THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244046. May 12, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RAFFY QUINTOS y BIARIN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 12, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244046 (People of the Philippines v. Raffy Quintos y Biarin). — This resolves the ordinary Appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant Raffy Quintos y Biarin (accused-appellant) assailing the Decision 2 dated July 25, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09487 affirming the Decision 3 dated April 19, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 218, in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-02403-04-CR, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Attempted Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and penalized under Section 26, in relation to Section 5, and Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Facts
The CA summarized the facts of the case as follows:
In an Information filed before the RTC of Quezon City, [accused-]appellant @ "Alex" was charged with attempted sale of dangerous drugs under Section 26, in relation to Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165 committed as follows:
Criminal Case No. 15-02403-CR
That, on or about the 7th day of March 2015, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, without lawful authority did then and there willfully, and unlawfully attempt to sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, a dangerous drug, to wit: one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with an aggregate weight of 0.09 (zero point zero nine) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. ISHaCD
Contrary to law.
In a separate Information, [accused-]appellant was likewise charged with possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA No. 9165 committed as follows:
Criminal Case No. 15-02404-CR
That, on or about the 7th day of March 2015, in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.06 (zero point zero six) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.
Upon arraignment on April 6, 2015, [accused-]appellant, with the assistance of counsel pleaded not guilty to the charges. Thereafter, the cases were tried jointly.
The prosecution presented four (4) witnesses, namely: poseur-buyer P[olice] O[fficer] 3 Romeo Guerrero [PO3 Guerrero]; Police Investigator S[enior] P[olice] O[fficer] 2 Gerardo Quimson [SPO2 Quimson]; Police Senior Inspector [PSI] Bernardo Roque, a forensic chemist; and Barangay Kagawad[s] Jerson Dazo and [Emiliano Lagco].
The testimony of PSI Bernardo Roque was dispensed with after the parties agreed to stipulate on the following: (1) his qualification as an expert forensic chemical officer; (2) the receipt of the Request for Laboratory Examination dated March 8, 2015 with the specimens enclosed thereto; (3) he conducted a laboratory examination on the said specimens; and (4) the result of his examination was reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-219-15 dated March 8, 2015.
The testimony of SPO2 Gerardo Quimson was also dispensed with after the parties stipulated that: (1) he received the seized items from PO3 Guerrero for investigation; and (2) he turned over the seized items to PO3 Guerrero who personally delivered the same to the crime laboratory.
The testimony of Kagawad[s] Jerson Dazo and [Emiliano Lagco] [were] similarly dispensed with after the parties stipulated that: (1) during the conduct of the inventory, the seized items were shown to [them]; (2) [they] [were] not present during the buy-bust operation; and (3) [they have] no knowledge as to the source of the items subject matter of the case.
The version of the prosecution, through the testimony of the poseur-buyer PO3 [Guerrero], may be summarized as follows:
At about 7:30 o'clock in the evening of March 7, 2015, a confidential informant [CI] reported to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Force Group (SAID-SOTFG) of the Quezon City Police District-Station 5, the illegal drug trade activity of [accused-]appellant @ "Alex" at Labayane St., Brgy. North Fairview, Quezon City. Immediately thereafter, a buy-bust operation was planned to entrap [accused-appellant]. During the briefing, PO3 [Guerrero], who was designated as poseur-buyer, was given three (3) pieces of [P100.00] bill with marking "RG" on each bill to be used as buy-bust money. Through a phone call, the [CI] then notified [accused-]appellant of his intention to buy shabu. In turn, [accused-]appellant replied that he will be waiting between 8:00 [P.M.] to 10:00 [P.M.] at the designated location. cDTACE
At around 8:45 [P.M.] of the same day, the team proceeded to the target area on board a private vehicle. As they passed the area, the [CI] identified the man standing in front of Labayane Apartelle as [accused-]appellant. They parked the vehicle a few meters away therefrom. As PO3 Guerrero and the [CI] walked towards [accused-]appellant, the rest of the team strategically positioned themselves nearby. The [CI] introduced PO3 Guerrero as his friend who intends to purchase shabu. [Accused-]appellant asked PO3 Guerrero, "Magkano ba?" to which the latter replied, "Halagang [P]300" simultaneously giving to [accused-]appellant the [P]300 worth of buy-bust money. [Accused-]appellant then pulled out from the right pocket of his short pants one (1) plastic sachet of shabu. When [accused-]appellant was about to hand over the plastic sachet of shabu to PO3 Guerrero, [accused-]appellant suddenly shouted, "May mga pulis!" At that moment, PO3 Guerrero confiscated the plastic sachet of shabu from [accused-]appellant's right hand. In the subsequent body search, another plastic sachet of shabu was recovered in the front pocket of [accused-]appellant's short pants. Since the vicinity was already dark and to avoid a commotion, the team decided to conduct the marking and inventory of the seized evidence at the police station.
