SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252053. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROMEL NARAG y SALVADOR A.K.A. "BURNEY'', accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 July 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252053 (People of the Philippines v. Romel Narag y Salvador a.k.a. "Burney''). — Before this Court is an Appeal filed by accused-appellant Romel Narag y Salvador a.k.a. "Burney" (accused-appellant) from the Decision 1 dated August 30, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11602. The assailed Decision dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Decision dated April 25, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, Branch 2, in Criminal Case No. 18770-71 which found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended.
This case stemmed from two Informations filed before the RTC charging the accused-appellant of the crime of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, punishable under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of Article II, R.A. No. 9165. The indictments which were separately docketed, read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 18770
That on or about August 24, 2016, in the municipality of Baggao, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused ROMEL NARAG y Salvador a.k.a. "Burney" without authority, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell to PO2 Romerito Geron Pulido, a PNP Officer of Baggao Police Station who posed as buyer of one (1) heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance which is methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 0.02 gram, more or less, for and in consideration of Five Hundred Pesos (P500.00) resulting to the apprehension of the accused and the confiscation from his possession and custody the pre-marked buy-bust money which consists of one (1) piece genuine Five Hundred Peso (P500.00) bill bearing serial no. HG405247.
Contrary to law. 2
Criminal Case No. 18771
That on or about August 24, 2016, in the municipality of Baggao, Province of Cagayan, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused ROMEL NARAG y Salvador a.k.a. "Burney" without authority, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody one (1) piece heat-sealed transparent sachet containing white crystalline substance which is methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 0.03 gram, more or less, which the herein accused placed inside his left pocket and was later recovered from him when he was bodily frisked and searched incidental to his arrest.
Contrary to law. 3
The accused-appellant was arraigned on March 14, 2016 and assisted by counsel, he entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. After pre-trial, the cases were tried jointly. 4
The evidence for the prosecution tend to establish that on August 24, 2016, Acting Chief of the Baggao Police Station, Cagayan, Police Chief Inspector Santos Baclig Baldovizo (PCI Baldovizo) instructed Police Officer 2 Romerito Geron Pulido (PO2 Pulido) to validate several reports that a certain student known as "Burney/Rommel," later identified as herein accused-appellant, was allegedly selling shabu to high school and college students of Saint Joseph College, San Jose, Baggao, Cagayan, and its adjacent schools. The police with the assistance of a confidential informant (CI) conducted surveillance operations and verified that the accused-appellant was engaged in illegal drug activities. 5
At around 8:00 p.m. of the same day, PCI Baldovizo planned the conduct of a buy-bust operation and designated Senior Police Officer 1 Leo M. Pascua to coordinate with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). PO2 Pulido was assigned to act as the poseur-buyer, PO2 Dominador T. Serquiña, Jr. (PO2 Serquiña) and PO2 Raymond T. Gazmen as the arresting officers, and the rest of the team as backup. During the briefing, PCI Baldovizo directed the CI to contact the accused-appellant and arrange with him a purchase of P500.00 worth of shabu. The CI and the subject agreed to meet at around 8:25 p.m. in front of Lacambras Store at the corner of E. Salvador St., Zone 5, San Jose, Baggao, Cagayan. 6
At around 8:10 p.m., the buy-bust team proceeded to the designated meeting place. After a few minutes, the accused-appellant arrived on board a motorcycle and approached them. The CI introduced PO2 Pulido to the accused-appellant as his friend who intends to buy shabu. After a short conversation, the accused-appellant brought out from his left pocket one small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance and handed it to PO2 Pulido. The latter, in turn, handed to the accused-appellant the marked P500.00 bill; and performed the pre-arranged signal prompting the arresting officers to rush to the scene. The accused-appellant tried to escape but was eventually apprehended in front of the house of one Engineer Edgar L. Guillermo (Guillermo). He was arrested and informed of his constitutional rights. The accused-appellant was frisked and retrieved from his left front pocket a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. The police officers were also able to recover from the accused-appellant the marked P500.00 bill, a black Samsung Cor cellphone, and a yellow green disposable lighter. 7
The confiscated items were inventoried by PO2 Pulido and PO2 Serquiña at the scene. The marking and taking of photographs were done in the presence of the accused-appellant and witnessed by Kagawad Jayson P. Jose and Barangay Tanod Danny Torres. 8
The police officers submitted that despite diligent efforts to contact a member of the media and a representative from the Department of Justice, they were unable to obtain their presence during the buy-bust operation considering the time and distance of Baggao to Tuguegarao City. 9
The plastic sachet that was the subject of sale was placed in the possession of PO2 Pulido while the other confiscated items were in the custody of PO2 Serquiña during transport until they arrived at the police station. On August 25, 2016, at around 3:30 a.m., PO2 Pulido, accompanied by other policemen and the accused-appellant forwarded the two plastic sachets to PO2 George Carag of the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 2, Camp Adduru, Tuguegarao City. The sachets were then forwarded to PCI Mayra Madria Tulauan, who examined its contents and issued the Chemistry Report No. D-238-2016 which stated that the specimen tested positive of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 10
The defense, for its part, presented as witnesses the accused-appellant; one Bernadette de Ramos (De Ramos), a classmate of the accused-appellant; and Guillermo.
