People v. Rosario Porte

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 252506. June 23, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROBERT ROSARIO PORTE, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 23, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 252506 (People of the Philippines v. Robert Rosario Porte). — This is an appeal 1 seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 dated November 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09786. The CA affirmed the Joint Decision 3 dated August 24, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, Branch 20 (RTC), in Criminal Case Nos. 7671-V and 7672-V, finding Robert Rosario Porte (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

Facts of the Case

In two Informations, dated July 11, 2015, accused-appellant was charged with illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs, in violation of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of R.A. 9165. The accusatory portions of which state:

Criminal Case No. 7671-V

That on or about the 10th day of July 2015, in the City of Vigan, Province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused ROBERT ROSARIO PORTE, without having been duly authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously SELL and DELIVER to a poseur buyer two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing respectively, 0.0497 gram and 0.0611 gram, more or less, of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or most commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law. 4

Criminal Case No. 7672-V

That on or about the 10th day of July 2015, in the City of Vigan, Province of Ilocos Sur, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, accused ROBERT ROSARIO PORTE, without having been duly authorized by law, did then and there knowingly, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously USE and CONSUME Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or most commonly known as Shabu, a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law. 5

On August 12, 2015, accused-appellant was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued. 6

Version of the Prosecution

The prosecution alleged that on July 10, 2015, at around 9:00 a.m., a confidential informant told SPO1 Joel Javier (SPO1 Javier) of the Sta. Catalina Municipal Police Station that Porte was engaged in illegal drug activity. Pursuant to the instructions of Police Inspector Christopher Daag Ramat (PI Ramat), the confidential informant communicated with Porte who agreed to the sale of shabu at Milway Store which is located in Vigan City and not in Sta. Catalina. 7

PI Ramat coordinated with Police Superintendent Jugith Del Prado (PSUpt Del Prado) of Vigan City Police Station. A buy-bust team was formed comprised of PO3 Dennis Reoliquio (PO3 Reoloquio) as the poseur-buyer, SPO1 Javier as back-up, and members of the Sta. Catalina Police Station and Vigan Police Station. PO3 Reoliquio prepared the buy-bust money consisting of a Five-Hundred Pesos bill P500.00 with Serial No. GR806917 and marked it with his initials "DOR" inside the second "0" of P500.00 on the dorsal side. 8

At around 3:00 p.m. of the same date, the buy-bust team and the confidential informant proceeded to Milway Store located at Barangay VII, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur. PO3 Reoliquio and the confidential informant approached Porte, while SPO1 Javier and the rest of the buy-bust team positioned themselves about ten to twelve meters away. The confidential informant introduced PO3 Reoliquio as the interested buyer of shabu. PO3 Reoliquio handed the buy-bust money to Porte who in turn, gave PO3 Reoliquio two plastic sachets. Then, PO3 Reoliquio removed his bull cap as the pre-arranged signal of the consummation of the sale of shabu. Immediately, SPO1 Javier and the other members of the buy-bust team rushed to the scene and arrested Porte. SPO1 Javier informed Porte of his Constitutional rights and conducted a body search, yielding the buy-bust money and a black Nokia cellular phone. 9

At the place of arrest, PO3 Reoliquio marked the two sachets of shabu with his initials "DOR" and the date "07-20-2015." After marking the items, PO3 Reoliquio presented the seized items to PO3 Carlo Rabago (PO3 Rabago) who conducted and prepared the Inventory Receipt of Properties/Items/Articles. The inventory was conducted in the presence of the following witnesses: (1) the representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ) Glenn Tulas; (2) TVigan media representative Peter Scott Nolasco; (3) Barangay Kagawad Norberto Artajos; and (4) Barangay Kagawad Danilo Dancel. Photographs were taken during the inventory by SPO2 Chester Dandin (SPO2 Dandin). 10

Subsequently, the buy-bust team brought Porte and the items seized to the Vigan Police Station. PO3 Rabago prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination for the two plastic sachets of suspected shabu and the Request for Screening Test to determine drug use. Both Requests were signed by PSupt. Del Prado. On the other hand, PO3 Reoliquio prepared the Chain of Custody Form for Seized Dangerous Drugs. 11