At the police station, PO3 Guerrero marked the plastic sachet of shabu confiscated from [accused-]appellant's right hand as "RG-RQ 3-7-15" and the other plastic sachet of shabu found in the pocket of [accused-]appellant's short pants as "RG1-RQ 3-7-15." The Inventory of Seized/Confiscated Item/Property was signed by Kagawad[s] Jerson M. Dazo and Eminiano Lagco who served as witnesses thereto. Thereafter, PO3 Guerrero turned over [accused-]appellant and the seized pieces of evidence to [SPO2 Quimson] for investigation.
A letter-request for laboratory examination was then sent to the Quezon City Police District Crime Laboratory Office (QCPDCLO) to determine the presence of any form of dangerous drugs in the seized illegal drugs. PO3 Guerrero personally delivered the letter-request and the seized items to the QCPDCLO which were received and recorded by [a certain] PO1 Zamora at 3:45 [A.M.] of May 8, 2015 as shown by the rubber-stamped delivery receipt thereon. At 3:50 [A.M.] of the same day, PO1 Zamora turned over the drug specimens to PSI [Bernardo] Roque for quantitative testing.
In Chemistry Report No[.] D-219-15 dated March 8, 2015, PSI Bernardo Roque found that the plastic sachet confiscated from [accused-]appellant's right hand marked as "RG-RQ 3-7-15" weighing zero point zero nine (0.09) gram as well as the other plastic sachet recovered from the front pocket of [accused-]appellant's short pants marked as "RG1-RQ 3-7-15" weighing zero point zero six (0.06) gram, both tested for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.
For the defense, [accused-]appellant was presented as the lone witness.
[Accused-]appellant denied the charges against him. At around 5 [P.M.] of March 7, 2015, while he, together with his live-in partner and children, was eating at a karinderya located at Sto. Niño St., Brgy. San Antonio, Quezon City, three (3) men who introduced themselves as police officers armed with guns, suddenly approached them. A gun was poked at him and he was ordered to go with them for verification. He was so shocked that he uttered, "Sir, ano pong kasalanan ko?" He was handcuffed then brought to the police station. Then, he was interviewed and subjected to a body frisk but they did not find anything. During the time that he was detained, the police officers demanded from him the amount of [P]15,000.00 in exchange for his freedom. Unable to produce the said amount, the charges of attempted sale and possession of dangerous drugs were pursued against him. 5
The Ruling of the RTC
On April 19, 2017, the RTC rendered a Decision 6 finding accused-appellant guilty of all the charges against him. The RTC gave full faith and credence to the candid, categorical and straightforward testimony of PO3 Guerrero, as the poseur-buyer. It held that the prosecution was able to show the unbroken chain of custody of the subject specimens, from the time of the seizure of the said specimens up to the time of their presentation and identification in court. Thus, there was compliance with the "procedural safeguards" prescribed by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. It also held that the bare denial of accused-appellant cannot prevail over the positive assertion of the poseur-buyer, absent any showing that the testimony was motivated by ill-will. The trial court disposed in this wise: cCHITA
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds RAFFY QUINTOS y Biarin GUILTY of the offenses charged. For Violation of Sec. 26, Art. II, RA 9165, in relation to Sec. 5 thereof, he shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a FINE of Php500,000.00. For Violation of Sec. 11 of the same law, he is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and a FINE of Php400,000.00. The accused shall be credited with the period of his preventive imprisonment.
