FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238747. July 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. LORENZO MARAVILLA y TAGLE, 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. 238747 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.Lorenzo Maravilla y Tagle, Accused-Appellant). — This appeal 1 seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 promulgated on 28 November 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07795, affirming the Judgment 3 dated 02 September 2015 of Branch 31, Regional Trial Court of San Pedro City, Laguna (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 12-8699-SPL, finding accused-appellant Lorenzo Maravilla y Tagle (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. 4
Antecedents
On 10 December 2012, accused-appellant was charged in an Information, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about October 17, 2012, in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority from the law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell, pass, deliver and convey one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point zero five (0.05) gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, to a police poseur-buyer in exchange for three hundred pesos consisting of three (3) pieces one hundred peso genuine bill.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. 6 After termination of the pre-trial, 7 trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
In the afternoon of 17 October 2012, the San Pedro police station received information from an informant that a certain alias Aga, later identified as the accused-appellant, was engaged in illegal drug trade activities. Upon verification, a buy-bust operation was planned to entrap him. 8
The buy-bust team thereafter proceeded to the area at Brgy. Cuyab. Thereat, the informant introduced PO2 Marie Franz Sumayod (PO2 Sumayod) to accused-appellant as a buyer of shabu. 9 After a brief talk between PO2 Sumayod and accused-appellant, the latter went inside his house. Upon his return, he gave to PO2 Sumayod a plastic sachet with suspected shabu while PO2 Sumayod handed the buy-bust money to the former. 10 PO2 Sumayod then executed the pre-arranged signal, which led to accused-appellant's arrest. 11 Upon frisking accused-appellant, SPO2 Manuel Coles Abutal, Jr. (SPO2 Abutal, Jr.) 12 recovered from the former the buy-bust money, while PO2 Sumayod marked the sachet with suspected shabu, subject of sale. 13
They then proceeded to the police station for documentation, inventory, and taking of photographs of the seized items. 14 Later, PO2 Sumayod brought the request for laboratory examination, together with the plastic sachet with suspected shabu, to the crime laboratory. 15 Upon examination by the forensic chemist, the item was found positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 16
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the accusation against him. He claimed that in the afternoon of 17 October 2012, he had an altercation with his wife which prompted his sister-in-law to call the police. 17 The police officers arrived after the commotion had ended but still arrested him for allegedly selling drugs. The police officers brought him to the police station and subsequently charged him with illegal sale of shabu. 18
Ruling of the RTC
In its 02 September 2015 Judgment, 19 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Art. II of RA No. 9165. The dispositive portion of said judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Lorenzo Maravilla y Tagle GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Art. II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Let the illegal drugs subject of this case be immediately forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposition in accordance with law.
The P300.00 buy-bust money is likewise ordered deposited to the National Treasury through the Office of the Clerk of Court, San Pedro City, Laguna.
SO ORDERED. 20
In convicting accused-appellant, the RTC ruled that the elements of sale of illegal drugs were sufficiently proven by the prosecution, accused-appellant having been caught inflagrante delicto selling shabu to the poseur-buyer. It likewise held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug sold by accused-appellant had been preserved and safeguarded and that every link in the chain of custody was established. It also lent credence to the straightforward and consistent testimony of PO2 Sumayod and disregarded accused-appellant's unsubstantiated defense of denial and frame-up. 21
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
On 28 November 2016, the CA promulgated its assailed Decision, 22 affirming accused-appellant's conviction, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The assailed Judgment dated September 2, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, San Pedro City, Laguna is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.23
The CA affirmed the findings of the RTC in that accused-appellant was apprehended inflagrante delicto selling shabu, making admissible the evidence seized from him. 24 It agreed with the RTC that the integrity and evidentiary value of the shabu was properly established and likewise accorded the police officers the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties absent any ill-motive on their part to falsely impute a serious crime to the accused-appellant. 25
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
The sole issue is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under RA No. 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
Accused-appellant primarily assails his warrantless arrest including the incidental search made on his person. 26 The Court is not persuaded.
Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure states:
Sec. 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;
xxx xxx xxx.
The CA aptly held that accused-appellant in this case was validly arrested as he was caught inflagrante delicto selling shabu during a buy-bust operation. 27 It is settled that warrantless arrest made during an entrapment operation including the search done incidental thereto is valid pursuant to Section 5 (a) of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. And if carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, a buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction. 28
The above notwithstanding, accused-appellant must be acquitted on reasonable doubt.
Accused-appellant was charged with the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165. In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and its payment therefor. 29 Material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. 30
Also, sale or possession of dangerous drugs can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. 31 Therefore, it is essential that the identity and integrity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty. 32
To preserve the corpus delicti, Section 21 of RA No. 9165, the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, 33 outlines the procedure which the police officers must strictly follow to preserve the integrity of the confiscated drugs and/or paraphernalia used as evidence, thus: (1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same; and (3) the seized drugs must be turned over to a forensic laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination. 34
Moreover, to ensure the integrity of the seized drugs, the prosecution must likewise establish the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs, i.e., first, the seizure and marking 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 by the forensic chemist to the court. 35
In the present case, the buy-bust team failed to comply with the foregoing requirements.
