FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251989. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. JARIEL PANGARUNGAN y JOSON a.k.a. TAKING, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251989 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jariel Pangarungan y Joson a.k.a. Taking, Accused-Appellant.) — Before this Court is an appeal 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated 25 October 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01759-MIN, which affirmed the Joint Decision 3 dated 29 August 2017 of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Oroquieta City, finding Jariel Pangarungan y Joson (accused-appellant) guilty for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 4
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 in Criminal Cases Nos. 2267 and 2268, respectively, under the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. 2267
That on or June 29, 2015 at 4:40 o'clock in the afternoon or thereabouts, in Labagun-an, Barangay Talic, Oroquieta City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver two (2) pieces of heat-sealed plastic transparent sachet of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as "shabu," a dangerous drug (with markings OS-1 and OS-2) having a total net weight of 0.0470 gram to poseur-buyer, PO1 GLENN A. SANOY, in exchange of one (1) piece of Php500 peso bill bearing Serial No. BU685922.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Criminal Case No. 2268
That on or 4:40 o'clock in the afternoon of June 29, 2015, at Labagun-an, Barangay Talic, Oroquieta City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being authorized to possess, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "OS-3 further marked as A1, containing 0.0237 gram of white crystalline substance and One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "OS-4" further marked as B1 containing 3.2706 grams of white crystalline substance a methamphetamine hydrochloride, locally known as "shabu" a dangerous drug, having the total net weight of 3.2943.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. Pre-trial and trial on the merits ensued thereafter. 6
Evidence for the Prosecution
The testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses tended to establish that in the morning of 29 June 2015, Police Senior Inspector Bryan Ellama Reponte (PSI Reponte) ordered PO1 Glenn A. Sanoy (PO1 Sanoy) to conduct surveillance at Purok Labagun-an in Barangay Talic, Oroquieta City on a certain Jariel Pangarungan alias "Taking," after PSI Reponte received a report that he was selling drugs in the area. After locating accused-appellant's house, PSI Reponte ordered PO1 Sanoy to return therein at around 1:00 p.m. 7 TaCEHA
Upon his return, PO1 Sanoy saw a lot of people coming in and out of accused-appellant's house. PSI Reponte ordered the conduct of a buy-bust operation against accused-appellant at around 3:00 p.m. A buy-bust team of four (4) members was thereafter formed consisting of: PSI Reponte as team leader, PO1 Sanoy as poseur-buyer; PO1 Omar B. Obut (PO1 Obut) and PO1 Bayhonan. PO1 Sanoy proceeded with PO1 Obut on a motorcycle to Labagun-an in Barangay Talic. 8
When they arrived, PO1 Sanoy parked the motorcycle on the roadside, about ten (10)-fifteen (15) meters from the house of accused-appellant's girlfriend. Thereafter, PO1 Sanoy called out to accused-appellant. PO1 Sanoy told him, "papalita ko ug butag" (I will buy shabu). Accused-appellant then responded, "Pila" (how much). PO1 Sanoy respondent he wanted to buy shabu worth five hundred pesos (Php500.00), then handed him the money. Accused-appellant then went back to the house, and after two (2) minutes, stepped out and handed PO1 Sanoy two (2) sachets of shabu. 9
After being handed the sachets of shabu, PO1 Sanoy placed his right hand on his head as a pre-arranged signal that the sale had been consummated and the shabu was already in his possession. 10
PO1 Obut quickly approached PO1 Sanoy and accused-appellant. He and PO1 Sanoy then introduced themselves as policemen. Accused-appellant tried to run but was apprehended. PO1 Sanoy informed accused-appellant of his constitutional rights and the grounds for his arrest. He then asked accused-appellant to state his name, and the latter replied that he is Jariel Pangarungan, herein accused-appellant. 11
PSI Reponte arrived with the other members of Oroquieta Police station on board a black Toyota Fortuner. PO1 Sanoy then conducted a body search where he recovered one (1) small sachet of shabu, one (1) big rectangular cellophane of shabu, and the (1) Php500-peso bill with serial number BU 685922. 12
PSI Reponte called on two (2) councilors of the barangay, a representative from the media, and one from the Department of Justice (DOJ). As it was about to rain, the buy-bust team and investigator PO3 Jobie Paye Apao (PO3 Apao), together with accused-appellant, went inside the house of the latter's girlfriend. PO1 Sanoy placed the sachets on top of a table in the kitchen before PO3 Apao. PO1 Sanoy marked the two (2) sachets of shabu from the buy-bust operation OS-1 and OS-2, while the two (2) sachets recovered from the body search were marked OS-3 and OS-4. The marking and photographing of evidence were done in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Renato D. Madarimot (Kag. Madarimot) and Senior Kagawad Ian Sherwin Handumon (Kag. Handumon), media representative Philip James Tremedal (Mr. Tremedal), and DOJ representative Patrick P. Echalico (Mr. Echalico). Thereafter, the witnesses signed the confiscation receipt. 13
