THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243943. July 5, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JAN RYAN MELLIZA y PANAGUITON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 5, 2021, which reads as follows:
G.R. No. 243943 (People of the Philippines v. Jan Ryan Melliza y Panaguiton). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals, dated August 20, 2018, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09627, affirming the Decision 2 dated May 5, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 75 (RTC), finding accused-appellant Jan Ryan Melliza guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for the sale and possession of illegal drugs.
Two (2) Informations dated July 18, 2013 charged accused-appellant with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165, viz.:
Criminal Case No. 1006-V-13
That on or about July 16, 2013, in Valenzuela 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 sell to PO2 BERNARDO D. DIEGO, who posed as buyer of zero point sixty-five (0.65) grams of Marijuana Dried Leaves (Marijuana), knowing the same to be a dangerous drugs. 3
Criminal Case No. 1007-V-13
That on or about July 16, 2013, in Valenzuela 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 have in his possession and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet each containing zero point forty five (0.45) and zero point sixty seven (0.67) for a total combined weight of one point twelve (1.12) grams of Marijuana Dried Leaves (Marijuana), knowing the same to be a dangerous drug. 4
Upon arraignment on September 11, 2013, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. 5
During the trial, the prosecution presented Police Officer Bernardo D. Diego (PO2 Diego) as witness, while the testimonies of Forensic Chemist Lourdeliza Cejes, Senior Police Officer Armin Garcia (SPO2 Garcia), and Barangay Kagawad Wilfredo Urrutia were stipulated on by the parties in the RTC Orders dated October 30, 2015 6 and October 14, 2016. 7 The defense presented the accused-appellant as its lone witness. CAIHTE
The Version of the Prosecution
PO2 Diego, assigned to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG), Valenzuela City Police Station, testified that on July 16, 2013, at around 11:20 a.m., their office, through PO1 Juana Rumbaua, received a phone call from PCI Jacinto Ramos, Chief of PCP-5, Polo, Valenzuela City. PCI Ramos sought assistance from the narcotics personnel regarding a complaint received from a father and his son about the rampant sale of marijuana at Arkong Bato National High School Annex. The information was relayed to their Chief, PCI Allan R. Ruba, who instructed PO2 Diego to go to PCP-5, Polo, Valenzuela City and inquire about the said report. At the PCP-5, PCI Jacinto Ramos presented to PO2 Diego two (2) unnamed complainants, a father and the latter's son. The complainant-father told PO2 Diego that his son was being forced by someone to buy marijuana at the Arkong Bato National High School Annex. 8
In response to the complaint, PO2 Diego relayed the information to PCI Ruba, who ordered PO2 Lim to form a team and coordinate with PCI Ramos for the conduct of a buy-bust operation against the alleged seller. PO2 Diego was assigned as the poseur-buyer, while two other police officers served as perimeter backups. PO2 Diego was provided with a twenty-peso bill, with serial number LW336649, on which he placed his initials "BDD" at the bottom. 9
At around 3:45 p.m. of the same day, PO2 Diego, PO2 Lim, and PO1 Rambaua, together with the complainant-son, went to the Arkong Bato National High School. The police's regular confidential informant (RCI) also accompanied them. When the group arrived at San Diego Street, Arkong Bato, the complainant-son pointed out a person he named as "Ryan," who was wearing a school uniform and standing near a post, as the one selling marijuana. Ryan was later identified as the accused-appellant. PO2 Diego and the RCI left the complainant-son at a safe distance and walked towards Ryan. 10
The RCI introduced PO2 Diego to Ryan as a student who wanted to buy marijuana. Ryan asked PO2 Diego how much he wanted to buy. PO2 Diego replied that he wanted to buy only P20.00. PO2 Diego handed the marked money to Ryan who placed it inside his left pocket. Ryan took out a folded paper and handed it to PO2 Diego who received it. PO2 Diego unfolded the paper and saw dried marijuana leaves with fruiting tops. He immediately scratched his head to signal to the two other policemen that the sale had been consummated. Then PO2 Diego introduced himself as a policeman, arrested Ryan and informed him of the violation he committed and his constitutional rights. Thereafter, PO2 Diego frisked Ryan and recovered the marked money from his left pocket, while he found a lighter and a plastic sachet containing dried marijuana with fruiting tops inside Ryan's right pocket. He also found a plastic sachet containing marijuana leaves with fruiting tops inside Ryan's left sock. After confiscating the said items, Ryan was taken to the Barangay Hall of Arkong Bato where the seized items were marked and the inventory was conducted in the presence of accused-appellant Ryan and Barangay Kagawad Wilfredo Urrutia. Photographs of the seized items and the inventory were taken by PO1 Juana Rumbaua. 11
