THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252305. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JERALD RAMOS y MARIANO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 16, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 252305 (People of the Philippines v. Jerald Ramos y Mariano). — The Court resolves to NOTE the letter dated April 10, 2021 of CCInsp. Jeremy L. Argonza, Officer-in-Charge of the New Bilibid Prison, East Correctional Facility, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, confirming the confinement therein of accused-appellant since December 10, 2016.
This is an Appeal 1 from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 2 dated July 30, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10353 which upheld Jerald Ramos y Mariano's (accused-appellant) conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," in the Decision 3 dated November 4, 2016 rendered by Branch 53, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila in Criminal Case Nos. 12-292497 and 12-292498.
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 in two Informations 4 which read:
Criminal Case No. 12-292497 (Section 5 of RA 9165)
That on or about July 26, 2012, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale to a police officer/poseur buyer two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with marking and recorded net weights:
xxx xxx xxx.
or with a total net weight of ONE POINT NINE SIX EIGHT (1.968) grams of dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops, a dangerous drugs.
Contrary to law. 5
Criminal Case No. 12-292498 (Section 11 of RA 9165)
That on or about July 26, 2012, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, without being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control nine (9) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings and recorded net weights:
xxx xxx xxx.
or with a total net weight of NINE (9) grams of dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 6
Version of the Prosecution
On July 25, 2012, pursuant to a report received by the Manila Anti-Drug Abuse Council (Manila-ADAC) about the illegal drug activities of husband and wife @ Gerald and @ Jess Ramos along the stretch of Tayuman Street, Manila, or from Juan Luna Street, Tondo to Rizal Avenue, Sta. Cruz, Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Roberto Domingo, Chief of the Manila Police District-District Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Group (MPD-DAID-SOTG) ordered the conduct of background inquiries. Around 8:00 PM of that same day, an informant from Police Station 7 (PS-7) confirmed that accused-appellant Jerald Ramos y Mariano @ Jerald, with a woman companion, was selling marijuana while plying a public utility jeepney (PUJ) with Plate Number PXP-151 along the streets of Pritil-Velasquez-Herbosa-P. Guevarra.
Thereupon, a buy-bust team was formed by the MPD-DAID-SOTG, led by Police Inspector (P/Insp.) Adelaido Araneta. x x x.
After the briefing, the buy-bust team and the informant left the MPD-DAID-SOTG on board the designated vehicle, a Toyota Revo with Plate No. SGH-766. They reached the Ministop branch along Tayuman Street near SM San Lazaro around 12:20 AM of July 26, 2012. While PO3 Aurelio Neral III and the informant were walking along Tayuman Street, the latter spotted accused-appellant and pointed him to PO3 Aurelio Neral III as the driver of the PUJ with Plate Number PXP-151. PO3 Aurelio Neral III, pretending to be a jeepney barker, approached accused-appellant and uttered to the latter, "Dalawa lang pare, isang daang piso lang," while handing him a P100.00. Accused-appellant received the money and placed the same inside his money box. Then, he slightly pulled from under his right thigh a white plastic bag, extracted therefrom two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic tea-bags containing suspected dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops, and handed them to PO3 Aurelio Neral III. PO3 Aurelio Neral III pocketed the two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic tea-bags he bought from accused-appellant. As agreed upon during the briefing, PO3 Aurelio Neral III boarded the PUJ, sat beside accused-appellant and informed the latter that he would alight at the corner of Severino Reyes Street.
The members of the buy-bust team who stationed themselves to observe the sale, crossed Rizal Avenue towards Jollibee Tayuman Branch and radioed PO3 Alfredo Castro who was driving the buy-bust team's designated vehicle. Around 12:45 AM of the same day, July 26, 2012, the PUJ was stopped at Tayuman Street, between the comers of Tomas Mapua and Severino Reyes Streets.
