FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 236835. September 14, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.ARNEL AMAGOS y LABAJO A.K.A. YOYOY, accused,
CHAGO OBRERO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 14, 2020which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 236835 (People of the Philippines v. Arnel Amagos y Labajo a.k.a. Yoyoy, Accused; and Chago Obrero, Accused-Appellant). — This is an appeal of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 dated July 18, 2017 dismissing Chago Obrero's appeal and affirming the Judgment 2 dated October 31, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 57, Cebu City, in Criminal Case No. CBU-87109 convicting the same accused-appellant of Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165.
The facts follow.
A buy-bust team, headed by IO3 Yogi Filemon Ruiz and composed of IO1 Bataan Coliflores, IO1 Kristian Sesante, and police officers Montenegro, Villegas and Cuayzon, and three (3) or more confidential assets, was formed on the late afternoon of September 23, 2009 after the police authorities received an information from an informant, that a certain "Yoyoy" of Sitio Magay, Barangay Tangke, Talisay City was selling dangerous drugs. A briefing was immediately conducted on the same day and IO1 Coliflores was designated as the poseur buyer and was given a P500.00 marked money to be used on the said operation, while the other members of the team were provided with service guns.
Around 6:00 p.m. of the same day, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area and while IO1 Coliflores and the confidential informant were walking towards the house of Yoyoy, they were met by accused-appellant Obrero, and the latter asked the two as to their purpose of being there. IO1 Coliflores answered that he wants "to score'' (take) shabu. Thereafter, accused-appellant Obrero brought the two to the house of Yoyoy where they met accused Amagos a.k.a. Yoyoy and Caloy Manggaren. Accused-appellant Obrero asked for the money as payment, which IO1 Coliflores handed over to him. Accused-appellant then handed the P500 bill to accused Amagos. Immediately, thereafter, Manggaren handed a matchbox to accused Amagos and told him to check which of the contents should be given to IO1 Coliflores because not everything in the said box was worth P500.00. Accused Amagos gave the folded tin foil to accused-appellant Obrero and the latter handed the same object over to IO1 Coliflores.
Afterwards, IO1 Coliflores executed the pre-arranged signal, which is a "missed call" on the cellular phone, after he saw the crystalline substance contained in the tin foil. Thereafter, the rest of the buy-bust team raided the house of Yoyoy. IO1 Coliflores informed the then three (3) suspects that they were under arrest, however, Manggaren was able to escape. It was then that accused Amagos and accused-appellant Obrero were informed by IO1 Sesante of their Miranda rights. IO1 Coliflores proceeded to search the two suspects and recovered the buy-bust money and eight (8) more tin foils from accused-appellant Amagos' short pants.
The buy-bust team, on the reason that there were many people in the area and that their safety might be compromised, brought the two accused, together with the confiscated items to the PDEA office located at Barangay Sta. Cruz, R. R. Landon St., Cebu City. It was there that the seized items were marked by IO1 Coliflores. The inventory of the seized items was made by IO1 Sesante and a Request for Laboratory Examination dated September 24, 2009 was prepared by IO1 Coliflores. A barangay official and a representative from the media was present during the inventory and was able to affix their signatures in the certificate of inventory. Photographs were also taken of the said confiscated items. On the following day, IO1 Coliflores, who was in custody of the items from the time of the inventory, brought the seized items and the Request to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory, and were received thereat by PO1 Pace, who then turned over the same items to PSI Sala who conducted the laboratory examination of the said specimen. PSI Sala, in Chemistry Report No. D-906-2009, declared that the specimen inside the plastic sachet, marked as "ALA-BB 09/23/09," weighing 0.02 gram, tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, or shabu.
As a result, an Information 3 was filed against accused Amagos and accused-appellant Obrero for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, which reads as follows:
That on or about the 23rd day of September 2009, at about 7:20 in the evening, more or less, at So. Magay, Tangke, Talisay City, Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, conniving and confederating together and mutually helping with Caloy Manggaren, who is still at-large and who will be prosecuted separately as soon as apprehended, with deliberate intent, and without authority of law, did then and there sell, deliver or give away to a poseur buyer, "One (1) silver paper packet of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as "SHABU," weighing 0.02 gram, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Upon arraignment, both accused, pleaded "not guilty," hence, the trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented the testimonies of Forensic Chemical Officer PSI Ryan Ace Sala, PO1 Michael Pace and IO1 Bataan Coliflores.
