SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233798. September 15, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JOSEPH ONGCAL y DADANG, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 15 September 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 233798(People of the Philippines v. Joseph Ongcal y Dadang). — On appeal is the May 12, 2017 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01436-MIN, which affirmed in toto the June 2, 2015 Judgment 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 40, in Criminal Case No. 2011-770 finding accused-appellant Joseph Ongcal y Dadang ("Ongcal") guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Ongcal was charged under an Information 3 which reads:
That on August 16, 2011, at about 9:30 o'clock in the evening at Bonbon, in the City of Cagayan de Oro, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, criminally and knowingly sell and/or offer to sell and give away to poseur-buyer/decoy one heat-sealed (1) transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance, which after a confirmatory test conducted by PNPO Crime Laboratory, was found positive to the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, accused knowing the same to be a dangerous drug, in consideration of Five hundred (Php500.00) pesos.
CONTRARY TO THE ABOVE-MENTIONED LAW. 4
Upon arraignment, Ongcal pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. 5 After the termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits subsequently ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: Police Chief Inspector Erma Salvacion-Sampaga (PCI Sampaga), Intelligence Officer 1 Naomi Siglos (IO1 Siglos), IO1 Expedito P. Cardona, Jr. (IO1 Cardona), and Sheila Joy Labrador-Cubero (Cubero). Their testimonies are summarized as follows:
On August 16, 2011, at around six o'clock in the evening, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office 10 received information from a confidential informant about the illegal drug activities of one Joy Maciba (Maciba) in Bonbon, Cagayan de Oro City. 6 Arrangements were then made to conduct a buy-bust operation headed by Deputy Regional Director Intelligence Agent 3 Rey Pavillar. 7 During the briefing, it was decided that IO1 Siglos would act as the poseur-buyer to be accompanied by the confidential informant, while IO1 Cardona would serve as the arresting officer. 8 A P500.00 bill with serial no. VV706274 was prepared as the buy-bust money. 9
Upon arrival at the target area at around 9:30 that same evening, IO1 Cardona, IO1 Siglos, and the informant alighted from the police vehicle and proceeded to the house of Maciba. 10 IO1 Cardona positioned himself strategically near the house for immediate back-up security while IO1 Siglos and the informant continued to advance to Maciba's house. 11 There, they saw a man standing behind the gate who was later on identified to be Ongcal. 12 The informant then asked him where Maciba was, to which Ongcal replied that she was not around. 13 Subsequently, the informant introduced IO1 Siglos to Ongcal as his companion who was interested in buying shabu. 14 Ongcal told them that Maciba had entrusted the shabu with him. Thus, IO1 Siglos gave him the buy-bust money. Ongcal then invited IO1 Siglos and the informant inside the house and asked them to wait in the sala while Ongcal went inside one of the rooms. Afterwards, Ongcal returned to the sala and gave IO1 Siglos a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. 15 At that point, IO1 Siglos made a "miss call" to IO1 Cardona, which was the pre-arranged signal that the sale transaction had already been consummated. 16
IO1 Cardona and the other PDEA agents immediately rushed inside the house after receiving the call. 17 Upon arresting Ongcal, IO1 Cardona informed him of his constitutional rights. He was also able to recover from him the buy-bust money. 18 IO1 Siglos then turned over the sachet of suspected shabu to IO1 Cardona. 19 Considering the convergence of several onlookers and the fact that they are in a critical area, the police officers decided to return to their office to conduct the inventory, 20 detained Ongcal in a mini cell, and prepared the necessary documents for the laboratory examination of the seized evidence. 21 PCI Sampaga then conducted the laboratory examination and based on her Chemistry Report No. D-295-2011, the seized evidence was found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. 22
Version of the Defense:
Ongcal interposed the defense of denial and frame-up.
According to Ongcal, Maciba was the aunt of his friend Nicole. 23 Nicole had asked him to come over to Maciba's house on August 16, 2011 so that Ongcal could watch over her three children while she had to leave the house. 24 While Ongcal was left alone with the children, armed men suddenly barged inside Maciba's house. 25 There was also a cameraman who was recording while the men were searching around. 26 When they could not find anything, the armed men asked Ongal * where Maciba was. 27
* Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.
