People v. Pitunang y Disumiba

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 242162. June 30, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CASANO PITUNANG y DISUMIBA and GRACE SALVADOR y GASPAR, accused-appellants.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 30, 2021which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 242162 (People of the Philippines,Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Casano Pitunang y Disumiba and Grace Salvador y Gaspar,Accused-Appellants). — For the Court's resolution is an appeal of the Decision 1 dated 10 April 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09038. Said Decision affirmed accused-appellants Casano Pitunang's (Pitunang) and Grace Salvador's (Salvador) conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs as decreed in the Regional Trial Court's (RTC) Decision 2 dated 29 July 2016 rendered in Criminal Case Nos. 14-1438, 14-1439 and 14-1440.

Antecedents

Informations were filed against Pitunang and Salvador charging them of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs punishable under Sections 5 and 11, respectively of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The indictments read:

Criminal Case No. 14-1438

The undersigned State Prosecutor accuses CASANO PITUNANG y DISUMIBA a.k.a. Casano and GRACE SALVADOR y GASPAR @ GRACE of the crime of Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed as follows:

That on or about the 28th day of November 2014, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, not being authorized by law, did and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets marked as "A (AV 11/28/14)" weighing 1.07 (grams) and "B (AV-1 11/28/14)" weighing 1.21 (grams) with a total weight of 2.28 (grams) to Police Poseur-Buyer PO3 ADRIAN VALENCIA, the content of the said plastic sachets when tested were found positive to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 3

Criminal Case No. 14-1439

The undersigned State Prosecutor accuses GRACE SALVADOR GASPAR @ GRACE, of the crime of Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. 9265, otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, committed as follows:

That on or about the 28th day of November 2014, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to possess, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in their possession and under her control and custody one (1) zippered coin purse marked as "(JL-4 11/28/14)" containing four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets marked as "E (JL 11/28/14)" weighing 0.12 gram, marked as "F (JL-1 11/28/14)" weighing 0.07 gram, marked as "G (JL-2 11/28/14)" weighing 0.05 gram and "H (JL-3 11/28/14)" weighing 0.05 gram with a total weight of .029 gram, which when tested were found to be positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

Criminal Case No. 14-1440

The undersigned State Prosecutor accuses CASANO DISUMIBA y DIMACUTA @ SANOC of the crime of Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165 otherwise known as Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 committed as follows:

That on or about the 28th day of November 2014, in the City of Parañaque, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused not being authorized by law to possess, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession and under his control and custody two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets marked as "C (AV-2 11/28/14)", weighing 1.20 (grams) and "D (AV-3 11/28/14)", weighing 1.18 (grams) with a total weight of 2.38 (grams), which when tested were found to be positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

These cases filed against Pitunang and Salvador were consolidated before the RTC, Parañaque City, Branch 259. During their arraignment, Pitunang and Salvador pleaded not guilty. Thus, trial on the merits ensued. 6

Version of the Prosecution

On 28 November 2014, an informant arrived at the Parañaque City Police-Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOTG) and reported that Pitunang and Salvador were engaged in illegal drug activities. Acting on the tip, the SAID-SOTG formed a buy-bust team composed of eight (8) members to apprehend accused-appellants. For the operation, PO3 Adrian Valencia (PO3 Valencia) was designated as poseur-buyer. 7

The buy-bust team then proceeded to the target area — the Sherwina Lodge. There, the informant introduced PO3 Valencia to Pitunang as a buyer intending to buy Php2,000.00 worth of shabu. Pitunang told this to Salvador and the latter responded by handing two (2) small heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. Thereafter, Pitunang gave the sachet to PO3 Valencia, who, in return, handed to Pitunang two (2) Php500.00 bills and one (1) Php1,000.00 bill, all marked with an "x" at the center. PO3 Valencia slipped the plastic sachets inside his pocket then grabbed Pitunang by his hand but the latter was able to break free and run to his and Salvador's room. Through the door, PO3 Valencia introduced himself as a police officer and ordered Pitunang to surrender. 8

Pitunang and Salvador eventually surrendered. Pitunang also turned over his firearm and two (2) more sachets were recovered from his person. PO3 Valencia put these two (2) other sachets in his left pocket. Four (4) more sachets were obtained from Salvador by PO3 Valencia's back-up, PO3 Joel Locsin (PO3 Locsin). In total, eight (8) plastic sachets were recovered from Pitunang and Salvador. Some sachets were marked at the place of arrest, the others, at the police station.