At the Ilocos Sur Provincial Crime Laboratory, at 6:35 p.m. of July 10, 2015, evidence custodian PO3 Lerwin Quitevis (PO3 Quitevis) received from PO3 Reoliquio the two plastic sachets of suspected shabu. PO3 Quitevis collected the urine sample from Porte, and turned over the specimen and the two plastic sachets to Forensic Chemist Police Senior Inspector Roanalaine Baligod (PSI Baligod) for laboratory examination. Per Chemistry Report No. D-112-2015-IS dated July 10, 2015, Initial Laboratory Report No. DT-051-2015-IS dated July 10, 2015, and the Final Chemistry Report No. DT-051-2015-IS dated July 11, 2015, all prepared by PSI Baligod, Porte's urine sample and the two plastic sachets tested positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. PSI Baligod placed her own markings on the seized items and then returned them to PO3 Quitevis for safekeeping. The seized items were presented by PO3 Quitevis to the court during trial. 12

Version of the Defense

Accused-appellant denied the charges against him. Porte claimed that on July 10, 2015 at around 1:00 p.m., he was inside Milway Store eating his snack, when he saw a black car park in front of the store. A man wearing civilian clothes alighted from the black car and approached him. He asked Porte if he was "Jemo," while pointing a gun at him. Porte answered "No, I am Robert Rosario." 13 The man pushed him to the ground and placed him in handcuffs. A body search was conducted on him. Then, the man called someone on his cellphone. Two other men arrived and asked Porte if he was "Jemo." Porte replied, "No, sir." 14 Thereafter, he was brought to the police station. Porte testified that he was not assisted by counsel when a police officer took his urine sample. Further, he maintained that he was not apprised of his Constitutional rights. 15

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

The RTC found Porte guilty of both charges, the dispositive portion of its Decision 16 dated August 24, 2017 reads as follows:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, the Court finds the accused ROBERT ROSARIO PORTE.

In Crim. Case No. 7671-V

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the Information and is hereby sentenced to suffer LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

In Crim. Case No. 7672-V

GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the Information, and is hereby sentenced to SIX (6) months rehabilitation at Mega Drug Treatment and Rehabilitation Center, Fort Magsaysay, Nueva Ecija.

The two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (Exh. "N" with sub-markings) are hereby forfeited in favor of the Government. The Branch Clerk of Court is ordered to immediately notify PDEA, Ilocos Sur Office, who is hereby directed to come and receive the said items within fifteen (15) days from notice.

Also, the Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to issue the MITTIMUS.

Pursuant to OCA Cir. No. 85-2017, furnish copy of this Decision to the National Bureau of Investigation in Manila.

SO ORDERED." 17 (Emphasis in the original)

The RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs having proved that Porte sold two plastic sachets of shabu during the buy-bust operation to PO3 Reoliquio for P500.00. The RTC also ruled that the prosecution satisfactorily proved that his urine sample tested positive for the presence of shabu. It gave weight to the testimonies of the police officers positively identifying Porte as the illegal seller of the confiscated drugs. The RTC declared that Porte was validly arrested in flagrante delicto. It ruled that the police officers substantially complied with the rules on the chain of custody under Section 21 of R.A. 9165. Lastly, the RTC disregarded Porte's weak defense of denial for lack of merit. 18

Aggrieved, Porte appealed to the CA. 19First, he raised the absence of surveillance or test-buy prior to the conduct of the buy-bust operation. Second, Porte questioned the police officers' compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165. He insists that PO3 Reoliquio failed to testify on how he protected the identity and integrity of two plastic sachets of shabu allegedly confiscated from Porte. Likewise, PO3 Quitevis failed to testify on how the specimen were preserved before they were turned over to PSI Baligod, as well as the condition of the seized items before, during, and after the laboratory examination. Lastly, Porte maintained that he cannot be convicted for illegal use of shabu since no confirmatory test was conducted after he was arrested. 20

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

In its Decision 21 dated November 20, 2019, the CA affirmed Porte's conviction. The CA ruled that the buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers is valid and a test-buy or prior surveillance is not a requisite for its validity. 22 The CA also declared that the police officers complied with the requirements of Section 21, R.A. 9165. Contrary to Porte's claim, there was no break in the chain of custody between PO3 Reoliquio and PO3 Rabago. The testimonies of both police officers consistently narrate that while PO3 Rabago was conducting the inventory, the seized items were in the custody of PO3 Reoliquio. Also through the coherent and straightforward testimonies of all the police officers who took part in the buy-bust operation against Porte, the prosecution was able to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were not compromised and their whereabouts were duly accounted for by all the witnesses who handled them at all points material to the case. 23 As regards Porte's conviction for illegal use of shabu, Initial Laboratory Chemistry Report No. DT-051-2015 and Chemistry Report No. DT-051-2015-IS clearly show that both a screening test and a confirmatory test were conducted on Porte, as the law requires. 24

