FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252466. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ALLAN PISALBO y DELA CRUZ, 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. 252466 (People of the Philippines v. Allan Pisalbo y Dela Cruz). — The case involves an Information filed against Allan Pisalbo y Dela Cruz (accused-appellant) charging him with violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," the accusatory portion thereof reads:
That on or about the 4th of June 2015, in the municipality of Bantay, Province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer one (1) sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug, with a total quantity of Eight Hundred Sixty Seven Ten Thousandths (0.0867) gram, more or less. 1
Two other Information were filed against accused-appellant and his co-accused Michelle Parungao (Parungao) charging them with violation of Sections 11 and 12 of R.A. 9165, but they were acquitted thereon. 2
According to the prosecution, a confidential informant went to the Bantay Police Station and tipped them of the peddling activities of accused-appellant and Parungao. Upon receipt of this information, a buy-bust team was formed with SPO2 Miguel Pigao (SPO2 Pigao) as poseur-buyer, SPO3 Arnold Doria (SPO3 Doria) as immediate back-up and PO3 Jennifer Tacla (PO3 Tacla) and Police Inspector Edmund Sarmiento Artates (P/Insp. Artates) as perimeter security. SPO2 Pagao prepared a P500.00 bill to be used for the purchase of the illegal drug in the buy-bust operation and marked the same with his initials "MBP." 3
Thereafter, the team proceeded to the target area, together with the confidential informant. Upon arriving thereat, SPO3 Doria positioned himself within 5 meters away from SPO2 Pigao and the informant while the other members of the team were 20 meters away from them. 4
When SPO2 Pigao and the informant met with the accused-appellant, the informant introduced him to accused-appellant as the buyer. SPO2 Pigao handed the marked P500.00 bill to accused-appellant who, in turn, handed him a resealed junk food (Super Crunch Corn Chips Cheddar Cheese). He asked where the item was and he was told that it was inside the junk food. Thus, he opened it and found inside a paper-wrapped plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. 5
Thereafter, SPO2 Pigao raised his hand as signal to SPO3 Doria that the sale has been consummated. When accused-appellant saw this, he ran away from them and went inside a boarding house at Villegas Apartelle. SPO2 Pigao and SPO3 Doria chased him. 6
Accused-appellant entered into a room and closed the door which prompted the police officers to forcibly open it. Upon entering the room, they saw a woman, who was later identified as Parungao, repacking Super Crunch Corn Chips wrapper. Thinking it was the same resealed junk food during the buy-bust operation, the police officers opened them and found inside a paper-wrapped plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. The arresting officers were able to seize 82 plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, a digital weighing scale, a pair of scissors, a Samsung cellular phone, a pack of transparent plastic sachets and a blue sealer. 7 DcHSEa
Accused-appellant and Parungao were arrested. SPO3 Doria took the seized items and marked the same with his initials and signature and the date. They conducted the marking, inventory and taking of photographs at the house where the arrest was effected with two barangay kagawads and a representative from the Department of Justice, Glenn Tulas, as witnesses. Thereafter, the accused-appellant and Parungao were brought to the police station. 8
SPO3 Doria brought the marked evidence to the PNP Crime Laboratory with a Request for Examination. These were received by PO3 Wilson Natividad (PO3 Natividad), 9 who turned over the same to Police Senior Inspector Roanalaine B. Baligod (PSI Baligod), the assigned forensic chemist. 10
PSI Baligod conducted the qualitative examination over the turned over specimens which all yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, or otherwise known as shabu as indicated in Chemistry Report No. D-053-2015-IS. 11 She then sealed each specimen with a masking tape, marked each item with her initials and turned over the same to the evidence custodian, PO3 Lerwin Quitevis (PO3 Quitevis). PO3 Quitevis was the one who turned over and presented the seized evidence in court. 12