The three (3) mandatory witnesses
According to PO2 Sumayod, she immediately marked the seized item at the place of arrest. There was no showing, however, that the required witnesses were present during the conduct of the same. 36 This is contrary to the rule that the presence of the three (3) witnesses must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation. 37
Only the representative from the media
The physical inventory and taking of photographs were conducted at the police station, in the presence of accused-appellant and with only a representative from the media, as witness. 38 There was however, no explanation proffered by the prosecution on its failure to secure the presence of an elected public official and a representative from the DOJ. There was likewise no showing that the police officers exerted efforts to secure their presence. This, despite the pre-planned buy-operation, which gave them ample time to secure the presence of the required witnesses.
To emphasize, the presence of the witnesses required by law is essential. This rule is vital to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of irregularity. The insulating presence of such witnesses would preserve an unbroken chain of custody. 39
The apprehending officer kept the
According to SPO2 Sumayod, after she marked the sachet with suspected shabu bought from the accused-appellant, she took possession of the same and kept it until its submission to the crime laboratory. 40 In People v. Bangcola, 41 it was held that the apprehending officer's act of keeping the seized evidence until its transfer to the forensic chemist and his failure to transfer the seized evidence to the investigating officer are considered breaks in the chain of custody.
The receiving clerk and the evidence
Based on the stipulated testimony of Police Chief Inspector Donna Villa Huelgas (PCI Huelgas), the forensic chemist, she received the specimen from their receiving clerk and turned over the same after examination thereof to the evidence custodian. She likewise retrieved the same from the evidence custodian before presenting it in court. 42 There were however, no testimonies from SPO2 Garcia, the receiving clerk at the crime laboratory, as well as from the evidence custodian. The non-presentation of the receiving clerk and evidence custodian of the crime laboratory was in clear disregard of the mandate that every link in the chain must testify, describing the condition of the seized item when it was delivered, and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity. 43
Clearly, the foregoing deviations by the police officers in the conduct of the buy-bust operation, as well as the handling and custody of the illicit drug, constitute gaps in the chain of custody.
While Section 21 of RA No. 9165 provides a saving mechanism for any deviation of the provision prescribed therein, the same cannot be applied because the police officers in this case failed to recognize their lapses, as well as justify or explain the same. This inexcusable non-compliance effectively invalidates their seizure of and custody over the seized drugs, thus, compromising the identity and integrity of the same. Consequently, it created reasonable doubt as to the guilt of accused-appellant, warranting his acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision promulgated on 28 November 2016 by the CA, finding accused-appellant LORENZO MARAVILLA y TAGLE guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. He is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is being confined for some other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
SO ORDERED." (Carandang, J., took no part; Inting, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated 05 July 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.See Notice of Appeal dated 29 December 2016; Rollo, pp. 12-13.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a member of this Court) and Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, concurring.
3.CA rollo, pp. 28-34; penned by Judge Sonia T. Yu-Casano.
4. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
5. Records, p. 1.
6.Id. at 36.
7.Id. at 45-46.
8. TSN, 03 December 2013, Witness PO2 Sumayod, pp. 2-5.
9.Id. at 5-6.
10. TSN, 30 April 2014, Witness PO2 Sumayod, p. 2.
11.Id. at 3.
12. Also referred to as SPO3 Abutal, Jr. in the records.
13. TSN, 30 April 2014, Witness PO2 Sumayod, pp. 3-4; TSN, 10 September 2014, Witness SPO2 Abutal, Jr., pp. 4-5.
14. TSN, 30 April 2014, Witness PO2 Sumayod, p. 4; TSN, 10 September 2014, Witness SPO2 Abutal, Jr., p. 5.
15. TSN, 30 April 2014, Witness PO2 Sumayod, p. 5.
16.Id. at 6.
17.Rollo, p. 5.
18.Id.
19.CA rollo, pp. 28-34.
20.Id. at 33.
21.Id. at 31-32.
22.Rollo, pp. 2-11.
23.Id. at 10.
24.Id. at 6.
25.Id. at 9-10.
26.CA rollo, pp. 53-54.
27.Rollo, p. 7.
28.People v. Dizon, G.R. No. 223562, 04 September 2019 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier].
29.People v. Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, 11 September 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
30.People v. Villojan, Jr., G.R. No. 239635, 22 July 2019 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier].
31.People v. Nacua, 702 Phil. 739 (2013), G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013 [Per J. Leonardo-de Castro].
32.People v. Yagao, G.R. No. 216725, 18 February 2019 [Per C.J. Bersamin].
33. The Information alleged that accused-appellant committed the offense on 17 October 2012, thus, the earlier version of Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations shall apply, i.e., prior to its amendment by RA No. 10640 (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" which was approved on 15 July 2014 and became effective on 07 August 2014 or 15 days after its publication on 23 July 2014.
34.People v. Espejo, G.R. No. 240914, 13 March 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
35.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212 (2015), G.R. No. 212196, 12 January 2015 [Per J. Mendoza].
36. TSN, 30 April 2014, Witness PO2 Sumayod, p. 4.
37. See People v. Dumanjug, G.R. No. 235468, 01 July 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
38. TSN, 10 September 2014, Witness SPO2 Abutal, Jr., p. 5.
39. See People v. Macud, G.R. No. 219175, 14 December 2017 [Per J. Del Castillo].
40. TSN, 30 April 2014, Witness PO2 Sumayod, pp. 4-5.
41. G.R. No. 237802, 18 March 2019 [Per J. Gesmundo].
42. TSN, 13 November 2013, Witness PCI Huelgas, pp. 3-4.
43. See People v. Havana, 776 Phil. 462 (2016), G.R. No. 198450, 11 January 2016 [Per J. Del Castillo].