochloride, between Manuel, on one hand, and PO3 Roque and the CI, on the other hand in the morning of May 30, 2014 at Brgy. Ninoy, Aguilar. The evidence likewise showed faithful observance of the chain of custody requirement, removing any doubt on the identity of the sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride presented in evidence as the one delivered by the CI to PO3 Roque. The RTC further noted the categorical, consistent, and straightforward narration of the prosecution's witnesses of the circumstances leading to the consummation of the sale and the arrest of Manuel. According to the RTC, this was more credible than Manuel's alibi wherein he averred that there was a break in the chain of custody of the subject dangerous drug due to the time gap from the consummation of the sale to the delivery to PO3 Roque. This alone cannot suffice to cast doubt on the integrity of the subject dangerous drug. 24 aDSIHc
Aggrieved, Manuel elevated his conviction to the CA, arguing that not all the requirements of a valid warrantless arrest were present in this case and the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the crime charged against him. 25
The CA Ruling
In a Decision dated January 30, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling, finding that the prosecution successfully established the continuous chain of custody of the confiscated shabu which preserved the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the illicit items. 26
The CA held that the arrest of Manuel was a result of an entrapment operation conducted by the police officers of PNP Aguilar. An arrest made after an entrapment operation did not require a warrant inasmuch as it was considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Section 5 (a), 27 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. Undeniably, Manuel was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu which led to his arrest. This situation clearly was covered by Section 5 (a), Rule 113 authorizing the warrantless arrest. Therefore, the warrantless arrest of Manuel was valid and the confiscated transparent heat-sealed plastic sachet of shabu was admissible in evidence and cannot be considered as fruit of a poisonous tree. 28
Notably, when the exchange of shabu and marked money transpired between Manuel and the CI, PO3 Roque was beside the CI. Clearly, PO3 Roque had personal knowledge of the illegal transaction as he witnessed the same. Nevertheless, what was of utmost importance was the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, as the same would be utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused. 29
From the sequence of events relayed by the police officers, the prosecution was able to show an unbroken link in the chain of custody of the subject item which was the proof of the corpus delicti. Besides, there was no strict requirement that the initials of Manuel be used in the marking of the shabu confiscated. Marking the evidence with the initials of the arresting officers will not destroy the integrity of the confiscated shabu because marking was just a phase of the full process of preserving the identity or integrity of the items. 30
Undaunted, Manuel moved for reconsideration which was, however, denied by the CA in a Resolution 31 dated May 18, 2017. Hence, the instant petition.
The Issue Before the Court
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not Manuel's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, should be upheld.
The Court's Ruling
The Court has painstakingly reviewed the records of this case and after a thorough deliberation, resolves to acquit Manuel for the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court finds that the prosecution was not able to establish with moral certainty that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items confiscated from Manuel were preserved such that they could be used as basis for Manuel's conviction.
No less than the Constitution 32 demands that an accused in a criminal case be presumed innocent until otherwise proven beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise, Section 2, Rule 133 33 of the Rules of Court requires proof beyond reasonable doubt to justify a conviction; anything less than that entitles the accused to an acquittal. 34
Manuel was arrested during a buy-bust operation where he was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu. When an arrest is made during a buy-bust operation, it is not required that a warrant be secured in line with the provisions of Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court allowing warrantless arrests, to wit:
Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. ETHIDa
xxx xxx xxx
As a general rule, a buy-bust operation, considered as a form of entrapment, is a valid means of arresting violators of RA 9165. It is an effective way of apprehending law offenders in the act of committing a crime. In a buy-bust operation, the idea to commit a crime originates from the offender, without anybody inducing or prodding him to commit the offense. 35 If carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation, such as the one involved in this case, deserves judicial sanction. As aptly observed by the CA, the warrantless arrest conducted on the person of Manuel was allowed under the circumstances.
