FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 256237. January 16, 2023.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LUISA METIN y ALMAREZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 16, 2023, which reads as follows: CAIHTE
"G.R. No. 256237 (People of the Philippines v. Luisa Metin y Almarez). — This is an appeal 1 from the March 12, 2020 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10399 that affirmed the November 28, 2017 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Batangas City, Branch 84, in Criminal Case No. 20355. The assailed decision affirmed Luisa Metin y Almarez's (Luisa) conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, 4 as amended, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents
On October 14, 2015, Luisa was charged with a violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 in an Information 5 that reads:
That on or about October 13, 2015 at around 6:30 in the afternoon at Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully, and criminally transport or deliver two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, more commonly known as [shabu], a dangerous drug, with an aggregate weight of 48.03 grams, which is a clear violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Luisa pleaded "not guilty" to the offense charged. 7 Thereafter, pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
At around 3:00 p.m. of October 12, 2015, a confidential informant (CI) reported to Police Officer 3 Joryel B. Alo (PO3 Alo) 8 through text message 9 that a certain "Luisa" would deliver PHP80,000.00 worth of shabu at PPA Road near the Batangas City Pier. Thus, PO3 Alo instructed the CI to proceed to the Batangas City Police Station to obtain more information and to plan for an entrapment operation. 10
Upon the CI's arrival at the police station, PO3 Alo, PO3 Dennis Dinglasan (PO3 Dinglasan), and the officer-on-case PO2 Lowie Enriquez (PO2 Enriquez) planned for the conduct of a buy-bust operation against Luisa. 11 PO2 Enriquez prepared and submitted the Pre-Operation Report 12 and Coordination Form 13 to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) through e-mail. 14
At around 4:50 p.m. of the same date, the CI, PO3 Alo, and PO3 Dinglasan went to the barangay hall of Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City and entered the details of their operation in the barangay blotter. 15 Thereafter, they proceeded to the target area. The CI alighted from their vehicle and walked approximately five to six meters away. After about 30 to 40 minutes, a woman approached the CI. The latter then sent a text message to PO3 Alo stating that the woman was Luisa. 16
The CI and Luisa spoke to each other, and then the latter handed a blue pouch to the former. After opening the blue pouch, the CI executed the pre-arranged signal by removing his bull cap. Accordingly, PO3 Alo and PO3 Dinglasan approached them, and the CI handed the blue pouch to PO3 Alo. The latter saw two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing suspected shabu. Consequently, PO3 Alo arrested Luisa, placed the following markings on the seized items — "JBA" on the blue pouch, "JBA1" and "JBA2" on the two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, and took photographs 17 thereof. 18
PO3 Alo brought Luisa and the seized items to the barangay hall of Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City wherein the details of the arrest were entered in the barangay blotter. 19 The inventory of the seized items was likewise conducted therein, with Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Rodel Espina (Espina) and Brgy. Kagawad Aristeo Macaraig (Macaraig) as witnesses and signatories to the Certificate of Inventory. 20 PO3 Alo then accomplished the Chain of Custody Form 21 and turned over the seized items to PO2 Enriquez.
Subsequently, the buy-bust operation team and Luisa went back to the Batangas City Police Station. Senior Police Officer 1 Carlos Llegado (SPO1 Llegado) entered the details of the buy-bust operation in the police blotter. 22 On the other hand, PO2 Enriquez prepared the Spot Report, 23 Request for Laboratory Examination, 24 and Request for Drug Test. 25 He also caused the transmittal of the seized items to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. The seized items were received by duty receiving officer PO2 Arjie Manjares (PO2 Manjares), who turned over the same to forensic chemist Herminia Llacuna (PSI Llacuna). Upon qualitative examination, the specimen yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 26 PSI Llacuna turned over the seized items to evidence custodian PO2 Joel Barcelona (PO2 Barcelona). 27 On November 4, 2015, PSI Llacuna withdrew the seized items from PO2 Barcelona and submitted the same to court. 28
Version of the Defense
On October 12, 2015, Luisa, her son-in-law Guillermo Clemeno (Guillermo), and her youngest daughter Jollaisa Metin (Jollaisa) initially planned to go to the market. However, upon Jollaisa's request, they went to play at the PPA park. Suddenly, two individuals alighted from a vehicle and approached Luisa. One of the two individuals, who was later identified as PO3 Alo, asked Luisa if she knew someone called "Long Hair." She responded in the negative. Thereafter, the individuals boarded her in their vehicle wherein she saw other persons who were handcuffed. 29
Subsequently, one of the individuals who took Luisa told her "ilabas mo na" to which she replied "ano po yun?" The individuals then took her cellphone, dropped off the other handcuffed persons at the police station, and brought Luisa to her house. The two individuals entered her house, searched her room, and brought out an empty bag of hers. 30
Afterwards, the individuals went out, boarded Luisa and her brother Edmar Almarez (Edmar) on their vehicle, and brought them to the police station. Approximately an hour later, Edmar was allowed to go home, whereas Luisa was brought to the pier wherein photographs of her were taken. Thereafter, they returned to the police station, then proceeded to the barangay hall wherein another set of her photographs were taken, and then went back to the police station again. Finally, Luisa was medically examined and eventually detained. 31
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In a November 28, 2017 Judgment, 32 the RTC convicted Luisa for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165. The fallo thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding the accused, LUISA METIN [y] Almarez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal delivery of 48.03 grams of [shabu], penalized under Section 5, Article II of R.A. [No.] 9165 and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS ([PHP]500,000.00).
