SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234050. October 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ALVIN MATANGUIHAN y BANATICLA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 October 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 234050(People of the Philippines v. Alvin Matanguihan y Banaticla). — This resolves the appeal filed by accused-appellant Alvin Matanguihan y Banaticla (Alvin) against the affirmance 1 by the Court of Appeals (CA) of his conviction 2 for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Alvin was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of R.A. No. 9161 in separate Informations which read:
In Criminal Case No. 21844-2013-C:
The Office of the City Prosecutor accuses ALVIN MATANGUIHAN of the crime of Violation of Sec. 11, Article II of RA 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about 3:45 a.m. of 13 December 2013 at Brgy. Parian, Calamba City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously possess three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as 'shabu,' a dangerous drug, having a total weigh of 0.23 gram, in violation of the aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
In Criminal Case No. 21845-2013-C:
That on or about 4:00 a.m. of 13 December 2013 at Brgy. Parian, Calamba City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to a poseur buyer quantity of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, having a total weight of 0.05 grams, in violation of the aforementioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Upon arraignment, Alvin pleaded not guilty. 5 No evidentiary stipulations were made during the pre-trial. 6 During the trial, the parties agreed to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist, Police Chief Inspector Donna Villa P. Huelgas (P/CINSP Huelgas), upon stipulation that: 1) P/CINSP Huelgas is an expert forensic chemist; 2) the Letter Request for Laboratory Examination dated December 13, 2013 exists and was duly executed; 3) the subject specimens included in the said Letter Request for Laboratory Examination were delivered to and received by the crime laboratory; 4) the specimens consisted of four (4) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing suspected shabu confiscated from Alvin; 5) pursuant to the said Letter Request, P/CINSP Huelgas conducted a qualitative examination of the specimens enclosed in the said letter and reduced her findings into writing in Chemistry Report No. D-908-13; 6) the specimens enclosed in the Letter Request were the same specimens examined by P/CINSP Huelgas; 7) Chemistry Report No. D-908-13 exists and was duly executed; 8) P/CINSP Huelgas has no personal knowledge of the source or provenance of the specimens she examined for Chemistry Report No. D-908-13; and 9) the specimens examined by P/CINSP Huelgas were the same specimens transmitted to the prosecution. 7 The prosecution offered the sole testimony of Police Officer 3 Abundio Castillo (PO3 Castillo), along with documentary evidence on the circumstances of the arrest and the alleged corpus delicti which was tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 8 The defense relied solely on Alvin's testimony. 9
The prosecution's case is based on PO3 Castillo's testimony, thus:
[PO3 Castillo] testified that on 13 December 2013, with other police officers, he arrested [Alvin] in a buy-bust operation at Brgy. Parian. The said operation was prompted by the information given by a confidential informant that accused was selling illegal drugs at Brgy. Parian. Upon receipt of the information, they then planned to conduct a buy-bust operation and he was tasked to act as the poseur buyer. After completing the pre-operation procedures including PDEA Coordination and preparation of the buy-bust money comprising of (1) [piece] of P100 bill and (1) [piece] of P200 bill, he together with Chief Intel Capt. Sareal, PO2 Cuevas, SPO1 Colinares, and the confidential agent proceeded to the area of operation. When he, accompanied by the confidential informant, reached the bridge of Purok 2 of Brgy. Parian, the confidential informant identified [Alvin] who was at the end of the bridge. He was then introduced by the confidential agent and to the accused that he will purchase shabu. [Alvin] asked him how much will be purchased to which PO3 Castillo replied worth P300.00. Accused then withdrew one (1) small plastic sachet from his pocket and handed to PO3 Castillo who in turn gave accused the P300.00 buy-bust money. Once the accused received the money, PO3 Castillo further testified that he made a miss call to the other members of the buy-bust team. Thereafter[,] he arrested accused and asked him to prone down on the ground. He then instructed accused to bring out the contents of his pockets and he was able to recover three more plastic sachets of shabu. Considering that the place of arrest was quite dark, the buy-bust team decided to bring the accused at the Barangay Hall of Parian where photographs of the recovered items were taken. [I]t was at the Barangay Hall that the purchased and confiscated specimens were marked. An Inventory and Blotter Report were made at the Barangay. Thereafter[,] accused was brought to the Calamba Police Station where the Request for Laboratory Examination and the Request for Drug Test were prepared. Once finished he brought the Request to the Crime Laboratory together with the specimen for examination to the crime laboratory. 10
Alvin interposed a defense of denial and frame-up, which was summarized by the trial court as follows:
[Alvin] testified that on 13 December 2013 at around 3:00 a.m. as he was about to go home, he passed by Mercury Drug in Crossing to buy medicines for his child. Suddenly, when he was walking in a small alley towards his place, he was blocked by five to six persons who introduced themselves as police officers. He was then handcuffed and was brought to the police station where he was shown a transparent plastic sachet containing powder substance and was told that said item was shabu. Thereafter[,] he was brought inside the cell. He denied the accusation against him and claimed that these were not true. 11
