SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240438. September 27, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.SAMIA AKMAD SARO-MUSOR, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated27 September 2021 which reads as follows: DETACa
"G.R. No. 240438 (People of the Philippines v. Samia Akmad Saro-Musor). — On appeal is the November 8, 2017 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. C.R.-H.C. No. 07539 affirming the April 7, 2015 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 33, Bauang, La Union in Criminal Case No. 4300-BG which found accused-appellant Samia Akmad Saro-Musor (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
An Information 3 dated October 11, 2012 was filed charging accused-appellant with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The accusatory portion of the Information reads:
On the 30th day of August 2012, in the Municipality of Bauang, Province of La Union, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without the authority of law, did then and there, for and in consideration of the amount of TWENTY NINE THOUSAND PESOS (P29,000.00), willfully and unlawfully, sell, convey and deliver to police officers acting as poseur-buyers, two (2) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride called shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing a total of nine point one three (9.13) grams.
Contrary to RA No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 4
Version of the Prosecution:
On August 30, 2012 at around 11:00 a.m., a confidential informant went to the San Fernando City Police Station to report about the illegal drug activities of a certain "Samia" from Bonuan Binloc, Dagupan City. After verifying the information, a buy-bust operation was planned with Police Officer 1 Francisca Bermudez (PO1 Bermudez) and Senior Police Officer 1 Hector Flores (SPO1 Flores) acting as poseur-buyers and pretending to be live-in partners interested in buying shabu. They were given P29,000.00 as marked money consisting of one (1) genuine P1,000,00 bill with serial number SG215376, while the rest were fake money. PO3 Gilbert Andulay (PO3 Andulay), PO2 Armand Bautista (PO2 Bautista) and PO2 Jose Marie Bersola (PO2 Bersola) acted as perimeter back-up operatives. 5 The Coordination 6 and Pre-Operation Reports 7 were prepared thereafter.
The informant was instructed to contact accused-appellant and arrange a drug deal for two (2) sachets of shabu. It was agreed that the transaction would take place in Jollibee Fast Food at San Fernando, La Union at around 1:00 p.m. However, accused-appellant transferred the meeting place to Bauang, La Union instead. At around 4:00 p.m., the buy-bust team boarded a van and proceeded to the target area. They parked in front of Western Union Money Transfer/Changer, Bauang and waited for accused-appellant. Upon the arrival of accused-appellant and her male companion, the informant approached accused-appellant and told her to go inside the van where the live-in partners (PO1 Bermudez and SPO1 Flores) were waiting. Inside the van, accused-appellant brought out two (2) plastic sachets and handed them over to PO1 Bermudez, who in turn handed accused-appellant the marked money. Suddenly, accused-appellant's male companion jumped out of the vehicle and ran away. Holding on to accused-appellant, SPO1 Flores and PO1 Bermudez introduced themselves as police officers and informed her of her rights and the cause of her arrest. Meanwhile, the back-up officers chased the male companion until they caught him in front of Caltex Gasoline Station, about 200 meters away from the van. At that place, PO1 Bermudez placed her initials on the seized items and conducted an inventory in the presence of Brgy. Captain Erlinda Villanueva (Brgy. Captain Villanueva) and media representative Kay Carmen Zalavaria (Zalavaria). The seized items were also photographed by PO3 Andulay. 8
The arrested suspects and seized items were brought to the Bauang Police Station. PO1 Bermudez submitted the confiscated items to PNP Crime Laboratory, Camp Oscar Florendo Parian (Parian). She also delivered the request for drug examination, 9 which was received by Police Senior Inspector Maria Theresa Amor Manuel (PSI Manuel), the forensic chemist in-charge. 10 PSI Manuel marked the items with "A-1" and "A-2" and signed them both with her initials. 11 The specimens later on tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, 12 a dangerous drug, as shown by Chemistry Report No. D-060-2012. 13
During arraignment, accused-appellant entered a plea of "not guilty." 14 In her defense, she denied the allegations against her. She claimed that the marked money retrieved from her by the police actually came from her male companion as payment for his debt. 15 Her companion turned out to be a minor who is exempt from criminal liability under RA 9344. Thus, his case was referred to the Municipal Social Welfare Development, DSWD of Bauang, La Union. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its April 7, 2015 Decision, 17 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty of Illegal Sale of Shabu, in violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. It found that all the requisites for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs were fully established by the prosecution. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses clearly established the conduct of a buy-bust operation where accused-appellant sold two (2) sachets of shabu to PO1 Bermudez and SPO1 Flores for P29,000.00. The trial court ruled that the identity of the seized items was duly established and preserved by the prosecution. It also noted that the prosecution witnesses positively identified during trial accused-appellant as the seller of the dangerous drugs. 18
The fallo of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, accused SAMIA AKMAD SARO-MUSOR is found guilty of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00. HEITAD
The shabu weighing a total of 9.13 grams, confiscated from the accused is forfeited in favor of the Government and after the finality of this decision shall be destroyed in accordance with the law. In the service of her sentence, accused shall be credited with her preventive imprisonment in accordance with the provisions of Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
Let a copy of this decision be furnished to the Director of the PDEA, La [Union] for his information and guidance.
