THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244175. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. DIEGO BENZON REYES and BAILIZA MAE PANTAS BUNGKALIS, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 13, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244175 (People of the Philippines v. Diego Benzon Reyes and Bailiza Mae Pantas Bungkalis.) — This Court resolves an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 29 June 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09499, which affirmed the Joint Decision 2 dated 10 July 2017 of Branch 275, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, in Criminal Case Nos. 16-1564 and 16-1566.
Antecedents
For Criminal Case No. 16-1564, Diego Benzon Reyes (Reyes) was charged for violation of Section 28 (e) (1) 3 of Republic Act No. (RA No.) 10591 4 in an Information, the accusatory portion of which states:
That on or about the 18th day of November, 2016, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession, control and custody, one (1) [.45] caliber pistol with serial no. 283492 loaded with one (1) magazine containing five (5) live ammunition without first securing the necessary permit or license from the proper authority.
[CONTRARY] TO LAW. 5
As to Criminal Case No. 16-1566, both Reyes and Bailiza Mae Pantas Bungkalis (Bungkalis) (collectively, appellants) were indicted for violation of Section 5, 6 Article II of RA 9165: 7
That on or about the 18th day of November, 2016, in the City of Las Piñas, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding each other, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute one (1) heat[-] sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point nine two (0.92) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
[CONTRARY] TO LAW. 8
Upon arraignment, appellants entered pleas of "not guilty" to the charges. Trial on the merits thereafter ensued. 9
Version of the Prosecution
On 17 November 2016, a buy-bust team was organized to entrap a certain "Liza." The latter was determined to be involved in illegal drug activities following a week-long surveillance by Senior Police Officer 2 Nelson P. Zenarosa (SPO2 Zenarosa), whom an informant introduced to "Liza" as a prospective buyer. Police Chief Inspector Jose Arandia (PCI Arandia) designated SPO2 Zenarosa as poseur-buyer and Police Officer 3 Victorino Oreiro, Jr. (PO3 Oreiro) as back-up in the transaction, which was to take place at around 12:30 a.m. of 18 November 2016 in front of an establishment along Alabang-Zapote Road, Almanza Uno, Las Piñas City. 10
The buy-bust team then proceeded to the target area. SPO2 Zenarosa waited in front of the establishment, while PO3 Oreiro stood a few meters away from him. At the designated time, "Liza" arrived with a male companion and immediately asked SPO2 Zenarosa for the payment. The male companion inspected the money, and after being satisfied with its genuineness, told "Liza" to give SPO2 Zenarosa one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white powdery substance. Upon receiving the sachet and checking its contents, SPO2 Zenarosa executed the pre-arranged signal. 11 CAIHTE
SPO2 Zenarosa then arrested "Liza," later identified as Bungkalis, and put the plastic sachet in her pocket. Meanwhile, PO3 Oreiro grabbed the right hand of the male companion, subsequently identified as Reyes, who was trying to pull something from the right side of his waist. PO3 Oreiro recovered from Reyes a .45 caliber pistol, Para-Ordnance, with Serial No. 483492 and one (1) magazine loaded with five (5) live ammunition. The police informed appellants of their rights. 12
Thereafter, the team proceeded to the office of the Regional Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (RAID-SOTG). SPO2 Zenarosa recovered the marked money from Reyes. He also marked the plastic sachet bought from appellants with NPZ-11-18-16 and conducted the inventory in the presence of appellants and media personnel Clyte Ocampo and Sarah Jane Baraquel. Pictures were also taken during the process. PO3 Oreiro likewise marked the firearm with VLO1, the magazine with VLO2, and the five (5) live ammunition with VLO3 to VLO7. 13
SPO2 Zenarosa then took appellants and the seized items to the crime laboratory at Camp Crame. Chemistry Report No. D-301-16 showed that the specimen was positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. 14 Likewise, upon verification with the Records Section of the Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO), it was determined that Reyes "[was] not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind of caliber per verification from the database of this office." 15
Version of the Defense
On 17 November 2016, at around 1:45 p.m., appellants were waiting for the friend of a friend somewhere along Alabang-Zapote Road when a van stopped in front of them. Five (5) armed men alighted and forced them inside the vehicle. They were taken to the office of the RAID-SOTG where PCI Arandia told Bungkalis to produce P1Million, otherwise, a case would be filed against them. When they could not meet the said demand, they were brought to a conference room where a gun, a sachet, money, and documents were laid in front of them. 16
Ruling of the RTC
On 10 July 2017, the RTC rendered its Joint Decision, 17 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, judgment is rendered as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 16-1564, the court finds accused Diego Benzon Reyes guilty with moral certainty of violation of Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act) and he is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of [prision] mayor in its medium period, as MINIMUM, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor in its maximum period, as MAXIMUM.
