People v. Setrina

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248779. November 10, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.RONALD ALLAN C. SETRINA, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 10, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 248779 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. RONALD ALLAN C. SETRINA, accused-appellant). — Even during the actual seizure, mandatory inventory and photographing of illicit drugs immediately after confiscation requires the third-party witnesses' presence. The required witnesses' presence in entrapment operations is not merely a rubberstamp to corroborate law enforcers' acts and self-serving declarations, but also safeguards the confiscated articles' identity, source, and integrity. 1

For this Court's resolution is an appeal assailing the Court of Appeals 2 Decision, which affirmed the conviction of Ronald Allan C. Setrina (Setrina), alias "Onat," 3 before the Regional Trial Court 4 for violation of Article II, Sections 5 5 and 11 6 of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.

Setrina was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs in relation to Section 25 7 of Republic Act No. 9165. 8 The charging portions of the two separate Informations read:

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1950-15

That on or about December 22, 2015, in Lupon, Davao Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-mentioned accused, without being authorized by law, willfully, unlawfully and consciously sold and delivered to PO3 ROLLY AMARILLO SAJULGA, a poseur-buyer, one (1) sachet of shabu weighing 0.1311 gram, correspondingly marked as "SS", which is a dangerous drug, and that in the commission of the above crime, accused was found positive for use of the afore-mentioned dangerous drug which is herein alleged as a qualifying aggravating circumstance.

CONTRARY TO LAW.

xxx xxx xxx

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1951-15

That on or about December 22, 2015, in Lupon, Davao Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, willfully, unlawfully, and consciously had in his possession and control three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing suspected shabu, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.1419 gram, 0.0120 gram, and 0.0779 gram, respectively marked as "RS1" to "RS3", and that in the commission of the above crime, accused was found positive for use of a dangerous drug (Methamphetamine) which is herein alleged as a qualifying aggravating circumstance.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 9 (Emphasis in the original)

On January 13, 2016, Setrina pleaded not guilty to the charges during arraignment. 10

On February 17, 2016, the defense admitted during pre-trial the accused's identity and stipulated that it will forego with the cross-examination of the forensic chemist who issued the relevant chemistry report. 11

After pre-trial, joint trial then ensued.

Before the prosecution presented its witnesses, 12 the defense admitted that in the evening of December 22, 2015, PO3 Rolly Sajulga (PO3 Sajulga) delivered the seized dangerous drugs to evidence custodian Police Officer III Cubillan 13 (PO3 Cubillan) at the Davao Oriental Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. From PO3 Cubillan, the dangerous drugs were then handed to Police Inspector Jade Ryan P. Bajade (Police Inspector Bajade) for examination and were eventually returned to PO3 Sajulga for safekeeping. On March 23, 2016, PO3 Cubillan brought the seized articles to the trial court.

Both parties also agreed to dispense with the testimony of Barangay Captain Florentino M. Maquilan III (Barangay Captain Maquilan), as his presence during the confiscated articles' inventory was undisputed. 14

PO3 Sajulga and PO2 Jonathan Antinero (PO2 Antinero), who were both assigned at Lupon Municipal Police Station, Davao Oriental, appeared as prosecution witnesses. 15 Their statements corroborated the following account of events:

On December 22, 2015, at around 4:00 p.m., PO3 Sajulga received a tip from a confidential informant that Setrina was peddling illicit drugs at Purok Hayahay, Barrio Pikas, Lupon, Davao Oriental. Acting on the information, their Chief of Police formed a buy-bust team and designated PO3 Sajulga as the poseur-buyer and PO2 Antinero as the arresting officer during their briefing. 16

Thereafter, PO3 Sajulga, PO2 Antinero, and the confidential informant proceeded to the area of operation and saw Setrina waiting near a store. The confidential informant then introduced PO3 Sajulga to Setrina as a buyer. PO3 Sajulga handed a P500.00 bill to Setrina in exchange for a sachet of shabu. 17