Ruling of the RTC
The trial court found Alvin guilty as charged, finding that the elements of the crimes of Illegal Possession and Sale of Dangerous Drugs were established by the prosecution. Relying mainly on the presumption of regularity accorded to police operations, the trial court gave more weight and credence to PO3 Castillo's testimony over Alvin's defense of frame-up. 12 The trial court concluded, on the bases of PO3 Castillo's testimony and the drug samples confiscated from Alvin, that PO3 Castillo and his team did conduct a successful buy-bust operation against Alvin, which yielded the corpus delicti. 13 Likewise, the trial court was satisfied with PO3 Castillo's assertions that: 1) Alvin sold him the drug samples which formed the corpus delicti; 2) the marked money was actually exchanged for the illegal drug samples; and 3) the drug samples were seized, marked, and identified as drug samples. 14 The trial court disposed of the case thus:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, in Criminal Case No. 21844-2013-C, the Court finds accused, ALVIN MATANGUIHAN y BANATICLA, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 11, paragraph 2(3), Article II of Republic Act 9165. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS; and ONE (1) DAY, as minimum, to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, as maximum, and to PAY A FINE of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P300,000.00) PESOS.
In Criminal Case No. 21845-2013-C, the Court likewise finds accused, ALVIN MATANGUIHAN y BANATICLA, GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165. The accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and TO PAY A FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND (P500,000.00) n PESOS.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby ordered to turn over the methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) subject of this case for proper disposition and destruction.
SO ORDERED.15 (Emphasis in the original)
Ruling of the CA
The appellate court rejected Alvin's contention that the arresting team's failure to abide by the Philippine National Police Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation and Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 rendered the evidence of the corpus delicti inadmissible. Citing the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, the CA ruled that "substantial compliance with the procedure to establishchain of custody is sufficient, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/s."16 Given the circumstances surrounding Alvin's arrest, the CA ruled that the arresting officers were able to substantially comply with the requirements of Section 21 (1). The CA disposed of the case thus:
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court dated August 25, 2016 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.17 (Emphasis in the original)
Hence, the present appeal. 18
An appeal against a judgment of conviction opens the whole case for review; and all errors, whether or not assigned, are open to appreciation and correction, 19 regardless of whether or not they were raised for the first time on appeal. 20 In the case at bar, records reveal that the seizure and custody of the alleged narcotic substance sold by Alvin to the alleged confidential informant was attended by irregularities and defects which are fatal to the prosecution's case. This Court must acquit the appellant.
The crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, as defined and penalized in Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, has two elements: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of sale, and consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 21 Relative thereto, it has been consistently held that the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs cannot be proven without the presentation and identification of the dangerous drug. 22 The crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, as defined and penalized in Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, has three elements: 1) possession by the accused of an item or object identified as a dangerous drug, 2) such possession is not authorized by law, and 3) such possession is free and conscious on the part of the accused. 23 As the corpus delicti of the two aforementioned crimes, the existence and custody of the subject dangerous drug must be established beyond reasonable doubt. 24
To this end, Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 prescribes the guidelines to be observed by law enforcement officers in the processing and custody of dangerous drugs. Section 21 (1) provides:
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;
xxx xxx xxx
Recent decisions of this Court have held that unjustified non-compliance with the foregoing procedures renders the existence of the corpus delicti in doubt, as the possibility of switching or substituting the seized items with another sample can never be ruled out. 25 Thus, this Court has consistently, categorically, and definitively ruled that the prosecution must provide adequate justification for lapses in the procedure for handling seized dangerous drugs, otherwise such seizures shall be considered invalid. 26
Specifically, the prosecution must prove that the eschewal of the presence of all three insulating witnesses was adequately and properly justified by the prosecution. In the leading case of People v. Lim: 27
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) 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; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in thepunishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) 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 (5) 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.