In Criminal Case No. 16-1566, the court finds accused Diego Benzon Reyes and Bailiza Mae Pantas Bungkalis guilty with moral certainty of violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. Accordingly, they are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) pesos, each.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED.18 (Emphasis in the original)
The RTC found that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drug as well as the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. 19 The prosecution was able to prove the elements of illegal possession of firearm. 20
Aggrieved, appellants appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision 21 dated 29 June 2018, the CA affirmed appellants' conviction. It ruled that the prosecution satisfactorily established the elements of illegal sale of shabu and the unbroken chain of custody over the seized drug. It further held that the prosecution has proven all the elements of illegal possession of firearm. 22
Hence, this appeal. The Office of the Solicitor General 23 and the Public Attorney's Office 24 both manifested that they were no longer filing their respective supplemental briefs. DETACa
Issue
The issues in this case are:
(a) Whether the CA correctly found appellant Reyes guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of firearms under RA 10591; and
(b) Whether the CA correctly found appellants Reyes and Bungkalis guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the offense of illegal sale of a prohibited drug under RA 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The Court notes that appellant Reyes was charged and convicted for two (2) separate offenses arising from the warrantless arrest effected upon him for violation of RA No. 9165. First, for illegal sale of dangerous drugs; and second, for illegal possession of a firearm that was obtained from his possession after a search on his person by reason of the warrantless arrest was made.
Appellant Reyes' warrantless arrest emanated from the illegal sale of drugs. Thus, the arrest of appellant Reyes in flagrante delicto, and the ensuing search on his person, were valid.
As to the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, We find basis to acquit appellants Reyes and Bungkalis of the crime charged.
For the prosecution of the crime of illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. 25
It is essential that the identity and integrity of the illegal drug must be shown to have been preserved. To remove any doubt or uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the seized drug, evidence must definitely show that the illegal drug offered in court as exhibit are the same as those recovered from the accused. 26 This requirement is known as the chain of custody rule under RA No. 9165, created to safeguard doubts concerning the identity of the seized drug. 27
Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165 provides the chain of custody rule, outlining the procedure police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. 28 Said provision was amended by RA No. 10640, 29 which was approved on 15 July 2014. Since the offense charged in this case was committed on 18 November 2016, the prescribed procedure under RA No. 10640 applies. Thus, as part of the chain of custody procedure, the apprehending team is mandated, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. The presence of these witnesses safeguard "the establishment of the chain of custody and remove[s] any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 30
It is well-settled that the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court. 31
The first link speaks of seizure and marking, which should be done immediately at the place of arrest and seizure. It also includes the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized or confiscated items which should be done in the presence of the accused, an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. 32
In this case, although SPO2 Zenarosa marked the seized item, this was not conducted immediately at the place of seizure and confiscation but at the office of the RAID-SOTG. The prosecution proffered no explanation as to why the marking was not done immediately. Clearly, there was a significant break in the chain of custody when the seized dangerous drug was not marked immediately at the place where the appellants were arrested. Considering this break, there can be no assurance that switching, planting, or contamination did not actually take place. 33
Notably, SPO2 Zenarosa marked the confiscated item with his initials and the date of seizure, i.e., NPZ-11-18-16. 34 However, the time and place of the seizure of evidence were not indicated on the confiscated item, in clear disregard of Section 13 (c) 35 of the PNP Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation, approved by the National Police Commission in its Resolution No. 2010-094 on 26 February 2010. 36
More importantly, not one of the two (2) required witnesses was present during the buy-bust operation. SPO2 Zenarosa testified that the police officers purposely did not coordinate with the barangay officials because they feared that there would be a leakage of the impending buy-bust operation. It likewise appears that SPO2 Zenarosa was not aware that the presence of a barangay official is necessary during the conduct of a buy-bust operation. When asked if he was aware of this requirement, he replied that it was only during the inventory that a barangay official should be present. 37 The prosecution also did not offer any explanation for the absence of the representative from the NPS or the media. aDSIHc
Although one of the members of the buy-bust team went to the barangay hall, he did so not for the purpose of securing the attendance of a barangay official for the buy-bust operation, but in order that the latter could attend the inventory. This is evident because the said team member went to the barangay hall after the appellants had been arrested. 38
It must be stressed that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory. The law imposes this requirement to serve an essential purpose. 39 Their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. The presence of the insulating witnesses would controvert the usual defense of frame-up, as they would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence, in accordance with Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165, as amended. 40
The Court recognizes that strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA No. 9165 may not always be possible. In such instance, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the same would 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 a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The foregoing is based on the saving clause found in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA No. 9165, which was adopted by RA 10640. 41
In People v. Dela Torre, 42 however, the Court explained 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. 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.