Proceedings before this Court

Porte filed an appeal. The parties adopted their respective Appellant's 25 and Appellee's 26 Briefs filed before the CA as their supplemental briefs before the Court.

Issue

The principal issue for resolution is whether Porte is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of R.A. 9165

Ruling of the Court

The Court resolves to grant the appeal.

Primarily, it must be emphasized that when an accused appeals his conviction, he waives his Constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy as the entire case is open for review. The Court then renders judgment as law and justice dictate in the exercise of its concomitant authority to review and sift through the whole case and correct any error, even if unassigned. 27

In this case, Porte was charged with the crimes of illegal sale and illegal use of dangerous drugs, respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 15, Article II of R.A. 9165.

Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs

For the successful prosecution of the illegal sale of shabu, the following elements must be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. The prosecution has the onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the transaction actually took place, coupled with the presentation before the court of the prohibited or regulated drug or the corpus delicti. 28

Porte contends that the absence of a test-buy or prior surveillance rendered the buy-bust operation invalid, hence, the prosecution failed to prove that the transaction actually took place. 29 This contention is untenable.

Porte was arrested in flagrante delicto during a buy-bust operation. A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment whereby ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the lawbreakers in the execution of their criminal plan. 30 Settled is the rule that prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment operation especially so if the buy-bust team is accompanied by the informant, as in this case. The police officers may decide that time is of the essence and dispense with the need of prior surveillance. The absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. 31

Unless there is clear and convincing evidence that PO3 Reoliquio and the other members of the buy-bust team were inspired by any improper motive or were not properly performing their duty, and none has been adduced by the defense, their testimonies with respect to the buy-bust operation deserve full faith and credit.

However, the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drug that Porte sold during the subject buy-bust operation.

The corpus delicti of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5 of R.A. 9165 are the two pieces of plastic sachet containing 0.0497 and 0.0611 gram of shabu, 32 marked as Exhibit "N." 33 R.A. 9165 provides reasonable safeguards to preserve the identity and integrity of narcotic substances and dangerous drugs seized and/or recovered from drug offenders. 34 Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. 9165 clearly outlines the post-seizure procedure in taking custody of seized drugs. Proper procedures to account for each specimen by tracking its handling and storage from point of seizure to presentation of the evidence in court and its final disposal must be observed. Strict compliance with the chain of custody rule is essential in order for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team is required 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 the number of witnesses required, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of R.A. 9165 by R.A. 10640 on July 23, 2014, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of R.A. 9165 by R.A. 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. 35

The presence of these witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." It is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs. 36

The Guidelines on the IRR of Section 21 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640, also provide for the following safeguards:

Section 1. Implementing Guidelines. — 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. Marking, Inventory and Photograph; Chain of Custody Implementing Paragraph "a" of the IRR

xxx xxx xxx

A.1.5. The physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items shall be done in the presence of the suspect or his/her representative or counsel, with elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory of the seized or confiscated items and be given copy hereof. In case of their refusal to sign, it shall be stated "refused to sign" above their names in the certificate of inventory of the apprehending or seizing officer.

It is gathered from the testimonies of PO3 Reoliquio and PO3 Rabago that the marking, inventory and taking of photographs of the seized shabu were conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation at the place of arrest in Milway Store located at Barangay VII, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur. The seized items were accordingly marked "DOR 07/10/2015 (A)" and "DOR 07/10/2015 (B)," indicating the initials of arresting officer PO3 Reoliquio and the date of seizure. 37

The buy-bust operation transpired at 3:00 p.m. of July 10, 2015. Since Porte was arrested after the effectivity of R.A. 10640, the required insulating witnesses in this case are the following: (1) an elected public official; and (2) a representative of the NPS or the media. The Inventory Receipt of Properties/Items/Articles 38 and the photographs 39 taken during marking and inventory show that this two-witness requirement was complied with the presence of the following: (1) Glenn Tulas, DOJ Representative; (2) elected public officials Barangay Kagawad Norberto Artajos and Barangay Kagawad Danilo Dancel; and (3) media representative Peter Scott Nolasco. 40 PO3 Rabago also confirmed in his testimony that the insulating witnesses·were already at the place of arrest when he arrived, to wit:

Q What time did you proceed at Barangay 7, the place of the operation?