On the other hand, the defense offers a different version of facts. According to accused-appellant, he was working at a radiator and welding shop when he went out to buy a welding rod. While outside, he decided to have some snacks in a nearby sari-sari store. Suddenly, four men approached and pulled him asking him to bring out the items. He told them that he doesn't have what they are looking for. He was then handcuffed and frisked. When the four men didn't find anything on him, they punched him in the stomach. Further, he was asked if he knew anybody selling drugs, but he answered in the negative. He was even told that if he points to someone, he will be exonerated. 13
Thereafter, he was brought by the men to the boarding house of Parungao at Villegas Apartelle. The men forcibly opened the door and found inside Parungao, her daughter and Remalyn, accused-appellant's live-in partner. The men searched the entire house and asked them to bring out the items. When they found nothing, they brought out accused-appellant and Parungao and made them board a pick-up van. They were driven around Sta. Catalina and Pantay Daya. 14
When they returned to the boarding house, they were surprised to see objects in plastic sachets scattered on the table. Parungao corroborated the statement of accused-appellant. 15
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In a Consolidated Decision 16 dated June 6, 2018, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of R.A. 9165 but acquitted him and his co-accused Parungao of violating Sections 11 and 12 of R.A. 9165, the dispositive portion thereof reads:
WHEREFORE, the court renders judgment as follows:
Criminal Case No. 7651-V-2015
The court finds the accused ALLAN DELA CRUZ PISALBO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of R.A. 9165. Accordingly, he is hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The shabu (methamphetamine hydrochloride) confiscated from the accused which is the object evidence in the case is forfeited in favor of the Government. The Branch Clerk of Court is ordered to notify immediately the PDEA, Ilocos Sur Office, who is hereby directed to come and receive the same within reasonable time from notice.
The Branch Clerk of Court is likewise directed to issue the MITTIMUS.
Criminal Case Nos. 7652-V-2015 and 7653-V-2015
Both accused, ALLAN DELA CRUZ PISALBO and MICHELLE MALLON PARUNGAO, are ACQUITTED of the offense charged in each of the Informations.
All the eighty-two (82) plastic sachets of shabu as well as the pieces of drug paraphernalia object evidence of the two cases are likewise forfeited for proper disposal by the Government. The Branch Clerk of Court is also directed to notify the PDEA Ilocos Sur Office to come and receive the same upon notice.
The accused Michelle M. Parungao is ordered immediately RELEASED from jail unless she is being held for other lawful cause/s.
Furnish copy of this Decision to PNP & PDEA Provincial Offices and Regional Offices.
Also pursuant to OCA Circular No. 85-2017, furnish copy of this Decision to the National Bureau of Investigation in Manila.
SO ORDERED." 17
The RTC was convinced that a sale was consummated between accused-appellant and SPO2 Pigao. The prosecution duly established the elements of the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 18 Likewise, the identity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs was properly preserved. The police conducted a valid buy-bust operation and there were no gaps in the chain of custody. 19
On the other hand, accused-appellant's defense was not convincing, self-serving, and unsubstantiated. He likewise failed to show any ill-motive on the part of the arresting officers to fabricate a story against him. The trial court gave credence to the testimony of SPO2 Pigao that accused-appellant sold illegal drugs to him. 20
However, with respect to the charges of violating Sections 11 and 12 of R.A. 9165, the RTC ruled that the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proof. The RTC found that the warrantless arrest of Parungao and the warrantless search and seizure of her house were not valid. 21 CTHaSD
As admitted during trial, the police officers barged inside the house of Parungao without any warrant. Further, the plastic sachets they seized were not caught in plain view. As testified, the plastic sachets were inside a resealed junk food. The police officers only had a hunch that inside the resealed junk foods were illegal drugs. Hence, the seized 82 pieces of plastic sachets and drug paraphernalia were fruits of the poisonous tree and inadmissible as evidence. 22
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In a Resolution 23 dated September 19, 2019, the CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC convicting accused-appellant, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Consolidated Decision dated June 6, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20 of Vigan City, Ilocos Sur in so far as Criminal Case No. 7651-V-2015 is concerned is hereby AFFIRMEDin toto.