Both accused denied committing the crime and claimed that they were just being framed. According to them, on September 23, 2009, around 7:00 p.m., accused-appellant Obrero was fetching water from the artesian well when he noticed people running towards the direction of the seashore and the others towards him. Thereafter, two (2) persons asked him the whereabouts of a certain Caloy. Accused-appellant Obrero answered that there were many persons in the area who goes by the name "Caloy." He was then handcuffed and made to board a vehicle where accused Amagos was already in. Both accused were then brought to the police station wherein accused-appellant Obrero was asked who his boss was and when he did not provide an answer, he was mauled by the police officers. The following day, according to the same accused-appellant, the police officers took a picture of him beside a table that had a silver item that looked like a cigarette on top of it.
On October 31, 2012, the RTC promulgated its Judgment 5 finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged against them. The dispositive portion of the said Judgment reads as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt to accused Arnel Amagos and Chago Obrero for Violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of Php500,000.00.
Accused Arnel Amagos is sentenced to an imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and a fine of Php300,000.00 for Violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
The silver packet of shabu, subject of sale, and the eight silver packets of shabu, subject of possession, are forfeited in favor of the government.
SO ORDERED. 6
According to the RTC, all the elements of the felony are present. The RTC also found the testimonies of the witnesses for the prosecution credible and disregarded the defense of denial and frame-up of both accused. The same court further upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' official duties and ruled that the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs had been duly established by the prosecution.
Only accused-appellant Obrero was able to perfect an appeal, and on July 18, 2017, the Court of Appeals promulgated its Decision affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Obrero, thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated October 31, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, 7th Judicial Region, Branch 57, Cebu City, in Criminal Case No. CBU-87109 finding accused-appellant Chago Obrero y Padigos GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 7
Hence, the present appeal.
Accused-appellant Obrero raises the following errors:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT A BUY[-]BUST OPERATION ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE DESPITE THE FATAL INCONSISTENCIES AND INCREDULITY IN THE TESTIMONIES OF THE PROSECUTION WITNESSES WHICH CAST SERIOUS DOUBTS AS TO [THE] TRUTHFULNESS OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION[; and]
II
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE SEIZED ITEMS.
Accused-appellant Obrero insists that the prosecution failed to establish the alleged sale of dangerous drugs as he cites the inconsistencies in the testimony of IO1 Coliflores. He also points out that the chain of custody of the seized items was broken; thus, the integrity of the said items is in doubt.
Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal sale of prohibited drugs, in order to be convicted of the said violation, the following must concur:
(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. 8
In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, it is necessary that the sale transaction actually happened and that "the [procured] object is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused." 9
It cannot be overemphasized that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses, especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. 10 Additionally, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses vis-a-vis those of the defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal. 11
Also, in illegal sale, the illicit drugs confiscated from the accused comprise the corpus delicti of the charges. 12 It is of paramount importance that the identity of the dangerous drug be established beyond reasonable doubt; and that it must be proven with certitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. In fine, the illegal drug must be produced before the court as exhibit and that which was exhibited must be the very same substance recovered from the suspect. 13 Thus, the chain of custody carries out this purpose "as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 14
To ensure an unbroken chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165 specifies the following:
(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.
Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21 (a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
(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[.]
The records show that the above provisions were not strictly followed.
The Court does not lose sight of the fact that under various field conditions, compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 may not always be possible. 15 In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 offers a saving clause allowing leniency whenever justifiable grounds exist which warrant deviation from established protocol so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 16
One of the issues raised by appellant is that the confiscated items were not marked immediately after confiscation and that the inventory of the subject items was done at the police station. In his testimony, IO1 Coliflores explained that they were not able to conduct the inventory at the place of arrest because of the crowd that gathered in the area, thus:
PROS. FORROSUELO.
