People v. Molina y Dela Peña

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 231841. June 15, 2022.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RAUL MOLINA y DELA PEÑA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated June 15, 2022 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 231841 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. RAUL MOLINA y DELA PEÑA, accused-appellant). — If all the elements of the offense are present and the corpus delicti's integrity and evidentiary value were preserved, proving the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, this Court has no choice but to convict.

This Court resolves an appeal from the Court of Appeals' Decision 1 finding Raul Molina y Dela Peña 2 (Molina) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Section 11 3 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

On October 7, 2008, an Information was filed against Molina and his co-accused Lino Sabino y Fernando (Sabino) for a violation of Article II, Section 5 in relation to Section 26 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. 4 The Information reads:

That on or about September 26, 2008, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused conspiring and confederating together in mutually helping each other, without being authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, did then there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly trade, deliver or transport three (3) black duffel bags, each containing thirty (30) bricks of dried leaves and fruiting tops with the following weights, to wit:

NINE ONE THREE POINT FIVE ONE	(913.51) grams
EIGHT NINE SIX POINT SEVEN ONE	(896.71) grams
NINE ONE ZERO POINT ONE ONE	(910.11) grams
NINE ONE ONE POINT THREE THREE	(911.33) grams
NINE TWO NINE POINT TWO FIVE	(929.25) grams
NINE ONE NINE POINT NINE ZERO	(919.90) grams
NINE THREE NINE POINT FOUR TWO	(939.42) grams
NINE ZERO SEVEN POINT ZERO FOUR	(907.04) grams
NINE TWO NINE POINT ZERO SEVEN	(929.07) grams
NINE FIVE FOUR POINT TWO FIVE	(954.25) grams
NINE TWO FOUR POINT FOUR ZERO	(924.90) * grams
NINE TWO NINE POINT FIVE EIGHT	(929.58) grams
NINE THREE ZERO POINT FIVE THREE	(930.53) grams
NINE ZERO SIX POINT EIGHT SIX	(906.86) grams
NINE TWO SIX POINT FOUR NINE	(926.49) grams
NINE TWO EIGHT POINT SEVEN TWO	(928.72) grams
NINE THREE NINE POINT FOUR TWO	(939.42) grams
NINE TWO FOUR POINT ONE SEVEN	(924.17) grams
NINE ONE THREE POINT SEVEN ZERO	(913.70) grams
NINE THREE ONE POINT FIVE ZERO	(931.50) grams
NINE ONE FOUR POINT SEVEN NINE	(914.79) grams
EIGHT NINE EIGHT POINT SIX TWO	(898.62) grams
NINE ZERO FOUR POINT NINE TWO	(904.92) grams
NINE TWO SEVEN POINT NINE FOUR	(927.94) grams
NINE THREE TWO POINT SIX TWO	(932.62) grams
EIGHT NINE NINE POINT FOUR SIX	(899.46) grams
NINE ONE TWO POINT FOUR THREE	(912.43) grams