Significantly, Manuel was charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 which is the applicable law as RA 10640 was approved to amend RA 9165 only on July 15, 2014. Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 provides:
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 unauthorized 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.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) 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 controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
xxx xxx xxx
In this regard, it is essential that the identity of the prohibited drug be established beyond reasonable doubt. In order to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody of the items seized. It must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody of dangerous drugs from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 36 The Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) has expressly defined chain of custody involving dangerous drugs and other substances in the following terms in Section 1 (b) of DDB Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002:
b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
In relation to this, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 pertinently provides the following:
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: cSEDTC
(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 or 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[.]
Simply put, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 provides for the chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure that police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. 37 Under the said section, the apprehending team shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and he given a copy of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination. 38
Likewise, Our ruling in People v. Gutierrez39 on the chain of custody rule is instructive, viz.:
As a mode of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires the presentation of the seized prohibited drugs as an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. This would ideally cover the testimony about every link in the chain, from seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that everyone who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, to include, as much as possible, a description of the condition in which it was delivered to the next in the chain. 40 (Citation omitted)
From the foregoing, the following are the links that must be established in the chain of custody in a buy-bust situation:
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. 41
While non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements will not automatically render the entire and custody of the items void and invalid, this is true only when ''(i) there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and (ii) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved." 42 Thus, any divergence from the prescribed procedure must be justified and should not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated contraband. Absent any of the said conditions, the non-compliance is an irregularity, a red flag, that casts reasonable doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti.
In the case at bar, not only was there no justifiable ground offered for the non-compliance with the chain of custody requirement, there was an apparent failure to properly preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item to ensure the identity of the corpus delicti from the time of seizure to the time of presentation in court. 43 In other words, the prosecution's evidence failed to establish the chain that would have shown that the sachet of shabu presented in court was the very same item seized from Manuel. SDAaTC
The first crucial link in the chain of custody starts with the seizure from Manuel of the dangerous drugs and its subsequent marking. Under the law, such marking should have been done immediately after confiscation and in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. After a thorough review of the records, the Court is of great standing that this has been complied with.
As culled from the assailed Decision of the CA, a reporter of Northwest Sun Emil Toledo, Prosecutor Raul Campos and the Barangay Captain of Ninoy arrived at the scene to witness the marking and documentation of the evidence recovered. PO3 Roque put the markings "RTR-A dated 05/30/14" on the seized transparent plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu and "RTR-B dated 05/30/2014" on the marked money. PO2 Laoang, one of the other policemen who arrived at the place of transaction after the buy-bust operation, took photographs of the scene. Records also show that the marking and documentation of the evidence was done in the presence of Manuel as shown from the photographs that were taken during the buy-bust operation. 44 Furthermore, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and an elected public official were present during the marking as also shown from the photographs, and as can be gleaned from the Receipt/Inventory of Property/ies Seized, 45 these persons signed the copies of the inventory. 46 After PO3 Roque prepared the Receipt/Inventory of Property/ies Seized and Chain of Custody, the policemen brought Manuel together with the seized item and his motorcycle to the police station.
Emphasizing the importance of this first link, the Court in People v. Zakaria, 47 pronounced:
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized dangerous drugs or other related items immediately after they are seized from the accused, for the marking upon seizure is the starting point in the custodial link that succeeding handlers of the evidence will use as reference point. Moreover, the value of marking of the evidence is to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of seizure from the accused until disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of evidence. A failure to mark at the time of taking of initial custody imperils the integrity of the chain of custody that the law requires. 48 (Citation omitted)
Clearly, the requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 that marking of the seized drugs be made 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, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof, was satisfied.
