SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240535. March 4, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JAIME MARCELO y MENDOZA, a.k.a. "JUN NUNAL", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated04 March 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240535 (People of the Philippines v. Jaime Marcelo y Mendoza, a.k.a. "Jun Nunal"). — This appeal assails the Decision 1 dated January 18, 2018 whereby the Court of Appeals (CA), in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07409, affirmed the March 26, 2015 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 2, in Criminal Case Nos. 13-294787 & 13-294788, finding Jaime Marcelo y Mendoza a.k.a. "Jun Nunal" (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of illegal possession and sale of dangerous drugs, penalized under Sections 5 3 and 11 4 of Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 5
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Article II of R.A. No. 9165, before the RTC in two separate informations which read:
In Criminal Case No. 13-294787:
That on or about February 4, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ZERO ZERO SEVEN (0.007) gram of white crystalline substance known as methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. HTcADC
Contrary to law. 6
In Criminal Case No. 13-294788:
That on or about February 4, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR ONE (0.041) gram of white crystalline substance known as Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 7
The two cases were heard jointly and when arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. 8
After weighing the parties' respective arguments and evidence, the RTC rendered a Decision 9 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. It decreed:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows, to wit:
In Crim. Case No. 13-294787, finding accused JAIME MARCELO y MENDOZA @ "Jun Nunal" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, and
In Crim. Case No. 13-294788, finding accused JAIME MARCELO y MENDOZA @ "Jun Nunal" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 17 years and 4 months as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
The specimens are forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to turn over with dispatch and upon receipt the said specimens to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for proper disposal in accordance with the law and rules.
SO ORDERED. 10
On appeal, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC, to wit:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated March 26, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 11
Now, before the Court, accused-appellant reiterates his stance that his arrest was illegal and that the evidence against him were obtained by virtue of an invalid warrantless search. He also questions the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized dangerous drugs as he claims that the inventory was not made immediately at the place where the arrest and seizure were made. Likewise, he claims that the marking, inventory and taking of photographs were not made in the presence of a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), as well as any elected public official.
The Court finds merit in this appeal.
Again, as this Court is confronted with the issue of propriety of the procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs, a closer look of Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is in order. Thus —
(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 supplied.)
This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, to wit:
(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. x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied.)
Clearly, as buy-bust operations carry with them a danger for abuse, a specific procedure on the seizure and custody of drugs must be followed in order to ensure that the rights of the accused facing a criminal charge are safeguarded. This is clearly enunciated in the case of People v. Lim12 (Lim) where the Court en banc held that the prosecution has the positive duty to demonstrate observance with the chain of custody rule under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, in such a way that it must acknowledge and justify any perceived deviations therefrom. The pronouncement especially holds true in cases where the quantity of the seized drugs is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration of evidence, 13 as in this case. 14
Sadly, the records of this case are bereft of any indication that following the buy-bust operation was a compliance with the mandatory procedure outlined in the aforesaid provision of R.A. No. 9165. In fact, the inventory was not done immediately at the place where the arrest and seizure were made. Instead, it was done at the police station and only a media representative was present. Neither were the marking and taking of photographs taken in the presence of a representative from the media, the DOJ and any elected public official. aScITE
The RTC itself stated in its decision regarding the testimony of the arresting officer, SPO3 Francisco Guevarra (SPO3 Guevarra), that —
x x x One of his teammates proceeded to the Barangay but the latter declined to participate; he put the initials of the arrested person on the sachets — JM for the item that he was able to purchase and JM-1 for the recovered item — JM, meaning Jaime Marcelo, the name of the arrested person; that he could not make his initials on the sachets because they were small plastic sachets; after marking the evidence, lie kept them in his pocket and they went back to their office. Their Team Leader called for a witness for a witness, Mr. Rene Crisostomo, that he turned over the evidence to the Duty Investigator as shown in the Chain of Custody Form which he and PO3 Revita signed; after the turnover of the evidence and the arrested person, PO3 Revita made a request for the crime laboratory and turned over the same to the crime lab; after the result came, an affidavit was prepared and he signed it; that he accomplished an inventory of evidence seized at the Investigators' Office which was witnessed by Mr. Rene Crisostomo (a member of the MPD Press Corp) and the arrested. 15 (Underscoring supplied.)
It also appears that during cross examination, there had been an inconsistency in the testimonies of SPO3 Guevarra and the investigator, PO3 Revita, because while SPO3 Guevarra testified that the inventory was accomplished in the presence of PO3 Revita, the latter, on the other hand, "testified in effect that he was not present when the inventory was accomplished." 16
Clearly, the prosecution not only committed lapses in the handling of the seized drugs and did not even bother to present any explanation to justify its non-observance of the prescribed procedure; it also failed to prove that the integrity of the evidentiary value of the confiscated items was preserved. Likewise, there had been a deviation from the witness requirement.
The case of Lim also instructs that in cases of non-compliance with the witnesses requirement, it must be alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses to the physical inventory and photography of the seized drugs was not obtained due to reason/s, such as: (a) their attendance was impossible because of the place of arrest was a remote area; (b) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (c) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (d) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (e) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 17 Finally, Lim further mandates that the prosecution must prove that the arresting officers had exerted earnest efforts to secure the attendance of the witnesses, as sheer statements that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as flimsy excuse. 18
Indeed, while regularity in the performance of official functions is presumed in the absence of taint of irregularity and ill motive, the lapses in the proper handling of the seized items must, however, be considered as such lapses negate the presumption that official duties have been regularly performed. 19
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the January 18, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07409 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant JAIME MARCELO y MENDOZA is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is being confined for some other lawful cause. HEITAD
Copies of the Decision must be furnished to the director general of the Philippine National Police and the director general of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles and concurred by Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court) and Jane Aurora C. Lantion; rollo, pp. 2-15; CA rollo, pp. 95-107.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Sarah Alma M. Lim; CA rollo, pp. 54-60.
3. Sec. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
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.
If the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution or transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical transpires within one hundred (100) meters from the school, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
For drug pushers who use minors or mentally incapacitated individuals as runners, couriers and messengers, or in any other capacity directly connected to the dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals trade, the maximum penalty shall be imposed in every case.
If the victim of the offense is a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual, or should a dangerous drug and/or a controlled precursor and essential chemical involved in any offense herein provided be the proximate cause of death or a victim thereof, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed.
The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section.
The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section.
4. Sec. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
(1) 10 grams or more of opium;
(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;
(3) 10 grams or more of heroin; CTEDSI
(4) 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride;
(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";
(6) 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil;
(7) 500 grams or more of marijuana; and
(8) 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) or "ecstasy," paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements, as determined and promulgated by the Board in accordance to Section 93, Article XI of this Act.
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
(1) Life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantity of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" is ten (10) grams or more but less than fifty (50) grams;
(2) Imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment and a fine ranging from Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are five (5) grams or more but less than ten (10) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements: or three hundred (300) grams or more but less than five hundred (500) grams of marijuana; and
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
5. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
6. CA rollo, p. 54.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 54-60.
10.Id. at 59-60.
11.Id. at 107.
12.People of the Philippines v. Romy Lim y Miranda, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
13.Id., citing People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, 866 SCRA 73, 98-99, June 11, 2018.
14. In Criminal Case No. 13-294787, the suspected shabu seized from accused-appellant was 0.007 gram, while in Criminal Case No. 13-294788, the suspected shabu seized from accused-appellant was 0.041 gram.
15. CA rollo, p. 56.
16.Id. at 59.
17.Supra note 12, citing supra note 13.
18.Id., citing People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 233744, 857 SCRA 175, 190, February 28, 2018.
19.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008).