Clearly, the prosecution cannot simply invoke the saving clause found in Section 21 without justifying their failure to comply with the requirements stated therein. 43 Moreover, a stricter adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drug seized is minuscule, as in the instant case where 0.92 gram of shabu was allegedly obtained from appellants during the illegal sale, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration of evidence. 44
In cases of sale of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Hence, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drug must be shown to have been duly preserved. The chain of custody rule performs this function as it erases unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence. 45 The rule is imperative, as it is essential that the prohibited drug confiscated or recovered from the suspect is the very same substance offered in court as exhibit, and the identity of the said drug is established with the same unwavering exactitude as that required to make a finding of guilt. 46
The police officers' failure to strictly comply with the requirements of the law, and to give justifiable grounds for their deviations had compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, warranting appellants' acquittal for reasonable doubt. Verily, when there are doubts on whether the seized substance was the same substance examined and established to be the prohibited drug, there can be no offense of illegal sale of a prohibited drug. 47
With regard, however, to the illegal possession of firearm, the CA and the RTC uniformly held that the prosecution established the elements of the offense defined and penalized under Section 28 (e) (1) of RA No. 10591. We see no reason to disturb the united findings of the courts a quo.
While We acquit appellant Reyes for illegal sale of drugs, the acquittal merely arose from the failure of the prosecution to comply with the strict procedural requirements, e.g., the presence of the required witnesses, failure to mark the seized drugs at the place of arrest, and the failure to provide any justification for non-compliance with the law and rules. There is no question that the warrantless arrest against appellant Reyes, and the ensuing search on his person incidental thereto, are valid. Thus, notwithstanding appellant Reyes' acquittal for illegal sale of drugs, appellant Reyes' guilt for illegal possession of a firearm seized during the search incidental to his arrest may still be established.
For illegal possession of firearm, the prosecution must prove: (a) the existence of the subject firearm and (b) the fact that the accused who possessed or owned the same does not have the corresponding license for it. The corpus delicti is the accused's lack of license or permit to possess or carry the firearm, as possession itself is not prohibited by law. To establish the corpus delicti, the prosecution has the burden of proving that the firearm exists and that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the corresponding license or permit to possess or carry the same. 48
All the elements for illegal possession of firearm were established in the instant case. Anent the first element of the offense charged, the CA held that even though SPO2 Zenarosa did not correctly state the serial number of the subject firearm, he categorically testified, however, that the subject caliber .45 pistol, magazine and five (5) bullets were marked by PO3 Oreiro with VLO1, VLO2, and VLO3 to VLO7 respectively. Thus, the identity of the subject firearm and ammunition were duly established. 49 The second element was likewise proven. As evinced by the aforesaid Memorandum from the FEO, appellant Reyes is not licensed/authorized to possess the subject firearm. On several occasions, the Court ruled that either the testimony of a representative of, or a certification from, the Philippine National Police (PNP) Firearms and Explosive Office attesting that a person is not a licensee of any firearm would suffice to prove beyond reasonable doubt the second element of possession of illegal firearms. 50
It is an established jurisprudential rule that the defense of denial is inherently weak because it can easily be fabricated. Such defense becomes unworthy of merit if it is established only by the accused themselves and not by credible persons. 51 It cannot prevail over the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
The testimonies of the police officers who caught appellant Reyes in flagrante delicto are given more weight and credence, in the absence of evidence that they have been inspired by an improper or ill motive. The defenses of denial and frame-up of an accused have been invariably viewed with disfavor for it can easily be concocted. In order to prosper, the defenses of denial and frame-up must be proved with strong and convincing evidence, which appellant Reyes failed to present in this case. 52
Although Section 28 (a) of RA No. 10591 imposes the penalty of prision mayor in its medium period (i.e., eight (8) years and one (1) day to ten (10) years) for the possession of a small firearm, Section 28 (e) (1) of the same law prescribes a penalty one (1) degree higher than that provided in Section 28 (a) if the accused illegally possessed the firearm loaded with live ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine, which was the crime precisely alleged in the Information and sufficiently established by the record. The penalty one (1) degree higher is prision mayor in its maximum period (i.e., ten (10) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years), to be imposed in the medium period (i.e., ten (10) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to eleven (11) years and four (4) months) in view of the absence of any modifying circumstances. Thus, Reyes was correctly sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day of prision mayor in its medium period, as minimum, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor in its maximum period, as maximum. ETHIDa
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision dated 29 June 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09499 is MODIFIED as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 16-1564, for the charge of violation of Republic Act No. 10591 (Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act), appellant DIEGO BENZON REYES is sentenced to an indeterminate penalty of eight (8) years, eight (8) months and one (11) day of prision mayor in its medium period, as MINIMUM, to ten (10) years, eight (8) months and twenty (20) days of prision mayor in its maximum period, as MAXIMUM.
