SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 193669. November 17, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. MARILOU PEREZ y TINIO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated17 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 193669(People of the Philippines v. Marilou Perez y Tinio). — This is an appeal from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated May 4, 2010 in CA-G.R. C.R.-H.C. No. 03724, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated January 22, 2009 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Caloocan City, Branch 120 in Criminal Case Nos. C-74700 and C-74701, finding Marilou Perez y Tinio (accused-appellant) guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents
The instant case stemmed from two (2) separate Informations 3 dated February 20, 2006 filed before the RTC of Caloocan City.
The first Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. C-74700, charged accused-appellant with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, allegedly committed as follows:
That on or about the 17th day of February, 2006 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully[,] and feloniously, sell and deliver to PO1 RENEN MALONZO, who pose[d] as buyer of three (3) small heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance with markings A-1, A-2 and A-3 weighing 0.02 gram, 0.03 gram and 0.03 gram METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU), a dangerous drug, without the corresponding license or prescription therefor, knowing the same to be such.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
The other Information, docketed as Criminal Case No. C-74701, charged accused-appellant with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs in violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as narrated below: CAIHTE
That on or about the 17th day of February, 2006 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without [being] authorized by law, did then and there wilfully, unlawf lly [,] [sic] and feloniously, have in her possession[,] custody and control thirteen (13) pcs. of small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets [of] METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE weighing 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.03 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram[,] 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram[,] a dangerous drugs [sic], when gave [sic] for examination gave positive [sic] result of [sic] METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (shabu).
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
During her arraignment on April 25, 2006 and March 10, 2006, respectively, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty" to the crimes charged. 6
Subsequently, the cases were consolidated and joint trial on the merits ensued. 7
Version of the Prosecution
Pieced together from the testimony of Police Officer 1 (PO1) Renen Malonzo (Malonzo), 8 the parties' stipulations on the testimonies of Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Albert Arturo (Arturo), 9 the forensic chemist, and PO2 Randulfo Hipolito (Hipolito), 10 the investigator-on-case, as well as the documentary and object evidence presented, the prosecution's account of the events is as follows:
On February 17, 2006, PO1 Malonzo reported for work at the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Unit (SAID-SOU), Caloocan City. Their chief, Police Senior Inspector (P/Sr. Insp.) Ernesto Palting (Palting) ordered him, along with five fellow police officers, to conduct a buy-bust operation against a certain alias "Loloy" along Bisig ng Nayon, Caloocan City. 11
During the briefing, PO1 Malonzo was designated to act as the poseur-buyer and was handed three pieces of P100.00 bill, which he marked at the right top portion of each bill with "BB-1" to "BB-3". The same was recorded in the blotter by the desk officer. 12
Around 8:30 in the evening, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. Upon arrival thereat, PO1 Malonzo and the confidential informant went to the supposed location of Loloy, later on identified as accused-appellant. Unfortunately, accused-appellant was not there. When they asked someone about her whereabouts, they were told to come back at 10:30 p.m. because she was still getting the merchandise. So, they left the premises. 13
The team returned to the target area at the designated time. PO1 Malonzo and the informant were able to meet accused-appellant. The informant introduced PO1 Malonzo to accused-appellant who then invited them into her house. Inside a small room, PO1 Malonzo expressed his intention to buy drugs by saying, "iiskor kami." He gave the buy-bust money to accused-appellant, which the latter took and kept in her left hand. Thereafter, accused-appellant took out from her pocket a small plastic envelope with three (3) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. After receiving the plastic sachets from accused-appellant, PO1 Malonzo held her hand, introduced himself as a police officer, and confiscated the buy-bust money and the P500.00 kept together with it. 14
PO1 Malonzo called their team leader using his cellular phone. PO1 Montefrio was the first one to arrive at the place of arrest. Accordingly, he was instructed by PO1 Malonzo to recover from accused-appellant's pocket the small plastic envelope containing plastic sachets. 15
Since accused-appellant was still resisting and considering that there was a wake at that time, they apologized for the commotion, but a certain Virgilio Alejo (Alejo) tried to block their way. When they introduced themselves as police officers, Alejo and his son, Fernan, asked if they have a warrant of arrest against accused-appellant and further uttered, "walang pulis-pulis dito." PO1 Malonzo informed them that there was no need for a warrant of arrest since they caught accused-appellant in flagrante delicto. 16
When the situation was already calm, they brought accused-appellant, Alejo, and the seized items to their office and were turned over to PO2 Hipolito. 17 The latter marked the three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance subject of the buy-bust operation as "MPT-BUY-BUST-1" to "MPT-BUY-BUST-3," 18 while the thirteen (13) other heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance recovered from accused-appellant's possession were marked as "MPT-BUY-BUST-1" to "MPT-BUY-BUST-3". PO2 Hipolito likewise prepared the pertinent documents, including the request for laboratory examination 19 of the sixteen (16) plastic sachets.