When Ongcal told the men that he did not know Maciba's whereabouts, he was ordered by the police to sit down. Meanwhile, the children were scared and trembling at the sight of their firearms. 28 He then saw IO1 Siglos approach IO1 Cardona with a plastic cellophane with a brown paper containing a small sachet of shabu. 29 IO1 Cardona asked Ongcal if he recognized it. Upon seeing this, Ongcal told him that he knew that it was a sachet of shabu. IO1 Cardona then placed the sachet on top of a chair and told Ongcal that since he would not tell them where Maciba was, he will be the one to answer and take responsibility for the sachet of shabu. 30 IO1 Cardona then took out a P500.00 bill from his wallet and placed it on top of the chair as well. 31
Ongcal denied knowing the whereabouts of Maciba. However, he was still told to go with them. 32 Ongcal was brought to the PDEA Office blindfolded, where he was detained for two nights and one day. 33 While detained at the PDEA Office, the police officers took photos of Ongcal and asked him to sign a document. 34 Further, he was also told that if the media were to inquire about the source of the drug evidence, he should tell them that the drugs were from Maciba. 35 Later on, Ongcal was brought to Camp Evangelista, where his urine sample was collected and examined, which tested negative for dangerous drugs. 36 Essentially, Ongcal claimed that he was framed by the police officers and that the evidence allegedly taken from him was merely planted. 37
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
Given the above set of facts, the RTC of Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 40 found that the prosecution submitted sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for the violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. It ruled that all the elements of the crime were adequately established. Ultimately, the RTC held:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the court hereby finds accused Joseph Ongcal y Dadang GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of having committed the offense charged in the information (violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165). He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P500,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The period of his preventive detention shall be credited in his favor. The sachet of shabu is hereby ordered forfeited in favour of the government for proper disposal in accordance with the rules.
SO ORDERED. 38
Aggrieved with the RTC's ruling, Ongcal appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
Ongcal's appeal was anchored on a single assignment of error: that the court a quo gravely erred in convicting accused-appellant despite the failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 39
On May 12, 2017, the CA promulgated its Decision affirming in toto the Judgment of the RTC. The appellate court found that the elements of the crime of Illegal Sale of Prohibited Drugs were present and gave full faith and credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. 40 Moreover, it held that even though Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 was not strictly complied with, such is "not fatal and will not render an accused's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him inadmissible, for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officers." 41
Dissatisfied with the Decision of the CA, Ongcal filed a Notice of Appeal. 42
Issue
Whether Ongcal is guilty of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
For an accused to be successfully convicted for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 43
In this regard, it is essential to prove that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place. Further, the object of the transaction must be properly presented as evidence in court and shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused. 44 In order to remove any unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the prohibited drug, the prosecution needs to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same. 45 By requiring the prosecution to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the illegal drugs were seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime, the evils of switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence are to be avoided. 46
After a judicious review of the records of the case, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to clearly establish the accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
The police officers failed to comply with the procedures and requirements laid down under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, which covers the rule on the handling and custody of dangerous drugs. The said section states:
Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; x x x 47
The Court has clarified that, depending on the varying field conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not always be plausible; thus, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items void and invalid. 48 Nevertheless, this is with the caveat that it is still necessary for the prosecution to satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 49 The Court has repeatedly ruled that the prosecution has the positive duty to explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses. Without any justifiable explanation, which must be proven as a fact, the evidence of the corpus delicti is unreliable, and the acquittal of the accused should follow on the ground that his guilt has not been shown beyond reasonable doubt. 50
Here, the PDEA agents committed unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule, which put into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs seized from Ongcal. In particular, the buy-bust team did not mark the seized drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation at the place of arrest. According to IO1 Cardona's testimony, they opted to mark the seized items at the PDEA office purportedly because the area was populated and unsafe for them. 51 However, this was contradicted by IO1 Siglos who testified during her cross-examination that no one was around the area:
Q: Were there other person who was also walking on that alley when you were going towards that house of Joy Maciba?
A: None Sir.