SO ORDERED. 19
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed 20 the Decision before the CA, arguing that the prosecution failed to establish the validity of the buy-bust operation. She claimed that all the information gathered by the police officers were hearsay since the confidential informant was not presented in court nor was there any surveillance done to check the veracity of the information. 21 She also alleged that the inconsistent testimonies of the prosecution witnesses cast doubt on her guilt, showing that the accusation against her is merely fabricated. 22 Lastly, she contended that the chain of custody had been broken due to the police officers' failure to immediately mark the seized items upon confiscation, and the prosecution's failure to establish how the seized items were handled after her arrest. 23
On the contrary, the Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued that the elements of the crime were sufficiently established by the prosecution to sustain appellant's conviction. It asserted that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses did not consist of hearsay evidence. It pointed out that such inconsistencies pertained to minor details which did not affect the veracity and weight of the testimonies. More importantly, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items remain properly preserved and done in accordance with the law. 24
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The CA, in its assailed November 8, 2017 Decision, 25 affirmed the RTC's ruling which found accused-appellant guilty of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that all the elements for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs were satisfied by the prosecution. 26 It held that the delivery of the shabu to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummates the illegal transaction. 27 Such fact was adequately proven by the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and the supporting documents submitted in evidence. 28
As to the issue on hearsay evidence, the CA found that the police officers had sufficient personal knowledge to conduct a proper buy-bust operation. The fact that no previous surveillance was conducted is not fatal since it is not a legal requirement in conducting buy-bust operations. 29 It also noted that the confidential informant himself accompanied the police officers in the buy-bust operation, where he confirmed accused-appellant's identity. As to the alleged inconsistencies raised by accused-appellant, the CA agreed with the OSG that the inconsistencies pertained only to minor details that do not merit accused-appellant's acquittal. The CA also found that the chain of custody was unbroken since the prosecution sufficiently established all four links. Moreover, marking the seized items at the nearest police station instead of the place of arrest is warranted under the law. 30
Accused-appellant then elevated the case before Us, raising the issue of whether or not her guilt for the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
We find merit in the appeal.
We are guided by the long-standing principle that the reviewing court may consider any fact or circumstance in favor of the accused-appellant, although he/she has not assigned or raised it in his/her appeal. 31 In fact, jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements that every appeal of a criminal conviction opens the entire record to the reviewing court, which should determine whether the findings of the lower courts should be affirmed or reversed. 32 This is consistent with the constitutional mandate that every accused shall be presumed innocent unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. 33
In cases for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish the following essential elements, namely: (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 delivery of the illicit drugs to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal sale of dangerous drugs during the buy-bust transaction. 34 Without a doubt, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses sufficiently established the aforementioned elements. As culled from the Decision of the appellate court:
In court, SPO1 Hector Flores and PO1 Francisca Bermudez, the two (2) police officers who acted as poseur buyers pretending to be live-in partners, both confirmed the contents of their joint affidavit and therein described how they were introduced to the accused-appellant by the CI. They were able to identify the person of the accused-appellant as the seller; the two (2) plastic sachets containing "shabu" marked as Exhibit "E-1" and "E-2"; the inventory that PO1 Bermudez prepared in the presence of Brgy. Captain Erlinda Villanueva of Brgy. Central West, Bauang, La Union and Kay Carmen Zalavaria, reporter of ABS-CBN Northern Luzon, as show in the photographs presented in court; the markings that PO1 Bermudez placed on the brown envelope containing the plastic sachets and the plastic sachets containing the "shabu" seized from accused-appellant; and the boodle money that they prepared, as well as the photographs of the accused-appellant with the boodle money.
PO1 Bermudez further testified that they prepared one genuine One Thousand Peso (P1,000.00) bill with serial no. Z651634, 35 while all the rest of the money were fake bills. This was confirmed by PO3 Armand Bautista, adding that they prepared more or less a total amount of P30,000.00 in fake bills. 36 (Citations omitted)
However, it is equally necessary that the identity of the illegal drug be duly established since the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 37 To do so, the prosecution must account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized until its presentation in court as evidence. 38 The four links are as follows: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the seized and marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 39 In this case, the prosecution failed to establish the first link.