An inventory of the items seized was conducted at the police station. This was witnessed by a representative from the mass media, Steve Tameta (Tameta). The police officers also alleged that no barangay officials were available during the operation. PO3 Locsin also took photographs of the seized items while the inventory was ongoing. PO3 Valencia and Tameta signed the inventory form. The sachets seized were then forwarded to the PNP Crime Laboratory and was subsequently tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 9

The shabu purchased from the accused weighed 2.28 grams. Meanwhile, the drugs seized from Pitunang and Salvador weighed 2.38 grams and 0.29 gram, respectively. 10

Version of the Defense

Pitunang and Salvador defended their innocence by offering their own version of the incident. Salvador testified that she went with her husband, Pitunang, to the Sherwina Hotel because the latter was supposed to speak with someone there. While she was inside the bathroom, she heard people talking outside. When she stepped out of the bathroom, she saw her husband being handcuffed by PO3 Valencia and four (4) other police officers. Without a warrant, the police searched their room. When they did not find anything, she and her husband were then brought to the police station. There, she and Pitunang were photographed. Photos were also taken on bills of money, shabu and guns that allegedly came from the police officers. 11

Meanwhile, Pitunang narrated that on 28 November 2014, he was at the Sherwina Hotel to meet PO3 Valencia, who was a dealer of firearms. Pitunang brought his wife, Salvador, with him. Pitunang agreed to purchase three (3) firearms from PO3 Valencia in the amount of Php150,000.00. PO3 Valencia arrived in Pitunang's room with disassembled guns. When Pitunang remarked that these guns were not what they agreed upon, PO3 Valencia answered, "Dinala ko sayo yan, baka sakaling magustuhan mo bubuuin natin yan at baka sakaling magpadagdag ka ngayon, yung baril na kumpleto kukunin ko muna sa kasama kong si Locsin." PO3 Valencia then left the room. Pitunang said he was unaware of who "Locsin" was supposed to be. 12

PO3 Valencia returned with another person who happened to be PO3 Locsin. When Pitunang asked about the firearms, five (5) more individuals in civilian clothing barged into the room. At this point, PO3 Valencia allegedly announced "hulidap." Salvador was inside the bathroom while this was happening and only saw Pitunang being handcuffed. Pitunang alleged that the police took the Php150,000.00 he hid under a pillow. They were then brought to an office across a nightclub called Air Force One. There, Pitunang and Salvador were allegedly forced to pay money or else a criminal case would be filed against them. When after few days, they were not able to pay, they were brought to the SAID-SOTG. 13

Ruling of the RTC

After trial, the RTC found Pitunang and Salvador guilty of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The dispositive portion of the RTC's decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court renders judgment as follows:

1.) The Court finds the accused CASANO PITUNANG y DISUMIBA a.k.a. "Casano Dimacuta Pitunang" @ Sanoc and GRACE SALVADOR y GASPAR a.k.a. "Grace" in Criminal Case No. 14-1438 (Violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165) for conspiring in an unauthorized sale of dangerous drugs with the total weight of 2.28 grams, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and are sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and pay the fine of One million pesos (Php1,000,000.00) each.

2.) The Court finds the accused GRACE SALVADOR y GASPAR a.k.a. "Grace" in Criminal Case No. 14-1439 (Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165) for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs with a total weight of 0.29 gram, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to seventeen (17) years as maximum imprisonment and to pay fine in the amount of Php300,000.00.

3.) The Court finds accused CASANO PITUNANG y DISUMIBA a.k.a. "Casano Dimacuta Pitunang" @ Sanoc in Criminal Case No. 14-1440 (Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165) for unlawful possession of dangerous drugs with a total weight of 2.38 grams, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to seventeen (17) years as maximum imprisonment and to pay fine in the amount of Php400,000.00.

Considering that the judgment is for conviction as well as the penalty involved, the OIC Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to prepare the Mithmus [sic] for the accused CASANO PITUNANG y DISUMIBA a.k.a. "Casano Dimacuta Pitunang" @ Sanoc to be detained at the New Bilibid Prisons, Muntinlupa City while accused GRACE SALVADOR y GASPAR a.k.a. "Grace" to be detained at the Correctional Institute for Women, Mandaluyong City.

The four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets marked as "A (AV-11/28/14)" weighing 1.0/ n gram, "B (AV-1 11/28/14)" weighing 1.21 grams, "C (AV-2 11/28/14)" weighing 1.20 grams, and "D (AV-3 11/28/14)" weighing 1.18 grams recovered from CASANO PITUNANG y DISUMIBA a.k.a. "Casano Dimacuta Pitunang" @ Sanoc and one (1) zippered coin purse marked as "(JL-4 11/28/14)" containing four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets marked as "E (JL 11/28/14)," weighing 0.12 gram, marked as "F (JL-1 11/28/14)" weighing 0.07 gram marked as "G (JL-2 11/28/14)" weighing 0.05 gram and "H (JL-3 11/28/14)" weighing 0.05 from GRACE SALVADOR y GASPAR @ GRACE which were found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride a dangerous drug and subject of these cases are forfeited in favor of the government and the OIC-Evidence Custodian is directed to immediately turn over the same to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal pursuant to Section 21 of RA 9165 and Supreme Court OCA Circular No. 51-2003.