NINE TWO ONE POINT EIGHT FOUR	(921.84) grams
NINE TWO SIX POINT NINE SIX	(926.96) grams
EIGHT NINE EIGHT POINT EIGHT FIVE	(898.85) grams
NINE TWO EIGHT POINT SIX THREE	(928.63) grams
NINE ONE FOUR POINT FOUR ONE	(914.41) grams
NINE TWO THREE POINT FOUR EIGHT	(923.48) grams
NINE THREE FOUR POINT FOUR ONE	(934.41) grams
NINE ONE NINE POINT ONE SEVEN	(919.17) grams
NINE ONE THREE POINT FOUR SIX	(913.46) grams
NINE ONE NINE POINT SIX TWO	(919.62) grams
EIGHT NINE SEVEN POINT TWO FOUR	(897.24) grams
NINE THREE ZERO POINT TWO FOUR	(930.24) grams
NINE TWO TWO POINT FOUR EIGHT	(922.48) grams
NINE FOUR ZERO POINT FIVE EIGHT	(940.58) grams
NINE THREE ZERO POINT FOUR TWO	(930.42) grams
NINE ONE FOUR POINT FOUR SIX	(914.46) grams
NINE TWO FIVE POINT THREE FOUR	(925.34) grams
NINE THREE TWO POINT ZERO EIGHT	(932.08) grams
NINE ONE THREE POINT ZERO FIVE	(913.05) grams
NINE FOUR THREE POINT ZERO ONE	(943.01) grams
NINE FOUR ZERO POINT THREE SIX	(940.36) grams
NINE TWO SEVEN POINT TWO THREE	(927.23) grams
NINE ONE TWO POINT NINE TWO	(912.92) grams
EIGHT NINE SEVEN POINT ONE SEVEN	(897.17) grams
NINE THREE FIVE POINT FOUR ZERO	(935.40) grams
EIGHT NINE THREE POINT FIVE FOUR	(893.54) grams
NINE ONE THREE POINT FIVE THREE	(913.53) grams
NINE ONE EIGHT POINT THREE ZERO	(918.30) grams
NINE ZERO TWO POINT SIX THREE	(902.63) grams
EIGHT NINE SIX POINT SIX SIX	(896.66) grams
EIGHT NINE TWO POINT SIX THREE	(892.63) grams
NINE THREE ZERO POINT EIGHT TWO	(930.82) grams
NINE TWO SIX POINT NINE EIGHT	(926.98) grams
NINE ONE NINE POINT SEVEN TWO	(919.72) grams
NINE TWO THREE POINT THREE THREE	(923.33) grams
NINE TWO ONE POINT FIVE THREE	(921.53) grams
NINE THREE SIX POINT FOUR NINE	(936.49) grams
EIGHT EIGHT SIX POINT EIGHT SIX	(886.86) grams
NINE TWO ONE POINT NINE ONE	(921.91) grams
NINE ONE ONE POINT NINE EIGHT	(911.98) grams
NINE TWO SIX POINT SEVEN SEVEN	(926.77) grams
NINE TWO THREE POINT FIVE THREE	(923.53) grams
NINE ONE FOUR POINT FOUR FOUR	(914.44) grams
NINE ONE ONE POINT ZERO ONE	(911.01) grams
NINE THREE THREE POINT FOUR NINE	(933.49) grams
NINE ONE THREE POINT ONE SEVEN	(913.17) grams
NINE TWO FIVE POINT FIVE THREE	(925.53) grams
NINE TWO THREE POINT NINE FOUR	(923.94) grams
NINE TWO THREE POINT ONE FOUR	(923.14) grams
NINE TWO TWO POINT SIX THREE	(922.63) grams
NINE THREE SEVEN POINT ONE SIX	(937.16) grams
NINE TWO NINE POINT ZERO SIX	(929.06) grams
NINE ONE NINE POINT TWO ZERO	(919.20) grams
NINE TWO NINE POINT FIVE NINE	(929.59) grams
NINE ONE SIX POINT EIGHT SEVEN	(916.87) grams
NINE TWO FOUR POINT ONE TWO	(924.12) grams
NINE ONE SEVEN POINT ONE EIGHT	(917.18) grams
NINE ONE THREE POINT FIVE SIX	(913.56) grams
NINE ZERO SEVEN POINT EIGHT EIGHT	(907.88) grams
NINE TWO THREE POINT EIGHT ZERO	(923.80) grams
NINE TWO ZERO POINT TWO SEVEN	(920.27) grams
NINE TWO ONE POINT TWO NINE	(921.29) grams
NINE ONE NINE POINT ONE SEVEN	(919.17) grams

* Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Discrepancy between words and figures.

which were found positive to the test of marijuana, a dangerous drug." 5

Molina and Sabino pleaded not guilty in their arraignment. 6 Trial then ensued after pre-trial. 7

The prosecution presented three witnesses: (1) Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector Erickson Calabocal (PSI Calabocal); (2) Security Guard Rodolfo Torres (SG Torres); and (3) Police Inspector Roberto Macabeo (P/Insp. Macabeo). 8

The prosecution alleged that on September 26, 2008, the security agency of Manila International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (Manila International Container Terminal), RVV Security Agency (RVV Security), received a report from a reliable informant that "a contraband was coming out." 9 Thus, RVV Security informed the police to ask for assistance. 10 The police formed two teams and proceeded to the area. 11

At around 5:00 p.m., SG Torres, the security guard on duty as sea patroller, 12 received a radio call about a suspicious motorboat that entered the area of Manila International Container Terminal. The motorboat was heading towards a ship moored at Manila Bay. 13

SG Torres, with fellow security guards Alejandro Vizconde (SG Vizconde) and Gad Dalguntas (SG Dalguntas), then boarded their sea patrol boat, approached the area where the motorboat was, and ordered the occupants to stop. 14 However, the motorboat further accelerated its speed despite the order. 15

A chase ensued afterwards. When shots were fired from the motorboat, the security guards fired back. Eventually, the security guards were able to catch up with the motorboat, and there they found Molina's body sprawled and bloodied, Sabino immediately surrendered. 16 The security guards also found inside the motorboat: (1) three black duffel bags; (2) three .38 caliber shells; and (3) two live ammunitions. 17 They then towed the motorboat to the shore. Upon mooring, Molina was brought to the hospital. 18

At 6:00 p.m., the police heard over the radio about the shooting incident at the bay. 19 The police then proceeded to the location and when they arrived at the landing area, they saw Molina, Sabino, and the items found in the motorboat. 20

The policemen brought Sabino and the seized items to the RVV Security office. They were joined by RVV Security's head, investigator, and the three security guards. 21

When Sabino was ordered to open the duffel bags in the office, 22 they found a total of 90 bricks of dried marijuana leaves covered in newspaper. 23 The seized items were then marked and photographed. The three duffel bags were marked "MJ-A," "MJ-B," and "MJ-C," while the 90 bricks of marijuana were marked "MJ-1" to "MJ-90." RVV security guards Torres, Vizconde, and Dalguntas also prepared an inventory. 24

Afterwards, Sabino and the seized items were brought to the Moriones Police Station. The RVV security guards also went to the police station to have their statements taken. 25 The confiscated items were then surrendered to Station Commander Chief Superintendent Jose Mario Espino (C/Supt. Espino) and Senior Police Officer 1 Antonio Marcos (SPO1 Marcos). 26

SPO1 Marcos accomplished the Spot Report while P/Insp. Macabeo filed a Request for Laboratory Examination. They both personally turned these over with the confiscated items to PSI Calabocal in the Crime Laboratory for examination. The 90 bricks tested positive for marijuana. 27

In turn, the defense presented Sabino and Molina as witnesses. 28 Both testified that they were at the North Harbor to fish when shots were suddenly fired at their motorboat. 29 Sabino stated that when the guards went to their motorboat they said, "[a]ng titigas ng ulo niyo. Alam niyong bawal mangisda dito." Molina then answered back, "[b]akit iyong iba po pinapapayagan niyo?" 30 They denied that they had marijuana or firearms on board. Sabino claims he only saw the duffel bags and its contents upon arrival at the security office. 31

On June 8, 2013, Sabino passed away. Thus, the case against him was dismissed. 32

In its February 13, 2014 Decision, 33 the Regional Trial Court noted that there was a conflict between the Information's title and the narration of facts. In accordance with the narration of facts, it found Molina guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of illegal drugs punished under Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165. 34 The dispositive portion reads:

Wherefore premises considered, the court finds accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal possession of illegal drugs and sentences him the maximum penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND Pesos (Php500,000.00).

The Branch Clerk of Court is ordered to turn over the 3 duffel bags, containing 30 bricks of dried marijuana leaves each to the PDEA for disposition in accordance with RA 9165.

SO ORDERED. 35

In its assailed August 30, 2016 Decision, 36 the Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court's ruling. It found that all the elements of the offense were present, and the chain of custody rule was sufficiently complied with. 37 The dispositive portion reads:

WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated February 13, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 44 in Crim. Case No. 08-264292 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 38

Molina then filed a Notice of Appeal, 39 to which the Court of Appeals gave due course and, accordingly, elevated the case records to this Court. 40

In its July 24, 2017 Resolution, this Court noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and informed the parties that they may file their Supplemental Briefs. 41

On September 19, 2017, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation, 42 on behalf of the People of the Philippines, noting that it would no longer file a Supplemental Brief as the arguments raised by accused-appellant Raul Molina have already been discussed and refuted in the Appellee's Brief 43 filed before the Court of Appeals.

On October 5, 2017, accused-appellant filed a Manifestation 44 indicating that he, too, would no longer file a Supplemental Brief since his arguments were already thoroughly discussed in the brief he filed before the Court of Appeals.

On December 4, 2017, this Court issued a Resolution noting plaintiff-appellee's and accused-appellant's Manifestations that they will no longer be filing their respective supplemental briefs. 45

The issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellant Raul Molina y Dela Peña is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.

We affirm accused-appellant's conviction.

In criminal actions, the prosecution must prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 46 Rule 133, Section 2 of the Revised Rules of Evidence states:

SECTION 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt. — In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Moral certainty only is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.