PO3 Sajulga signaled the sale transaction's consummation by switching on his phone's light, which prompted PO2 Antinero to arrest Setrina. A body search was then conducted after PO3 Sajulga informed Setrina of his constitutional rights, which yielded to the seizure of three other sachets of shabu, a lighter, a wallet, and the marked money. 18

PO3 Sajulga marked the confiscated items then contacted Brgy. Captain Maquilan and media representative Richard Enero (media representative Enero). When the witnesses arrived, PO3 Sajulga photographed and inventoried the seized items at the area of arrest. Setrina, accompanied by the witnesses, was brought to the police station for the recording of the incident in the police blotter. 19

PO3 Sajulga was in custody of the seized dangerous drugs from the moment of arrest and confiscation until the articles were delivered to PO3 Cubillan at the crime laboratory at around 10:40 p.m. of December 22, 2015. PO3 Cubillan then turned over the articles to Police Inspector Bajade for qualitative examination which, in turn, resulted positive for shabu. 20

On the other hand, the defense presented Setrina and his son, John Vaughn Setrina (John Vaughn) as witnesses. 21

Setrina denied the accusations against him and claimed that he was merely framed. 22

On December 22, 2015, at around 5:00 p.m., Setrina was allegedly at the Davao Oriental Electric Cooperative, Inc. (DORECO) office, requesting for a meter. After his transaction in DORECO, he was courteously approached by non-uniformed police officers and was requested to board a private vehicle, to which he willingly acceded. 23

Setrina identified all the non-uniformed police officers but one. The ones he identified were Police Officers Sapalicio, Conat, and Catog. Once inside the vehicle, the police officers tried eliciting information about dangerous drugs personalities within Lupon. After answering that he had no knowledge on the matter, the police officers brought him to his house. 24

When they arrived at his house, Police Officer Catog handcuffed Setrina and reached into his pocket which had a hole in it. It was only when Barangay Captain Maquillan arrived an hour later that Police Officer Catog pulled out his hand and presented small plastic sachets, which Setrina denied being his. 25

PO3 Sajulga was also at the scene, who had a plastic bag with a P500.00 bill and paper in it. He secured all the items purportedly confiscated from Setrina in the plastic bag and sealed it with a tape. He similarly took custody of Setrina's wallet, which contained another sachet of shabu, and which Setrina assumed to be from PO3 Sajulga. Afterwards, the police officers brought Setrina to the police station using the patrol car. 26

John Vaughn, for his part, testified that his father was at the DORECO office around 4:35 p.m. of December 22, 2015, as their electricity was disconnected earlier. Before 5:00 p.m. that same day, uniformed police officers went to their house and asked where Setrina was. When his older brother answered that their father was at the DORECO office, the police officers left and later returned to their house with Setrina. 27

John Vaughn was then ordered to sit outside the fence of their house. Allegedly, he saw one police officer put his hand inside the pocket of his father's shorts, only to pull it out when Barangay Captain Maquilan arrived an hour later. While John Vaughn saw a plastic bag fall from that police officer's hands after the latter pulled out his hand from his father's pocket, John Vaughn did not report the same to the Barangay Captain out of fear, despite his belief that the shabu was merely planted. 28

On October 19, 2017, the Regional Trial Court found that all the elements of illegal sale 29 and illegal possession of dangerous drugs were duly established. Moreover, the prosecution sufficiently established an unbroken chain of custody over the seized dangerous drugs from the moment of Setrina's apprehension until the articles were brought to the laboratory for qualitative examination. 30

As against the police officers' positive testimonies, the trial court frowned upon Setrina's defense of denial and frame-up. In the absence of any ill-motive to falsely implicate the accused, it gave more credence to the witnesses for the prosecution who, as police officers, enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. 31 Accordingly, the trial court convicted Setrina of the charges and disposed the case in this wise:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused RONALD ALLAN C. SETRINA is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of the Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 9346, and he is sentenced [to] suffer the penalty of life imprisonment without eligibility for parole and ordering him to pay the fine of P500,000.00, for violation of Section 5, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165, and imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and a fine of P300,000.00, for violation of Section 11, Article II, Republic Act No. 9165.

