FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 212807. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. REYNALDO RAMOS y SANTIAGO @ BUMBAY and EDGARDO ELCARTE y BALOTE @ EDGAR, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 212807 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. REYNALDO RAMOS y SANTIAGO @ BUMBAY and EDGARDO ELCARTE y BALOTE @ EDGAR, accused-appellants). — Before this Court is an Appeal filed by accused-appellants Reynaldo Ramos y Santiago @ Bumbay (Ramos) and Edgardo Elcarte y Balote @ Edgar (Elcarte) from the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05284 dated March 8, 2013. The assailed Decision dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Decision 2 dated August 22, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 63 in Criminal Case Nos. 08-191 to 193 finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, as amended.
This case stemmed from three Informations 3 filed before the RTC charging accused-appellants of the crimes of illegal possession and illegal sale of dangerous drugs, allegedly committed as follows:
Criminal Case No. 08-191
That on or about the 23rd of January, 2008, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without the necessary license or prescription and without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away One (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu) weighing zero point zero five (0.05) gram, a dangerous drug, in consideration of P500.00.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Ramos and Elcarte were likewise individually charged in two separate Informations, which successively read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 08-192
That on or about the 23rd of January, 2008, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess and/or use dangerous drugs and without any license or proper prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug, weighing zero point zero four (0.04) gram, zero point zero six (0.06) gram, zero point zero five (0.05) gram, zero point ten (0.10) gram, and zero point zero six (0.06) gram with a total weight of zero point thirty one (0.31) gram in violation of the aforesaid law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Criminal Case No. 08-193
That on or about the 23rd of January, 2008, in the City of Makati, Metro Manila, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess and/or use dangerous drugs and without any license or proper prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), a dangerous drug, weighing zero point nineteen (0.19) gram in violation of the aforesaid law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
The evidence for the prosecution tend to establish that on January 23, 2008, a confidential informant (CI) went to the office of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operations Task Force (SAID-SOTF) of the Makati Police Station and reported the illegal drug activities of a certain "Bumbay" and "Edgar," later identified as herein accused-appellants. Upon verification with the Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC), "Bumbay" and "Edgar" were confirmed to be included in the watchlist of Barangay Rizal, Makati City as "Pusher/User." 7
On January 24, 2008, Police Senior Inspector Joefel F. Siason (PSI Siason) of the SAID-SOTF convened a buy-bust team, in which MADAC member Norman Bilason (Bilason) was designated as the poseur-buyer while Police Officer 2 Victoriano Cruz, Jr. (PO2 Cruz) was assigned as the immediate back-up. Likewise, it was determined that Bilason would light a cigarette as a signal that he had completed the purchase. PSI Siason gave PO2 Cruz a marked P500.00 bill to use in the transaction. After the SAID-SOTF coordinated with the PDEA, the buy-bust team proceeded to the designated place. Upon arrival, Bilason and the CI alighted from the vehicle, walked toward the target area, and positioned themselves in a sari-sari store. PO2 Cruz on the other hand, was 10 to 15 meters away. 8
Once the accused-appellants were in sight, the CI whispered to Bilason identifying them as the target. Then, the CI called the accused-appellants and introduced them to Bilason. Bilason told Ramos that he wanted to buy P500.00 worth of shabu. Ramos, in turn, instructed Elcarte to give him the shabu which he has in custody to Bilason. Elcarte handed Bilason one plastic sachet while Ramos took the marked P500.00 bill. Bilason performed the pre-arranged signal and proceeded to arrest Ramos while Elcarte attempted to escape. However, PO2 Cruz rushed to the scene and apprehended Elcarte. 9
Bilason searched the body of Ramos and recovered five plastic sachets of suspected shabu and the buy-bust money. PO2 Cruz ordered Elcarte to empty his pockets which yielded four plastic sachets of suspected shabu. Bilason then marked the sachets retrieved with "NORMAN" and prepared the inventory of the seized items. 10
Thereafter, they proceeded to the barangay hall of Rizal, Makati City and presented to Barangay Captain Hilario Lorico (Brgy. Capt. Lorico) the accused-appellants, the items seized from them, and the Inventory receipt. Brgy. Capt. Lorico signed the inventory receipt in the presence of the accused-appellants. Subsequently, the accused-appellants and the seized items were brought to the SAID-SOTF Office. The items were turned over to PO1 Michelle Gimena (PO1 Gimena) who prepared the request for laboratory examination. The accused-appellants were brought to be examined at Ospital ng Makati. 11
On the same day or on January 24, 2008, PO1 Gimena brought the seized items to the PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Crame, Quezon City. Based on Chemistry Report No. D-20-08 dated January 24, 2008 issued by Forensic Chemical Officer Sandra Decena Go, the items tested positive for methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 12
The accused-appellants testified in their defense.
