SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243792. November 10, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROBERTO RAMOS y PEREZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243792 (People of the Philippines v. Roberto Ramos y Perez). — This is an appeal 1 by accused-appellant Roberto Ramos y Perez (Ramos) of the August 28, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01748, which affirmed with modifications the September 20, 2013 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Negros Occidental, Bacolod City, Branch 47, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5, 11, and 12 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Antecedents:
In three separate Informations, Ramos was charged with the said offenses as follows:
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-28312:
That on or about the 22nd day of August, 2005, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to sell, trade, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, deliver, give away to a police poseur buyer in a buy bust operation one (1) elongated heat-sealed transparent plastic packet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing 0.06 gram, in exchange for a price of Five Hundred (P500.00) Pesos [sic] buy bust money consist [sic] of one (1) Five Hundred peso bill with Serial No. TQ282744, in violation of the aforementioned law.
Act contrary to law. 4
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-28313:
That on or about the 22nd day of August, 2005, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drugs, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control two (2) elongated heat-sealed transparent plastic packet each containing methampethamine [sic] hydrochloride or shabu with a total weight of 0.19 gram in violation of the aforementioned law.
Act contrary to law. 5
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 05-28314:
That on or about the 22nd day of August, 2005, in the City of Bacolod, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the herein accused, not being authorized by law to possess equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) improvised tooter, fit or intended for smoking, consuming, ingesting, or introducing shabu, a dangerous drug, into the body, in violation of the aforementioned law.
Act contrary to law. 6
Version of the Prosecution:
The main witness, Police Officer II Ian S. Piano (PO2 Piano), testified that in the afternoon of August 22, 2005, a buy-bust operation was conducted against Ramos. 7 PO2 Piano acted as the poseur-buyer who, together with the informant, waited for Ramos in the target area while the rest of the apprehending team hid nearby. 8
According to PO2 Piano, when he and the informant spotted Ramos, they approached him and asked for shabu worth P500.00. 9 PO2 Piano personally handed Ramos the marked P500.00 bill. 10 In response, Ramos took out from his bag one elongated plastic sachet and handed it to PO2 Piano. 11 The latter then made the pre-arranged signal and informed Ramos that he was being arrested. 12 While Ramos tried to flee, the apprehending team caught up with him and proceeded with the arrest. 13
Immediately after the arrest, PO2 Piano conducted a body search and found other items: (1) two more elongated plastic sachets, (2) an improvised tooter, (3) a homemade revolver, and (4) the marked P500.00 bill. 14 PO2 Piano then informed Ramos of his rights and proceeded to mark the sachet he earlier purchased from the latter. 15
The apprehending team then brought Ramos to the barangay hall where the rest of the recovered items were marked. 16 This was witnessed by a barangay kagawad who signed a certification to that effect. 17 Thereafter, the apprehending team proceeded to the police station for recording and preparation of the request for laboratory examination. 18 The white crystalline substance in the sachets later tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, as attested to by the forensic chemical officer. 19
Version of the Defense:
Ramos denied that a buy-bust operation was conducted at all. He stated that while he was on his way to his father, he was stopped by police officers who pointed their guns at him. 20 While he admitted that the police officers indeed recovered an unlicensed firearm from his bag, he denied the existence of the plastic sachets and paraphernalia. 21
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
The trial court found Ramos guilty of the offenses charged. 22 It found inconsequential the apprehending team's non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 as it held that the identity and evidentiary value of the seized items were duly preserved and established by the prosecution. 23 It also upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty since Ramos did not impute any ill motive against the apprehending team. 24
The fallo of the trial court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding accused Roberto Ramos y Perez alias "Duncan" GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of: (a) Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 (Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs) in Criminal Case 05-28312; (b) Violation of Section 11, Article II of the same law (Possession of Dangerous Drugs) in Criminal Case 05-28313; and (c) Violation of Section 12, Article II of the same law (Possession of Equipment, Instrument, Apparatus and other Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs) in Criminal Case 05-28314, judgment is hereby rendered sentencing him to suffer: (1) Life Imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 05-28312; (2) an indeterminate prison term of Twelve (12) Years and One (1) day, as minimum, to Fifteen (15) years, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00 in Criminal Case No. 05-28313; and (3) an indeterminate prison term of Six (6) Months and One (1) Day, as minimum, to Three (3) Years, as maximum and to pay a fine of Php10,000.00, in Criminal Case No. 05-28314. He is also to bear the accessory penalty provided by law. Costs against accused.