PO2 Diego testified that Investigating Officer SPO1 Amin Garcia called up representatives of the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) upon their arrival at the barangay hall, but nobody answered his call, so they decided to conduct the inventory in front of the barangay kagawad. 12
PO2 Diego explained on re-direct examination that the marking was not done at the place of arrest and seizure because there were only three of them who conducted the buy-bust operation, so they decided to do the marking and inventory at the barangay hall. 13
The plastic sachet containing suspected dried marijuana with fruiting tops, which was recovered from appellant's right pocket, was marked "JPM-1 07/16/2013." "JPM" represents the initials of accused-appellant. Moreover, the second plastic sachet containing suspected marijuana leaves with fruiting tops, which was recovered inside appellant's left sock, was marked "JPM-2 07/16/2013," while the folded paper containing dried marijuana leaves with fruiting tops, which was bought from appellant, was marked "JPM-3 07/16/2013." The marked money was marked "JPM-4 07/16/2013"; the disposable lighter was marked "JPM-5 07/16/2013"; and the school ID was marked "JPM-6 07/16/2013." All of the seized items were placed inside a small brown evidence envelope, which was sealed with a tape and marked "SAID-5OTGVCPS CONTROL NO. 07-16-2013." 14
Thereafter, the police took accused-appellant to the Valenzuela Emergency Hospital where he underwent medical examination. PO2 Diego was the one carrying the seized items from the barangay hall to the hospital. Then accused-appellant was brought to the SAID-SOTG Office where PO2 Diego turned over the seized items to the Investigating Officer, SPO1 Garcia. SPO1 Garcia signed the Chain of Custody Form, which stated that he received the seized items from PO2 Diego. SPO1 Garcia prepared the Request for Drug Test of accused-appellant as well as the Request for Laboratory examination of the seized items. 15
At 7:00 p.m. of the same day, SPO1 Garcia and PO2 Diego delivered the two requests for drug test and laboratory examination to the PNP Northern Police District Crime Laboratory 16 and transferred the custody of the seized items to PO1 Manandaal. PO1 Manandaal immediately forwarded the seized items to Forensic Chemist Cejes for laboratory testing. Both PO1 Manandaal and Forensic Chemist Cejes signed the Chain of Custody Form. DETACa
Forensic Chemist Cejes issued Chemistry Report No. D-0283-13, 17 which stated that she received the seized items at "7:05 PM 16 July 2013" and that the qualitative examination conducted on the contents of the seized items marked as "JPM-1 7/16/2013" (0.45 gram), "JPM-2 7/16/2013" (0.67 gram), and "JPM-3 7/16/2013" (0.65 gram) gave a positive result to the tests for the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drug.
The Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He testified that on July 16, 2013, at around 11:30 a.m., he was walking along Alibana Street going towards Arkong Bato National High School for his 12:00 p.m. class when he was suddenly stopped by two (2) men and a woman who introduced themselves as police officers. He was suddenly frisked, but they were not able to get anything from him. The police told him to go with them to the barangay hall. He refused because he was going to attend his class. The police insisted that he should go with them and threatened to shoot him if he ran away. At the Barangay Hall of Arkong Bato, he was forced to pose for pictures and he saw the barangay captain sign a few documents. Then he was taken to the police station where he was asked by PO2 Diego to pay P30,000.00 to lighten the criminal case against him. He told the police that he did not have any money and that he was not aware of any case against him. When his mother arrived at the police station, the police likewise asked P30,000.00 from her, but she did not have the money. 18
During cross-examination, accused-appellant stated that he did not know PO2 Diego and he had no idea why the police would fabricate a case against him. 19
In a Decision 20 dated May 5, 2017, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused JAN RYAN MELLIZA Y PANAGUITON A.K.A. RYAN is hereby found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT in Criminal Case No. 1006-V-13 for the crime of sale of marijuana under Section 5, Art. 2 of R.A. No. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00 plus costs.
In Criminal Case No. 1007-V-13, the accused is hereby found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT for the crime of illegal possession of marijuana under Section 11, Art. 2 of R.A. No. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and to pay a fine in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00) plus costs. The object evidence subject of these cases are hereby forfeited in favor of the government to be destroyed in accordance with the rules governing the same. The Branch Clerk of Court is enjoined to see to it that the object evidence confiscated and forfeited in these cases are properly turned over to the proper authorities for disposition.