The plastic sachets were brought to the Northern Police District Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory Office, Caloocan City Police Station for qualitative examination. Per Physical Science Report No. D-082-06 20 issued by P/Insp. Arturo, all specimens yielded positive for presence of methylamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu.
Version of the Defense
The evidence for the defense consisted of the testimonies of accused-appellant herself, 21 Ana Marie Perez, 22 and Jhofel Cristobal. 23
Accused-appellant recounted that immediately prior to her arrest, she was eating inside the bedroom of her house located at No. 16 Bisig ng Nayon, Caloocan City. Her daughter, Ana Marie, was then sleeping. During that time, the wake of her brother was being held in the living room when she saw two men standing near the bedroom. She was surprised when suddenly they ordered her to stand and started frisking her. As nothing was found in her possession, the other person searched the bedroom. She remained quiet while her daughter, who was awakened, embraced her. After about five minutes, they told her to go with them peacefully. 24
As they were passing by the corpse, accused-appellant's uncle, Alejo, inquired about the identities of the two persons and the reason for accused-appellant's arrest. To which, they introduced themselves as police officers and uttered, "walang warrant, warrant sa amin, walang bara-barangay sa amin." Accused-appellant was then held by her shirt and dragged outside. Because Ana Marie kept on embracing her, the men also fired some shots which caused her daughter to let go. She was forcefully boarded into an owner-type jeep and was brought to the police station. 25
The above circumstances were corroborated by the other defense witnesses.
Moreover, accused-appellant recalled being asked if she had money. She was told that if she had money, she would be released. When she answered that she had none, she was forced to produce any amount to compensate for the commotion that occurred during her arrest. But since she could not raise any amount, she was again detained and, after a few hours, she was brought to the hospital, then to the prosecutor's office for inquest, and finally to Caloocan City Jail. 26
Accused-appellant claimed that the version of the prosecution was fabricated, and that the only time she was able to see the evidence against her was when they were presented in court. 27
The RTC Ruling
On January 22, 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision, 28 the dispositive portion of which reads: DETACa
Premises considered, this court finds and so holds that:
(1) The accused Marilou Perez y Tinio GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and imposes upon her the following:
(a) In Crim. Case No. 74700, the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00), and
(b) In Crim. Case No. 74701, the penalty of Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00).
The drugs subject matter of these cases weighing 0.02 gram, 0.03 gram and 0.03 gram subject of the buy-bust operation, as well as the thirteen (13) plastic sachets weighing 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.03 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02 gram, 0.02gram, 0.02 gram, and 0.02 gram, confiscated from the accused after her lawful arrest, all containing METHAMPETAMINE n HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU) are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 29
The RTC held that accused-appellant's identity as seller and possessor of dangerous drugs can no longer be disputed having been caught in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation. It stressed that the police officers are entitled to the presumption of regularity in the performance of their official functions in the absence of any improper motive. Lastly, it ruled that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, particularly of conducting physical inventory as well as taking photographs of the seized drugs, does not mean that no buy-bust operation ever took place. Neither would it render accused-appellant's arrest illegal, or the items seized/confiscated from her inadmissible, since the chain of custody of the drugs was not shown to have been broken. 30
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its Decision 31 dated May 4, 2010, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. The CA found that all the elements of the crimes charged were satisfactorily proven by the prosecution. It ruled that accused-appellant's denial, unsubstantiated by credible and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity, must fail against the positive testimony of PO1 Malonzo. Lastly, it held that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution's case. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, which the CA declared to have been done in this case. 32
The fallo of the CA Decision states:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the assailed Decision dated 22 January 2009 of the Regional Trial Court of Caloocan City, Branch 120, finding accused-appellant Marilou Perez y Tinio guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Crim. Cases [sic] Nos. C-74700 and C-74701 and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, and the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00, respectively, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.33
Accused-appellant's Notice of Appeal 34 was given due course by the CA in a Resolution 35 dated June 7, 2010.