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, provides for the procedural requirements in the seizure, custody, and handling of confiscated illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia:
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: aDSIHc
1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
Furthermore, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 provides:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.] 40 (Emphasis and Underscoring ours)
In People v. Sendad, 41 We clarified the required witnesses under Section 21:
The law further requires that the said inventory and photography be done 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: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, "[a]n elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." (Citations omitted)
Since the amendment took effect in 2014 and the alleged crime in the present case transpired in 2012, the required witnesses are: (1) a representative from the media; (2) a representative from the (DOJ); and (3) any elected public official. Nonetheless, the Court allows substantial compliance with the three-witness requirement if the prosecution proves: (1) a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 42
This Court previously laid down examples of justifiable grounds, albeit not exclusive, in People v. Lim, 43 to wit: (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized in People v. Sipin: 44
The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It should take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Strict adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence. (Citations omitted, Emphasis and Underscoring ours)
Thus, while the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 and the IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, the justifiable ground for non-compliance must also be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.
Here, the prosecution witnesses failed to establish any plausible explanation on why the presence of a DOJ representative was not secured. Nowhere in the Joint Affidavit of Complaint/Arrest 45 does it state that efforts were done to secure his or her presence. To the contrary, it states that the other intel operatives only coordinated with the barangay officials of Brgy. Sevilla and members of the media. 46 Furthermore, PO1 Bermudez admitted in her testimony that only the Punong Barangay and media representative were present during the conduct of the inventory, to wit:
ATTY. LAIGO:
One last question, your Honor.
Q: In the certificate of inventory, you identified to us only the Punong Barangay and the representative of the media who was present?
A: Yes, sir. 47
As can be gleaned from the Certification of Inventory, 48 only the signatures of the Punong Barangay and media representative are present. The prosecution's evidence is bereft of any explanation on the absence of the DOJ representative. Worse, there is no showing that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the police officers to secure his or her presence.
In People v. Banding, 49 the Court ruled that the arresting team's unsubstantiated attempt to secure the presence of the barangay official and the absence of any effort to secure a DOJ representative, cast doubt that the dangerous drug allegedly seized from accused-appellant is the same drug delivered for documentation. In People v. Sendad, 50 the absence of the DOJ representative was left unacknowledged and justified, which warranted the acquittal of the accused. In People v. Globa, 51 the Court stressed the importance of having the three (3) required witnesses as a safeguard against planting of evidence, frame up, and any other taint of illegitimacy or irregularity.
To reiterate, any deviation from the procedure outlined in Section 21 committed by the buy-bust team, if unsubstantiated and unjustified by the prosecution, casts serious doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. The failure to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the prosecution's evidence insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, the finding of guilt by the trial court and the appellate court against the accused-appellant must be overturned.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The November 8, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. C.R.-H.C. No. 07539 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Samia Akmad Saro-Musor is ACQUITTED of the offense charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause. ATICcS
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court, within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for his information.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (CJ Gesmundo designated as additional Member per June 10, 2019 Raffle vice J. Inting who recused due to his sister's, J. Socorro B. Inting, participation in the Court of Appeals.)
By authority of the Court:
TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-16; penned by Associate Justice Rafael Antonio M. Santos and concurred in by Associate Justice Marlene B. Gonzalez-Sison and Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting.
2. Records, pp. 291-297; penned by Judge Rose Mary R. Molina-Alim.
3.Id. at 1.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 12.
6.Id. at 32.
7.Id. at 31.
8.Id. at 10-12.
9.Id. at 102.
10. TSN, September 10, 2013, pp. 4-5.
11.Id. at 7-8.
12.Id.
13. Records, pp. 20-21.
14.Id. at 59.
15.Id. at 141-142.
16.Id. at 5.
17.Id. at 291-297.
18.Id. at 294-297.
19. Records, p. 297.
20.Id. at 301.
21. CA rollo, pp. 88-89.
22.Id. at 91-92.
23.Id. at 93.
24. CA rollo, pp. 121-127.
25.Rollo, pp. 2-16.
26.Id. at 7-16.
27.Id. at 7.
28.Id.
29.Id. at 9.
30.Id. at 13.
31.People v. Yagao, G.R. No. 216725, February 18, 2019.
32.Id.; People v. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671, 680 (2016); People v. Oandasan, 787 Phil. 139, 150 (2016).
33. CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 14, par. (2).
34.People v. Reyes, supra.
35. Should be SG215376.
36.Rollo, pp. 7-8.
37.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
38.People v. Año, G.R. No. 230070, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018).
39.People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 224223, November 20, 2019, citing People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 81 (2018) and People v. Amaro, 786 Phil. 139, 148 (2016).
40. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," August 30, 2002.
41. G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
42. Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 pertinently states: "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."
43. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018 citing People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 93 (2018).
44.Supra note 43.
45. Records, p. 13.
46. Records, p. 11.
47. TSN, September 5, 2013, p. 18.
48. Records, p. 16.
49. G.R. No. 233470, August 14, 2019.
50.Supra note 41.
51. G.R. No. 241251, December 10, 2019.