Ramos denied the allegations against him. He narrated that on January 24, 2008 at 11:00 a.m., he was on board a motorcycle with a certain "Jeng-Jeng" in order to buy motorcycle parts. While at the corner of Milkweed and Blubus streets, a green van suddenly blocked their path. Then, six armed men, who Ramos recognized to be police officers, alighted the van and frisked him and his companion. Afterwards, the police brought them to the SAID-SOTF Office. 13
Elcarte on the other hand, claimed that on the date of the incident, at around 12:30 p.m., he was at his sister-Diosdada Ochia's house at Block 137, Mockingbird Street, Barangay Rizal, Makati City, when two armed men appeared through the door and invited him to step outside. The men asked Elcarte where the person they were chasing went; when Elcarte replied he did not know, the men frisked him, confiscated his personal belongings, and handcuffed him. The men then boarded Elcarte into their vehicle and brought him to SAID-SOTF office. 14
On August 22, 2011, the RTC rendered its Decision 15 finding the accused-appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the Illegal Possession and Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, accused Reynaldo S. Ramos and accused Edgardo B. Elcarte are both FOUND GUILTY, and are hereby each sentenced to suffer:
In Criminal Case No. 08-191 (Sale of Shabu), life imprisonment and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00).
In addition, accused Ramos is hereby sentenced to suffer:
In Criminal Case No. 08-192 (Possession of Shabu), imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and to pay a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (Php300,000.00).
Likewise, accused Elcarte is hereby sentenced to suffer:
In Criminal Case No. 08-193 (Possession of Shabu), imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and to pay a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (Php300,000.00).
The subject shabu is forfeited in favor of the government and ordered turned over to the PDEA for disposition pursuant to law.
SO ORDERED. 16
In convicting the accused-appellants, the RTC focused heavily on the fact that denial is inherently a weak defense. It ruled that no evidence was adduced to prove that the buy-bust operation was fabricated. 17
The accused-appellants appealed to the CA, which rendered the herein assailed Decision, 18viz.:
WHEREFORE, the trial court's Decision dated August 22, 2011 is affirmed.
SO ORDERED. 19
In affirming the conviction, the CA held that the evidence offered by the prosecution, particularly, the testimony of Bilason, established the elements of the offenses charged. In the absence of proof of improper motive on the part of members of the buy-bust team, the CA held that the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties prevails. 20
With respect to non-compliance with Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 and its corresponding provision under the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), the CA held that the preparation of the inventory immediately after arrest and seizure, and the subsequent signing of such document by Brgy. Capt. Lorico constitute substantial compliance of the rule. 21
Thus, this appeal.
Adopting the Brief that they filed before the CA, 22 the accused-appellants contend in the main that they should be acquitted on account of the failure by the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They argue that there are substantial gaps in the chain of custody that raise grave doubts on the authenticity of the prohibited substance presented in court. 23
The appeal is meritorious.
In order to sustain conviction for the sale of illegal drugs under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be established beyond reasonable doubt: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place, and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 24
On the other hand, for a successful prosecution of illegal possession of a dangerous drugs it must be shown that:
(1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. Similarly, in this case, the evidence of the corpus delicti must be established beyond reasonable doubt. 25
Clearly, in both instances, the element of corpus delicti must be proven. Corpus delicti is established by showing compliance with the requirements for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia, otherwise known as the chain of custody. As set forth under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 the following must be complied with, viz.:
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 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; (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Section 21 (a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 supplement the foregoing provision. It specifies the proper procedure to be observed and the effect of non-compliance therewith, viz.:
xxx xxx xxx
(a) The apprehending office/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;
xxx xxx xxx
It is settled that the foregoing chain of custody requirements must be faithfully complied with as it goes into the identity of the integrity of the corpus delicti. 26
In the case at bar, the accused-appellants were arrested in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation. Plastic sachets containing dangerous drugs were seized at the point of simulated sale and subsequent frisking. While at the scene, Bilason, who acted as the poseur buyer, marked the seized items and prepared the inventory in the presence of the accused-appellants and the members of the buy-bust team. Then, the accused-appellants and the seized items were brought to the barangay. Therein, they were presented to Brgy. Capt. Lorico who then signed the inventory.