A At around 3:05 p.m., sir.

Q Who were with you if any?

A My co-investigator, SPO2 Chester Dandin, sir.

Q When you arrived at the place as instructed, what did you do?

A I conducted the inventory, sir.

Q Who were there present when you arrived at said place, Barangay 7, Vigan City?

A The Joint PNP who conducted the buy-bust operation — the PNP personnel of Sta. Catalina and Vigan City Police Station, the barangay officials, media and DOJ representative, sir.41 (Emphasis supplied)

Nonetheless, nowhere in the records indicate that Porte, or his representative or counsel, was present during the inventory of the seized items.

Strikingly, the Inventory Receipt 42 was not signed by Porte, or his representative or counsel. To reiterate, under the IRR Guidelines quoted above, in cases wherein the accused refuses to sign the certificate of inventory, "it shall be stated 'refused to sign' above their names in the certificate of inventory of the apprehending or seizing officer." Here, both the name of Porte and the words "refused to sign" were not inscribed therein.

In addition, assigned photographer SPO2 Dandin's testimony·did not identify Porte in any of the photographs taken during the inventory, to wit:

PROS. DULDULAO

Q You said that you took photographs in connection with the buy-bust operation against Robert Porte. I am showing you these photographs marked as Exhibits L, L-1 to L-8. What are these photographs in relation to the photographs taken by you in connection with that buy-bust operation?

A This is the first photograph is the closer picture of the used money with markings of our Intel Dennis Reoliquio and the confiscated drugs, sir. (Witness pointed to first picture marked as Exhibit L.)

Q You are saying that his photograph was taken by you in connection with that buy-bust operation?

A Yes, sir.

Q May I call your attention marked as Exhibit L-1. Who are these persons writing as this photograph depicts?

A This one is PO3 Dennis Reoliquio, our Intel Operatives. This one in uniform is Police officer Reoliquio, (Witness pointed to a man in black shirt as Police Officer Reoliquio) and the one in police uniform as PO3 Carlo Rabago, sir.

Q Do you know what they are doing?

A PO3 Dennis Reoliquio marked the items while PO3 Rabago is preparing the inventory receipt, sir.

PROS. DULDULAO:

We maintain as Exhibits L, L-1 to L-8 the nine (9) photographs as identified by the witness, Your Honor. I think that would be all, Your Honor. 43 (Emphasis supplied)

Also worth noting is the testimony of PO3 Reoliquio, wherein he was asked about the compliance with the requirements on inventory, taking of photographs, and marking:

Q Who were around during the time that you were putting markings of each of the plastic sachets?

A The Department of Justice representative, the Media representative and the barangay officials, ma'am.

Q How about other police officers?

A The Inventory officer and at the same time the photographer, ma'am.

Q And who was the photographer at that time?

A The photographer at that time is SPO4 Chester Garcia Dandin, ma'am.

Q You said that you turned over to PO3 Carlo Rabago the items after markings of the same, Mr. Witness?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q Do you have proof to show that you conducted the markings and then PO3 Carlo Rabago conducted the Inventory of the items?

A The Inventory Receipt and the photographs ma'am conducted by SPO4 Chester Dandin.

Q You mentioned about photographs, were you able to see these photographs taken by SPO4 Chester Dandin?

A Yes, ma'am.

Q Showing to you Mr. Witness these photographs, kindly go over these photographs and tell if what are those in relation to the items that you put markings on (sic) and police officer Rabago conducted inventory of the same?

A (the witness examined the photographs and the witness pointing to the upper photograph and answered "this were (sic) the items and SPO1 Rabago conducted the inventory of the items, and the witness pointed to the second paragraph (sic) — the one wearing black t-shirt as the representative of the DOJ — Glenn Tulas, the others are (sic) the barangay officials of barangay VII, Vigan City.)

Q How about on the 4th and 5th?

