FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252211. July 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ROBERTO QUINTO y SARMIENTO A.K.A. "IBOG", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252211 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Roberto Quinto y Sarmiento a.k.a. "Ibog,"Accused-Appellant.) — This is an appeal 1 to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated 17 September 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11681. The CA affirmed the Joint Decision 3 dated 26 June 2018 of Branch 44, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dagupan City, in Criminal Case Nos. 2013-0521-D and 2013-0522-D, finding accused-appellant Roberto Quinto y Sarmiento, a.k.a. "Ibog" (accused-appellant), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, 4 Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165; 5 and Section 28, 6 pars. (a) and (e), sub-par. 1 in relation to Section 3 par. (dd) of RA 10591. 7 HTcADC
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged under two (2) separate Informations, the accusatory portions of which read, thus:
Criminal Case No. 2013-0521-D
That on or about the 30th day of August 2013, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ROBERTO QUINTO Y SARMIENTO A.K.A. IBOG, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally, sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) contained one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet, weighing more or less, 0.061 gram, in exchange of P200.00, without authority to do so.
Contrary to Article II, Section 5, R.A. 9165. 8
Criminal Case No. 2013-0522-D
That on or about the 30th day of August 2013, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, ROBERTO QUINTO Y SARMIENTO AKA IBOG, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, have in his possession, custody and control two (2) cal .38 revolver (sic) locally known as Paltik, with Serial Nos. PRO 06510035 and 742572, respectively, each loaded with four (4) live ammunition (sic), without authority to possess the same.
Contrary to Sec. 28 pars. (a) and (e) sub-par 1, in relation to Section 3, par. (dd) of RA 10591. 9
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. After termination of pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 10
Version of the Prosecution
The Dagupan City Police Station received reports that accused-appellant was selling illegal drugs in the area of Abaloski St., Lucao, Dagupan City. Its intelligence operatives conducted a two-week surveillance and verified the information. On 30 August 2013, a team was formed to conduct a buy bust operation against accused-appellant. PO2 Lee Valdez (PO2 Valdez) was designated as the poseur-buyer with the rest of the team as back-up/arresting officers.
Upon the team's arrival at the area, PO2 Valdez and the civilian informant (CI) proceeded to accused-appellant's house. When the CI knocked, accused-appellant opened the door. The CI introduced PO2 Valdez to accused-appellant as a buyer. After a brief conversation, the latter agreed to sell two hundred pesos (Php200.00) worth of shabu to PO2 Valdez, who handed him the money. In exchange, accused-appellant gave him one (1) small heat-sealed plastic sachet with suspected shabu. 11
After PO2 Valdez raised his hand, as a pre-arranged signal, the other police officers came out and arrested accused-appellant. PO2 Valdez recovered the buy-bust money, one (1) caliber .38 revolver loaded with four (4) live ammunition from accused-appellant, and one (1) caliber .38 revolver with four (4) live ammunition on top of a chair. 12 Immediately after the seizure, PO2 Valdez began marking the plastic sachet with shabu, but was constrained to continue the markings of the other evidence at the police station because of security concerns. After marking the revolvers and live ammunition, the police officers conducted an inventory of the seized items and took photographs of the same in the presence of Roberto Ramirez, a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative. PO2 Valdez also presented the seized items to the investigator. 13
Thereafter, PO2 Valdez brought the request for laboratory examination together with the seized drug to the crime laboratory. Upon examination, the contents of the seized sachets tested positive for shabu. PO3 Dionisio Gonzales, on the other hand, brought the firearms and ammunition to the crime laboratory for ballistic and cross matching examination. The firearms were found serviceable. 14
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant narrated that he and his wife Imelda Quinto (Imelda) were having lunch at the balcony of their house at about 1:00 p.m. of 30 August 2013 when several civilians arrived. Two (2) unidentified individuals held his shirt and dragged him inside the house. They searched the house but they were not able to recover anything. He was then brought to the police station where he saw the two (2) .38 caliber revolvers for the first time. They took pictures of him with the firearms and then sent him to jail. His testimony was corroborated by Imelda. 15
Ruling of the RTC
On 26 June 2018, the RTC rendered its Joint Decision, convicting accused-appellant of the offenses charged, thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in:
1. CRIM CASE NO. 2013-0521-D finding accused ROBERTO QUINTO y Sarmiento a.k.a. IBOG GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt with Violation of Sec. 5, Art II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of Five hundred thousand (P500,000.00) pesos; and,
2. CRIM CASE NO. 2013-0522-D finding the same accused ROBERTO QUINTO y Sarmiento a.k.a. IBOG GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt with Violation of R.A. No. 10591 and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment of Eight (8) years and One (1) day as minimum to Ten (10) years and one (1) day as maximum.
xxx xxx xxx.