Here, accused-appellant was found guilty of violating Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, which states:

Section 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:

(8) 10 grams or more of opium;

(2) 10 grams or more of morphine;

(3) 10 grams or more of heroin;

(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. (Emphasis supplied)

The elements of the offense are: (1) the accused must have possessed an item or object identified as a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) the law did not authorize such possession; and (3) the drug was possessed by the accused freely and consciously. 47

All these elements are present in this case. Accused-appellant was found to have been in possession of 90 bricks of marijuana, and there is no showing that he is authorized to possess it, or that he was not keeping it in his person freely and consciously.

In all charges of illegal possession of drugs, it is necessary that the prohibited drug's existence is established, and that it was the accused who possessed it. This entails the prohibited drug's, or the corpus delicti's, presentation in court and the demonstration of all the custodial links it went through, to show that it is the very same item confiscated from the accused. 48

Thus, the prosecution must prove its compliance with the chain of custody rule:

In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 49

The chain of custody rule enumerates the requirements for the seizure, confiscation, custody, and disposition of prohibited drugs. It is detailed in Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640: 50

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 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.

xxx xxx xxx

"(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of 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 immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.]

In several cases, this Court has discussed the necessity for the strict compliance with the chain of custody rule in order to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In People v. Que: 51

On the element of corpus delicti, Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, spells out the requirements for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Section 21 (1) to (3) stipulate the requirements concerning custody prior to the filing of a criminal case:

In People v. Nandi, the four (4) links in the chain of custody are established:

Thus, the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.

People v. Morales explained that "failure to comply with Paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 implie[s] a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti." It produce[s] doubts as to the origins of the [seized paraphernalia]."

Compliance with Section 21's chain of custody requirements ensures the integrity of the seized items. Non-compliance with them tarnishes the credibility of the corpus delicti around which prosecutions under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act revolve, Consequently, they also tarnish the very claim that an offense against the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act was committed. . . .

xxx xxx xxx

Fidelity to the chain of custody requirements is necessary because, by nature, narcotics may easily be mistaken for everyday objects. Chemical analysis and detection through methods that exceed human sensory perception, such as specially trained canine units and screening devices, are often needed to ascertain the presence of dangerous drugs. The physical similarity of narcotics with everyday objects facilitates their adulteration and substitution. It also makes planting of evidence conducive.

xxx xxx xxx

When the identity of corpus delicti is jeopardized by non-compliance with Section 21, critical elements of the offense of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs remain wanting. It follows then, that this non-compliance justifies an accused's acquittal. 52 (Citations omitted)

Here, this Court finds that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.

It is clear how the drugs were handled from the time of confiscation. Accused-appellant was initially apprehended by RVV security guards. As he was injured during the chase, he was immediately brought to the hospital. His co-accused Sabino and the seized items were then brought to an office of RVV Security by the police, including P/Insp. Macabeo, P/Insp. Marlon Mallorca, Senior Police Officer IV Sarmiento, and Senior Police Officer I Antonio Marcos (SPO1 Marcos). They were joined by RVV Security's head, Raul Venturina, two RVV Security investigators, and SG Torres's team. 53

The duffel bags and its contents were then photographed and marked in the office. 54 The three duffel bags were marked "MJ-A," "MJ-B," and "MJ-C," while the 90 bricks of marijuana were marked "MJ-1" to "MJ-90." The marking was done by retired police officer Captain Romeo Romero from RVV Security 55 and SPO1 Marcos. RVV security guards Torres, Vizconde, and Dalguntas, also prepared an inventory. 56

Afterwards, accused-appellant and the seized items were brought to the Moriones Police Station under P/Insp. Macabeo's and SPO1 Marcos's custody. 57 The RVV security guards also went to the police station to have their statements taken. 58 The confiscated items were surrendered to C/Supt. Espino and SPO1 Marcos. 59

SPO1 Marcos accomplished the Spot Report and P/Insp. Macabeo filed a Request for Laboratory Examination. They both personally turned these over with the confiscated items to PSI Calabocal in the Crime Laboratory for examination. The latter testified that the 90 bricks tested positive for marijuana. 60

Accused-appellant argues that none of the required witnesses under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 were present during the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items in the RVV Security office. 61 Moreover, there is no mention of the presence of any member of the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official, in the prosecution's testimonies. 62

This Court in several cases discussed the reason behind the witness requirements in the chain of custody rule. In People v. Mendoza: 63

Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice, 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. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody. 64

The witness requirement's purpose is to prevent irregularities in the arrest of the accused and in the confiscation of the prohibited items. 65 It is also meant as proof against accusations of frame-ups or planting of evidence. 66 This Court has even emphasized that in buy-bust operations, the required witnesses must not only be present during the inventory and photographing of the seized items, but during the warrantless arrest as well. In People v. Tomawis: 67

The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. . . .