The four sachets of shabu subject of these cases are confiscated in favor of the Government and are ordered to be turned-over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for its appropriate disposal.

SO ORDERED. 32

On May 23, 2019, the Court of Appeals upheld Setrina's conviction and affirmed that the prosecution adequately established all the elements of the charges through PO3 Sajulga's testimony. Applying the "objective" test, it pointed out that the scenario depicted by the police officers shows the entrapment's legitimacy, as the operation's details were clearly provided.

Moreover, the Court of Appeals held that the prosecution was able to substantiate an unbroken chain of custody over the seized prohibited drugs through the apprehending team's compliance with Section 21 (1) of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640. Similar to the trial court, it gave more weight to the police officers' positive assertions over Setrina's denial. 33 The dispositive portion of its Decision provides:

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The 19 October 2017 Judgment of the Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 32, Lupon, Davao Oriental, in Criminal Cases Nos. 1950-15 and 1951-15, for Violations of Sections 5 and 11, in relation to Section 25, of Article II, [Republic Act No.] 9165, is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED. 34

Hence, this appeal. 35

On August 16, 2019, the Court of Appeals forwarded the case records to this Court 36 pursuant to its July 4, 2019 Resolution which gave due course to Setrina's Notice of Appeal. 37

In a September 25, 2019 Resolution, this Court noted the records forwarded by the Court of Appeals and notified the parties to submit supplemental briefs should they desire to do so. 38 However, both parties manifested that they no longer intend to file Supplemental Briefs. 39

Accused-appellant prays for his acquittal. 40 He argues that the presumption of regularity cannot work in favor of the police officers, since there were irregularities committed during the entrapment operation. 41 Allegedly, since there was no surveillance prior to his apprehension, there is no basis to suppose that he was peddling dangerous drugs in their area. Moreover, since PO3 Sajulga testified that it was only their Chief of Police who talked to the confidential informant, his statements on the matter were entirely hearsay and, therefore, inadmissible as evidence. 42

Accused-appellant also assails the third-party witnesses' belated presence, who only came after his arrest. Considering that a briefing was conducted beforehand, he argues that they should have already been at the ready to witness the marking, inventory, and photographing of the confiscated items immediately after his apprehension. Contrarily, it was only after the buy-bust operation's completion and the body search that the barangay captain was contacted. 43

Accused-appellant argues that PO3 Sajulga's bare testimony does not suffice to prove the purported sale transaction. There were allegedly no other witnesses to corroborate PO3 Sajulga's claim regarding the completion of the entrapment operation and body search. With the foregoing irregularities on the police officers' part, there is allegedly doubt whether an entrapment really occurred. 44

Additionally, accused-appellant points out specific details in the buy-bust operation showing gaps in the chain of custody. 45

First, there was no immediate marking, inventory, and photographing of the articles upon their seizure, since the mandatory processes were only conducted after the third-party witnesses' arrival. No details were also provided as to how the four sachets of shabu were handled before the witnesses reached the area of arrest. 46

Second, PO3 Sajulga's claim that he alone held the confiscated illicit drugs from the area of apprehension to the crime laboratory was unsubstantiated. The Request for laboratory examination reveals that there were other investigators, namely, PO2 Leo Michael T. Sapalicio and PO1 Eliezalde F. Ronquillo, who took part in the case but were not called to testify. Also, contrary to PO3 Sajulga's assertion that he placed his markings on the confiscated items, the Inventory of the property seized merely showed a list of the items without particularly indicating their markings. 47

As to accused-appellant, there is likely a possibility of tampering and contamination of evidence, since PO3 Sajulga failed to mention whether the plastic sachets were heat-sealed; or if not, whether he sealed or fastened the sachets. Given the lack of procedural safeguards, there is allegedly no guarantee that the dangerous drugs were at the same condition from the time of seizure until delivery to the crime laboratory for qualitative examination. 48