A This second person is the barangay official of barangay VII, Vigan City, ma'am. (the witness referring to the 6th picture).

Q How about this photograph?

A The Media representative of the Tvigan Peter Scott Artajos,44the items recovered from the subject and the representative of the different agencies, ma' am.

Pros. Duldulao:

Your Honor this photograph identified by the witness; we pray that the 9 photographs be marked as our Exhibits "L" for the 1st photograph "L-1" to "L-8" for the other photographs your Honor.

Court

Mark it. 45 (Emphasis supplied.)

Indeed, nowhere in his testimony did PO3 Reoliquio mention the presence of Porte, his representative, or his counsel, during the inventory of the items seized.

Moreover, no justifiable reason was presented for this noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21, R.A. 9165.

The presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as the two or three insulating witnesses required by law during the inventory serves a vital purpose: to protect the accused against any possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Failure to strictly comply with this rule, however, does not ipso facto invalidate or render void the seizure and custody over the items as long as the prosecution is able to show that "(a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved." 46 In case of non-compliance, the prosecution must be able to "explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved." 47 Also, 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. 48

Here in the case of Porte, it was markedly absent. The evidence on record is completely silent as to why Porte was not seen in any of the photographs 49 taken during the inventory and his signature not found on the inventory receipt. 50 This breach in the procedure committed by the police officers regarding the absence of the accused during the inventory without any justifiable reason makes the chain of custody of the dangerous drug broken from the very beginning.

The Court notes that the parties stipulated upon the testimony of PSI Baligod, as follows:

1) SHE is the Forensic Chemist assigned at Ilocos Sur Police Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, Bulag, Bantay, Ilocos Sur and was on duty on July 10, 2015;

2) Her office received two (2) Requests together with the specimens from Vigan City police station delivered by PO3 Dennis Reoliquio for laboratory examinations of two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing [white] crystalline substance and for screening test of Robert Rosario Porte.

3) The request together with the specimens were received by PO3 Lerwin Quitevis, the evidence custodian of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office of Ilocos Sur on July 10, 2015 in the evening. PO3 Lerwin Quitevis also received from PO3 Dennis Reoliquio the chain of custody form at the same time and date.

4) She had completed the examination on the specimens particularly the two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets submitted by PO3 Dennis Reoliquio and turned-over to her by PO3 Lerwin Quitevis.

5) Aside from the two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, the witness also examined urine sample taken from Robert Rosario Porte.

6) Her findings on the two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets as well as the urine sample are reflected in the Chemistry Report No. D-112-2015-IS (plastic sachets) and Chemistry Report No. DT-051-2015-IS (urine sample).

7) After the examination and preparation of reports, she turned over the items, reports, the request for laboratory examination as well as the Chain of Custody Form to PO3 Quitevis as shown in the Chain of Custody Form (Exhibit "J").

8) The witness after the examination, marked the items with her initials "RBB", the Chemistry Reports and the letter reference.

9) When the witness received items from PO3 Lerwin Quitevis they already contained the markings particularly "DOR A" and "DOR B". 51

This testimony presented by the prosecution to establish the subsequent links in the chain of custody, however, is rendered useless. By failing to comply with the strict requirements for marking and inventory, there is no way to prove that the dangerous drug turned over by the apprehending/investigating officer to the forensic chemist is the very same one seized from the accused.

In sum, the breach in the procedure committed by the police officers regarding the presence of the accused during the inventory, and left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellant as the chain of custody, integrity, and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. Therefore, the prosecution did not prove with moral certainty the guilt of Porte for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.

Illegal Use of Dangerous Drugs

The case for violation of Section 15, 52 R.A. 9165 was filed because Porte tested positive for use of methamphetamine hydrochloride after he was subjected to a drug test following his arrest for illegal sale of shabu. This was pursuant to the procedure for laboratory examination or test outlined in Section 38, R.A. 9165, which reads:

Section 38. Laboratory Examination or Test on Apprehended/Arrested Offenders. — Subject to Section 15 of this Act, any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act shall be subjected to screening laboratory examination or test within twenty-four (24) hours, if the apprehending or arresting officer has reasonable ground to believe that the person apprehended or arrested, on account of physical signs or symptoms or other visible or outward manifestation, is under the influence of dangerous drugs. If found to be positive, the results of the screening laboratory examination or test shall be challenged within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the result through a confirmatory test conducted in any accredited analytical laboratory equipment with a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry equipment or some such modern and accepted method, if confirmed the same shall be prima facie evidence that such person has used dangerous drugs, which is without prejudice for the prosecution for other violations of the provisions of this Act: Provided, That a positive screening laboratory test must be confirmed for it to be valid in a court of law.