SO ORDERED. 24 (Emphasis in the original)
It ruled that the buy bust operation was valid. SPO2 Pigao's testimony and the Joint-Affidavit of SPO2 Pigao and SPO3 Doria presented clearly of how the sale of illegal drugs took place. Contrary to accused-appellant's contention, the validity of the buy-bust operation is not affected by the prosecution's failure to present the PDEA pre-operation report and coordination form because these documents are not necessary for an operation to be considered valid. 25
Further, there were no breaks in the chain of custody. The prosecution presented witnesses from the time the illegal drugs were seized, marked and inventoried, up to its turn over to the crime laboratory for examination, then to its turn over to the evidence custodian for safekeeping until it was turned over to the court for presentation. All of the people who handled the evidence testified on how they received it, the condition of the item and to whom they turned over the same. 26
Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed an appeal. 27
In a Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 28 dated December 16, 2020, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, manifested that it will no longer file a supplemental brief having thoroughly discussed its arguments in the Appellee's Brief 29 dated June 18, 2019. Likewise, in a Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief 30 dated November 24, 2020, accused-appellant, through the Public Attorney's Office, manifested that it will no longer file a supplemental brief and adopts the arguments raised in its Appellant's Brief 31 dated February 8, 2019.
Accused-appellant avers that there were discrepancies in the testimonies of the arresting officers which cast doubt in the truthfulness or veracity of their claim of a valid buy-bust operation. 32 Further, he argues that the statement of SPO2 Pigao on the conduct of the alleged sale of illegal drug was too generalized. There was also a failure to present the PDEA coordination form and report which is a clear indication of the arresting officer's deviation from standard operating procedure. 33 Lastly, the prosecution failed to show that there were no gaps in the chain of custody. The barangay official witness was not presented in court and there was no investigator to whom the arresting officer will turn over the seized evidence. 34
Issue
The issue in this case is whether accused-appellant has been proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5 of R.A. 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
To be convicted of Section 5 of R.A. 9165, the following elements must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, to wit: (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. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused. 35
In cases of illegal sale, the dangerous drugs seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. 36 The prosecution bears the burden of proving that the identity of the dangerous drug was established beyond reasonable doubt and that the illicit drug bought during the buy-bust operation was exactly the same illicit drug offered in evidence before the court. In order to establish the corpus delicti with moral certainty, the prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody over the seized drugs. TacSAE
To ensure an unbroken chain of custody, Section 21 (1) of R.A. 9165 as amended by R.A. 10640 provides for the handling and custody of seized drugs, to wit:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)
The law has recognized the possibility of failure to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. 9165, thus a saving clause was included in the amendment under R.A. 10640. However, for the saving clause to apply, the following circumstances must be satisfactorily proven by the prosecution: (1) that there is a justifiable ground for noncompliance and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In People v. De Guzman, 37 it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.
Nevertheless, in a number of cases, the Court has established that when the amount of drugs involved is miniscule, a stricter application of the procedure laid out in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 as amended must be observed.
Upon review of the case, the Court resolves to acquit accused-appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to establish that there was an unbroken chain of custody and that there was compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended. Even if the saving clause is to be applied, the prosecution failed to prove that there was a justifiable ground for the deviation from the procedure. All these cast doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.
As culled from the records, the prosecution failed to show that the required witnesses were present at or near the place of the arrest at the time of the seizure and confiscation of the illegal drugs. Further, it failed to present the testimony of the elected public official who served as a witness to ensure that there was no planting or fabrication of the evidence.
SPO2 Pigao admitted during his cross-examination that the witnesses only arrived 10 to 15 minutes after the arrest, search and seizure, to wit:
Atty. Ascaño
Q At what point in time did the barangay officials and PO3 Tacla and the duty investigator arrive?
A After 10 to 15 minutes, sir.
Q 10 to 15 minutes after the search of the kitchen and the living room?
A Yes, sir. 38
This is corroborated by DOJ witness Glenn Tulas whose testimony was only limited to the conduct of inventory and photograph taking because he did not have any personal knowledge with respect to the arrest of the accused-appellant and seizure of the illegal drugs. Likewise, he did not testify that there were barangay officials at the time of the inventory. As a matter of fact, he said that the only people present at that time were himself, representative from the media (Bombo Radyo), P/Insp. Artates, SPO3 Doria, accused-appellant and Parungao. 39 Further, there was no testimony from the elected public officials who allegedly witnessed the seizure, marking and inventory of the illegal drugs.