SO ORDERED. 21
The trial court held that all the elements of the sale of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of dangerous drugs are present in these cases and the chain of custody of the illegal drugs was preserved. It held that the failure of the police officers to mark the object evidence at the place of arrest as well as the absence of the representatives from the media and the DOJ were not fatal to the conviction of the accused-appellant. Moreover, the absence of coordination with the District Anti-Illegal Drugs and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency would not render the object evidence seized from the accused-appellant as inadmissible in evidence. 22
Accused-appellant appealed the Decision of the RTC to the Court of Appeals, alleging that the trial court erred in: (1) convicting the accused-appellant despite the fact that none of the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs was proven by the prosecution; (2) giving weight and credence to the dubious, self-serving and inconsistent statements of the prosecution witnesses over the accused-appellant's fervent defense of denial; (3) finding that the procedure for the custody and control of the seized prohibited drugs was complied with; and (4) finding the accused-appellant guilty despite the broken chain of custody of the allegedly seized drug. 23
In its Decision dated August 20, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Decision of the RTC. The fallo of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 5 May 2017 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 75, in Criminal Case Nos. 1006-V-13 and 1007-V-13, is hereby AFFIRMED. 24
Accused-appellant appealed the Decision of the Court of Appeals to this Court. In a Resolution 25 dated March 4, 2019, the Court notified the parties that they may file their respective Supplemental Briefs within 30 days from notice. Both parties filed their respective Manifestations informing the Court that they were adopting their respective Briefs filed before the Court of Appeals in lieu of a supplemental brief.
In his Appellant's Brief, 26 accused-appellant contends that the prosecution failed to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs have been preserved on the following grounds:
1. PO2 Diego had been in possession of the seized items for almost three hours, from the time of seizure at 3:45 p.m. until it was brought for inventory at the barangay hall, and then he brought the seized items with him when they brought the accused-appellant to the Valenzuela City Emergency Hospital until its turnover to the investigator at SAID-SOTG.
2. The seized items were not marked at the place of arrest, but they were marked at the Barangay Hall of Arkong Bato, Valenzuela City.
3. There were no representatives from the DOJ and the media during the marking and inventory of the seized items. The prosecution did not provide any justifiable reason for the absence of the said required witnesses aside from the self-serving allegation that they tried to call but there was no answer.
4. The stipulated testimony of the Forensic Chemist did not include how and to whom she turned over the seized items before they were brought to the court. The prosecution failed to present in court some vital witnesses to explain the gaps in the chain of custody.
Moreover, accused-appellant contends that it is contrary to human experience that as a student, wearing his school ID, he would openly and immediately sell marijuana to a person he just met for the amount of Twenty Pesos (P20.00). In addition, his drug test turned out to be negative. aDSIHc
The main issue is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, of R.A. No. 9165.
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
In this case, accused-appellant is charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. To secure conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 27 To secure conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove that: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a dangerous drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 28
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated drug constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. 29 It is essential, therefore, that the identity and integrity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty. 30 Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on its identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drug is seized up to its presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 31
In this relation, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure that police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs in order to ensure that their integrity and evidentiary value are preserved. 32 Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, before its amendment by R.A. No. 10640, which is applicable to this case, states:
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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
xxx xxx xxx.
The procedure in Section 21 (1) is further amplified in the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, thus:
SECTION 21. x x x. —
(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. (Emphasis supplied.)
The procedure under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. 33 Substantive law requires strict observance of these procedural safeguards. 34 The purpose of the procedure is to duly monitor the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they are seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. 35 ETHIDa
The prosecution must establish these four links: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turn over of the illegal drug seized to the investigating officer; (3) the turn over by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turn over and submission of the illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 36
The chain of custody starts immediately after seizure when the apprehending officers are required to do a physical inventory of the items seized. 37 Marking "means the placing by the apprehending officer or the police poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the dangerous drug seized." 38
Since marking "is the starting point in the custodial link," it is "vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference." 39 This is also to "ensure that the objects seized are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually offered in evidence, as well as to protect innocent persons from dubious and concocted searches, and the apprehending officers from harassment suits based on planting of evidence." 40
In this case, the seized items were not immediately marked at the place of arrest and seizure but was marked at the barangay hall. There were three (3) items allegedly seized from accused-appellant, and not marking them immediately at the place of seizure but at the barangay hall raises doubt on their identity and integrity.