After the buy-bust team introduced themselves to the passengers as police officers, PO2 Rodel Maligon informed them of the police operation. PO3 Aurelio Neral III alighted from the PUJ and withdrew from his pocket the two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic tea-bags he bought from accused-appellant. He also informed PO2 Rodel Maligon that the P100.00 buy-bust money with serial number PE595393 was still in the possession of accused-appellant, who then handed the same to PO3 Aurelio Neral III. Thereafter, PO3 Aurelio Neral III, assisted by PO2 Rodel Maligon, retrieved the white plastic bag under accused-appellant's right thigh. When inspected, the white plastic bag contained nine (9) heat-sealed transparent plastic tea-bags containing suspected dried marijuana leaves and fruiting tops.
PO3 Aurelio Neral III marked the two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic tea-bags he bought from accused-appellant with "N-1" and "N-2." While PO3 Aurelio Neral III was informing accused-appellant of his violation and constitutional rights, PO2 Rodel Maligon marked the white plastic bag recovered from accused-appellant and the nine (9) heat-sealed transparent plastic tea-bags it contained, with "M-10" and "M-1" to "M-9," respectively. The marking and inventory-taking were witnessed by Kagawad Trinidad Conchico of a nearby Barangay 353, who responded to the invitation of the buy-bust team leader to witness the same. The marking was also witnessed by a passenger of the PUJ, and a certain Jessica Bayobo y Blasco who arrived during the marking and introduced herself as accused-appellant's wife. The buy-bust team released to Jessica Bayobo the P1,070.00 found inside accused-appellant's money box.
The buy-bust team, together with Kagawad Trinidad Conchico, brought accused-appellant, the marked items and the buy-bust money to the Office of Barangay 353. At the barangay office, Kagawad Trinidad Conchico and Chairperson Angelina Gorospe, who also photographed the marked items and the buy-bust money, signed the inventory. Thereafter, the buy-bust team proceeded to the Ospital ng Maynila for the physical examination of accused-appellant. After examination, the hospital certified that accused-appellant had "no external signs of physical injuries." PO3 Aurelio Neral III had custody of the buy-bust money and the items marked by him and PO2 Rodel Maligon during their travel to Barangay 353, the Ospital ng Maynila, and the MPD-DAID-SOTG.
Subsequently, accused-appellant, the buy-bust money and the marked items were brought to the MPD-DAID-SOTG. PO3 Aurelio Neral III turned them over to police investigator PO3 Fred Martinez, who then prepared the joint affidavit of apprehension/poseur buyer, the booking & information sheet, the inquest referral, the spot report and the request for laboratory examination.
PO3 Aurelio Neral III brought to the Manila Police District Crime Laboratory Office (MPDCLO) the (i) two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic tea-bags with markings "N-1" and "N-2"; (ii) one (1) white plastic bag with marking "M-10," containing nine (9) heat-sealed transparent plastic tea-bags with markings "M-1", "M-2", "M-3", "M-4", "M-5", "M-6", "M-7", "M-8" and "M-9"; and (iii) request for laboratory examination, which were all received by PO2 J. Rodriguez around 2:50 AM.
Around 2:55 AM of the same day, PCI Erickson Calabocal received the request for laboratory examination and the accompanying two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic tea-bags, as earlier marked, and one (1) white plastic bag containing nine (9) heat-sealed transparent plastic tea-bags, as earlier marked. He conducted laboratory examination on the items and found the same positive for the presence of marijuana, a dangerous drug. After the laboratory examination, PCI Erickson Calabocal placed the specimens inside a brown envelope, which he marked with the control number and date of examination — "D-582-11 26 July 2012" — his initial and his signature. After sealing the brown envelope, he turned it over for safekeeping to the evidence custodian of the MPDCLO. Upon order of the trial court, PCI Erickson Calabocal retrieved the sealed brown envelope from the evidence custodian of the MPDCLO and, together with the request for laboratory examination and Chemistry Report No. D582-11, submitted the same with sealed intact to the prosecutor assigned with the trial court. 7
Version of the Defense
x x x Allegedly, on July 25, 2012, [accused-appellant] was driving the PUJ, accompanied by his live-in partner and their two (2) children, along Tayuman comer Severino Reyes Streets near the Tayuman-Land Transportation Office, when his way was blocked by armed men in civilian attire who uttered, "Do not run otherwise we are going to shoot you." Then, the armed men instructed all the passengers to alight from the PUJ, including accused-appellant's live-in partner and their two (2) children. The armed men started searching the PUJ, but they did not find anything. Subsequently, accused-appellant was ordered to drive the PUJ to the Manila Barangay Bureau, located near the LRT Central Terminal Station, where he was forced to admit that he was selling illegal drugs. As accused-appellant refused to admit the charges against him, the armed men ordered him to drive the PUJ back to Tayuman Street. Upon arrival in the middle of Tayuman Street, accused-appellant was instructed to stop the PUJ and alight therefrom, while the armed men sought an elected public official in a nearby barangay. As accused-appellant was held at a distance from the PUJ, he did not know what transpired upon the arrival of the responding elected public official. After a short while, accused-appellant was brought to the Barangay Hall at Severino Reyes Street and instructed to stay in a corner, while the armed men and the other barangay officials went inside a room. 8