Finally, accused-appellant assails the forensic chemist's lack of testimony, and claimed that the parties only stipulated to dispense with evidence custodian PO3 Cubillan's testimony. 49

Plaintiff-appellee People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, counters that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs were sufficiently established. 50 It argues that the delivery of the items to the designated poseur-buyer and accused-appellant's receipt of the marked money effectively completed the transaction. 51

Plaintiff-appellee also asserts that the prosecution was able to successfully ascertain an unbroken chain of custody over the confiscated illicit drugs. It was allegedly proven that the articles seized were also the ones subjected to qualitative examination, and eventually offered as evidence in court. In the absence of ill-will on the police officers' part, plaintiff-appellee insists on the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. 52

For this Court's resolution is whether or not accused-appellant Ronald Allan C. Setrina's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Subsumed in the resolution of this issue is whether or not the apprehending team observed the chain of custody rule in handling the confiscated dangerous drugs.

We rule for accused-appellant.

I

To warrant a conviction, the prosecution must establish the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt considering the due process clause and the presumption of innocence afforded by the Constitution. Proof beyond reasonable doubt entails that every detail necessary to constitute the offense must be proven.

For a plausible conviction of illegal sale of dangerous drugs penalized under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, the prosecution must establish the following elements:

(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.

As to illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, the concurrence of the following elements must be determined:

(1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug.

The confiscated illicit drugs from the accused constitute the corpus delicti of the charges; hence, the identity and integrity of the items should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. It is for the prosecution to guarantee that the dangerous drugs offered as evidence in court were the very ones confiscated from the accused. Conformity with the chain of custody requirements eliminates needless doubts on the identity of the evidence. 53

The chain of custody pertains to:

"[T]he duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction." Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition. 54 (Emphasis supplied)

The following are the four links in the chain that should be duly proven by the prosecution:

[F]irst, 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. 55 (Emphasis supplied)

It was explained in Mallillin v. People56 that the rule requires substantiation in every link of the chain:

As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.57 (Emphasis supplied)

Moreover, this Court elucidated in Mallillin that strict conformity to the chain of custody rule is important due to the distinctive nature of narcotics:

Indeed, the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives . . .

A unique characteristic of narcotic substances is that they are not readily identifiable as in fact they are subject to scientific analysis to determine their composition and nature. The Court cannot reluctantly close its eyes to the likelihood, or at least the possibility, that at any of the links in the chain of custody over the same there could have been tampering, alteration or substitution of substances from other cases — by accident or otherwise — in which similar evidence was seized or in which similar evidence was submitted, for laboratory testing. Hence, in authenticating the same, a standard more stringent than that applied to cases involving objects which are readily identifiable must be applied, a more exacting standard that entails a chain of custody of the item withsufficient completeness if only to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with.58 (Emphasis supplied)

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, 59 provides for the measures in handling the seized illicit dangerous drugs from the accused before the filing of criminal action:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.

(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;

(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification [.] 60 (Emphasis supplied)

The importance of conformity with Section 21 cannot be gainsaid. Deviations from its procedures equates to the prosecution's failure to prove the identity of the corpus delicti, which is an important element of the charges. "By failing to establish an element of these offenses, non-compliance will thus, engender the acquittal of an accused." 61

I (A)

The apprehending officer's confiscation and marking of the illicit drugs from the accused constitute the initial crucial link in the chain of custody. While the marking of the confiscated dangerous drugs does not expressly constitute as a requirement in the chain of custody under Section 21, it is essential in safeguarding the seized items' evidentiary weight and integrity.

Marking of the confiscated illicit drugs is a separate requirement from inventory and photographing. 62 In People v. Dahil, 63 this Court elucidated that the immediate marking of the items after seizure averts any opportunity for substitution or planting of evidence.

Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs or other related items immediately after they have been seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence.64 (Emphasis supplied)

Given such implication, the attendance of the third-party witnesses is therefore required even during the actual confiscation, as well as the marking which immediately comes after seizure. This guarantees that the items eventually inventoried, photographed, examined, and presented as evidence in court were the ones initially confiscated from the accused. 65

Pertinently, as underscored in People v. Tomawis, 66 the attendance of third-party witnesses during actual confiscation not only removes doubt on the origin and identity of the seized illicit drugs, but also refutes the common defense of frame-up:

The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.

The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as 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. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses 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 of RA 9165.

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.

To restate, the presence of the three 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."67 (Emphasis supplied)

In the trial court's summary of PO3 Sajulga's testimony, he only conducted the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized illicit drugs upon the arrival of Barangay Captain Maquilan and media representative Enero in the area of arrest. 68 Contrarily, in the Court of Appeals' summary of the prosecution's version, it was only after PO3 Sajulga marked the confiscated articles that the third-party witnesses were contacted for them to attest on the conduct of the ensuing inventory and photographing. 69

Despite the discrepancies, it is nevertheless clear that the third-party witnesses were not present during the actual confiscation of the illicit drugs, since they only arrived after the buy-bust operation's completion. Evidently, Barangay Captain Maquilan and media representative Enero failed to witness the actual sale transaction which led to accused-appellant's arrest, as well as the consequent body search on accused-appellant which resulted to the seizure of three other sachets of shabu.

Without their insulating presence at the time of the actual confiscation, this Court is left with no other impartial guarantee as to the dangerous drugs' identity and source, other than PO3 Sajulga's and PO3 Antinero's mere self-serving declarations. This Court's ruling in People v. Castillo70 is telling:

Having third-party witnesses present only during the subsequent physical inventory and photographing renders the whole requirement of their presence futile. Securing third-party witnesses provides a layer of protection to the integrity of the items seized and forecloses any opportunity for the planting of dangerous drugs. Having their presence only at a very late stage reduces them to passive automatons, utilized merely to lend hollow legitimacy by belatedly affixing signatures on final inventory documents despite lacking authentic knowledge on the items confronting them. They are then reduced to rubberstamps, oblivious to how the dangers sought to be avoided by their presence may have already transpired.71 (Emphasis supplied)

Ensuring the presence of the third-party witnesses at the time of confiscation could have bolstered the case of the prosecution, as it would belie accused-appellant's claim that that he was merely framed and that no buy-bust operation happened. 72 Considering that the police officers even conducted a briefing prior to the entrapment, this Court finds no reason why they failed to secure their presence at the inception of the operation despite having sufficient time to do so.

I (B)

Aside from the failure to obtain the third-party witnesses' presence during the actual confiscation, it is also apparent from PO3 Sajulga's testimony that there was an irregularity in the marking of the seized dangerous drugs:

Direct Examination of PO3 Sajulga:

Pros. Pudpud:

Q: Upon receipt of the information, what [did] you[r] station do [,] if any?

A: Our [Chief of Police] conducted [a] briefing regarding the buy [-] bust operation against certain Onat.

Q: What is your participation?

A: I am the poseur-buyer.

[xxx xxx xxx]

Q: So, after the informant introduced you to the accused, what happened next?

A: I was able to purchase a shabu, [S]ir.

Court:

Q: From whom?

A: From alias Onat, your Honor.

Pros. Pudpud:

Q: How many sachets of shabu?

A: One (1) sachet, [S]ir.

Q: How much?

A: P500.00 pesos, [S]ir.

Q: And did you receive that one (1) sachet?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: How about the P500.00, were you able to give it to him?

A: Yes, [S]ir.

Q: So, after the [exchange] of the shabu and the P500.00, what happened next?

A: I made the pre-arranged signal by switching on the light of my cellphone then he approached.

Q: Are you referring to whom? [sic]

A: PO1 Antinero.

Q: Did he accede to your signal?

A: Yes, [S]ir.

Q: So, what did he do [,] if any, he arrested? [sic]

A: Yes, [S]ir.

Q: How about the one (1) sachet of shabu that you bought, where is it when Antinero arrested the accused?

A: In my hands, sir.

Q: So, you [were] holding it?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So, after the accused was arrested, what did you do [,] if any?

