FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 216732. July 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ALDEN REMOLLO y CANO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 6, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 216732 (People of the Philippines v. Alden Remollo y Cano). — This is a Motion for Reconsideration from the Resolution dated August 14, 2019 of the Court dismissing the appeal of accused-appellant Alden Remollo y Cano (Remollo) for failure to sufficiently show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error in its Decision 1 dated July 31, 2014 in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 01358 to warrant the exercise of the Court's discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Facts of the Case
At around 4:00 p.m. of August 14, 2008, Police Officer 3 Liberato Faelogo (PO3 Faelogo) and Special Police Officer 1 Dario Paquera (SPO1 Paquera) were on duty at the Intelligence Section of the Dumaguete City Police Station. A confidential informant then approached PO3 Faelogo and informed the latter about illegal drug activities in the vicinity of Looc Public Market in Barangay Looc, Dumaguete City. PO3 Faelogo then coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) about such information. A small number of police officers, namely PO3 Faelogo, SPO1 Paquera and Police Officer 2 Elmer Langcoyan (PO2 Langcoyan) were assigned to conduct a buy-bust operation at the reported location. 2
At the briefing of the team of police officers, it was agreed that the confidential informant shall act as the poseur-buyer. The rest of the police officers will be on the look-out at a nearby location ready to arrest the illegal drug seller upon completion of the transaction. PO3 Faelogo handed the marked P500.00 to the confidential informant. The confidential informant advised that illegal drug activities at the reported area usually takes place at around midnight. For this reason, the buy-bust team, including the confidential informant, waited at the police station. 3
On or about midnight of August 14, 2008, PO3 Faelogo, SPO1 Paquera and PO2 Langcoyan, onboard their respective motorcycles, headed to the Looc Public Market. The confidential informant was onboard the motorcycle with PO3 Faelogo. The officers parked their motorcycles at a distance from the Looc Public Market. They then, together with the confidential informant, headed on foot to their hide-out location which was a narrow pathway beside a house. The hide-out location was approximately 10 meters away from the public market, without lights and faintly illuminated by the lights from the public market. The confidential informant then proceeded inside the public market. Shortly thereafter, the confidential informant went to the hide-out location to advise the officers that the illegal drug seller will arrive in five minutes. The confidential informant again went inside the public market and later, went out the same, this time, accompanied by accused-appellant Remollo. 4 CAIHTE
The confidential informant and Remollo stood about one meter away from the police officers' hide-out location. The police officers overheard their conversation. Remollo asked the confidential informant, "Pilay imoha?" ("How much is yours?"). 5 To which the confidential informant replied, "Balig kinye." ("Worth 500"). 6 The confidential informant was holding a flashlight during the entire incident. The police officers saw Remollo hand to the confidential informant one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance in exchange for P500.00. Upon seeing the exchange, SPO1 Paquera rushed from the hide-out to get hold of Remollo, and informed the latter that he is a police officer. Remollo tried to resist arrest and to escape but PO3 Faelogo and PO2 Langcoyan immediately followed to the crime scene to assist the arrest and handcuffing of accused-appellant. PO3 Faelogo conducted a body search and retrieved the P500.00 marked money from the front pocket of Remollo's pants. Meanwhile, SPO1 Paquera took custody of the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet from the confidential informant. SPO1 Paquera recognized Remollo from a previous arrest for theft and inquired the latter about his identity. After confirming Remollo's identity, SPO1 Paquera then placed the markings "ACR 08-15-08" on the seized item. Thereafter, the officers transported Remollo and the seized items to the Dumaguete City Police Station. 7
It was already around 1:00 a.m. of August 15, 2008, when the officers arrived at the police station. SPO1 Paquera then called for the presence of the insulating witnesses for the inventory-taking and photographing of the seized items. However, he did not receive any response. This being so, SPO1 Paquera placed the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet in his office desk drawer and locked it. The officers decided to conduct the rest of the processing during the regular office hours. 8
At 8:00 a.m. of August 15, 2008, SPO1 Paquera unlocked his office desk drawer to retrieve the heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet. The inventory-taking and photographing of the seized items were conducted at the PDEA office which was a separate building from the Intelligence Section, but still within the same compound of the Dumaguete City Police Station. 9 PO3 Faelogo prepared the inventory in the presence of accused-appellant Remollo, the media representative, Neil Rio, the representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), Anthony Benlot, and the local elected official, Barangay Kagawad Merlindo Tamayo. SPO1 Paquera took photographs of the inventory-taking. 10
After the preparation of the letter request 11 for the qualitative and quantitative examination of the heat-sealed plastic sachet, SPO1 Paquera brought the letter and seized item to the forensic laboratory, which was received by PO1 Michelle Cañete. 12 The parties to the case agreed to stipulate that PO1 Michelle Cañete then gave the seized item to forensic chemist Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (PCI Llena). The parties also stipulated that PCI Llena conducted the laboratory tests on the illegal drugs. 13 She prepared Report No. D-119-08 14 which stated that the seized item with the markings "ACR 08-15-08" tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, weighing 0.11 grams.