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the subject specimens to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition and final disposal.
SO ORDERED. 7
Aggrieved, accused-appellant filed his Notice of Appeal, 8 which the RTC granted in an Order 9 dated May 3, 2017.
The Ruling of the CA
In its assailed Decision, 10 the CA affirmed the findings of the RTC that all the elements for the prosecution of offenses involving attempted sale of dangerous drugs under Section 26, in relation to Section 5 and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 has been established beyond reasonable doubt. The CA confirmed with the court a quo that there was no break in the chain of custody over the subject illegal drugs and that the integrity and the evidentiary value thereof was properly preserved. The CA explained the fact that no representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media were present during the inventory and marking of the seized items is of no moment, as the succession of events by evidence and the overall handling of the seized items by the police officers all show that the seized items were the same evidence subsequently identified and presented in court. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated April 19, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 218, Quezon City is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 11
Hence, this appeal. On March 11, 2019, the Court issued a Resolution 12 notifying the parties that they may submit their respective supplemental briefs. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it will no longer file its brief as it already discussed exhaustively the propriety of accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165. 13 In the same manner, accused-appellant also manifested that he will no longer file his supplemental brief considering that his Brief 14 had already exhaustively discussed his arguments and to avoid being repetitious. 15
Issues
Accused-appellant posits the following issues in his Appellant's Brief:
I.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE DOUBTFUL EXISTENCE OF THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION.
II.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF SECTION 26 (IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 5), ARTICLE II OF RA NO. 9165 DESPITE THE ABSENCE OF THE ELEMENT OF MEETING OF THE MINDS IN THE ALLEGED CONTRACT OF SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS. CScaDH
III.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS' NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROPER CUSTODY OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS UNDER SECTION 21, RA NO. 9165 AND FOR FAILURE TO PROVE THE DRUGS' INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY.
IV.
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE OFFENSES CHARGED DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 16
Arguments of the Accused-appellant
In his Brief, 17 accused-appellant explains that while the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, however, this presumption 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. 18 He further argues that the prosecution was not able to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. First, the existence and validity of the buy-bust operation is highly doubtful under the circumstances since there was no record that a pre-operational report was made by the buy-bust team or that the conduct of the buy-bust operation was coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 19Second, the element of sale of illegal drugs or the attempt thereof is absent. Based on the testimony of PO3 Guerrero, there was no meeting of the minds between him and accused-appellant, as the latter neither agreed to the offer made by PO Guerrero nor accepted his money. 20Third, the marking and inventory of the items allegedly seized from accused-appellant inside their office at Station 5, Quezon City, without the presence of any representative from the media or the National Prosecution Service, is a clear violation of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. In addition, there are apparent defects in the four (4) links in the chain of custody in the instant case. 21Fourth, the prosecution cannot seek refuge in the laboratory examination result since it merely affirmed the existence of the specimen. 22Fifth, the evidence custodian and other key persons who handled the alleged seized items were not presented in open court by the prosecution. 23Finally, the defense of alibi must not be looked with disfavor, as there are instances when an accused may really have no other defense but denial and alibi, which, if established to be true, may tilt the scales of justice in his favor, especially when the prosecution evidence is inherently weak. 24 TaDCEc
Arguments of the Prosecution
In its Brief, 25 the OSG counters that the guilt of herein accused-appellant has been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court correctly ruled that the prosecution's version of facts is more credible as compared to accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame-up, which can easily be concocted. 26 Moreover, police officers are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. In this case, according to the OSG, accused-appellant failed to show any ill motive or odious intent on the part of the police officers to impute serious crimes on him. 27 The findings of the trial court that the prosecution was able to establish that there was a legitimate buy-bust operation conducted against accused-appellant and that there was an unbroken link in the chain of custody of the seized drug in compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is adopted. 28 Consequently, as accused-appellant was validly arrested in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust operation, the search on his person was a valid warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest and not through a service of a search warrant. Thus, the physical inventory, marking, and photography was properly conducted at the precinct as it was more practicable under the circumstances, i.e., it was already dark in the area and to prevent any chaos. 