Q: Children during that time whether there were children walking along that alley?
A: None, Sir. 52
Given this, transporting the seized items all the way to the PDEA office for marking, when this could have been immediately done at the place of apprehension or crime scene, casts serious doubts on the integrity of the confiscated drugs. In People v. Dahil, 53 the court explained:
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.
It must be noted that marking is not found in R.A. No. 9165 and is different from the inventory-taking and photography under Section 21 of the said law. Long before Congress passed R.A. No. 9165, however, this Court had consistently held that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti. 54
Even if we were to accept as valid IO1 Cardona's reasoning that there were many onlookers and they were in a critical area 55 which is why they did not mark the dangerous drugs immediately after seizure and confiscation, there are still some doubts with regard to how the seized drugs were handled by the police officers. IO1 Cardona stated during his examination that it was IO1 Siglos who took photos of the evidence:
Q: Aside from marking the inventory of the seized item, were there any pictures taken of the accused and the subject evidence?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember who took the picture?
A: It was agent Siglos who took the picture.
Q: If that picture will be shown to you, would you be able to identify it?
A: Yes.
Q: Showing to you these four pictures in one page, could you tell and examine it if that is the one you are referring to?
A: Yes.
Q: Why do you know that it was Siglos who took the picture?
A: Because I was inside the area where the picture was taken. 56
However, IO1 Siglos' very own testimony provides otherwise:
Q: Aside from preparing a document for the transmittal of the evidence to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination, did you prepare an inventory of this item?
A: I am not the one who made the inventory, Sir.
Q: So you have not seen the inventory?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: And you have no knowledge also whether there was a picture taken on the accused inside your office or at the crime scene?
A: It was the designated person who was in-charged [sic] of taking pictures.
Q: And were you present when the picture taking was done?
A: I was already in our service vehicle, Sir.
Q: Where was this picture taking took place? [sic]
A: The picture taking of the nameplate, in the office.
Q: And what was that picture taking that you were referring to when you were already in the service vehicle?
A: During the inventory they took pictures that is our SOP.
Q: Where?
A: There inside the house of Joy Maciba.
Q: But you were not present?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: And how did you know that there was a picture taken when you said that you were not present?
A: Because that is our usual job Sir during the operation.
Q: So you just presumed that there was a picture taken?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: When you were in your office, was there a picture taken also?
A: There was a picture to [sic] the nametag of the accused.
Q: Were you present when this picture taken inside of your office? [sic]
A: I was there in the office but I have not seen, Sir. 57
Moreover, IO1 Siglos also testified that after retrieving the drugs from Ongcal, she turned over the same to IO1 Cardona without any markings:
Q: When you turned over that one (1) sachet of course there was no marking?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: Only a small sachet?
A: Yes Sir.
Q: There was no masking tape on it right?
A: No Sir. 58
It was only until after the team left the crime scene and arrived at the PDEA Office that IO1 Cardona marked the seized contraband. 59 From the foregoing, it is already clear that there is serious doubt as to identity and integrity of the seized items.
Above all, the three-witness rule was not complied with. The police officers did not offer any explanation for their failure to secure the presence of a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and an elected public official. The prosecution only presented Cubero, a member of the media, to show that she witnessed the inventory-taking.
It bears to stress that the prosecution has the burden to prove their compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and to provide an adequate explanation should there be non-compliance therewith. In People v. Lim, the Court held:
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s 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 an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 60
Additionally, the prosecution must be able to prove that the police officers attempted to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses with earnest efforts. 61 Jurisprudence is replete with cases where the Court ruled that while the absence of the required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. 62 Police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 63
Here, the prosecution did not prove, much less allege, any specific reason to explain the absence of the representative from DOJ and any elected public official during the taking of inventory and photographs. There was no attempt at all to justify the absence of these witnesses, even though the police officers had ample time to plan the buy-bust operation notwithstanding that it was conducted during nighttime. It is worthy of note that they received the tip from their informant at around six o'clock and the buy-bust operation took place at around 9:30 PM of the same day. 64 Undoubtedly, they could have exerted efforts to request for the attendance of the required witnesses during their briefing or any time before they conducted the operation. If nobody was available, the police officers could have adequately explained it in their affidavits or even during trial.