The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. 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 drug. 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 RA 9165.

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 has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.

To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drags must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." 68 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)

However, this Court notes that the arrest in this case does not involve a buy-bust operation, but one that is made under hot pursuit, which is provided for under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure: 69

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant arrest a person:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;

(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 112. 70

A "hot pursuit" arrest involves two elements: (1) a crime has just been committed; and (2) the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested committed the crime. 71

There is also an element of immediacy in a hot pursuit arrest, since the arresting officer's personal evaluation of the circumstances and their conclusion of probable cause should be made immediately after the commission of the offense. 72 In Pestilos v. Generoso: 73

Thus, even though the police officer has not seen someone actually fleeing, he could still make a warrantless arrest if, based on his personal evaluation of the circumstances at the scene of the crime, he could determine the existence of probable cause that the person sought to be arrested has committed the crime. However, the determination of probable cause and the gathering of facts or circumstances should be made immediately after the commission of the crime in order to comply with the element of immediacy.

In other words, the clincher in the element of "personal knowledge of facts or circumstances" is the required element of immediacy within which these facts or circumstances should be gathered. This required time element acts as a safeguard to ensure that the police officers have gathered the facts or perceived the circumstances within a very limited time frame. This guarantees that the police officers would have no time to base their probable cause finding on facts or circumstances obtained after an exhaustive investigation.

The reason for the element of the immediacy is this — as the time gap from the commission of the crime to the arrest widens, the pieces of information gathered are prone to become contaminated and subjected to external factors, interpretations and hearsay. On the other hand, with the element of immediacy imposed under Section 5 (b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the police officer's determination of probable cause would necessarily be limited to raw or uncontaminated facts or circumstances, gathered as they were within a very limited period of time. The same provision adds another safeguard with the requirement of probable cause as the standard for evaluating these facts of circumstances before the police officer could effect a valid warrantless arrest. 74 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)

The element of immediacy also justifies the warrantless arrest. Since the circumstances call for urgent action, there is not enough time to obtain a warrant. Moreover, in some hot-pursuit arrests involving drugs, it may also be unreasonable to expect the attendance of the required witnesses during the arrest. It is absurd to require the witnesses to be present the moment a spontaneous pursuit takes place. Thus, considering the urgency of situations in some hot pursuit arrests, it cannot be treated the same way as a buy-bust operation in drugs cases, which allows for some preparation and planning.

This is not to say that the rules on chain of custody no longer apply to seized items after hot pursuit arrests. The fact that it is not a buy-bust operation does not dispense with the most fundamental requirements under the chain of custody rule. The apprehending team is still required to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. 75 Thus, in the case of People v. Calantiaoy Dimalanta, 76 when the police officers found illegal drugs in a taxi during a search incidental to the arrest of two passengers who fired guns from the taxi, the seized drugs were still subjected to the chain of custody rule.

Here, while there is no showing that the marking or inventory was witnessed by a member of the media, Department of Justice, or an elected public official in the prosecution's testimonies, 77 this Court notes that several private persons were present to witness the marking, photographing, and inventory of the seized items facilitated by RVV Security's head and its two investigators, and SG Torres's team. 78

Accused-appellant himself stated in his Appellant's Brief filed in the Court of Appeals that the following persons were identified as present during the marking of the seized items in the photos submitted as proof: (1) P/Insp. Macabeo; (2) Captain Romeo Romero; 79 (3) Special Reaction Team Security Personnel; (4) Port Facility Security officer; (5) SPO4 Sarmiento; and (6) P/Insp. Mallorca. 80 Furthermore, his co-accused Sabino's testimonies reveal that he was present in the RVV Security Office when the items were marked, photographed, and inventoried. 81

To reiterate, the witness requirement's purpose is to prevent irregularities in the confiscation of prohibited items and to stand as proof against accusations of frame-ups or planting of evidences. 82 Here, the dangers sought to be prevented have already been averted considering the number of witnesses that have been identified as present during the process.

Given these circumstances, it is clear that the chain of custody rule was sufficiently complied with since the integrity of the confiscated items was properly preserved. Further, the prosecution was able to show that no doubts can be raised on the origin of the confiscated items. It can be said with moral certainty that the seized drugs presented in court were the same items possessed by accused-appellant and his co-accused when they were apprehended. The commission of the crime charged has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, we affirm accused-appellant's conviction.