29 In addition, the integrity of the seized drugs has been maintained, and that the drugs were immediately marked for proper identification, the absence of any of the required witnesses during the inventory should not be deemed fatal to the prosecution's case. 30 The OSG explains that the prosecution was able to establish the chain of custody of the confiscated sachets of shabu from accused-appellant, to wit: first, PO3 Guerrero seized the illegal drugs from [accused-appellant] and marked it upon arrival at the police station; second, PO3 Guerrero properly turned over the confiscated shabu to SPO2 Quimson, the investigating officer; third, PO3 Guerrero personally brought the seized items to the Crime Laboratory where it was received by PSI Roque; fourth, PSI Roque turned-over the subject drugs to Atty. Susan B. Bundang, [B]ranch [C]lerk of [C]ourt of RTC, Branch 218, Quezon City. 31 Finally, the prosecution was able to establish that accused-appellant violated Section 26, in relation to Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 as he attempted to sell to PO3 Guerrero in a buy-bust operation a sachet of shabu worth P300.00, but accused-appellant discovered that his customer was a police officer. Thus, accused-appellant shouted "[M]ay mga pulis" and then, ran away. 32 Likewise, all the elements for illegal possession of dangerous drugs were also established, to wit: (1) plastic sachets containing shabu were found from accused-appellant's possession; (2) he did not adduce evidence showing his legal authority to possess the shabu; (3) the fact that he had in pocket sachets of shabu shows that he freely and consciously possess the illegal drugs. 33
The Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
Accused-appellant was charged with Attempted Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, respectively defined and penalized under Section 26, in relation to Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The provisions read:
Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 26. Attempt or Conspiracy. — Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the same penalty prescribed for the commission of the same as provided under this Act:
xxx xxx xxx
(b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and transportation of any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical;
xxx xxx xxx
Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possesses any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxx xxx xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows: cDEHIC
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstacy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GIIB, and those similarly designated or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
To successfully prosecute the offense of sale of illegal drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165, the following elements must be present: (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 the payment therefor. 34
Section 26, Article II of RA 9165 allows for the punishment of Sale of Illegal Drugs in the attempted stage. A crime is attempted when the offender commences the commission of a felony directly by overt acts, and does not perform all the acts of execution which should produce the felony by reason of some cause or accident other than his spontaneous desistance. 35 In the crime of attempted sale of illegal drugs, the accused must have shown the intention to sell illegal drugs and have commenced the sale through performance of overt acts. 36
Meanwhile, in instances wherein the accused is charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements to warrant his conviction: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. In both instances, case law instructs that the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on the identity of the dangerous drugs, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 37
In cases of Illegal Sale and/or Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, 38 it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. Failure to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence of the prosecution insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal. 39
In People v. Lumaya, 40 the Court ruled:
In this regard, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the apprehending officers must follow when handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. Under the said section, prior to its amendment by RA 10640, the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, and the seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination. 41 (Emphasis and underscoring in the original) ISCDEA
The Court also clarified in People v. Miranda: 42
[U]nder varied field conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 may not always be possible. In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 — which is now crystallized into statutory law with the passage of RA 10640 — provides that the said inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 — under justifiable grounds — will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer of team. Tersely put, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165 and the IRR 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 justifiable ground for non-compliance; and(b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. In People v. Almorfe, the Court stressed that for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and [evidentiary] value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved. Also, in People v. De Guzman, 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. 43 (Emphases and underscoring in the original)
After a careful perusal of the records of the case, the Court finds that the apprehending officers deviated from the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting doubt in the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs from accused-appellant.
First, the records reveal that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the allegedly seized dangerous drugs from accused-appellant was conducted at the police station and not at the place where he was arrested. This fact was established during the trial in PO3 Guerrero's direct and cross-examination testimony, to wit:
FISCAL GONZALES:
What happened next after you arrested the suspect?