Further, under Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, 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: (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media and the DOJ; and (3) any elected public official, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The physical inventory and photographing of the seized dangerous drugs should be made at the place of apprehension and/or seizure in the presence of the required witnesses. In People v. Adobar, 41 the Court held:
In no uncertain words, Section 21 requires the apprehending team to "immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph [the seized illegal drugs] in the presence of the accused x x x or his 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."
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs must be at the place of apprehension and/or seizure. If this is not practicable, it may be done as soon as the apprehending team reaches the nearest police station or nearest office.
In all of these cases, the photographing and inventory are required to be done in the presence of any elected public official and a representative from the media and the DOJ who shall be required to sign an inventory and given copies thereof. By the same intent of the law behind the mandate that the initial custody requirements be done "immediately after seizure and confiscation," the aforesaid witnesses must already be physically present at the time of apprehension and seizure — a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its very nature, a planned activity. Simply put, the buy-bust team had enough time and opportunity to bring with them these witnesses.
The reason is simple, it is at the time of arrest or at the time of the drugs' "seizure and confiscation" that the presence of the three (3) witnesses is most needed. It is their presence at that point that would insulate against the police practices of planting evidence. In People v. Mendoza, the Court ruled:
x x x Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. x x x 42
In this case, the marking, physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were not immediately conducted in the presence of the required witnesses at the place of apprehension and seizure. Instead, marking, physical inventory and photographing of the seized items were conducted at the barangay hall and in the presence only of the barangay kagawad who signed the Inventory. 43 The accused-appellant's signature is not found in the Inventory. There were no representatives from the media and the DOJ to witness the physical inventory as required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. cSEDTC
Strict compliance with the prescribed procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is required as a rule. 44 The exception to this rule is found in the saving clause under Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, which requires the apprehending team to satisfactorily prove the following: (1) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 45 If these two (2) requisites are proven, the seized items shall not be rendered void and invalid.
The prosecution has the positive duty to adequately explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses. 46 The rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item. 47 Without any justifiable explanation, which must be proven as a fact, the evidence of the corpus delicti is unreliable, and the acquittal of the accused should follow on the ground that his guilt has not been shown beyond reasonable doubt. 48
In this case, apprehending officer PO2 Diego explained during cross-examination that the marking of the seized items was not done at the place of arrest because there were only three of them who conducted the buy-bust operation, so they decided to do the marking and the physical inventory at the barangay hall, which was five minutes away from the place of arrest. 49 In addition, PO2 Diego said that Investigating Officer SPO1 Garcia made the call to the DOJ and the media representatives when they arrived at the barangay hall, but nobody answered his call so they decided to conduct the inventory in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Urrutia. 50
The explanation of the apprehending officer fails to satisfy the Court as there is no showing that the immediate marking, physical inventory and photographing of the seized items in the presence of the required witnesses at the place of arrest and seizure posed any danger to the police officers and the required witnesses as well as to the integrity of the seized items. The apprehending team also clearly failed to exert earnest effort to contact the required witnesses to be present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items.
In People v. Lim, 51 the Court gave examples of justifiable reasons for the absence of the required witnesses, which reasons must be alleged and proved, as follows:
(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 the punishable 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.
In this case, PO2 Diego testified that the place of arrest and seizure was "a little far from the school" 52 located in Valenzuela City, and there was no showing that the immediate marking, physical inventory and photographing of the seized items in the presence of the required witnesses would pose a threat to the safety and security of the three police officers and the required witnesses as well as the seized dangerous drugs.
Further, earnest effort must be exerted by the apprehending team to contact the required witnesses to secure their presence at the place of arrest and/or seizure. People v. Ramos53 held:
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. 54
In this case, the arresting team did not exert earnest effort to contact the required representatives before the buy-bust operation to ensure their presence during the seizure, marking and inventory of the seized dangerous drugs at the place of arrest and seizure, considering that the Investigating Officer made the call to the DOJ and the media representatives only upon the apprehending team's arrival at the barangay hall. When no one answered the call, the police officers decided to conduct the marking and physical inventory in the presence of the barangay kagawad in the barangay hall, showing that the buy-bust team did not conscientiously perform its duty to comply with the requirements of the law. It has been repeatedly held by the Court that the practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation had already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs. 55 SDAaTC
To reiterate, the presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. 56 It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drugs. 57 If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 58
In People v. Fulinara, 59 the Court acquitted the accused as none of the required witnesses was present at the place of arrest and seizure, and the barangay kagawad was merely "called in" at the police station to witness the marking, inventory and photographing of the seized items. The police officers' excuse that an alleged commotion occurred as the reason why they decided to conduct the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items at the police station instead of the place of arrest was found weak and unbelievable by the Court.