In a Resolution 36 dated November 17, 2010, this Court notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs within 30 days from notice, if they so desire. Both parties manifested that they were no longer filing supplemental briefs as the issues and arguments had already been exhaustively discussed in their separate briefs before the CA. 37
Accused-appellant contends that the lower courts' reliance on presumption of regularity was misplaced in view of the police officers' failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. She further asserts that such failure not only negates the said presumption, but likewise disproves the establishment of corpus delicti. 38
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), for the State, maintains that all the elements of the crimes charged had been established with moral certainty through the testimony of PO1 Malonzo. In the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute serious crimes against accused-appellant, the OSG claims that his testimony deserves full faith and credit. 39
Moreover, the OSG argues that Section 21 need not be followed with pedantic rigor because non-compliance thereof does not render an accused's arrest illegal, or the items confiscated from him inadmissible. It insists that, in the present case, there was substantial compliance, and the integrity of the drugs seized from accused-appellant was preserved through an unbroken chain of custody. 40
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether the prosecution established accused-appellant's guilt for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs beyond reasonable doubt. aDSIHc
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
The Court acquits accused-appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The elements necessary in every prosecution for the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 are: (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. 41
On the other hand, to successfully prosecute a case of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 42
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears not only the burden of proving these elements, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. 43 In all prosecutions for violations of R.A. No. 9165, the corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself, the existence of which is essential to a judgment of conviction. 44 Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drug must be shown to have been duly preserved. 45 This requirement necessarily arises from the illegal drug's unique characteristic that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 46
To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug presented in court is the same illegal drug actually recovered from the accused; otherwise, the prosecution for possession or for sale fails. 47
A buy-bust operation, as in this case, is a legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. 48 Because of the built-in danger for abuse that a buy-bust operation carries, it is governed by specific procedures on the seizure and custody of drugs, separately from the general law procedures geared to ensure that the rights of people under criminal investigation, and of the accused facing a criminal charge, are safeguarded. 49
In this connection, Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the applicable provision at the time of the commission of the alleged crimes, 50 lays down the procedure to be observed by law enforcement officers in handling seized illegal drugs:
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;
Records reveal that while the arresting police officers had the confiscated drugs marked upon their arrival at the police station, no physical inventory and photography thereof were ever done. Therefore, it follows that no elected public official, representatives from the media, and the DOJ were called to be present as witnesses. This was confirmed by PO1 Malonzo during his cross-examination:
Q: Was there an inventory done in the presence of a representative from the media, from the DOJ and barangay elected official?