WITNESS:
We brought him to our office at station 5 and we had the items inventoried.
FISCAL GONZALES:
What did you inventory, Mr. Witness?
WITNESS:
The shabu we purchased, Sir. 44
xxx xxx xxx
FISCAL GONZALES:
Why did you conduct the inventory at the police station and not at the crime scene?
WITNESS:
Because it was already dark at the place and to prevent any chaos[,] we conducted the inventory at the precinct. EDCTIa
FISCAL GONZALES:
Mr. Witness, you testified earlier that the transaction took place at 8:30 in the evening, what were the lighting conditions at that time?
WITNESS:
Quite dark because there were many trees, Sir.
FISCAL GONZALES:
But was the closest source of light, Mr. Witness?
WITNESS:
In front of Labayane Apartelle, Sir.
FISCAL GONZALES:
And how far away was that?
WITNESS:
4 meters from the street, Sir. 45
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. AGRA:
You said, Police Officer, that you made the inventory only at the police station, correct?
WITNESS:
Yes, Ma'am. 46
xxx xxx xxx
ATTY. AGRA:
Am I correct that you did not execute a written explanation why you did not put the markings at the place where you allegedly recovered the two sachets?
WITNESS:
No, Ma'am. 47
When questioned by the trial court, PO3 Guerrero explained:
COURT:
Mr. Witness, sabi mo you made the markings at the police station because madilim?
WITNESS:
Opo, sa lugar po na yun madilim.
COURT:
Yun lang?
WITNESS:
Opo.
COURT:
That's the only reason you did not put markings at the scene of the crime?
WITNESS:
Saka po yung mga kasama nya po kasi nagtakbuhan at baka balikan po kami kaya tumakbo po ulit kami sa station.
COURT:
So at the time that you left there was no threat to you yet?
WITNESS:
There was, Your Honor. ADCIca
COURT:
May tao na?
WITNESS:
Opo kasi po kalsada po yun.
COURT:
May tao na umiikot sa inyo, yung sinasabi mong mga kasama nya?
WITNESS:
Malapit lang po samin dahil kalye dun.
COURT:
Did you expect that there will be nobody there?
WITNESS:
Meron po.
COURT:
Dahil kalye?
WITNESS:
Yes, Sir.
COURT:
So natural lang na may tao palagi doon?
WITNESS:
Yes, Sir. 48 (Emphasis supplied)
As can be gleaned from PO3 Guerrero's testimony, there was no justifiable ground to allow the deviation from the procedure under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and its IRR. PO3 Guerrero explained that since it was already dark in the place of arrest and that there was an imminent threat to their safety, they decided to conduct the inventory and photography at the police station. However, the existence of the alleged threat on the apprehending team's safety was unsubstantiated. Other than PO3 Guerrero's testimony of the alleged threat, the prosecution did not adduce any evidence to prove such existence of threat. Thus, such explanation does not fall within the justifiable grounds accepted by the Court.
Second, the inventory and photography of the seized items were made in the presence of two (2) elected public officials, i.e., Barangay Kagawads Dazo and Lagco, as evidenced by their signature on the Receipt of Property/Evidence Seized, and in the absence of representatives from either the National Prosecution Service or the media.
The law requires the presence of an elected public official, as well as representatives from the DOJ or the media to ensure that the chain of custody rule is observed and thus, remove any suspicion of tampering, switching, planting, or contamination of evidence which could considerably affect a case. However, minor deviations from the procedures of RA 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused from the crimes of which he or she was convicted. This is especially true when the lapses in procedure were "recognized and explained in terms of x x x justifiable grounds.'' 49 Here, the prosecution offered no reason why only the two (2) Barangay Kagawads were present during the inventory. In his testimony, PO3 Guerrero stated: ACTIHa
FISCAL GONZALES:
Who was present during the inventory, Mr. Witness?
WITNESS:
Kagawad Dazo and Lagco.
FISCAL GONZALES:
What proof do you have that they were present during the inventory?
WITNESS:
Through their signatures, Sir.