Thereafter, Remollo was indicted before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Branch 30 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The Information reads:
The undersigned Prosecutor upon the complaint of PO3 Liberato Faelogo, accuses ALDEN REMOLLO y CANO for VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II of R.A. 9165 (COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002), committed as follows:
That on or about the 15th day of August 2008, in the city of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of the Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur buyer one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.11 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called "shabu," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Sec. 5, Art. 11 of R.A. 9165. 15
Accused-appellant Remollo waived his right to present evidence. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On May 31, 2011, the RTC rendered its Decision 17 finding Remollo guilty for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The RTC held that all elements for the crime are present. The commission of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs requires merely the consummation of the selling transaction, which happens the moment the buyer received the drug from the seller. Based on the testimonies of the police officers, Remollo was positively identified as the seller of illegal drugs. The transaction was personally witnessed by the officers and supported by the fact that the P500.00 marked money was retrieved from Remollo. Accordingly, the officers arrested Remollo in flagrante delicto. 18
While the confidential informant, who acted as poseur-buyer, was not presented as a witness, the RTC held that the testimony of this witness is not indispensable as such would only corroborate the testimonies of the police officers. Furthermore, the RTC held that the matter of presentation of a witness is an exclusive prerogative of the prosecution. Non-presentation of a corroborative witness does not constitute suppression of evidence so long as the prosecution meets the quantum of proof necessary to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 19
Anent the issue on disposition and preservation of the illegal drugs, the RTC ruled that the integrity of the seized item had been properly preserved. SPO1 Paquera immediately placed the markings "ACR 08-15-08" on the seized item at the crime scene. An inventory was taken in the presence of the accused and insulating witnesses, which was also photographed. The same seizing officer transported the seized illegal drugs to the forensic laboratory. The seized item with the markings "ACR 08-15-08" tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride after the conduct of the qualitative and quantitative examination. The RTC held that the prosecution has sufficiently proven an unbroken chain of custody because the dangerous drugs purchased from Remollo was the same one examined in the criminal laboratory. The integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs had not been compromised. 20 DETACa
The RTC gave credence to the testimonies of the police officers. The presumption that an officer regularly performed his duties is satisfactory if uncontradicted. Remollo should have presented evidence to contradict the prosecution's case. Here, the RTC found that the presumption of Remollo's innocence had been overturned by the prosecution's evidence. The presumption of innocence of an accused, while constitutional, is not conclusive. The RTC sentenced Remollo a penalty of life imprisonment and a fine amounting to P500,000.00. 21
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the CA affirmed 22 the Decision of the RTC finding all elements to the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs present. The CA held that the testimonies of the police officers were consistent in the material factual respects and physical evidence. The RTC's appreciation of the prosecution witnesses' testimonies and other evidence presented deserve respect. Furthermore, the CA held that the police officers substantially complied with the provisions of Section 21 of R.A. 9165 or the rules on seizure and custody of dangerous drugs and or paraphernalia. The police officers' failure to immediately conduct the inventory-taking and photographing did not affect the prosecution's case. The CA agreed with the RTC that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs were preserved. Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 need not be followed with pedantic rigor. In any case, the seized item was eventually inventoried and photographed hours after Remollo's arrest. The CA held that Remollo failed to substantiate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item was mishandled by the police officers. 23
Finally, the CA was unconvinced of Remollo's contentions that it was unnatural for the police officers to conduct a buy-bust operation without prior identification of the perpetrator and lack of a pre-operation report. The CA held that the conduct of a buy-bust operation is legally effective and a proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending drug peddlers and distributors. Albeit that Remollo was not initially identified by the confidential informant as the perpetrator, a tip that illegal drug activities take place at the vicinity of the Looc Public Market is sufficient reason to conduct a buy-bust operation. The police officers acted within their powers and duties in responding to the tip they received. Furthermore, lack of a pre-operation report does not affect the legality of a buy-bust operation and is not indispensable to the conduct of the operation. The pre-operation report serves as proof of the police's coordination with the PDEA. In this case, it is undisputed that the police officers relayed the plan to conduct a buy-bust operation after receipt of the information from the confidential informant. The CA held that the officers had to swiftly decide in the conduct and execution of the buy-bust operation. Nevertheless, the officers were able to describe their operation during trial proceedings. 24
Proceedings before this Court
Remollo assails the CA Decision before this Court by way of an ordinary appeal. He filed a Manifestation in lieu of a Supplemental Brief 25 adopting the issues and arguments he raised before the CA. The People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, also filed a Manifestation in lieu of a Supplemental Brief. 26
In a Resolution 27 dated January 27, 2016, this Court affirmed the Decision of the CA. Accused-appellant Remollo filed a Motion for Reconsideration 28 which was granted in an Order 29 dated June 22, 2016. This Court also reinstated the appeal. On August 14, 2019, this Court issued a Resolution 30 dismissing the appeal outright.