A: I searched the accused, sir.

Q: What part of his body [did] you search?

A: The whole body, [S]ir, from shoulders down, [S]ir.

Q: What happened after you bodily searched the accused?

A: When I bodily searched the accused, I was able to recover from his back pocket [,] a wallet [,] and on his front right pocket, the money that I [used to] pay the accused and other three (3) sachets.

Q: Aside from the marked money and the three (3) sachets containing shabu, what else?

A: Lighter, [S]ir.

Q: Nothing more?

A: Nothing more, [S]ir.73 (Emphasis supplied)

There was already a gap in the first link of the chain when PO3 Sajulga ensued with the body search of accused-appellant, without immediately marking the shabu subject of sale in his hands. When PO3 Sajulga retrieved three more sachets from accused-appellant, no details were provided on how those were kept separate from the initially confiscated sachet of shabu. Accordingly, there is a chance that the seized article subject of illegal sale was interchanged with the items subject of illegal possession. Distinguishing the articles is relevant here, as the penalty to be imposed for illegal possession of shabu rests on the quantity or weight of the dangerous drugs involved. 74

Furthermore, in utter disregard of Section 21, the illicit drugs were not inventoried and photographed "immediately after seizure and confiscation." It is uncontested that the foregoing mandatory procedures were conducted at the place of arrest and were made in the presence of an elected public official and a media representative. Notably, however, it was only after a considerable lapse of time from the time of seizure that the articles were inventoried and photographed.

Except for the general assertion that PO3 Sajulga solely held custody of the seized items from the moment of apprehension and confiscation until the articles were delivered to the laboratory for qualitative examination, 75 there was no specific account of the intervening period between the time the illicit drugs were seized from accused-appellant until the third-party witnesses' arrival in the area of arrest. Given the substantial break at this early part of the chain, there is already no guarantee against any possible planting or switching of evidence.

With the prosecution's failure to faithfully conform to the exacting measures provided under Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, the identity, source, and integrity of the illicit drugs purportedly obtained from accused-appellant becomes tainted. 76

II

Section 21 (1), as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, contains a proviso that allows deviations based on "justifiable grounds." However, for an acceptable noncompliance, the following requisites should be established:

[F]irst, the prosecution must specifically allege, identify, and prove "justifiable grounds"; second, it must establish that despite non-compliance, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs and/or drug paraphernalia were properly preserved. Satisfying the second requisite demands a showing of positive steps taken to ensure such preservation. Broad justifications and sweeping guarantees will not suffice. 77 (Emphasis supplied)

Here, it is evident that the saving clause cannot work in favor of the prosecution. Apart from a mere sweeping assurance that the evidentiary weight and integrity of the seized illicit drugs were safeguarded, 78 nothing in the record shows that it acknowledged certain departures from Section 21 on the police officers' part, let alone pleaded justifiable grounds for their noncompliance.

Besides, even the presumption of regularity cannot be considered in favor of the police officers due to the blatant lapses committed in the handling of the seized illicit drugs. "The presumption stands when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty." 79 Still, even in that case, the presumption of regularity cannot surmount the presumption of innocence, since an accused's constitutionally mandated right prevails over a simple rule of evidence. 80

Finally, it is worth emphasizing that the dangerous drugs retrieved from accused-appellant were only in minuscule amounts. 81 On its own, the minuscule quantity of confiscated dangerous drugs is not a basis for acquittal. Nonetheless, this situation reinforces the need for a stricter conformity with Section 21 82 which, in this case, the police officers miserably failed to do.

When the identity of the corpus delicti is compromised due to non-conformity with Section 21, the essential elements of illegal sale and illegal possession remains lacking, and thus warrants accused-appellant's acquittal of the charges. 83

In closing, this Court reiterates its ruling in People v. Holgado: 84

It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels. 85

WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals May 23, 2019 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01812-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Ronald Allan C. Setrina is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered to be immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General 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. For their information, copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

The Regional Trial Court is directed to turn over the four (4) sachets of shabu subject of this case to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law. DETACa

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

2.Rollo, pp. 5-18. The May 23, 2019 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01812-MIN was penned by Associate Justice Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Edgardo A. Camello and Walter S. Ong of the Twenty-First (21st) Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan de Oro City.