FISCAL GONZALES:
Where are the signatures in this document?
WITNESS:
Ito po, Sir. 50
xxx xxx xxx
In his cross-examination:
ATTY. AGRA:
You are not the one who turned over the sachets to the Police Investigator, Police Officer? TIEHDC
WITNESS:
I was the one, Ma'am.
ATTY. AGRA:
And only you and the investigator were present at the police station during that time, correct?
WITNESS:
We called up the two kagawad, Sir. (sic)
ATTY. AGRA:
How do you know that they are kagawad?
WITNESS:
Because in my time of service, I know that they are kagawad, Ma'am.
ATTY. AGRA:
But you never asked then to show their IDs, correct?
WITNESS:
No more, Ma'am.
ATTY. AGRA:
Am I correct that you did not execute a written explanation why you did not put the markings at the place where you allegedly recovered the two sachets?
WITNESS:
No. ma'am. 51
Generally, the absence of the required witnesses under the law does not per se render the seized items inadmissible. Non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justifiable grounds for non-compliance. 52
In the case at bar, it is unclear whether the apprehending officers extended any effort to secure the presence of the other necessary witnesses, a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media. The unavailability of such witnesses was not explained by PO3 Guerrero, as he merely stated that after the arrest of the accused-appellant, they called up the two (2) Barangay Kagawads to witness the inventory at the police station. There were no genuine and sufficient efforts on the part of the arresting officers to secure the presence of the other required witnesses. Thus, such non-compliance cannot be deemed justified.
From the foregoing, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the apprehending team's non-compliance with the rules laid down by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended and its IRR, thereby, compromising the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. Consequently, this warrants the acquittal of herein accused-appellant.
As a final note, the Court finds it fitting to echo the recurring pronouncement in recent jurisprudence on the subject matter:
The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions.
Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the right of the individual in the name of order. For indeed, order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. 53 ACcaET
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 25, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09487 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Raffy Quintos y Biarin is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Raffy Quintos y Biarin, unless he is being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 20-21. Notice of Appeal dated August 17, 2018.
2.Id. at 2-19. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with Associate Justices Myra V. Garcia-Fernandez and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 57-61. Rendered by Presiding Judge Luis Zenon Q. Maceren.
4. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
5.Rollo, pp. 3-7.
6. CA rollo, pp. 57-61.
7.Id. at 61.
8.Id. at 13-14.
9.Id. at 15.
10.Rollo, pp. 2-19.
11.Rollo, p. 116.
12.Id. at 25-26.
13.Id. at 30-31.
14. CA rollo, pp. 35-55.
15.Rollo, pp. 37-38.
16.Id.
17.Id. at 37-54.
18.Id. at 44.
19.Id. at 45.
20. See id. at 48-49.
21.Id. at 49-51.
22.Id. at 52.
23.Id.
24.Id. at 52-53.
25.Id. at 69-92.
26.Id. at 80-81.
27.Id. at 81-82.
28.Id. at 83-84.
29.Id. at 85.
30.Id. at 86.
31.Id. at 87-88.
32.Id. at 89.
33.Id. at 90.
34.People v. Tariga, G.R. No. 231923, November 16, 2020.
35.People v. Buniag, G.R. No. 217661, June 26, 2019.
36.People v. Laylo, 669 Phil. 111, 121 (2011).
37. See People v. Mama, G.R. No. 237204, October 1, 2018.
38. 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."
39. See Aranas v. People, G.R. No. 242315, July 3, 2019.
40. 827 Phil. 472 (2018).
41.Id. at 485.
42. G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018, 842 SCRA 42.
43.Id. at 54.
44. TSN, December 8, 2015, p. 8.
45.Id. at 10-11.
46.Id. at 15.
47.Id. at 16.
48.Id. at 16-17.
49.People v. Pakay, G.R. No. 238174, February 5, 2020.
50.Supra note 44, at 10.
51.Id. at 15-16.
52.People v. Paming, G.R. No. 241091, January 14, 2019.
53.People v. Lumaya, supra note 40, at 493.