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v. Ramos requires:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement 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 a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 28
In the case at bar, records show that Alvin was apprehended in 2013, 29 before the amendments to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were introduced. Based on the Receipt of Physical Inventory, 30 it appears that the seizure and inventory of the contraband seized from Alvin was witnessed only by a certain Sgt. Arnold L. Mangeron (PA) (Sgt. Mangeron), who was purportedly the designated barangay investigator. Likewise, the signature spaces for the DOJ and media representatives were left blank. 31 When asked about this particular circumstance of the arrest, PO3 Abundio testified as follows:
[PROS. BARUT:]
After you arrested @ Amboy, what did you do next as a matter of procedure?
[PO3 CASTILLO:]
Because the place is quite dark so what we did we brought him to the Barangay Hall of Parian and we took photographs and we recovered from him (3) plastic sachets, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
PROS. BARUT:
And you said that you proceeded to the Barangay Hall?
[PO3 CASTILLO:]
Yes, ma'am.
[PROS. BARUT:]
What happened at the barangay?
[PO3 CASTILLO:]
I marked the recovered plastic sachets of shabu and then the purchased item, ma'am.
[PROS. BARUT:]
What markings did you place on the sachets of illegal drugs?
[PO3 CASTILLO:]
I marked the purchased item as "ABM-BB" and the recovered items in his possession, I marked it as "ABM-1" to "ABM-3", ma'am.
[PROS. BARUT:]
What else did you do at the barangay?
[PO3 CASTILLO:]
We prepared an Inventory and made the Blotter Report at the Barangay, ma'am.
[PROS. BARUT:]
If this Inventory is shown to you, will you be able to identify the same?
[PO3 CASTILLO:]
Yes, ma'am.
[PROS. BARUT:]
I am showing you Exhibit "E", please examine this document and tell us if that was the Inventory you said you prepared?
[PO3 CASTILLO:]
Yes, ma'am my signature was affixed.
[PROS. BARUT:]
Aside from your signature, there is another signature on that document, can you tell us who is this Sgt. Arnold L. Mangeron?
[PO3 CASTILLO:]
He was the Investigator of Brgy. Parian, ma'am.
[PROS. BARUT:]
He is a [sergeant] of the Philippine Army?
[PO3 CASTILLO:]
For what I know he is a retired Army, ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
[ATTY. QUINTOS:]
You likewise agree with me that you did not comply with the requirements of Sec. 21 particularly the signature of the representative from the DOJ as well as the elected officials, correct?
[PO3 CASTILLO:]
There was an elected officials [sic], ma'am.
[ATTY. QUINTOS:]
So you are saying that Sgt. Arnold L. Mangeron is an elected official?
[PO3 CASTILLO:]
Yes, ma'am.
[ATTY. QUINTOS:]
What is his designation?
[PO3 CASTILLO:]
He was the Brgy. Investigator, ma'am.
[ATTY. QUINTOS:]
So he was not elected because he was a Hepe of the Barangay, correct?
[PO3 CASTILLO:]
He was appointed by the Brgy. Captain, ma'am. 32
In his Judicial Affidavit, PO3 Castillo further admitted that the arresting team made the deliberate choice not to look for a media and a DOJ representative allegedly because a commotion was developing and Alvin's relatives were getting agitated. 33 However, this Court has already ruled that the mere existence of a commotion (or even the possibility thereof) or a general allegation of agitation among persons present in the operation area does not suffice to justify the non-participation of the three insulating witnesses required by Section 21 (1). 34 The prosecution must prove the existence of a concrete and credible threat of, in the words of Lim, "an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf."
Furthermore, Section 21 (1) categorically requires that one of the insulating witnesses must be an "elected public official." Clearly, Sgt. Mangeron, who is a retired Army officer and designated Barangay Investigator of Barangay Parian, is not an elected public official. In the absence of adequate justification and proper authorization from an actual elected barangay official of Barangay Parian, Sgt. Mangeron is not qualified to serve as an insulating witness.