After arresting the two accused Mr. Witness Yoyoy and Chago and after recovering the buy[-]bust money and the matchbox containing tin foil with suspected shabu and placing it separately from the shabu you bought from the accused, what did you do next?
A. I was also looking for our security because prior to our operation our service vehicle was previously stoned in that area.
Q. And then what did you do next?
A. I heard some of my teammates signaling us to pull back that there were many children and people and our safety is our primary security (sic).
Q. Did you pull you from the area Mr. Witness?
ATTY. SURALTA.
I object, leading question, Your Honor.
COURT.
I think that is already testified by the witness several times that they pulled out from the area because there were many people and their safety is at risk. As a matter of fact, this witness testified that their service vehicle was already stoned.
PROS. FORROSUELO.
After that, what happened Mr. Witness?
A. We walked from the chapel to the basketball court passing the marking in going to the interior to the exterior part of Sitio Galaxy bringing the arrested persons.
Q. Then after that, what happened next?
A. Plenty of people were following us and we were afraid that accused may be rescued so we were already alert.
Q. Then what happened next?
A. We rode our vehicle going to R.R. Landon. 17
"Marking" is the placing by the apprehending officer of some distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on the items seized. 18 It helps ensure that the dangerous drugs seized upon apprehension are the same dangerous drugs subjected to inventory and photography when these activities are undertaken at the police station or at some other practicable venue rather than at the place of arrest. 19 Consistency with the "chain of custody" rule requires that the "marking" of the seized items — to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence — should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator (2) immediately upon confiscation. 20
"Immediate confiscation" has no exact definition. 21 Indeed, marking upon immediate confiscation has been interpreted as to even include marking at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. 22
From the testimony of the arresting officer, the marking of the confiscated items at the police station was justifiable, however, the absence of a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) during the inventory of the seized items was not justifiably explained.
Under the original provision of Section 21, which is applicable in this case, after seizure and confiscation of the drugs, the apprehending team was required to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph of 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 (3) the DOJ, and (4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It is assumed that the presence of these three persons will guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame up," i.e., they are "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." 23 Now, the amendatory law 24 mandates that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be 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) with an elected public official and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The records of the case and the testimony of the arresting officer do not provide any explanation as to the absence of a DOJ representative during the inventory of the confiscated items. There was neither any evidence presented to show that an attempt was made to secure the presence of the required witness. As testified by IO1 Coliflores:
PROS. FORROSUELO: (To Witness — ON DIRECT)
Q Mr. Witness aside from putting the necessary marking on the shabu subject of the buy[-]bust as well as shabu recovered from the possession of accused Arnel Amagos also known as "Yoyoy" in your office that was PDEA-7, what else did your group do as a matter of procedure particularly in compliance to Section 21 of RA 9165?
A Our teammate Mr. Tabanao called the barangay official and media representative.
Q For what?
A For compliance of Sec. 21 of RA 9165.
Q What would you like to comply, what was really the reason why media representative as well as barangay official were called in your office?
xxx xxx xxx
A Because our office received feedback from Judge Cañete that most of the drug cases were dismissed. That is why we are strict already.
PROS. FORROSUELO:
The barangay official and media representative arrived in your office?
A Yes, ma'am.
Q And what did they do upon arrival in your office?
A They checked the items seized from the accused and signed the inventory sheet.
Q What else if there was still any?
A There was photograph.
Q You mentioned of certificate of inventory signed by his barangay official as well as the media representative. Who in particular prepared that certificate of inventory?
A I was the one.
PROS. FORROSUELO:
Will you please tell this Honorable Court as to the names of that media representative as well as barangay official, if you can still recall?
xxx xxx xxx
A From Bombo Radyo Virgilio Salde, Jr. and elected official Vicente Quintana, Jr. 25
In People v. Reyes, 26 this Court enumerated certain instances where the absence of the required witnesses may be justified, thus:
x x x It must be emphasized that the prosecution must able to prove a justifiable ground in omitting certain requirements provided in Sec. 21 such as, but not limited to the following: 1) media representatives are not available at that time or that the police operatives had no time to alert the media due to the immediacy of the operation they were about to undertake, especially if it is done in more remote areas; 2) the police operatives, with the same reason, failed to find an available representative of the National Prosecution Service; 3) the police officers, due to time constraints brought about by the urgency of the operation to be undertaken and in order to comply with the provisions of Article 125 27 of the Revised Penal Code in the timely delivery of prisoners, were not able to comply with all the requisites set forth in Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
The above-ruling was further reiterated by this Court in People v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro, 28 thus:
The prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses was not obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal could 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.