A: None, sir. 51
Yet, the Court is not unaware of the saving clause under Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 — which is now incorporated into statutory law with the passage of R.A. No. 10640 52 — which articulates that failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 53
In People v. Garcia, 54 the Court stated that "[the] saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds." 55 In People v. De Guzman, 56 it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as fact because the court cannot presume what these grounds are, or that they even exists. 57 Thus, in People v. Angeles, 58 prosecutors were reminded of their two-fold duty of identifying any lapse in the procedure, and proving the existence of sufficient reason why it was not strictly followed. 59
In this case, the prosecution miserably failed as it did not even bother bringing to light the procedural deviations made, much less offered any explanation or justification for the same. Breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21 committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. 60
By reason of the above infirmities, it was error for the RTC and the CA to have relied on the presumption of regularity. It bears stressing that the presumption only arises in the absence of contradicting details that would raise doubts on the regularity in the performance of official duties. Where the police officers failed to comply with the standard procedure prescribed by law, there is no occasion to apply the presumption. 61 ETHIDa
Irrefragably, the presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent, and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is merely just that — a mere presumption disputable by contrary proof, and which when challenged by evidence cannot be regarded as binding truth. 62
No less than the Constitution mandates that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved 63 beyond reasonable doubt. 64 If the prosecution fails to meet the required evidence, the defense does not even need to present evidence in its own behalf; the presumption prevails and the accused should be declared acquitted. 65 As the Court pronounced in People v. Pagaduan: 66
We are not unmindful of the pernicious effects of drugs in our society; they are lingering maladies that destroy families and relationships, and engender crimes. The Court is one with all the agencies concerned in pursuing an intensive and unrelenting campaign against this social dilemma. Regardless of how much we want to curb this menace, we cannot disregard the protection provided by the Constitution, most particularly the presumption of innocence bestowed on the appellant. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof sufficient to produce moral certainty that would convince and satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is indispensable to overcome this constitutional presumption. If the prosecution has not proved, in the first place, all the elements of the crime charged, which in this case is the corpus delicti, then the appellant deserves no less than an acquittal. 67 (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 4, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R.-H.C. No. 03724, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Marilou Perez y Tinio is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged against her for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for some other lawful cause. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. Said Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court, within five working days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken.
SO ORDERED." (Perlas-Bernabe, J.,on official leave;Hernando, J.,designated Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2855 dated November 10, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-31; penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 17-29; penned by Presiding Judge Aurelio R. Ralar, Jr.
3.Id. at 8-9.
4.Id. at 8.
5.Id. at 9.
6.Id. at 18.
7.Rollo, p. 5.
8. TSN, January 8, 2008, pp. 1-24.
9. CA rollo, pp. 18-19.
10.Id. at 20-21.
11. TSN, January 8, 2008, pp. 3-5.
12.Id. at 5-7.
13.Id. at 8-10.
14.Id. at 10-14.
15.Id. at 14-15.
16.Id. at 16-17.
17.Id. at 17-18.
18.Id. at 18.
19. Records, p. 7.
20.Id. at 8.
21. TSN, April 22, 2008, pp. 1-22.
22.Id. at June 17, 2008, pp. 1-8.
23.Id. at December 2, 2008, pp. 1-10.
24.Id. at April 22, 2008, pp. 3-8.
25.Id. at 8-10.
26.Id. at 10-13.
27.Id. at 13-15.
28. CA rollo, pp. 17-29.
29.Id. at 29.
30.Id. at 23-38.
31.Rollo, pp. 2-31.
32.Id. at 17-27.
33.Id. at 28-29.
34.Id. at 32-33.
35.Id. at 35.
36.Id. at 37-38.
37.Id. at 40-42; 43-45.
38. CA rollo, pp. 46-63.
39.Id. at 81-104.
40.Id.
41.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1025 (2017).
42.Id. at 1025-1026.
43.People v. Cabezudo, G.R. No. 232357, November 28, 2018.
44.People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 591 (2017).
45.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
46.People v. Nuarin, 764 Phil. 550, 557 (2015).
47.People v. Prudencio, 800 Phil. 128, 136 (2016).
48.People v. Cabezudo, supra.
49.People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 230 (2008).
50. The crimes subject of this case were allegedly committed on February 17, 2006, before the enactment of R.A. No. 10640 amending Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
51. TSN, January 8, 2008, p. 22.
52. 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 July 15, 2014.
53.People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 450 (2018).
54. 599 Phil. 416 (2009).
55.Id. at 432-433. Citation omitted.
56. 630 Phil. 637 (2010).
57.Id. at 649.
58. 833 Phil. 822 (2018).
59.Id. at 832.
60.People v. Cabezudo, supra note 43.
61.Valencia v. People, 725 Phil. 268, 286 (2014).
62.People v. Sabdula, 733 Phil. 85, 101 (2014).
63. Section 14 (2), Article III of the 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION.
64. Section 2, Rule 133 of the 2019 Amendments to the 1989 Revised Rules on Evidence (A.M. No. 19-08-15-SC dated October 8, 2019).
65.People v. Sabdula, supra at 93.
66. 641 Phil. 432 (2010).
67.Id. at 450-451.
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "METHAMPETHAMINE" in the official document.