The second link in the chain of custody is the turnover of the illegal drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. PO3 Roque's testimony on this point was corroborated by PO3 Bautista who testified that after the Aguilar police station received a message from their CI, who coordinated with Manuel, confirming the latter's agreement to sell shabu and providing the time and place thereof, they and the CI, whom they fetched at the Aguilar Catholic Church, proceeded to the designated place where Manuel was already waiting. Upon query from the CI, Manuel brought out from the right front pocket of his pants a sachet, containing white crystalline substance, and delivered it to the CI in the presence of PO3 Roque. In exchange, the CI gave to Manuel the marked P500.00 bill. When subjected to qualitative examination, the contents of the plastic sachet were determined to be methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as shabu. 49
PO3 Roque identified on the witness stand the marked P500.00 bill and the sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride presented in evidence as the same subject of the buy-bust operation. PCI Todeño, likewise, made a similar identification with respect to the sachet of shabu as the same item delivered to PNP Laboratory. 50 Although PO3 Roque identified the persons to whom they turned over the seized items and who prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination on the item seized and Request for Drug Test, there is no evidence to show that these were the persons who received the seized items from the apprehending officers and prepared the documents, respectively. 51 There is therefore a crucial link missing, i.e., what happened to the seized items after they left the hands of PO3 Roque and before they came to the hands of PO3 Dumaoal and PO3 dela Cruz. acEHCD
As for the third and the last links, although records show that PO3 Dumaoal signed the request for laboratory examination, he was not presented in court to testify as such. The testimony of PO3 Dumaoal and PO3 dela Cruz are indispensable because they could have provided the critical link between the testimonies of PO3 Roque and PO3 Bautista, and the tenor of the testimony of PCI Todeño, which the parties have stipulated on. The unaccounted whereabouts of the seized items from the time they were brought to the Police Station of Lingayen, Pangasinan to the time they were submitted to PCI Todeño for examination constitutes a clear break in the chain of custody.
Overall, the prosecution failed to observe the requirement that the testimonies of all persons who handled the specimen are important to establish the chain of custody. 52 Of all the individuals who came into direct contact with or had physical possession of the shabu allegedly seized from Manuel, only PO3 Roque, PO3 Bautista and PCI Todeño testified for the specific purpose of identifying the evidence.
With the above premises, it is clear that there was a break in the chain of custody of the seized transparent plastic sachet containing the suspected shabu. The failure of the prosecution to establish the evidence's chain of custody is fatal to its case as We can no longer consider or even safely assume that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated dangerous drug were properly preserved.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07300 dated January 30, 2017 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Juanito Arias Manuel is hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. L-10105 for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for the immediate release of Juanito Arias Manuel, unless he is being held in custody for any other lawful reason. The Director General is directed to report to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let entry of judgment be issued.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-13; Notice of Appeal dated February 24, 2017.
2.Id. at 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of the Court) and Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 45-53; penned by Presiding Judge Loreto S. Alog, Jr.
4. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
5.Rollo, p. 2.
6. See CA rollo, p. 45.
7.Id. at 48.
8.Id. at 46.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Rollo, p. 3.
13.Id. at 4.
14. CA rollo, p. 47.
15.Rollo, p. 4.
16. TSN, August 28, 2014, p. 15.
17.Rollo, p. 4.
18.Id. at 4-5.
19.Id. at 5.
20.Id.
21. CA rollo, pp. 48-49.
22.Id. at 45-53.
23.Id. at 53.
24.Id. at 49-53.
25.Rollo, p. 7.
26.Id. at 11.
27. Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense[.]
28.Rollo, pp. 7-8.
29.Id. at 9.
30.Id. at 10.
31. CA rollo, p. 115.
32. Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
33. Section 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
34.People v. Enriquez, 718 Phil. 352, 360 (2013).
35.People v. Bajo, 703 Phil. 148, 161 (2013).
36.Goromeo v. People, 811 Phil. 844, 856 (2017), citing People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
37.Id., citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 349-350 (2015).
38. See Section 21 (1) and (2), Article II of RA 9165.
39. 622 Phil. 396 (2009).
40.Id. at 411.
41.People v. Magpayo, 648 Phil. 641, 650 (2010).
42.People v. Martinez, 652 Phil. 347, 372 (2010).
43. See People v. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019.
44. Records, p. 21.
45.Id. at 31.
46.Id.
47. 699 Phil. 367 (2012).
48.Id. at 380-381.
49. CA rollo, p. 50.
50.Id. at 51.
51.Supra note 16.
52.People v. Somoza, 714 Phil. 368, 388 (2013).