To reiterate, a deviation from the mandatory requirements of Section 21 may be allowed by the courts in exceptional cases, but only where the following requisites are present: (1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. If these elements are present, the seizure and custody of the confiscated drug will not be rendered void and invalid despite non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21. 65 This saving mechanism has been provided to ensure that not every instance of non-compliance with the procedure for the preservation of the chain of custody will prejudice the prosecution's case against the accused. Thus, to warrant the application of the saving clause, the prosecution must first recognize the lapse or lapses on the part of the buy-bust team and justify or explain the same. 66
Indeed, there was no justifiable ground presented by the prosecution to explain the absence of the said representatives. Pertinently, this unexplained gap seriously casts doubt upon the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs. As such, this gives rise to the probability that the integrity of the seized evidence might have been compromised while under police custody.
From the foregoing, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to show that the chain of custody was properly complied with, thereby militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which resultantly warrants the acquittal of Ongcal.
To conclude, the Court finds it appropriate to reiterate its pronouncement in recent jurisprudence on the subject matter:
The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions.
Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the right of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. 67
The Court urges the prosecutors to diligently discharge their onus to prove compliance with the provisions of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations, which is vital in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. To the mind of the Court, the procedure outlined in Section 21 is straightforward and easy to comply with. 68 In the presentation of evidence to prove compliance, the prosecutors must have the initiative to recognize any deviation from the prescribed procedure and offer a justification therefor as dictated by the evidence at hand. Considering that compliance with Section 21 is integral to every conviction, the appellate court, this Court included, is at liberty to review the records of the case to satisfy itself that the required proof has been given by the prosecution whether the accused has raised, before the trial or appellate court, any issue of non-compliance. 69 If there are any deviations present and no justifiable reasons are provided, the conviction of the accused must be overturned, and he must therefore be acquitted. 70
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed May 12, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01436-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Joseph Ongcal y Dadang is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (J. Rosario designated as 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. 3-13; penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello and concurred in by Associate Justices Rafael Antonio M. Santos and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
2. Records, pp. 45-53; penned by Presiding Judge Ma. Corazon B. Gaite-Llanderal.
3.Id. at 1.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 9.
6.Id. at 2.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 3.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 2.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 3.
20.Id. at 2.
21. TSN, September 11, 2012, pp. 13-14.
22. Exhibit "C," Folder of Exhibits, p. 2.
23. TSN, October 7, 2015, p. 4.
24.Id. at 5-6.
25.Id. at 6-7.
26.Id. at 7.
27.Id.
28.Id.
29.Id. at 7-8.
30.Id. at 8-9.
31.Id. at 10.
32.Id. at 9.
33.Id. at 10-11.
34.Id. at 11.
35.Id.
36.Id. at 12.
37.Id. at 13.
38. Records, pp. 52-53.
39. CA rollo, p. 13.
40.Id. at 77.
41.Id. at 80.
42.Id. at 89.
43.Belmonte v. People, 811 Phil. 844, 856 (2017).
44.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
45.Belmonte v. People, supra NOTE 43.
46.People v. Baptista, G.R. No. 225783, August 20, 2018.
47. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165; emphasis supplied.
48.People v. Caranto, G.R. No. 217668, February 20, 2019.
49.Id.
50.Id.
51. TSN, March 10, 2014, p. 7.
52. TSN, September 11, 2012, pp. 19-20.
53. 750 Phil. 212 (2015).
54.Id. at 225.
55.Supra note 20.
56. TSN, March 10, 2014, p. 9.
57. TSN, September 11, 2012, pp. 16-17.
58.Id. at 25-26.
59. TSN, March 10, 2014, p. 7.
60.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
61.Id.
62.Id. citing People v. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981, 996 (2018).
63.Id.
64. Records, p. 3.
65.People v. Caranto, supra note 48.
66.Id.
67.People v. Patacsil, G.R. No. 234052, August 6, 2018 citing People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 741 (2018).
68.People v. Caranto, supra note 48.
69.Id.
70.Id.