SO ORDERED. 14

Ruling of the CA

On appeal, the CA affirmed accused-appellants' conviction, disposing of the same in this wise:

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DISMISSED and the assailed Decision dated July 29, 2016, AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 15

The appellate court explained that the prosecution was able to prove the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. PO3 Valencia's testimony established the identity of the buyer (himself), and the seller (Pitunang), the object (two [2] plastic sachets of shabu), and the consideration, (Php2,000.00), as well as the payment and delivery of the things sold. PO3 Valencia also described Salvador's complicity to the transaction. 16

Further, the CA found no reason to oppose the credence given by the RTC to the testimonies of PO3 Valencia and PO3 Locsin considering that they are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner. Further, there was no evidence imputing ignoble motivations on the part of the police officers. Moreover, finality should be given to the RTC's factual findings because it had better opportunity to observe the witnesses' demeanor and conduct on the stand. 17

With regard to accusations of illegal possession of dangerous drugs against the accused, the CA likewise accorded its complete faith to the testimony of PO3 Locsin stating that Salvador had in her possession, four (4) plastic sachets of shabu. Meanwhile, PO3 Valencia testified aside from the sachets he purchased, he recovered two (2) more from Pitunang. These, coupled by the fact that there was no evidence to prove that the accused were authorized to possess these items, are enough to sustain their conviction. 18

Further, the CA disregarded the challenge against the validity of the buy-bust operation conducted. It ruled that prior surveillance is not necessary for a valid a buy-bust operation when the buy-bust team is accompanied at the target area by the informant. The CA was also unconvinced that accused's claim of frame-up is true. It viewed this defense as pure allegations lacking proof.

Finally, the CA ruled that despite some lapses on the part of the police officers, the chain of custody of the seized items remained intact. It was noted that while the prosecution admitted that the buy-bust team was not able to secure the presence of all the required witnesses, it was able to provide justification for such failure. More importantly, the prosecution was able to show that the integrity of the seized item was intact through its physical, testimonial, and documentary evidence. Hence, this appeal.

Issue

The Court is confronted with the task of determining whether or not Pitunang and Salvador were correctly convicted of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, punished under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, of RA 9165, as amended.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal has merit.

In every prosecution of violations of RA 9165, whether it be for illegal sale or illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution is mandated to present the corpus delicti of the crime, i.e., the seized drugs, as evidence in court. Concomitantly, the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drugs by showing that the drugs offered in court as evidence were the same substances bought or recovered from the accused, especially from those apprehended through the conduct of a buy-bust operation. 19

By reason of the peculiar nature of buy-bust operations, the law requires strict compliance with what We refer to now as the "chain of custody" rule embodied in Section 21 of RA 9165. This rule was designed precisely to ensure the that all the rights of the accused are guaranteed and the credibility of the corpus delicti safeguarded. Indeed, RA 9165 recognizes that buy-bust operations could be used as vehicles for police abuse due to the facility with which illegal drugs may be planted in evidence. 20

As an integral part of the chain of custody rule, 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. It was made compulsory that the physical inventory and photograph-taking be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well these required witnesses: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 21 on 07 August 2014, 22 "a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official"; or (b) if after said amendment, "[an] elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." 23 In the instant case, RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, applies. Hence, the required witnesses should include an elected public official and a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) or the media.

Moreover, the required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of the conduct of the inventory of the seized items which, again, must be immediately done at the place of seizure and confiscation — a requirement that can easily be complied with considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its very nature, a planned activity. 24 Without the presence of the insulating witnesses during the seizure and marking of the seized drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence are bound to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the said drugs, the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affect the trustworthiness of the incrimination of accused-appellant. 25

Be that as it may, however, the Court acknowledges that strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible. During such eventualities, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would 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. The foregoing is based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 10640. 26

It should, however, be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must duly explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and 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. 27

Here, the Court finds that the apprehending police officers committed the following deviations from the chain of custody rule: (1) they failed to conduct the physical inventory and photographing immediately after seizure, (2) they failed to secure the presence of all of the required witnesses, and (3) their only witness was not present at the time of apprehension. To make matters worse, the prosecution failed miserably to explain their omissions.