SO ORDERED. 16
The RTC found that the prosecution proved all the elements of illegal sale of shabu. Accused-appellant was positively identified by PO2 Valdez as the same person who sold him the plastic sachet with shabu for two hundred pesos (Php200.00). An unbroken chain of custody over the seized item was also established as PO2 Valdez was in possession of the sachet of shabu from the time of seizure, marking, until the same was brought to the crime laboratory. 17 It likewise held that the guilt of accused-appellant for illegal possession of firearm was established with accused-appellant's actual and constructive possession of the two revolvers and live ammunition, without the corresponding licenses to possess the same. 18 aScITE
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision dated 17 September 2019, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. The Joint Decision dated June 26, 2018 issued by the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City, Branch 44 in Criminal Cases Nos. 2013-0521-D and 2013-0522-D is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 19
The CA held that the prosecution was able to establish through testimonial, documentary, and object evidence the elements of illegal sale of shabu. It accorded the police officers the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties and declared that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. 20 The CA also upheld accused-appellant's conviction for violation of illegal possession of firearms. PO2 Valdez identified the firearms and ammunition he recovered from accused-appellant, which the latter was not licensed or authorized to possess, per the Certification issued by the Philippine National Police (PNP)-Civil Security Group, Firearms, and Explosives Office. 21
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 and violation of Section 28, pars. (a) and (e), sub-par. 1 of RA 10951, respectively.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is partly granted.
Violation of RA 9165
In every case of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must be able to establish the following essential elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. 22 What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. The delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer, and the receipt by the seller of the marked money successfully consummate the buy-bust transaction. 23
Sale or possession of dangerous drugs can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. 24 Therefore, it is essential that the identity and integrity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty. 25
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 also mandates 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 as these required witnesses: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 26 on 07 August 2014, 27 "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." 28
To further safeguard the integrity of the seized drugs, the prosecution must likewise establish the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs: first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 29
In this case, the police officers failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21, RA 9165, the applicable law at the time of the commission of the offense, as well as the chain of custody requirement.
PO2 Valdez marked the seized drugs, but opted to continue marking the other items at the police station purportedly for security concerns. After PO2 Valdez marked the other seized items, he conducted inventory and took photographs of the same in the presence of accused-appellant and DOJ representative, Roberto Ramirez. 30 Notably, there were no elected official and representative from the media present, as mandated by law. The presence of the witnesses required by law is essential. This rule is vital to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of irregularity. The insulating presence of such witnesses would preserve an unbroken chain of custody. 31 ATICcS
According to PO2 Valdez, they summoned the three (3) mandatory witnesses, but only the representative from the DOJ appeared. 32 However, there was no showing that the police officers exerted efforts to secure the presence of an elected official and a media representative. This, despite the pre-planned buy-bust operation, which gave them ample time to secure the presence of the required witnesses.
Next, there was no testimony as to the turn-over of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. PO2 Valdez was in sole possession of the plastic sachet of shabu bought from accused-appellant from the time of purchase until he brought the same to the crime laboratory. 33 In People v. Bangcola, 34 it was held that "the apprehending officer's act of keeping the seized evidence until its transfer to the forensic chemist and his failure to transfer the seized evidence to the investigating officer are considered breaks in the chain of custody."
As a rule, strict compliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165, as amended, is mandatory. A deviation may be allowed only if the following requisites concur: (1) the existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. Thus, when there is a showing of lapses in the procedure, the prosecution must recognize such, and justify the same, in order to warrant the application of the saving mechanism. 35 Furthermore, in People v. De Guzman, 36 it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the courts cannot presume what these grounds are or whether they even exist.
The saving mechanism of Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165, as amended, cannot be applied in this case because the police officers failed to offer any valid excuse for their deviation. Before courts may consider the seized drugs as evidence despite noncompliance with the legal requirements, justifiable grounds must be identified and proved. The prosecution must establish the steps taken to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. It has the positive duty to establish its reasons for the procedural lapses. 37 Moreso, in this case, considering the miniscule amount (.061 gram) of shabu involved which requires a more exacting compliance of the law.
Clearly, the procedural lapses committed by police officers, as well as the prosecution's failure to establish all the links in the chain of custody, created serious uncertainty over the identity of the seized drug. In effect, the prosecution failed to fully prove the elements of illegal sale of shabu, creating a reasonable doubt on accused-appellant's criminal liability. Consequently, accused-appellant should be acquitted.