The accused-appellant averred that on August 24, 2016, he attended his class at St. Joseph College from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., and then from 5:30 p.m. to 7:20 p.m. As it was raining after his class, the accused-appellant waited for the rain to stop. At around 8:00 PM, the accused-appellant left school on board his motorcycle together with De Ramos. Accused-appellant first dropped off De Ramos at her shop along El Salvador Street and proceeded to head home. Not far from the shop, the accused-appellant heard someone from behind introducing themselves as members of the PDEA and ordering him to stop. The accused-appellant turned around and saw two motorcycles each occupied by two persons. One of the motorcycles overtook the accused-appellant, blocked his way, and forced him to stop. The supposed PDEA officers alighted, pulled the accused-appellant away from his motorcycle and proceeded to handcuff him. The accused-appellant resisted and screamed for help; he shouted out De Ramos' name as he knew her shop was just nearby. The accused-appellant then felt a hand inside his left pocket where his cellphone was. He initially thought that the men were robbers, but was surprised when they declared that he was being arrested for selling drugs. The accused-appellant was brought to the terrace inside the house of Guillermo; it was then that he realized that he was being framed. Immediately, he declared to the occupants of the house that something was placed inside his pocket. When the barangay officials arrived, the accused-appellant was frisked which yielded a P500.00 bill and a plastic sachet, which the accused-appellant claimed were not originally in his pocket. 11
De Ramos and Guillermo corroborated portions of the accused-appellant's testimony. De Ramos in particular narrated that just after the accused-appellant dropped her off, she heard someone shouting from the outside which prompted her to go out. That was when she saw the accused-appellant being handcuffed about 10 meters away from her store. A man who introduced himself as a PDEA agent prevented her from approaching them, that is why she called the accused-appellant's parents. Guillermo, on the other hand, posited that on August 4, 2016, he was inside his house watching television when his wife asked him to go out as she heard someone shouting. He complied and saw the accused-appellant and police officers. Guillermo invited them to get inside his porch as it was mining. Once inside, the accused-appellant shouted that someone had placed something inside his pocket. 12
On April 25, 2018, the RTC rendered its Decision 13 finding as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgement is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 18770, the Court finds accused ROMEL NARAG y SALVADOR, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the charge for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II, [R.A.] 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00); and
2. In Criminal Case No. 18771, the Court finds accused ROMEL NARAG y SALVADOR, NOT GUILTY of the charge for violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, [R.A.] 9165.
The dangerous drug presented before the Court is hereby forfeited and confiscated in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to immediately deliver the said items to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 14 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
The accused-appellant appealed to the CA, which rendered the herein assailed Decision, 15 affirming the accused-appellant's conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated April 25, 2018 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Tuguegarao City finding accused-appellant Romel Narag y Salvador guilty of violation Section 5, Article II or R.A. 9165 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 16
Thus, this appeal.
The parties manifested that they would no longer file their respective supplemental briefs as they had already exhaustively discussed the issues in their briefs before the CA. 17
In his Brief, 18 the accused-appellant argued that he should be acquitted of the charge against him as the prosecution failed to establish that the sale of drugs actually took place and that the object presented as evidence in court is the same drugs seized from the accused. 19 The accused-appellant maintained that the police officers failed to observe the procedural safeguards laid down under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165; that there was no complete and detailed proof of turnover of the drugs from the time of its alleged seizure until its presentation in court. In particular, the accused-appellant stated that the Chain of Custody Form lacked an entry from the forensic chemist and a signature indicating receipt of the evidence custodian; and that the required witnesses were not present. These, the accused-appellant argued, goes into the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti that is fatal to the prosecution's case. 20
The plaintiff-appellee puts forth, on the other hand, that the prosecution established with moral certainty all the elements of the offenses charged; that the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police officers are minor and do not refer to material elements in the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs; and that the procedural lapses do not affect the integrity of the confiscated items. Lastly, the plaintiff-appellee submitted that the accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up does not stand against the overwhelming evidence by the prosecution. 21
The appeal is meritorious.