From the foregoing, it is clear that the apprehending officers committed procedural lapses that justify the accused-appellants' acquittal. In particular, there was no third person present at the time of confiscation and seizure, as well as during marking and inventory. Likewise, it was not shown when the items were photographed. No justification was offered by the apprehending officers for such procedural deviations.
In recent case of People v. Que, 27 the Court emphasized and reiterated that "[t]he presence of third persons is imperative, not only during the physical inventory and taking of pictures, but also during the actual seizure of items" 28 to ensure the possibility of "switching, planting, or contamination." 29 In the case at bar, no third person was present during the entire process. The seized items and the inventory were presented only to the barangay captain after the fact. Neither was there any mention whether representatives from the Department of Justice and the media were ever informed and invited to witness the operation but were unable to do so. The Court sees no obstacle on the part of the police operatives to obtain the required representatives as a considerable number of hours has passed from the time they received the information and when they planned the operation.
The importance of observing the chain of custody requirements is amplified by the miniscule amount of shabu obtained from the accused-appellants; as stated in the Informations and the Chemistry Report, the total weight of the drugs seized is only 0.55 grams. 30 While the miniscule amount in this case is not per se a badge of innocence on the part of the accused-appellants, the same nonetheless impresses upon the Court to exert extreme caution in determining his guilt. Such that, it must be rigorous in ensuring that the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 are strictly complied with. 31
The observance of the chain of custody requirements is further highlighted by the significant variance in the amounts stated in the Information and the Chemistry Report with that stated in the Spot Report executed by the SAID-SOFT. In the Spot report it is indicated that the items seized from Ramos weigh 2.8 grams; whereas, the Information and Chemistry report state that 0.36 grams of substance were obtained. 32 Even granting that the amount stated in the spot report is merely an estimate, the difference is too great to be overlooked. It lends serious doubts on the integrity of the corpus delicti.
What is more, the prosecution also failed to make a specific allegation as to the person who had custody of the seized items after the inventory was signed by Brgy. Capt. Lorico, while on transport to the crime laboratory for examination, and the person who handed the same to PO1 Michelle Gimena. 33 Under these circumstances, failure to observe these procedural requirements renders the seized items more susceptible to substitution, planting, or contamination, the very evils R.A. No. 9165 seeks to prevent. This cast reasonable doubt that the accused-appellants committed the offense charged.
While the accused-appellants have only offered the defense of denial and frame-up, still, it is fundamental principle in every criminal prosecution that the burden rests upon the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In doing so, "[t]he prosecution's case must rise on its own merits, not merely on relative strength as against of the defense." 34 Should the prosecution fail to discharge this burden, as in the case at bar, acquittal must follow.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 8, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05284, which, in turn, affirmed the Decision dated August 22, 2011 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati City, Branch 63 in Criminal Case Nos. 08-191 to 193, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accused-appellants Reynaldo Ramos y Santiago @ Bumbay and Edgardo Elcarte y Balote @ Edgar are ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to: (a) cause the immediate release of the said accused-appellants unless they are being lawfully held for another cause; and (b) inform this Court of the date of their release, or the reason for their continued confinement as the case may be, within five (5) days from notice.
Copies of this Resolution must be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-25; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas-Peralta, with Associate Justices Francisco P. Acosta and Angelita A. Gacutan, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 24-27; rendered by Presiding Judge Tranquil P. Salvador, Jr.
3.Id. at 10-14.
4.Id. at 12.
5.Id. at 10.
6.Id. at 14.
7.Rollo, pp. 2-3.
8.Id. at 3-4.
9.Id. at 4.
10.Id. at 4-5.
11.Id. at 5.
12.Id.
13.Id., CA rollo, p. 25.
14.Id.
15. CA rollo, pp. 24-27.
16.Id. at 27.
17.Id. at 26-27.
18.Rollo, pp. 2-25.
19.Id. at 25.
20.Id. at 11-19.
21.Id. at 22-23.
22.Id. at 45-47.
23. CA rollo, pp. 65-66.
24.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 893 (2018), citing People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 236 (2010).
25.Id.
26.Id. at 896, citing People v. Morales, supra note 24 at 236 and People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476, 495 (2012).
27.Id.
28.Id. at 905-906.
29.Id., citing People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
30. CA rollo, pp. 10, 12, 14, 90, 99.
31.Supra note 24, citing Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 477 (2016).
32. CA rollo, p. 134.
33.Rollo pp. 21-22.
34.Daayata, et al. v. People, 807 Phil. 102, 104 (2017).