In Criminal Case No. 16-1566, for the charge of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165, appellants DIEGO BENZON REYES and BAILIZA MAE PANTAS BUNGKALIS are ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is DIRECTED to cause the immediate release of BAILIZA MAE PANTAS BUNGKALIS, unless she is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason, and to make a report on her compliance within five (5) days from notice. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
In Criminal Case No. 16-1564, the conviction of appellant Diego Benzon Reyes for violation of Sec. 28 (e) (1) of Republic Act No. 10591 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." (Carandang, J., on official leave; Dimaampao, J., designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2839)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz and concurred in by Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza and Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul S. Inting (now a Member of this Court) of the Special First Division, Court of Appeals.
2. CA Rollo, pp. 54-65; penned by RTC Presiding Judge Phoeve C. Meer.
3. SECTION 28. Unlawful Acquisition, or Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. — The unlawful acquisition, possession of firearms and ammunition shall be penalized as follows:
(a) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm;
xxx xxx xxx
(e) The penalty of one (1) degree higher than that provided in paragraphs (a) to (c) in this section shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm under any or combination of the following conditions:
(1) Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine;
4. Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act.
5.Rollo, p. 4.
6. Section 5. Sale, Trading Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
7. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
8.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
9.Id. at 5.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 5-6.
12.Id. at 6.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15. CA rollo, p. 57.
16.Rollo, p. 7.
17. CA rollo, pp. 54-65.
18.Id. at 64-65.
19.Id. at 61-62.
20.Id. at 62-63.
21.Rollo, pp. 2-18.
22.Id. at 9-10, 15, 17.
23.Id. at 31-34.
24.Id. at 36-40.
25.People v. Pantallano, G.R. No. 233800, 06 March 2019.
26.People v. Macaumbang, G.R. No. 208836, 01 April 2019; see People v. Lumaya, 827 Phil. 473 (2018).
27.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, 18 March 2019.
28.People v. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596, 10 January 2018.
29. 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."
30.People v. Doctolero, Jr., G.R. No. 243940, 20 August 2019.
31.People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888 (2018).
32. See People v. Posos, G.R. No. 226492, 02 October 2019.
33.People v. Burdeos, G.R. No. 218434, 17 July 2019, citing People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 (2017).
34.Rollo, p. 10.
35. Section 13. Handling, Custody and Disposition of Drug Evidence
xxx xxx xxx
c. The seizing officer must mark the evidence with his initials indicating therein the date, time and place where the evidence was found and seized. The seizing officer shall secure and preserve the evidence in a suitable evidence bag or in an appropriate container for further laboratory examinations.
36. See People v. Orico, 832 Phil. 992, 1013 (2018).
37. See Rollo, pp. 90-91 (Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee).
38.Id. at p. 56.
39.People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 234273, 18 September 2019.
40.People v. Caranto, G.R. No. 217668, 20 February 2019, citing People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
41.People v. Doctolero, Jr., supra at note 30.
42. G.R. No. 238519, 26 June 2019.
43.People v. Bahoyo, G.R. No. 238589, 26 June 2019.
44.People v. Bayang, G.R. No. 234038, 13 March 2019; People v. Sali, G.R. No. 236596, 29 January 2020.
45.People v. Hilario, G.R. No. 210610, 11 January 2018.
46.People v. Malana, G.R. No. 233747, 05 December 2018.
47.People v. Hilario, supra.
48.People v. Olarte, G.R. No, 233209, 11 March 2019.
49.Rollo, pp. 15-16.
50.Saluday v. People, G.R. No. 215305, 03 April 2018.
51.People v. Gaborne, G.R. No. 210710, 27 July 2016.
52. See People v. Amago, G.R. No. 227739, 15 January 2020.