A judgment of acquittal is final and unappealable. 22 As the accused-appellant had been acquitted of the charge for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the instant appeal would deal solely on the offense of illegal sale of drugs for which the accused-appellant has been convicted.
Under Section 5 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, a conviction for the sale of illegal drugs requires the concurrence of the following elements which must be established beyond reasonable doubt: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 23
The element of corpus delicti is established by showing compliance with the requirements for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia as set forth under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, and must be complied with, viz.:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources 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 person/s 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.
(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 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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
In the case at bar, the accused-appellant was arrested in flagrante delicto of selling shabu in the quantity of 0.02 gram, during a buy-bust operation. 24 The plastic sachet was seized in the presence only of the accused-appellant; and the inventory was witnessed only by barangay officials. On this score, it must be stated that the police officers cannot conveniently justify the failure to obtain the presence of a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media, on circumstances of time and place, without stating in detail the efforts undertaken and depicting the urgency of the situation that necessitates the immediate execution of the operation without the required witnesses. It does not escape the attention of the Court that proceeding from the prosecution's narration, only 10 minutes passed from the planning to the execution of the buy-bust operation. It is difficult then for the Court to imagine the efforts actually exerted by the police officers to obtain the required witnesses within this time frame. At any rate, even if the Court were to excuse the presence of other witnesses, it cannot accept as sufficient for this purpose the sole presence of the barangay officials during the inventory.
In the case of People v. Que, 25 the Court emphasized that "[t]he presence of third persons is imperative, not only during the physical inventory and taking of pictures, but also during the actual seizure of items," 26 in order to ensure against the possibility of "switching, planting, or contamination." 27 To be sure, what is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing; instead, "[i]t is the certainty that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence." These are the four (4) links that must be alleged and proven by the prosecution to establish the integrity of the corpus delicti. 28 Herein, as there is no one else, except the police officers, to witness the seizure of the item, the first link has not been established, which engenders reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused-appellant.
The importance of observing the chain of custody requirements in this case is amplified by the minuscule amount of shabu obtained from the accused-appellant. While the minuscule amount of dangerous drugs seized is by itself not a ground for acquittal, it nonetheless accentuates the need for more exacting compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 21. This is because the likelihood of substitution, planting, or contamination, is great when the thing involved is small. 29 Simply, when a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs is involved, the Court must be rigorous in ensuring that Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is strictly complied with as it goes with the integrity of the corpus delicti of the offense charged. 30
In view of noncompliance with the procedure in the handling of the seized drugs, the customary presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties would not suffice. The presumption applies only when the officers have shown compliance with the standard conduct of official duty required by law; where the official act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot arise or be relied upon. 31
All told, while the accused-appellant has only offered the defense of "denial and frame-up," still, the burden is upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In doing so, it must rise on its own merits, without regard to the weakness of the defense. 32 Should the prosecution fail to discharge this burden, as in the case at bar, acquittal must ensue as a matter of course.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 30, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11602, which, in turn, affirmed the Decision dated April 25, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City, Branch 2 in Criminal Case No. 18770, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellant Romel Narag y Salvador a.k.a. "Burney" is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, is directed to: (a) cause the immediate release of accused-appellant Romel Narag y Salvador a.k.a. "Burney," unless he is being lawfully held for another cause; and (b) inform this Court of the date of his release, or the reason for his continued confinement as the case may be, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Copies of this Resolution must be furnished the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2835 dated July 15, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-27; penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan-Castillo with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez, and Perpetua Susana T. Atal-Paño concurring.
2.Id. at 4.
3.Id. at 4-5.
4.Id. at 5.
5.Id., see also CA rollo, p. 52.
6.Rollo, pp. 5-6. CA rollo, id.
7.Id. at 6-7.
8.Id. at 7.
9.Id. at 7-8.
10.Id. at 8-10, CA rollo, p. 53.
11.Id. at 11-12.
12.Id. at 12.
13. CA rollo, pp. 51-60; rendered by Presiding Judge Vilma T. Panig.
14.Id. at 60.
15.Rollo, pp. 3-27.
16.Id. at 26.
17.Id. at 37-39, 42-44.
18. CA rollo, pp. 24-49.
19.Id. at 33-35.
20.Id. at 36-47.
21.Id. at 77-82.
22.People v. Alejandro, 823 Phil. 684, 691-692 (2018).
23.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 893 (2018), citing People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 236 (2010).
24.Rollo, p. 4.
25.Supra note 23.
26.Id. at 520-521.
27.Id., citing People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 771 (2014).
28.Id.
29.Id., citing Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 471-472 (2016).
30.Id., id.
31.Id., citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 311 (2010).
32.Daayata, et al. v. People, 807 Phil. 102, 118 (2017).