3. CA Rollo, p. 58, RTC Decision.

4.Id. at 56-71. The October 19, 2017 Decision in Crim. Case Nos. 1950-15 & 1951-15 was rendered by Presiding Judge Emilio G. Dayanghirang III of the Regional Trial Court of Lupon, Davao Oriental, Branch 32.

5. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 5 provides:

SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions[.]

6. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 11 provides:

SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof;

xxx xxx xxx

(5) 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu";

xxx xxx xxx

Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:

xxx xxx xxx

(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having an therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.

7. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), Sec. 25 provides:

SECTION 25. Qualifying Aggravating Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime by an Offender under the Influence of Dangerous Drugs. — Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the contrary, a positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of a crime by an offender, and the application of the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable.

8.Rollo, p. 5.

9. CA Rollo, pp. 56-57.

10.Id. at 58.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 57-58.

13.Id. None of the pleadings in the rollo mentioned PO3 Cubillan's full name.

14.Rollo, p. 7.

15. CA rollo, pp. 58-59.

16.Id.

17.Id. at 59.

18.Id.

19.Id. at 60: see rollo, p. 8.

20.Rollo, p. 8. However, based on the summary of PO3 Sajulga's testimony in the Regional Trial Court's Decision (CA rollo, p. 59), the marking, inventory, and photographing of the confiscated items were only conducted when the third-party witnesses arrived at the area of arrest.

21.Id.

22.Id.

23.Id. at 9.

24.Id.

25.Id.

26.Id.

27.Id.

28.Id. at 9-10. However, based on the summary of John Vaughn's testimony in the Regional Trial Court's Decision (CA rollo, pp. 62-63), Setrina allegedly went to the DORECO Office around 5:05 p.m. of December 22, 2015. When the police officers returned to their house with Setrina, they made the latter sit outside the fence.

29. CA rollo, pp. 64-66.

30.Id. at 67-68.

31.Id. at 69-70.

32.Id. at 71.

33.Rollo, pp. 12-17.

34.Id. at 17.

35.Id. at 19-21.

36.Id. at 1.

37.Id. at 22.

38.Id. at 24-25.

39.Id. at 26-32, Plaintiff-Appellee's Manifestation. See also Accused-Appellant's Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief dated January 14, 2020.

40. CA rollo, p. 52, Accused-Appellant's Brief.

41.Id.

42.Id. at 44.

43.Id. at 44-45.

44.Id. at 45.

45.Id. at 46.

46.Id.

47.Id. at 48-49.

48.Id. at 51.

49.Id. at 49-51.

50.Id. at 82, Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief.

51.Id. at 84-85.

52.Id. at 83-85, Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief.

53.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

54.People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

55.People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

56. 576 Phil. 576 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

57.Id.

58.Id.

59.Amendment to Republic Act No. 9165. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (2014) is controlling as the incidents of the case happened on December 22, 2015.

60.Id.

61.People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

62.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

63. 750 Phil. 212 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

64.Id.

65.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

66. 830 Phil. 385 (2018) [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].

67.Id. at 408-409.

68. CA rollo, p. 59.

69.Rollo, p. 8.

70.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, August 7, 2019, <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65610> [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

71.Id.

72.Rollo, pp. 8-9, CA Decision and CA rollo, pp. 61-62.

73.Rollo, pp. 12-13.

74.SeePeople v. Radang, 806 Phil. 21 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].

75.Seerollo, p. 8, CA Decision and CA rollo, p. 59.

76.See People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].

77.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 913 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

78. CA rollo, p. 85, Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief.

79.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].

80.Id.

81.Rollo, p. 8, CA Decision.

82.People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

83.SeePeople v. Que, 824 Phil. 882 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

84. 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].

85.Id. at 100.