PO1 Sanoy delivered the pieces of evidence to the Misamis Occidental Provincial Crime Laboratory, Camp Naranjo, Oroquieta City at around 8:00 p.m. and was received by PO2 Mark Job Orendain (PO2 Orendain), as evidenced by a delivery receipt. Forensic chemist NUP Geraline D. Abalde (Abalde) conducted the examination of the sachets, which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 14
Evidence for the Defense
The defense offered the lone testimony of accused-appellant who denied the accusation against him. He alleged that he was on his way back to her girlfriend's house from buying barbeque when a motorcycle hit him. The riders of the motorcycle, who turned out to be PO1 Apao and PO3 Pilapil, held him and searched his body. They confiscated his mobile phone and coins. The riders then brought him to his girlfriend's house. A black Toyota Fortuner arrived and four (4) people alighted therefrom. He claimed that two (2) of them were PO1 Sanoy and PO1 Obut. These persons allegedly tried to open the front door of his girlfriend's house, but they failed to do so. Eventually, they were able to get to the house. PO3 Apao interviewed him while the others searched the house for two (2) hours. 15
Ruling of the RTC
On 29 August 2017, the RTC issued a Joint Decision, 16 the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 2267, this Court finds the accused JARIEL PANGARUNGAN y JOSON aka "Taking" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of selling of prohibited drugs as defined under Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of LIFE imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five hundred Thousand (Php500,000.00) Pesos;
2. In Criminal Case No. 2268, this Court finds the accused JARIEL PANGARUNGAN y JOSON aka "Taking" guilty beyond reasonable doubt of possession of prohibited drugs as defined under Section 11, Article II, [RA] 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to Fourteen (14) years and 8 months as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (Php300,000.00) Pesos;
The period of detention of the accused is hereby given full credit.
Let the dangerous drugs subject matter of this case be disposed of in the manner provided for by law.
SO ORDERED. 17
Aggrieved, accused-appellant elevated the ruling to the CA, 18 arguing that the prosecution was not able to prove the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs because of the supposed inconsistency between the testimonies of PO1 Sanoy and PO1 Obut as to when the payment for the shabu was exactly made. PO1 Sanoy testified that he gave Php500 before accused-appellant gave him the drugs, while PO1 Obut testified that the reverse happened. 19 He also averred that the corpus delicti of the drug offenses was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. 20
Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision 21 dated 25 October 2019, the CA agreed with the RTC's findings 22 but modified the penalty in Criminal Case No. 2267 to life imprisonment without eligibility. 23
Hence this appeal. acHTIC
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165 state:
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos ([Php]500,000.00) to Ten million pesos ([Php]10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos ([Php]500,000.00) to Ten million pesos ([Php]10,000,000.00) 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
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos ([Php]300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos ([Php]400,000.00), 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.
Parenthetically, to secure a conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (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.
On the other hand, for the prosecution of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs to prosper, the following elements must concur: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of said drugs.
In addition to the elements of the drug offenses, the State is also burdened with the responsibility of identifying, proving and adducing in court the corpus delicti, or the drug subject of the offense. 24
In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the prohibited drug that constituted the corpus delicti.
The required witnesses were
As part of the chain of custody procedure, RA 9165 requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized items be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation of the same. 25 The law further requires that the inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 26 "a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "[a] elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." The law requires the presence of these witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 27
The Information charges accused-appellant of committing the offenses charged on 29 June 2015, or after the effectivity of the amendatory RA 10640. 28 Section 21 of RA 9165, as complemented by Section 21 (a) of Article II of its Implementing Rules and Regulations, require that immediately after seizure and confiscation of the suspected drug the same should be physically inventoried and photographed in the presence of the following witnesses: (a) the accused or person/s from whom the items were seized and confiscated, or his representative or counsel; (b) a representative from the media or the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (c) any elected public official. ScaCEH
In this case, while the police called the insulating witnesses, they were not present during the seizure of the illegal drugs. In various cases, 29 this Court has held that the phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" entails that the required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension. It must be so as it is at the point of arrest that planting of evidence might likely occur, and the presence of the witnesses insulate against this possibility.