Physical inventory and

The evidence of the prosecution shows that the marking of the seized items was initially done after accused's arrest but the police officers decided to continue the same, as well as the physical inventory and photograph-taking, in their "office." During his direct examination, PO3 Locsin testified:

PROS. ROMA

(TO WITNESS):

So what happened not when you when you [sic] recovered these items from accused Casano and Grace?

A: After we recovered several items we put markings on the said evidence in the area but we decided to continue the markings in our office. (Emphasis supplied) 28

Meanwhile, PO3 Valencia gave the following statement during his time in the witness stand:

Q: Now Mr. Witness, what did you do with the two pieces of plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance which you were able to recover from accused Grace Salvador and Casano Pitunang?

A: Ma'am, we included it in our inventory and pictures.

Q: In what place did the inventory conduct [sic]?

A: In our office.

Q: So, from the place where the sale transaction took place you proceeded to your office?

A: Yes Ma'am. 29

As earlier mentioned, this misstep by PO3 Valencia and PO3 Locsin would have been excused had they given an explanation why the conduct of inventory and photograph-taking at the place of arrest was not practicable. However, as can be gleaned from the above-quoted statements, not even an attempt to explain their decision was made by the apprehending police officers.

Not all of the witnesses

Another lapse was the buy-bust team's failure to ensure the attendance of all the necessary witnesses. The crimes here were allegedly committed on 28 November 2014. Thus, the amended form of RA 9165 requires that the physical inventory and photograph-taking of the seized items be witnessed by an elected official, and a representative from the media or the DOJ. Clearly, the media representative, Steve Tameta, turning up would not suffice. An elected official should have also been present.

When asked why only Tameta was the witness present, PO3 Valencia only had these to say:

Q: Why is it that only media representative, Steve Tameta, who was present during the inventory?

A: After the operation Ma'am, our team leader immediately contacted the Barangay Baclaran but there's no available witness. 30

This excuse would hardly suffice. Jurisprudence instructs us that the apprehending officers' justification must be of such substance that shows genuine and sincere desire to secure the presence of the required witnesses. The prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the witnesses enumerated in the law. Mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justifiable grounds for non-compliance. Police officers are compelled not only to state the reasons for their non-compliance but must also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedures and that, under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 31

The acquittal of accused-

The Court finds that Pitunang's and Salvador's acquittal are in order based on the prosecution's failure to demonstrate their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. To repeat, the process of making a physical inventory, marking, and photograph-taking of the seized drugs provides a layer of protection to guarantee that the substance seized from the accused is the same one that is presented and submitted in evidence. The failure of the apprehending team to comply with these requirements greatly diminished the evidentiary value of the seized drugs. 32

WHEREFORE, the present appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 10 April 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09038 affirming the conviction of Casano Pitunang and Grace Salvador for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Casano Pitunang and Grace Salvador are hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt and are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless they are confined for another lawful cause. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

The Superintendents of the New Bilibid Prison in Muntinlupa City and Correctional Institution for Women in Mandaluyong City, should be furnished copy of this Resolution for its immediate implementation. They are ORDERED to report to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of Resolution of the action that they have taken.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-48; penned by Associate Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla of the Fifth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.

2.Id. at 263-277; penned by Judge Danilo V. Suarez.

3.Id. at 4-5.

4.Id. at 5.

5.Id. at 6.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 7.

8.Id. at 7-8.

9.Id. at 9-12.

10.Id. at 3.

11.Id. at 14-16.

12.Id. at 16-17.

13.Id. at 17-18.

14. CA rollo, pp. 276-277.

15.Rollo, pp. 47-48.

16.Id. at 22-26.

17.Id. at 26-29.

18.Id. at 30-34.

19.People v. Angngao, G.R. No. 189296, 11 March 2015, 755 Phil. 597 (2015) [Per J. Bersamin]. See also People v. Ruiz, G.R. No. 243635, 27 November 2019 [Per J. Carandang].

20.Tañamor v. People, G.R. No. 228132, 11 March 2020 [Per J. Caguioa].

21.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.

22.See People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, 05 November 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].

23.People v. Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, 03 September 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].

24.Id.

25.See People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 238519, 26 June 2019 [Per J. Peralta].

26.People v. Doctolero, Jr., G.R. No. 243940, 20 August 2019 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].

27.People v. De Motor, G.R. No. 245486, 27 November 2019 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].

28. CA rollo, p. 72.

29.Id. at 123-124.

30.Id. at 128.

31.Ramos v. People, G.R. No. 233572, 30 July 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].

32.People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, 18 April 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.