Violation of RA 10951
As to Criminal Case No. 2013-0522-D, the prosecution sufficiently established beyond reasonable doubt all the elements of illegal possession of firearms considering that: (a) accused-appellant was found to be in possession, custody, and control of two (2) .38 caliber revolvers, each loaded with four (4) live ammunition; and (b) accused-appellant is not licensed/authorized to possess the same, based on the Certification dated 04 November 2014 issued by the PNP-Civil Security Group, Firearms and Explosives Office. 38
Section 28 (a) of RA No. 10591 imposes the penalty of prisionmayor in its medium period (8 years and one day to 10 years) for the possession of firearms defined under Section 3 par. (dd). 39 Meanwhile, Section 28 (e) (1) 40 of RA No. 10591 prescribes a penalty one degree higher than that provided in Section 28 (a) if the accused illegally possessed the firearm loaded with live ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine. In such a situation, the penalty imposable is prisionmayor in its maximum period (10 years and one day to 12 years), to be imposed in the medium period (10 years, eight months and one day to 11 years and four months), in view of the absence of any modifying circumstances. 41
In the present case, the penalty imposed by the RTC and CA should be modified from Eight (8) years and one (1) day as minimum to Ten (10) years and one (1) day as maximum to Eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to Ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor in its maximum period, as maximum.
All the foregoing considered, accused-appellant is acquitted from the charge of illegal sale of shabu. On the other hand, the Court affirms accused-appellant's conviction for illegal possession of firearms, with modification as to the penalty imposed.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 17 September 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11681 is hereby MODIFIED as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 2013-0521-D for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, accused-appellant ROBERTO QUINTOy SARMIENTO a.k.a "IBOG" is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
In Criminal Case No. 2013-0522-D, the conviction of accused-appellant ROBERTO QUINTO y SARMIENTO a.k.a "IBOG" for violation of Section 28, pars. (a) and (e), sub-par. 1 in relation to Section. 3 par. (dd) of Republic Act No. 10591 is AFFIRMED. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of eight (8) years and one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor in its maximum period, as maximum. TIADCc
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. 24-25.
2.Id. at 03-23; penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, concurred in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi of the Special Fourth Division, Court of Appeals.
3. CA rollo, pp. 62-71; penned by Judge Genoveva Coching-Maramba.
4. SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
5. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
6. Section 28. Unlawful Acquisition, or Possession of Firearms and Ammunition.
7. Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act, 29 May 2013.
8.Rollo, p. 04.
9.Id. at 04-05.
10.Id. at 05.
11.Id. at 05-06.
12. CA rollo, p. 69.
13.Rollo, p. 06.
14.Id. at 06-07.
15.Id. at 08.
16. CA rollo, p. 71.
17.Id. at 69.
18.Id. at 70.
19.Rollo, p. 19.
20.Id. at 16-17.
21.Id. at 18.
22.People v. Ygot, 790 Phil. 236 (2016), G.R. No. 210715, 18 July 2016 [Per J. Perez].
23.People v. Guiara, GR No. 616 Phil. 290 (2009), 186497, 17 September 2009 [Per J. Velasco, Jr.].
24.People v. Nacua, 702 Phil. 739 (2013), G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013 [Per J. Leonardo-De Castro].
25.People v. Yagao, G.R. No. 216725, 18 February 2019 [Per C.J. Bersamin].
26.An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for thePurpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "ComprehensiveDangerous Drugs Act of 2002," approved on 15 July 2014.
27. See People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, 05 November 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
28.People v. Bangalan, G.R. No. 232249, 03 September 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
29.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212 (2015), G.R. No. 212196, 12 January 2015 [Per J. Mendoza].
30.Rollo, p. 06.
31. See People v. Macud, G.R. No. 219175, 14 December 2017 [Per J. Del Castillo].
32.Rollo, p. 11.
33. CA rollo, p. 69.
34. G.R. No. 237802, 18 March 2019 [Per J. Gesmundo].
35.Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 239399, 31 July 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
36. G.R. No. 186498, 26 March 2010 [Per J. Nachura].
37.People v. Ternida, G.R. No. 212626, 03 June 2019 [Per J. Leonen].
38.Rollo, p. 08.
39. dd) Small arms refer to firearms intended to be or primarily designed for individual use or that which is generally considered to mean a weapon intended to be fired from the hand or shoulder, which are not capable of fully automatic bursts of discharge, such as:
(1) Handgun which is a firearm intended to be fired from the hand, which includes:
(i) A pistol which is a hand-operated firearm having a chamber integral with or permanently aligned with the bore which may be self-loading; and
(ii) Revolver which is a hand-operated firearm with a revolving cylinder containing chambers for individual cartridges. X X X.
40. (e) The penalty of one (1) degree higher than that provided in paragraphs (a) to (c) in this section shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm under any or combination of the following conditions:
(1) Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine; X X X.
41.Bangcola v. People (Notice), G.R. No. 230434, 09 August 2017.