In People v. Tomawis, 30 the Court highlighted the importance of the presence of the insulating witnesses during the warrantless arrest, as well as the reason why the "calling in" of witnesses does not achieve the purpose of the law, to wit:
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. 31
The saving clause does not
It is true that Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165, contains this proviso:
x x x Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements [the presence of the required witnesses, and the time and place of inventory and photographing] under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and 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; x x x
However, the Court has already ruled that to warrant the application of this saving mechanism, the prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses, and justify or explain them. 32 Failure to provide sufficient justification will create doubt as to the identity and evidentiary value of the seized items when presented in court. 33
In this case, PO1 Sanoy and PO1 Obut did not explain why the police operatives were not able to immediately secure the presence of ALL the witnesses during the conduct of the buy-bust.
Verily, the legal requirement of third-party witnesses is a safeguard meant to establish the nexus between the accused-appellant and the drug offense/s. The absence of witnesses during seizure casts reasonable doubt on the actual origin and identity of the drugs introduced in evidence as those allegedly seized from accused-appellant. 34 In this case, considering the police officers' lapses, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. Thus, this Court is duty-bound to acquit accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 25 October 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 01759-MIN is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Jariel Pangarungan y Joson a.k.a. Taking is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is detained for any other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to implement this Resolution and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt. TIEHDC
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 26-27; see Notice of Appeal dated 27 November 2019.
2.Id. at 4-25; penned by Associate Justice Lily V. Biton and concurred by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Oscar V. Badelles of the Court of Appeals — Special Twenty-First (21st) Division, Cagayan de Oro City.
3. CA Rollo, pp. 60-86; penned by Presiding Judge Alma V. Azanza of the Regional Trial Court, Tenth (10th) Judicial Region, Branch 12, Oroquieta City.
4. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on 23 January 2002.
5.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
6.Id. at 6.
7.Id. at 6-7.
8.Id. at 7.
9.Id. at 7-8.
10.Id. at 8.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 8-9.
13.Id. at 9.
14.Id. at 9-10.
15.Id. at 10-11.
16.Supra at note 3.
17. CA Rollo, p. 86.
18.Id. at 36-58.
19.Id. at 48-51.
20.Id. at 51-57.
21.Supra at note 2.
22.Supra at note 3.
23.Rollo, p. 24.
24.See People v. Angeles y Agbolos, G.R. No. 229099, 27 February 2019 [Per J. Del Castillo], citing People v. De Asis, G.R. No. 225219, 11 June 2018 [Per J. Del Castillo].
25.People v. Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, 03 September 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe], citing People v. Tumulak, 791 Phil. 148, 160-161 (2016), G.R. No. 206054, 25 July 2016 [Per J. Brion]; see alsoPeople v. Rollo, 757 Phil. 346, 357 (2015), G.R. No. 211199, 25 March 2015 [Per J. Perez].
26. Entitled "An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," approved on 15 July 2014.
27.People v. Bangalan, supra at note 25, citing People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, 31 January 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe]; see alsoPeople v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014), G.R. No. 192432, 23 June 2014 [Per J. Bersamin].
28. In People v. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 236304, 05 November 2018), this Court noted that RA 10640 was approved on 15 July 2014, and published on 23 July 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Metro Section, p. 21) and the Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23, World News Section, p. 6). Thus, it became effective 15 days thereafter or on 07 August 2014, pursuant to Section 5 of the law. See also People v. Bangalan, supra at note 25.
29.People v. Musor, G.R. No. 231843, 07 November 2018 [Per J. Caguioa]; People v. Supat, G.R. No. 217027, 832 Phil. 590 (2018), 06 June 2018 [Per J. Caguioa]; People v. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671 (2016), G.R. No. 199271, 19 October 2016 [Per J. Bersamin].
30.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385 (2018), G.R. No. 228890, 18 April 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
31.Id. at 409.
32.People v. Reyes, supra at note 29 at 690.
33.See People v. Velasco, G.R. No. 219174, 21 February 2018 [Per J. Bersamin].
34.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, 07 August 2019 [Per J. Leonen].