Certainly, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to show valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. 29 It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance there to in such a way that, during the proceedings before the trial court, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the law. 30 Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. 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. 31 A stricter adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration. 32
Thus, accused-appellant in this case must be acquitted as his guilt has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Also, while it was only accused-appellant Obrero who was able to perfect an appeal, the rule is that an appeal in a criminal proceeding throws the entire case out in the open, including those not raised by the parties. 33 Consequently, under Section 11 (a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, 34 a favorable judgment shall benefit the co-accused who did not appeal or those who appealed from their judgments of conviction but for one reason or another, the conviction became final and executory, 35 As such, accused-appellant Obrero's acquittal for the crime charged is also applicable to accused Amagos. 36
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated July 18, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01586, dismissing accused-appellant Chago Obrero's appeal and affirming the Judgment dated October 31, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, Cebu City, is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Chago Obrero and accused Arnel Amagos y Labajo are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Said Director is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) working days from receipt of this Resolution the action he/she has taken.
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. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi; rollo, pp. 4-24.
2. Penned by Presiding Judge Enriqueta Loquillano-Belarmino; records, pp. 124-132.
3.Id. at 1-2.
4.Id. at 1.
5.Supra note 2.
6.Id. at 131-132.
7.Rollo, p. 24.
8.People v. Ismael, 801 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
9.Id.
10.People v. Steve, et al., 740 Phil. 727, 737 (2014).
11.People v. Alacdis, 811 Phil. 219, 232 (2017), citing People v. Asislo, 778 Phil. 509 (2016).
12.People v. Ismael, supra note 3, at 29.
13.People v. Mirondo, 771 Phil. 345, 356-357 (2015).
14. See People v. Ismael, supra note 3, at 29.
15.People v. Ryan Maralit, G.R. No. 232381, August 1, 2018, citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
16. See Section 21 (a), Article II, of the IRR of RA 9165.
17. TSN, November 12, 2010, pp. 21-22.
18.People v. Somoza, 714 Phil. 368, 387-388 (2013).
19.Id.
20.Id.
21.Id. at 388, citing Imson v. People, 669 Phil. 262, 271 (2011).
22.Id.
23.People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 373 (2017).
24. R.A. No. 10640, which took effect on July 23, 2014.
25. TSN, February 18, 2011, pp. 5-8.
26. G.R. No. 219953, April 23, 2018, 862 SCRA 352, 367-368.
27.Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. — The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of; twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent. In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. (As amended by E.O. Nos. 59 and 272, November 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively).
28. G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018.
29. See People v. Macapundag, 807 Phil. 234 (2017).
30. See People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018, 854 SCRA 42, 62; People v. Paz, G.R. No. 229512, January 31, 2018, 854 SCRA 23, 40; People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018, 853 SCRA 303, 337; and People v. Jugo, G.R. No. 231792, January 29, 2018, 853 SCRA 321, 337.
31.People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117 (2017).
32. See People v. Abelarde, G.R. No. 215713, January 22, 2018, 852 SCRA 252, 263; People v. Macud, G.R. No. 219175, December 14, 2017, 849 SCRA 294; People v. Arposeple, G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017, 846 SCRA 150; Aparente v. People, 818 Phil. 935 (2017); People v. Cabellon, 818 Phil. 561 (2017); People v. Saragena, supra note 31; People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482 (2017); People v. Sagana, supra note 18; People v. Segundo, 814 Phil. 697 (2017); and People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582 (2017).
33.People v. Joseph Libre, et al., G.R. No. 235980, August 20, 2018, citing Benabaye v. People, 755 Phil. 144, 157 (2015).
34. Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. —
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter.
35.Id.
36. See People v. Lumaya, G.R. No. 231983, March 7, 2018, 858 SCRA 114, 135.