Remollo then filed a Motion for Reconsideration. 31 He argued that the conduct of the buy-bust operation was dubious. The confidential informant, who acted as a poseur-buyer, was not presented in court. Remollo claimed that the police officers had no personal knowledge of the sale of illegal drugs. Their testimony is unbelievable. The confidential informant and Remollo could have quickly transacted upon meeting each other. However, the police officers' narration of facts that the informant and Remollo walked out of the market, conveniently positioning themselves at a meter's distance from them, is so contrived. 32
Remollo also argued that the officers failed to comply with the provisions of Section 21 of R.A. 9165. The law specifically provides that the inventory-taking and photographing of the seized item should be conducted at the place of apprehension. In this case, the foregoing procedures were conducted at the police station a few hours after Remollo's arrest. The prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the rule on the chain of custody. In view of broken chain of custody, Remollo asserted that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti. 33
Ruling of the Court
The Motion for Reconsideration of Remollo is meritorious.
Generally, there must be strict compliance with the rules on custody and disposition of seized dangerous drugs because establishing the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. 34 The provisions under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 lay down the procedures or chain of custody for the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs. Considering that the crime, in this case, took place on August 15, 2008, the provisions of R.A. 9165 are applicable.
Paragraph 1, Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires the apprehending team, having initial custody and control of the drugs to, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the seized item in the presence of the accused, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official. The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. 35 The three required witnesses should also already be physically present at the time of apprehension. 36
In this case, We find that the police officers failed to comply with the foregoing rule. From the facts, SPO1 Paquera only conducted the marking of the seized item at the place of arrest. In addition, none of the three insulating witnesses were present at the time of Remollo's apprehension. The officers also failed to conduct the inventory-taking and photographing immediately after seizure of the illegal drugs. While the officers returned to the Dumaguete Police Station for the inventory-taking and photographing, such procedures were not immediately conducted at the police station because there were still no witnesses. aDSIHc
Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. 9165 provides that the apprehending team may conduct the inventory-taking and photographing at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending team, provided there are justifiable grounds. Here, no reason was provided by the police officers on their failure to secure the presence of the insulating witnesses at the buy-bust operation or, thereafter, at the police station. The fact that the buy-bust operation was conducted at a late hour is insufficient reason to justify the absence of the insulating witnesses and failure to immediately conduct the physical inventory and photographing procedures. We note that the police officers were tipped by the confidential informant at 4:00 p.m. of August 14, 2008. 37 The confidential informant also advised the officers that the illegal drug activities take place at midnight. 38 Thus, the officers had eight hours before the transaction to prepare for the operation, particularly, to invite the insulating witnesses or have them on standby at the police station. We find that the officers failed to exert earnest efforts in securing the presence of the witnesses. In fact, during the said eight-hour period, the officers admit that they only waited at the police station. 39 SPO1 Paquera's attempts to call for witnesses at 1:00 p.m. 40 will clearly result to no response considering that there was no prior coordination or invitation to the mandated witnesses. A buy-bust operation is a planned activity. The operatives are reasonably expected to have time and opportunity in preparing for the operation including securing the presence of the required witnesses, 41 which the police officers, in this case, failed to do. We stress that the importance of the presence of the witnesses is to insulate against the police practice of planting evidence. 42 Here, the witnesses could not have served their purpose as they have no knowledge of the buy-bust operation and the custody over the seized items prior their arrival at the police station.