This is contrary to the Court's pronouncement in the case of People v. Tomawis, 40 wherein the Court ruled that:
The [three] in this case, two required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension — a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. Simply put, the buy-bust team has enough time and opportunity to bring with them said witnesses. x x x While the IRR allows alternative places for the conduct of the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs, the requirement of having the [three] two required witnesses to be physically present at the time or near the place of apprehension, is not dispensed with. The reason is simple, it is at the time of arrest — or at the time of the drugs' "seizure and confiscation" — that the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would insulate against the police practice of planting evidence. 41
In Tomawis, the Court explained that the rationale behind the requirement of the presence of these witnesses during the arrest, seizure and marking of the evidence is to prevent or insulate the occurrence of planting, fabrication, modification or substitution of the evidence. The purpose of the law is to ensure that the buy-busts conducted by the police are not tainted by the evils of switching, planting or contamination of the illegal drugs. SDHacT
For the saving clause to apply, the failure to follow the mandatory requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 must be adequately explained by the prosecution. But in this case, there was no justifiable ground raised to excuse the noncompliance. The apprehending officers did not even offer an explanation as to why the witnesses were only present at the time of the conduct of the inventory and why the barangay kagawads and media representative were not presented as witnesses before the trial court. There was no showing that earnest efforts have been made to contact the witnesses prior to the buy-bust operation in order to secure their presence. As admitted by SPO2 Pigao, the witnesses were only contacted by their OIC when they were about to raid the house of Parungao. 42 As buy-busts are planned operations, the police officers had ample time to inform the witnesses of the time and location of the target that they could have secured their presence at the time of the warrantless arrest. However, they failed to do so in this case.
These infirmities in the handling of the seized evidence cast doubt on its integrity and evidentiary value. While the law does not demand absolute certainty of guilt to convict a person of the crime charged, moral certainty is required as to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense. Accordingly, the failure to establish, through convincing proof, that the integrity of the seized items has been adequately preserved through an unbroken chain of custody is enough to engender reasonable doubt on the guilt of an accused. Time and again, the Court has held that a conviction cannot be sustained if there is a lingering doubt on the identity of the drug.
In this case, the prosecution failed to prove that the illicit drug presented before the court is the very same drug seized from the accused-appellant during the buy bust operation. The prosecution cannot invoke the presumption of regularity in the police officers' performance of official duty.
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the failure to observe the proper procedure negates the operation of the presumption of regularity accorded to police officers. As a general rule, the testimonies of the police officers who apprehended the accused are accorded full faith and credit because of the presumption that they have performed their duties regularly. However, when the performance of their duties is tainted with failure to comply with the procedure and guidelines prescribed, the presumption is effectively destroyed. 43
Hence, even if the defense evidence is weak, the prosecution's whole case still falls. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. 44
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 19, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11505 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Allan Pisalbo y Dela Cruz is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt and is accordingly ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody unless he is being lawfully held for another offense. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to inform this Court of the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
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. Records, p. 1.
2. CA rollo, p. 4.
3.Id. at 58.
4. TSN dated October 10, 2017, pp. 13-14.
5. CA rollo, p. 58.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 58-59.
8. TSN dated October 10, 2017, pp. 5-6.
9.Id. at 8-9.
10. CA rollo, p. 57.
11. Records, p. 9.
12. CA rollo, pp. 57-58.
13.Id. at 62.
14.Id. at 62-63.
15.Id. at 63.
16. Penned by Judge Marita Bernales Balloguing; id. at 55-76.
17.Id. at 75-76.
18.Id. at 64-65.
19.Id. at 68.
20.Id. at 65-66.
21.Id. at 68-72.
22.Id. at 68-69, 73.
23. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, with the concurrence of Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez (now a Member of this Court) and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin; rollo, pp. 3-13.
24.Id. at 12.
25.Id. at 9.
26.Id. at 10-12.
27.Id. at 14.
28.Id. at 30.
29. CA rollo, pp. 87-106.
30.Rollo, p. 25.
31. CA rollo, pp. 29-52.
32.Id. at 39-40.
33.Id. at 42-44.
34.Id. at 46-49.
35.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
36.Id.
37. 613 Phil. 574 (2010).
38. TSN dated September 12, 2017, p. 12.
39. TSN dated November 7, 2017, p. 4.
40. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
41.Id. at 405-406.
42. TSN dated September 12, 2017, p. 12.
43.People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 655 (2010).
44.People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008).