However, as already explained, Porte's arrest was done in violation of Section 21, R.A. 9165. It therefore follows that the drug test conducted on him was also illegal for it is an indirect result of an invalid arrest.

The case of People v. Fatallo53 is instructive on this matter. The Court ruled therein that the acquittal of the accused from the charge of violation of Section 15, R.A. 9165 necessarily follows his acquittal from violation of Section 5, R.A. 9165, explaining that:

Section 21, R.A. 9165 is a statutory exclusionary rule of evidence, bearing in mind that, under the Rules of Court, "evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules.

The results of the drug test cannot therefore be used against Fatallo for they are considered, under the law, as the "fruit of the poisonous tree." In the case of People v. Alicando, it was explained thus:

According to this rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, whereas the ''fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same illegal act. The ''fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.

Otherwise stated, if Fatallo was not arrested in the first place, he would not have been subjected to a drug test because Section 38 refers to "any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act." 54 (Emphasis, italics and underscoring in the original; citations omitted.)

As applied in this case, since it was not proven that Porte violated Section 5, R.A. 9165, then the drug test conducted on him has no basis. Without a valid screening and confirmatory test for drug use, the accused-appellant cannot be held criminally liable for illegal use of dangerous drugs under Section 15, R.A. 9165. An acquittal for this charge follows as a necessary consequence.

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09786 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Robert Rosario Porte is hereby ACQUITTED:

1) In Criminal Case No. 7671-V for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165; and

2) In Criminal Case No. 7672-V for violation of Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.

Robert Rosario Porte is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for another lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. He is also DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.

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, p. 24.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rafael Antonio M. Santos and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon; id. 3-22.

3. Penned by Judge Marita Bernales Balloguing; CA rollo, pp. 54-67

4.Id. at 54.

5.Id. at 54-55.

6.Rollo, p. 4.

7.Id. at 4-5.

8.Id. at 5.

9.Id. at 5-6.

10.Id. at 6.

11.Id. at 6-7.

12.Id. at 7.

13.Id. at 8.

14.Id.

15.Id. at 7-8.

16.Supra note 3.

17. CA rollo, p. 66.

18.Id. at 63-65.

19.Id. at 16.

20.Id. at 46-51.

21.Supra note 2.

22.Rollo, p. 11.

23.Id. at 13-20.

24.Id. at 21-22.

25. CA rollo, pp. 41-51.

26.Id. at 71-86.

27.People v. Jagdon y Banaag, G.R. No. 234648, March 27, 2019.

28.People v. Otico, 832 Phil. 992, 1001 (2018).

29.Rollo, p. 47.

30.Cruz v. People, 597 Phil. 722, 728 (2009).

31.People v. Lacbanes, 336 Phil. 933, 941 (1997).

32. Records, p. 53.

33.Id. at 97-98.

34.Carino v. People, 600 Phil. 433, 448 (2009).

35.Aranas v. People, G.R. No. 242315, July 3, 2019.

36.People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018).

37. TSN dated February 11, 2016, p. 4; TSN dated August 3, 2016, pp. 12-13.

38. Records, p. 13

39.Id. at 92-94.

40.Rollo, p. 6.

41. TSN dated February 11, 2016, p. 3.

42. Record, p. 13

43. TSN dated March 23, 2017, pp. 4-5.

44. Records show that the name of media representative is Peter Scott Nolasco, not Peter Scott Artajos. Artajos is the last name of one of the barangay kagawads present during inventory.

45. TSN dated August 3, 2016, pp. 12-14.

46.People v. Dumagay, 825 Phil. 726, 739 (2018), citing People v. Geronimo, 817 Phil. 1163, 1174 (2017).

47.People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).

48.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 432 (2018), citing People v. De Guzman y Danzil, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).

49. Records, pp. 92-94.

50.Id. at 13.

51. CA rollo, p. 57.

52. SECTION 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. — A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00): Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply.

53. G.R. No. 218805, November 7, 2018.

54.Id.