The subject one elongated plastic sachet of shabu x x x; two elongated plastic sachets of shabu x x x, being dangerous drugs; and one improvised tooter x x x, being instrument or paraphernalia for dangerous drugs, are hereby confiscated and/or forfeited in favor of the government and to be forthwith delivered or turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) provincial office for immediate destruction or disposition in accordance with law.
The prompt commitment of the accused to the national penitentiary for service of sentence is hereby furthermore ordered.
SO ORDERED. 25
Thus, Ramos' appeal before the appellate court, with the following assignment of error:
THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE THE GUILT OF ACCUSED-APPELLANT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 26
Plaintiff-appellee likewise filed its Brief, raising the argument below:
NO REVERSIBLE ERROR WAS COMMITTED BY THE TRIAL COURT.27
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The appellate court affirmed Ramos' conviction. 28 It held that there was substantial compliance with the rule on chain of custody, 29 and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved by the apprehending team. 30
The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED, the Decision dated 20 September 2013 of the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, 6th Judicial Region, Branch 47, Bacolod City in Criminal Case Nos. 05-28312, 05-28313 and 05-28314, is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.31
Thus, this appeal.
Our Ruling
This Court grants the appeal.
In buy-bust operations, it is of utmost importance that the procedural safeguards in RA 9165 be strictly observed. This is in view of the high possibility of abuse in this type of operations. 32
Among the safeguards in RA 9165 are the requirements that the apprehending team immediately inventory and photograph the seized items after their confiscation, and that these be conducted in the presence of required witnesses:
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. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
1) The apprehending 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 persons 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[.] 33
These are mirrored in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165. 34
Here, it is undisputed that the apprehending team failed to comply with the above requirements.
First, they did not immediately mark all the items. PO2 Piano only marked the items recovered from Ramos' bag when they were already at the barangay hall, in comparison with the sachet he earlier bought from Ramos which he marked immediately after the arrest.
Second, the apprehending team did not take any photographs.
Third, they did not procure the necessary representatives from the media and the Department of Justice. They only secured the attendance of a barangay kagawad.
While it is true that non-compliance with these procedural safeguards may be excused in certain cases, 35 it must first be established that there is a justifiable ground for such non-compliance, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been properly preserved. 36
Here, the prosecution failed to acknowledge the apprehending team's non-compliance. Thus, it did not have any opportunity to allege or prove any justifiable ground therefor. And without any justifiable ground properly alleged and proved, reasonable doubt is cast on the guilt of the accused. For this reason, the Court is bound to acquit. 37
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The August 28, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR.-HC. No. 01748 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant ROBERTO RAMOS y PEREZ is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Further, the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 22-24.
2.Id. at 4-21. Penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Ingles and concurred in by Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Emily R. Aliño-Geluz.
3. CA rollo, pp. 171-178. Penned by Judge Therese Blanche A. Bolunia.
4. Records (Criminal Case No. 05-28312), p. 1.
5.Id. (Criminal Case No. 05-28313) at 1.
6.Id. (Criminal Case No. 05-28314) at 1.
7. TSN, July 13, 2010, p. 1.
8.Id. at 9.
9.Id. at 10.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 11.
13.Id.
14.Id. at 11-12.
15.Id. at 12.
16.Id. at 12-13, 16-17.
17.Id. at 13.
18.Id. at 17-18.
19. TSN, March 25, 2008, p. 8.
20. TSN, August 6, 2013, pp. 2-3.
21.Id. at 3-4.
22. CA rollo, p. 178.
23.Id. at 177.
24.Id. at 175.
25.Id. at 178.
26.Id. at 153-154.
27.Id. at 196.
28.Rollo, p. 21.
29.Id. at 18-20.
30.Id. at 20.
31.Id. at 21.
32. See People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 541 (2017).
33. While RA 9165 has been amended in 2014, this Court applied the original provisions of RA 9165 since Ramos was apprehended before the amendment, or in 2005.
34. Section 21 (a) of the IRR reads:
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. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(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[.]
35. Section 21 (a) of the IRR contains the following proviso:
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[.]
36.People v. Dumanjug, G.R. No. 235468, July 1, 2019, citing People v.Musor, G.R. No. 231843, November 7, 2018.
37. See People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1060 (2018).