In view of the apprehending officers' unjustified non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, reasonable doubt as to the existence of the corpus delicti tying Alvin to the crime charged against him emerges. Absent proof beyond reasonable doubt of the existence and identity of the narcotic substance allegedly confiscated from Alvin, his conviction cannot be sustained.
FOR THESE REASONS, this appeal is hereby GRANTED. The June 5, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08622 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Alvin Matanguihan y Banaticla is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being detained for any lawful cause. Let an entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, who is thereafter ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken thereon. aScITE
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08622 dated June 5, 2017. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (retired Member of this Court), with Presiding Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. (also a retired Member of this Court) and Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez concurring. Rollo, pp. 2-12.
2. Judgment dated August 25, 2016 in Criminal Case Nos. 21844-2013-C and 21845-2013-C. Penned by Presiding Judge Caesar C. Buenagua of the Regional Trial Court of Calamba City, Laguna, Branch 37. CA rollo, pp. 59-71.
3. Records, pp. 1, 25.
4. CA rollo, pp. 40-41.
5. Orders dated January 24, 2014 and February 21, 2014. Records, pp. 30, 31.
6. Amended Pre-Trial Order, id. at 55-56.
7. Order dated June 8, 2016, id. at 134-135.
8. RTC Decision, CA rollo, p. 61.
9.Id. at 62.
10. Appellee's Brief, id. at 82-83.
11. RTC Decision, id. at 62.
12.Id. at 62-63.
13.Id. at 64-65.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 70-71.
16. CA Decision, id. at 109.
17.Id. at 112.
18. Notice of Appeal, id. at 120.
19.People v. Fornillos, G.R. No. 231991, January 27, 2020, citing People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 234190, October 1, 2018.
20.People v. Jagdon, G.R. No. 234648, March 27, 2019, citing People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1055-1056 (2018).
21.People v. Alon-Alon, G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019.
22.People v. Abdulah, G.R. No. 243941, March 11, 2020, citing People v. Nacua, 702 Phil. 739, 751 (2013); People v. Battung, G.R. No. 230717, June 20, 2018; People v. Catentay, 638 Phil. 201, 215 (2010). People v. Nazareno, 559 Phil. 387, 392-393 (2007).
23.People v. Zapanta, G.R. No. 230227, November 6, 2019; People v. Piñero, G.R. No. 242407, April 1, 2019; People v. Miranda, 762 Phil. 170, 180 (2015).
24.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 436-437 (2018); People v. Ramirez, 823 Phil. 1215, 1227 (2018).
25.People v. Doria, G.R. No. 227854, October 9, 2019; People v. Ceralde, 815 Phil. 711, 719 (2017).
26.People v. Sioson, G.R. No. 242686, July 7, 2020; People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018. Such has been the rule even before the amendment of R.A. No. 9165, Section 21 in 2014, Dela Riva v. People, 769 Phil. 872, 886 (2015); Valencia v. People, 725 Phil. 268, 277-279 (2014); People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441, 451-452 (2013); People v. Roble, 663 Phil. 147, 164 (2011); People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 403 (2010) and cases cited therein.
27. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
28.People v. Lim, supra note 26. Emphasis and underlining in the original, citations omitted.
29. Records, pp. 4-6.
30.Id. at 8.
31.Id.
32. TSN, June 8, 2016, pp. 6-8.
33. T12: Ano ang ginawa ninyo matapos noon?
S12: Dinala namin sila sa Brgy. Parian at kinunan ng litrato kasama ang mga nakuhang ebidensya katuwang ang representative ng Brgy. Parian at inimbentaryo iyon ngunit hindi na namin naantay ang mga media at representative ng DOJ dahil sa nagkakagulo at nagliligalig ang mga kaanak nitong si ALVIN MATANGUIHAN y BANATICLA aka "AMBOY" ay agad naming silang isinama at ang ebidensya sa himpilan ng pulisya upang masusing maimbestigahan. Records, p. 5.
34.People v. Sood, 832 Phil. 850, 870 (2018); People v. Cornel, 829 Phil. 645, 654 (2018).
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "(P500,00.00)" in the official document.