Ruling of the RTC
In the Decision 9 dated November 4, 2016, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. 10
The RTC likewise found accused-appellant guilty of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fifteen (15) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00. 11
Ruling of the CA
In the Decision 12 dated July 30, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision. 13 It held that all the elements of the offenses charged were proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution 14 and that the chain of custody of the seized items was established. 15
Issue
The issue for the Court's resolution is whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellants' conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment; 16 whereas, the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: (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. 17
For a successful prosecution of the offenses of Illegal Sale and/or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, not only is the prosecution bound to establish the above elements, it is equally essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty. 18 Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 19
Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165, states:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs. Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. —
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: 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, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items;
The above provision requires that the physical inventory and photographing be done not only in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, but also before a representative from the media, a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official. 20 The three witnesses were required prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640. 21 As the offenses here were committed on July 26, 2012, the three-witness rule applies in this case.
Generally, there must be strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure. 22 However, this may not always be the case. Thus, it has been held that the inventory and photographing 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 or team. 23 However, for this saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses and show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved. 24
With respect to the three-witness rule, non-compliance therewith may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, albeit the latter failed to appear. 25 In People v. Santos, 26 the Court held that mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.
In this case, there was a deviation from the three-witness requirement under RA 9165 as the conduct of inventory and photographing was witnessed only by elective public officials. There were no representatives from the media and the DOJ. Notably, the Inventory of Receipt Evidence was signed only by Barangay Chairman Angelica H. Gorospe and Barangay Kagawad Trinidad Conchico. 27
Nothing in the record shows that the police officers attempted to contact the other required witnesses or exerted genuine efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses. The prosecution did not even bother to explain this deviation.
To highlight the importance of complying with the three-witness rule under RA 9165, the Court held in People v. Sendad: 28
Anent the required witnesses rule, 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 justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. 29
The procedural lapses committed by the police officers put into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from accused-appellant.
In view of the foregoing, the Court is constrained to rule that the integrity and evidentiary value of the items purportedly seized from accused-appellant, which constitute the corpus delicti of the offenses charged, have been compromised. Hence, his conviction must be overturned.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED, The Court of Appeals Decision dated July 30, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 10353 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Jerald Ramos y Mariano is ACQUITTED of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Jerald Ramos y Mariano, 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 immediately. aScITE
SO ORDERED." (HERNANDO, J., on official leave).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 32-33.
2.Id. at 3-31; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of the Court) and German Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 49-56; penned by Judge Reynaldo A. Alhambra.
4.Id. at 49-50.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 50.
7.Rollo, pp. 4-8.
8.Id. at 8-9.
9. CA rollo, pp. 49-56.
10.Id. at 55.
11.Id.
12.Rollo, pp. 3-31.
13.Id. at 30.
14.Id. at 20.
15.Id. at 27.
16.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
17.Id.
18. See People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
19. See People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018). See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014) and People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 460 (2015).
20.People v. Maranan, G.R. No. 242823 (Notice), June 22, 2020.
21. Entitled "An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,'" approved on July 15, 2014, and became effective on August 7, 2014.
22.People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
23.People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 588 (2018).
24.Id.
25.People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
26.People v. Santos, supra note 17.
27. CA rollo, p. 55.
28.Supra note 22.
29.Id.