Accordingly, the blue pouch with marking 'JBA' (Exhibit 'O'), one (1) big plastic sachet containing two (2) transparent plastic sachets of [shabu] with markings BD-911-2015 HCL together with the initials (Exhibit 'P'), big transparent plastic sachet with marking 'JBA1' containing [shabu] (Exhibit 'Q') and big transparent plastic sachet with marking 'JBA2' containing [shabu] (Exhibit 'R') shall be immediately transmitted to the [PDEA] for its proper disposal in accordance with law and pertinent regulations.
SO ORDERED.33
According to the RTC, the prosecution established that Luisa personally delivered to the CI two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of shabu inside a blue pouch without consideration. It concluded that such act is punishable under Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 as illegal delivery of dangerous drugs. 34
Further, it found that the prosecution established the following links in the chain of custody: 35
First, PO3 Alo, the apprehending officer, recovered the illegal drugs from the CI after the same were handed over by Luisa during the entrapment operation. 36
Second, PO2 Enriquez, the officer-on-case, received the illegal drugs from PO3 Alo. 37
Third, PO2 Manjares, the duty receiving officer of the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, received the illegal drugs from PO2 Enriquez. Thereafter, PO2 Manjares turned over the illegal drugs to forensic chemist PSI Llacuna for laboratory examination. In turn, the latter turned over the illegal drugs to PO2 Barcelona, the evidence custodian. 38
Fourth, on November 4, 2015, PO2 Barcelona turned over and submitted the illegal drugs to the RTC. 39
In addition, the RTC stressed that the illegal drugs were duly inventoried in the presence of DOJ representative Espina and Brgy. Kagawad Macaraig. All told, Luisa's mere denial cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. 40
Aggrieved, Luisa appealed before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In a March 12, 2020 Decision, 41 the CA affirmed Luisa's conviction. The fallo thereof reads:
ACCORDINGLY, we DISMISS the appeal, and AFFIRM the Judgment dated 28 November 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 84, Batangas City, in Criminal Case No. 20355.
IT IS SO ORDERED.42
The CA heavily relied on the RTC's findings except as to the last link of the chain of custody wherein it found that it was PSI Llacuna who submitted the illegal drugs to the RTC upon withdrawing the same from PO2 Barcelona's custody. 43 Nonetheless, on all other points, the CA ruled that the RTC did not err in convicting Luisa for illegal delivery of shabu.
Hence, the present case.
For her part, Luisa maintains the following arguments: (1) she was illegally arrested, hence the seized items are inadmissible for being fruits of the poisonous tree; (2) the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the illegal drugs were confiscated from her; (3) the buy-bust operation team failed to comply with Sec. 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, 44 and failed to preserve the integrity and identity of the seized items. 45
On the other hand, the State maintains that the warrantless arrest effected against Luisa was valid since during that time, she was committing a crime in the presence of PO3 Alo and PO3 Dinglasan. 46 Moreover, her guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt considering that the lower courts' reliance on the prosecution's version of the facts was supported by object, documentary, and testimonial evidence vis-à-vis her self-serving testimonial evidence. 47
Issue
In essence, the sole issue for Our resolution is whether Luisa's conviction for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 is proper.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
"It is a well-established rule that an appeal in criminal cases throws the whole case open for review. 48 Thus, the appellate court has the competence to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law." 49
The warrantless arrest
"As a 'trap for the unwary criminal,' a buy-bust operation is generally considered a valid means of arresting those who commit violations under [RA] 9165, where the idea to commit the crime originates from the offender without inducement or prodding from anybody. 50 It finds its basis in the validity of an in flagrante delicto arrest, when a suspect has just committed, or is in the act of committing, or is attempting to commit an offense." 51
Pertinently, to sustain a conviction for illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, the State has the burden of establishing the concurrence of the following elements, namely: (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery. 52
"Proof of the transaction must be credible and complete. In every criminal prosecution, it is the State, and no other, that bears the burden of proving the illegal sale [or delivery] of the dangerous drug beyond reasonable doubt. 53 This responsibility imposed on the State accords with the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, who has no duty to prove his innocence until and unless the presumption of innocence in his favor has been overcome by sufficient and competent evidence." 54
Here, the prosecution did not present the CI, who also acted as the poseur-buyer, to testify on the alleged illegal transaction. Further, records show that PO3 Alo and PO3 Dinglasan, the members of the buy-bust operation team, were inside a vehicle positioned more or less five to six meters away from the CI before the latter executed the pre-arranged signal which prompted the former to approach the CI and Luisa. Furthermore, it bears emphasizing that the operation occurred at around 6:30 p.m.