Moreover, We find more unjustified gaps in the chain of custody, specifically at the stage of handling of the seized drugs in the forensic laboratory. From the facts, the parties dispensed with the testimony of forensic chemist PCI Josephine S. Llena after stipulating on the following:
With respect to PCI Josephine S. Llena
1. That PCI Llena is an expert witness for the prosecution being the Forensic Chemist and officer-in-charge of the Negros Oriental Provincial Crime laboratory on August 15, 2008;
2. That PCI Llena received from PO1 Michelle Cañete one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with Marking ACR 08-15-08 which she re-marked as Specimen A, the dangerous drugs subject of this case, embodied in a Memorandum Request dated August 15, 2008 marked as Exhibit "A" with sub-marking for the prosecution;
3. That PCI Llena conducted a laboratory examination on the said specimen received by her which she re-marked as Specimen A, which when weighed contained 0.11 gram of crystalline substance and her qualitative examination conducted on the said specimen gave positive result to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug under R.A. 9165 as submitted in her Chemistry Report No. D-119-08 marked as Exhibit "B" with its sub-markings for the prosecution;
4. That PCI Llena can identify the said Specimen A with her own markings as the dangerous drugs subject of this case and marked as Exhibit "D" for the prosecution; and
5. That PCI Llena delivered the said Specimen A to this Court for the trial of this case properly storing the same at the evidence vault of the crime laboratory prior to her submission to this court. 43
In case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, the stipulation must state that the forensic chemist had taken the precautionary steps required to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, particularly that: (1) the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. 44
From the foregoing, there is lack of the stipulation required for the proper and effective dispensation of the testimony of PCI Llena. The stipulations are general in nature and made reference only as to the existence and authenticity of documentary evidence and seized item. PCI Llena made an admission in conducting the laboratory examination on the subject dangerous drugs; however, We find no other detail on the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug after its qualitative examination. 45 Thus, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the said illegal drug could not be reasonably established. ETHIDa
We have held that the prosecution bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the crime but also the corpus delicti itself through an unbroken chain of custody. 46 From the foregoing discussions, We have Our doubts as to the integrity of the dangerous drugs as the prosecution failed to show that the seized item from the accused is truly the same substance offered in court. 47 We find that the prosecution cannot conveniently claim the presumption of regularity of the officer's performance of duties. The presumption should arise only when there is a showing that the apprehending officer or buy-bust team followed the requirements of the dangerous drugs law, or when the saving clause may be properly applied. 48 From the discussions above, there was blatant failure to observe the procedures set out by the law and its implementing rules. Thus, the presumption will not apply. Moreover, We find the buy-bust operation highly questionable. In illegal transactions, as in this case, the normal human behavior would be that parties act swiftly and discreetly to avoid getting caught in flagrante delicto. We find the police officers' narration unbelievable for the confidential informant to come in the public market to meet Remollo and then walk a ten-meter distance from said market only to conduct the drug exchange. Remollo and the confidential informant could have easily transacted upon meeting at the public market. Further, We find it unthinkable that Remollo would agree in transacting with the confidential informant while a flashlight was directed at him. To Our mind, the buy-bust operation did not take place. We find reasonable doubt and hold Remollo innocent of the criminal charge filed against him.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED. The Resolution of the Court dated August 14, 2019 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Alden Remollo y Cano is ACQUITTED for failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and is ordered to be immediately released unless he is being held for some other valid or lawful cause. The Director of Prisons is DIRECTED to inform this Court of the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.
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. Penned by Associate Justice Renato C. Francisco, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Pamela Ann Abella Maxino; id. at 91-100.
2.Id. at 11-12.
3.Id. at 12.
4.Id.
5. TSN dated January 26, 2011, p. 6.
6.Id.
7. CA rollo, p. 12.
8.Id.; TSN dated March 17, 2011, p. 10.
9. TSN dated March 17, 2011, p. 15.
10. CA rollo, p. 13.
11. Records, p. 29.
12. CA rollo, p. 13.
13. Records, p. 55.
14.Id. at 33.
15.Id. at 3.
16. Records, p. 211.
17. Penned by Judge Rafael Cresencio C. Tan, Jr.; CA rollo, pp. 59-67.
18.Id. at 62-65.
19.Id. at 65.
20.Id. at 66.
21.Id. at 66-67.
22.Supra note 2.
23. CA rollo, pp. 96-99.
24.Id. at 95-96.
25.Rollo, pp. 31-32.
26.Id. at 27.
27.Id. at 39.
28.Id. at 41-44.
29.Id. at 48
30.Id. at 52.
31.Id. at 53-59.
32.Id. at 54-56.
33.Id. at 56-58.
34.People v. Ruiz, G.R. No. 243635, November 27, 2019.
35.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 405 (2018).
36.Id.
37. CA rollo, p. 11.
38.Id. at 12.
39.Id.
40.Id.; TSN dated March 17, 2011, p. 10.
41.People v. Chun, G.R. No. 247271, December 2, 2020.
42.Id.
43. Records, pp. 207-208.
44.People v. Cabuhay, 836 Phil. 903, 918 (2018).
45.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018).
46.People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
47.Id.
48.Supra note 36 at 419-420.