This case is no different. None of the required witnesses was present at the place of arrest and seizure, and the apprehending team tried to "call in" the media and DOJ representatives at the barangay hall but failed, so the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items were made in the presence alone of the barangay kagawad in the barangay hall. The apprehending officer's reason that there were only three of them in the buy-bust operation, that is why they decided to conduct the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items at the barangay hall instead of the place of arrest, is weak and unjustified.
Since the prosecution failed to prove a justifiable reason for the apprehending team's noncompliance with the requirements of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR, it was unable to satisfy the first requirement in the saving clause; hence, the saving clause does not apply to this case. Considering that at the point of seizure, i.e., the first link in the "chain of custody," irregularities were already attendant, it becomes futile to prove the rest of the links in the chain. 60
The burden of proving the guilt of an accused rests on the prosecution which must rely on the strength of its own evidence and not on the weakness of the defense. 61 As the prosecution failed to prove as a fact any justifiable reason for non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR, the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug seized is compromised and accused-appellant should be acquitted of the crimes charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.
In fine, the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the decision of the RTC that the accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 20, 2018, in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09627, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Jan Ryan Melliza y Panaguiton is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Court ORDERS his IMMEDIATE RELEASE from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be ISSUED immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, NBP Reservation, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation of the Court's order. The Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court the action he/she has taken within five (5) working days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED.(Rosario, J., designated Fifth Member of the Division per Special Order No. 2833 dated June 29, 2021).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza (ret.) and Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, concurring; CA rollo, pp. 133-148.
2. In Criminal Case Nos. 1006-V-13 and 1007-V-13.
3. Records, p. 1.
4.Id. at 148.
5.Id. at 32.
6.Id. at 66-67.
7.Id. at 83-86.
8. TSN, April 22, 2016, pp. 3-5; TSN, June 10, 2016, p. 4; Affidavit of PO2 Bernardo C. Diego, id. at 8.
9. TSN, June 10, 2016, pp. 5-6.
10.Id. at 6-7; TSN, September 20, 2016, p. 5.
11. TSN, June 10, 2016, pp. 7-10; TSN, August 9, 2016, pp. 6-9.
12. TSN, August 9, 2016, p. 9; TSN, September 20, 2016, p. 7.
13. TSN, September 20, p. 10.
14. TSN, August 9, 2016, pp. 3-6.
15.Id. at 9-12.
16.Id. at 13.
17. Records, p. 19.
18.Id. at 120-123.
19. TSN, March 28, 2017, p. 14.
20. CA rollo, pp. 50-68.
21.Id. at 67-68.
22. Citing People v. Rebotazo, 711 Phil. 150 (2013).
23. CA rollo, p. 139.
24.Id. at 147.
25.Rollo, p. 24.
26. CA rollo, pp. 36-55.
27.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018).
28.Ramos v. People, G.R. No. 233572, July 30, 2018.
29.People v. Fulinara, G.R. No. 237975, June 19, 2019.
30.Id.
31.Id.
32.People v. Año, supra note 27.
33.Id. at 452.
34.People v. Adobar, 832 Phil. 731, 768 (2018).
35.People v. Dungo, G.R. No. 229720, August 19, 2019.
36.Id.; People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 227 (2015).
37.People v. Dungo, supra note 35.
38.Id.
39.Id.
40.Id.
41.Supra note 34.
42.Id. at 753-755. (Emphasis supplied).
43. Exhibit "E," records, p. 14.
44.People v. Adobar, supra note 34.
45. See People v. Adobar, supra note 34; People v. Fulinara, supra note 29.
46.People v. Fulinara, supra note 29.
47.People v. Sanico, G.R. No. 240431, July 7, 2020; see People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, 879 SCRA 31, 61.
48.People v. Fulinara, supra note 29.
49. TSN, September 20, 2016, pp. 7, 10.
50.Id. at 7-8; TSN, August 9, 2016, p. 9.
51.People v. Lim, supra note 47.
52. TSN, September 20, 2016, p. 5.
53. 826 Phil. 981 (2018).
54.Id. at 996-997. (Underscoring and emphases ours).
55.People v. Fulinara, supra note 29.
56.Id.
57.Id.
58.Id.
59.Supra note 29.
60.People v. Adobar, supra note 34.
61.People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 94 (2018).