In People v. Andaya, 55 a case where the non-presentation of the CI proved fatal to the prosecution's cause, We ruled:
Here, the [CI] was not a police officer. He was designated to be the poseur buyer himself. It is notable that the members of the buy-bust team arrested Andaya on the basis of the pre-arranged signal from the poseur buyer. The pre-arranged signal signified to the members of the buy-bust team that the transaction had been consummated between the poseur buyer and Andaya. However, the State did not present the [CI]/poseur buyer during the trial to describe how exactly the transaction between him and Andaya had taken place. There would have been no issue against that, except that none of the members of the buy-bust team had directly witnessed the transaction, if any, between Andaya and the poseur buyer due to their being positioned at a distance from the poseur buyer and Andaya at the moment of the supposed transaction. 56
Indeed, "[w]hile it is true that the non-presentation of the poseur-buyer is fatal only if there is no other eyewitness to the illicit transaction," 57 here, there is no showing that either PO3 Alo or PO3 Dinglasan personally witnessed the alleged illegal transaction. Inevitably, absent such firsthand account, the basis for the in flagrante delicto arrest crumbles.
The buy-bust operation team
"In the prosecution of drugs cases, the procedural safeguards embodied in Sec. 21 of [RA] 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations [IRR] are material, as their compliance affects the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug itself. Thus, the identity and integrity of the prohibited drugs and other evidence seized by the apprehending officers must be maintained." 58
In this case, it was alleged that the offense was committed on October 12, 2015. Consequently, the amendatory provisions of Republic Act No. 10640, which took effect on August 7, 2014, shall apply.
Sec. 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, provides:
SEC. 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.
In People v. Taglucop, 59 the Court ruled:
Accordingly, as current jurisprudence stand, in case of warrantless seizures, the inventory and taking of photographs generally must be conducted at the place of seizure. The exception to this rule is when the police officers provide justification that:
1. It is not practicable to conduct the same at the place of seizure; or
2. The items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger at the place of seizure. 60
Further, in People v. Tomawis, 61 the Court ruled that the presence of the insulating witnesses are mandatory at the time of arrest:
The phrase 'immediately after seizure and confiscation' means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. And only if this is not practicable, the IRR allows that the inventory and photographing could be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. By the same token, however, this also means that the three required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension — a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. Simply put, the buy-bust team has enough time and opportunity to bring with them said witnesses.
xxx xxx xxx
While the IRR allows alternative places for the conduct of the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, the requirement of having the three required witnesses to be physically present at the time or near the place of apprehension, is not dispensed with. 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 witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would insulate against the police practice of planting evidence. 62 (Emphasis supplied)
Here, the only photograph taken at the time of seizure, confiscation, and warrantless arrest was Exhibit "K", 63 which shows PO3 Alo marking the seized items in the presence of Luisa. Notably, the insulating witnesses were not present during that time. In fact, PO3 Alo himself testified that it was only after such marking when DOJ representative Espina was informed of the conduct of the buy-bust operation, thus:
FISCAL CASTOR:
Q: After you placed your markings on the items, what happened next, if any?
A: I called PO2 Enriquez and told him that the result of our operation is positive and I also called up [Kuya] Rodel, DOJ representative for the conduct of the inventory and we proceeded to the barangay hall of Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City, sir. 64
Thereafter, as shown in succeeding photographs marked as Exhibits "K-1" to "K-5," 65 the inventory was conducted at the barangay hall of Brgy. Sta. Clara, Batangas City, with DOJ representative Espina and Brgy. Kagawad Macaraig as witnesses.