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals August 30, 2016 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06660 is AFFIRMED. Accused-appellant Raul Molina y Dela Peña is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

SO ORDERED." (Lazaro-Javier, J., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Rollo, pp. 2-11. The August 30, 2016 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06660 was penned by Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a member of this Court) and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob of the Sixteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

2. Accused-appellant's name was also spelled "Raul Molina y Dela Peña" in some parts of the rollo.

3. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 11 provides:

SECTION 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:

xxx xxx xxx

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

(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.

4. Rollo, p. 19.

5. CA rollo, p. 19-21.

6. Id. at 21.

7. Id.

8. Id. at 22-24; seerollo, p. 5.

9. CA rollo, p. 26.

10. Id. at 24 and 26.

11. Id. at 24.

12. SG Torres works under RVV Security, the security agency of Manila International Container Terminal Services, Inc.

13. Rollo, pp. 4-5.

14. Id. at 5; CA rollo, p. 23.

15. Id.

16. Rollo, p. 5.

17. Id.

18. Id.

19. CA rollo, p. 24.

20. Id. at 24.

21. Rollo, p. 5.

22. CA rollo, p. 23.

23. Id.

24. Rollo, p. 5.

25. CA Rollo, p. 24.

26. Rollo, p. 5.

27. Id.

28. Id. at 24-25.

29. CA rollo, p. 24.

30. Id. at 25.

31. Id. at 24-25.

32. Id. at 26.

33. Id. at 19-27. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Jose P. Morallos of Branch 44, Regional Trial Court, National Capital Region.

34. Id. at 27.

35. Id.

36. Rollo, pp. 2-11.

37. Id. at 7-10.

38. Id. at 10.

39. Id. at 12.

40. Id. at 1 and 15.

41. Id. 17-18.

42. Id. at 20-21.

43. CA rollo, pp. 90-108.

44. Rollo, pp. 25-27.

45. Id. at 30-31.

46. 824 Phil. 882 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

47. Dacanay v. People, 818 Phil. 885 (2017) [Per C. J. Leonardo-De Castro, First Division], citing People v. De Jesus, 703 Phil. 169, 189 (2013) [Per C.J. Leonardo-De Castro].

48. People v. Sitco, 634 Phil. 627, 640 (2010) [Per J. Velasco, Jr. Third Division]. See also People v. Cervantes, 600 Phil. 819, 835 (2009) [Per J. Velasco, Jr. Second Division].

49. People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21-38 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].

50. Republic Act No. 10640 (2014).

51. People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

52. Id. at 893-898.

53. Rollo, p. 5; see CA rollo, pp. 23-24 and 104.

54. CA rollo, p. 23.

55. Id. at 104.

56. Rollo, p. 5.

57. CA rollo, p. 104.

58. Id. at 24.

59. Rollo, p. 5.

60. Id.

61. CA rollo, pp. 65-66.

62. Id.

63. 736 Phil. 749 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].

64. Id. at 764.

65. People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018, 862 SCRA 131 [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].

66. Id.

67. Id.

68. Id. at 149-150.

69. People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595 (1999) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].

70. SECTION 7. When Accused Lawfully Arrested Without Warrant. — When a person is lawfully arrested without a warrant involving an offense which requires a preliminary investigation, the complaint or information may be filed by a prosecutor without need of such investigation provided an inquest has been conducted in accordance with existing rules. In the absence or unavailability of an inquest prosecutor, the complaint may be filed by the offended party or a peace officer directly with the proper court on the basis of the affidavit of the offended party or arresting officer or person.

Before the complaint or information is filed, the person arrested may ask for a preliminary investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, in the presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its inception.

After the filing of the complaint or information in court without a preliminary investigation, the accused may, within five (5) days from the time he learns of its filing, ask for a preliminary investigation with the same right to adduce evidence in his defense as provided in this Rule.

71. People v. Doria, 361 Phil. 595 (1999) [Per J. Puno, En Banc].

72. People v. Manago, 793 Phil. 505 (2016) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, First Division].

73. Pestilos v. Generoso, 746 Phil. 301 (2014) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].

74. Id. at 330-331.

75. Calahi v. People, 820 Phil. 886 (2017) [Per J. Martires, Third Division].

76. People v. Calantiao, 736 Phil. 661 (2014) [Per J. Leonardo De Castro, First Division].

77. CA rollo, pp. 65-66.

78. Id. at 104.

79. Id. at 98.

80. Id. at 64.

81. Id. at 24.

82. People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018, 862 SCRA 131 [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].