In People v. Dela Torre, 66 the Court acquitted the accused due to the police officers' failure to conduct the inventory immediately after seizure and confiscation, thus:
[T]he venue for making the inventory was not properly complied with. [Sec.] 21(a) of the [IRR] requires that the inventory be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation, thus it must be done at the place of the arrest. In People v. Dela Victoria, 67 the Court strictly applied the requirement and acquitted the accused-appellant therein for the arresting officer's non-compliance therewith.
In the present case, the inventory was conducted at the barangay hall, without any explanation as to the distance from the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending team. The only explanation given was 'to avoid any commotion or any untoward incident' which to the Court, hardly justifies such deviation. Any commotion or untoward incident is, at best, speculative. 68 (Emphasis in the original)
"Concededly, however, there are instances wherein departure from the aforesaid mandatory procedures is permissible. [Sec.] 21 of the IRR provides that 'non-compliance of 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.' For this provision to be effective, however, the prosecution must first: (1) recognize any lapses on the part of the police officers; and (2) be able to justify the same." 69
Here, the following lapses are apparent:
(1) The absence of the insulating witnesses at the time of the warrantless arrest;
(2) The mere calling in of said witnesses after seizure and confiscation; and
(3) The conduct of the inventory at the barangay hall without showing that it could not have been conducted immediately at the place of arrest, with the presence of the insulating witnesses, due to any of the following reasons: (a) it is not practicable to conduct the same at the place of seizure; or (b) that the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger at the place of seizure.
These circumstances, coupled with the prosecution's failure (1) to recognize the foregoing lapses on the part of the police officers and (2) to provide justification for the same, taint the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, and thus put reasonable doubt on the guilt of Luisa.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The March 12, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10399 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant Luisa Metin y Almarez is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. Accordingly, she is ORDEREDIMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless she is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. The said Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court the action he or she has taken hereon within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
The Office of the Solicitor General's Manifestation in compliance with the Resolution dated March 2, 2022 is NOTED.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 18-20.
2. Id. at 4-17. Penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon.
3. Records, pp. 154-162. Penned by Presiding Judge Dorcas P. Ferriols-Perez.
4. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: June 7, 2002.
5. Records, pp. 1-2.
6. Id. at 1.
7. See id. at 25-26.
8. See rollo, p. 43.
9. See TSN, February 11, 2016, p. 5.
10. See rollo, p. 43.
11. See id. at 43-44.
12. Records, p. 16.
13. Id. at 17.
14. See rollo, p. 102.
15. Records, p. 11.
16. See rollo, p. 44.
17. Records, pp. 32-33.
18. See rollo, p. 44.
19. Records, p. 12.
20. Id. at 38.
21. Id. at 39.
22. Id. at 10.
23. Id. at 36.
24. Id. at 34.
25. Id. at 37.
26. See id. at 42.
27. See id. at 41.
28. See id. at 40-41.
29. See rollo, p. 45.
30. See id. at 45-46.
31. See id. at 46.
32. Records, pp. 154-162.
33. Id. at 161.
34. See id. at 159.
35. See id.
36. See id.
37. See id. at 160.
38. See id.
39. See id.
40. See id. at 160-161.
41. Rollo, pp. 4-17.
42. Id. at 16.
43. See id. at 14.
44. Entitled "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.'" Approved: July 15, 2014.
45. See rollo, pp. 41-42.
46. See id. at 107-108.
47. See id. at 106.
48. People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020, citing People v. Ygoy, G.R. No. 215712, August 7, 2019.
49. Id., citing People v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187, 196 (2016).
50. People v. Palaras, 836 Phil. 117, 127 (2018), citing People v. Bartolome, 703 Phil. 148, 161 (2013).
51. Id., citing People v. Andaya, 745 Phil. 237, 246 (2014).
52. People v. Arugo, Jr., G.R. No. 233833, February 20, 2019.
53. People v. Andaya, supra at 247, citing People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226, 237 (2011).
54. Id., citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 229-230 (2008).
55. Supra.
56. Id. at 247.
57. People v. Palaras, supra at 130, citing People v. Berdadero, 636 Phil. 199, 213 (2010).
58. People v. Taglucop, G.R. No. 243577, March 15, 2022.
59. Supra.
60. Id.
61. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
62. Id. at 405.
63. See records, p. 32.
64. TSN, February 11, 2016, p. 17.
65. See records, pp. 32-33.
66. G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.
67. Id., citing People v. Dela Victoria, 829 Phil. 675, 689 (2018).
68. Id.
69. People v. Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019, citing People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 461 (2015). Emphasis in the original.