SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 225962. December 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINE, plaintiff-appellee, vs. ROMEO SULAYAO y MASINDA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 December 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 225962 (People of the Philippine v. Romeo Sulayao y Masinda). — Accused-appellant Romeo Sulayao y Masinda (Sulayao) appeals 1 before this Court the February 6, 2015 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04862, which affirmed the December 10, 2010 Joint Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong City, Branch 210 in Crim. Case No. MC03-7541-D and Crim. Case No. MC03-7542-D, convicting Sulayao of Illegal Possession and Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 11 and 5, respectively, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents:
Sulayao was charged with Illegal Possession and Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs in two (2) separate Informations 4 that read:
Criminal Case No. MC03-7541-D:
That on or about the 13th day of October 2003, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, not having been lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing 0.09 gram of white crystalline substance, which were found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "Shabu", a dangerous drug, without the corresponding license and prescription, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Criminal Case No. MC03-7542-D:
That on or about the 13th day of October 2003, in the City of Mandaluyong, Philippines, a place within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been lawfully authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell, deliver, and distribute to PO1 JESUS DELA CRUZ, a·poseur-buyer, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance, which was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "Shabu", a dangerous drug, for the amount of P60.00 consisting of three (3) pcs. of P20.00 bills with Serial Nos. QK113868, PR491718 and QL026803, Philippine Currency, without the corresponding license or prescription, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
Upon his arraignment, Sulayao entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. 7 During pre-trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated, among others, on the existence of Chemistry Report No. D-1957-03E. 8
Trial on the merits ensued, The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Forensic Chemist Officer Annalee Forro; (2) Police Officer 1 Jesus Dela Cruz (PO1 Dela Cruz); (3) Special Police Officer 3 Bernard Bacarra (SPO3 Bacarra); and (4) Police Officer 1 Joel Dadula (PO1 Dadula). 9 On the other hand, the defense anchored on the sole testimony of Sulayao himself. 10
Version of the Prosecution:
On October 13, 2003, at around 11 p.m., SPO3 Bacarra received a phone call from a confidential informant (CI) pointing to the involvement of alias Dodi Miong, who was later identified as Sulayao, in the sale of illegal drugs in front of Tumbok Billiard Hall at Nueve de Pebrero, Brgy. Addition Hills, Mandaluyong City. 11 A buy-bust operation was organized and coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). PO1 Dela Cruz was designated as the poseur-buyer and was given three pieces of P20.00 bills marked with three letter Bs at the dorsal portion as buy-bust money. 12
At around 11:30 p.m., the buy-bust team composed of SPO3 Bacarra and PO1 Dela Cruz proceeded to Tumbok Billiard Hall. PO1 Dela Cruz saw Sulayao with three other individuals. PO1 Dela Cruz approached Sulayao saying, "Miong, pabili naman baka pwede na itong ₱60.00 kulang kulang pera eh bawi na lang ako sa susunod." Sulayao initially turned down the offer, but eventually agreed after some haggling. PO1 Dela Cruz handed the marked money to Sulayao who, in turn, gave a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. 13
At that point, PO1 Dela Cruz removed his cap signifying the consummation of the sale transaction. PO1 Dela Cruz placed the plastic sachet in his cap. SPO3 Bacarra immediately approached Sulayao who was inserting the buy-bust money in his shorts, and then arrested him. Sulayao attempted to resist the arrest but SPO3 Bacarra successfully handcuffed him. After frisking Sulayao, SPO3 Bacarra recovered a bladed weapon tucked at the back of Sulayao's waist. PO1 Dela Cruz also found two more plastic sachets of suspected shabu in the possessin of Sulayao. 14
Sulayao was brought to Mandaluyong Medical Center for physical examination. After he was cleared by a doctor, Sulayao was brought to the police station for investigation and marking of the seized items. PO1 Dela Cruz marked the sachet subject of the sale as "JPC3" while the other two sachets found in Sulayao's possession were marked as ''JPC1" and "JPC2." 15
PO1 Dela Cruz surrendered the seized items to police investigator PO1 Dadula, who requested for their laboratory examination and for a drug test on Sulayao. 16 The results of the examination of the three sachets, per Physical Science Report No. D-1957-03E, yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 17
Version of the Defense:
On October 13, 2003, at around 11:30 p.m., Sulayao was walking along Nueve de Pebrero, Mandaluyong when one of several individuals inside a parked vehicle called his attention. He heeded the call and went near the vehicle. Several men alighted from the vehicle and asked him about a certain "Edgar" whom Sulayao did not know. One of the men frisked him and took his money and cellular phone. Then he was boarded inside the vehicle and brought to Mandaluyong City Police Station. At the police station, he was able to identify a certain Dela Cruz as the person who frisked him, put marking, on the money bills taken from him, and who asked for ₱50,000.00 in exchange for his liberty. When he failed to produce the amount, he was told that drug charges would be filed against him. Sulayao pleaded for his liberty, but to no avail. He was then brought to Mandaluyong Medical Center then St. Francis SOCO for drug testing. 18
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In a Joint Decision 19 dated December 10, 2010, the trial court found that the prosecution sufficiently proved the culpability of Sulayao for the Illegal Sale of shabu through the presentation of the corpus delicti in court and the testimony of the poseur-buyer PO1 Dela Cruz. 20 The trial court held that the absence of coordination with the PDEA was not fatal to the cause of the prosecution because it is not a condition sine qua non for a successfull buy-bust operation. 21 Moreover, the trial court disregarded SPO3 Bacarra's testimony on the alleged two plastic sachets that fell from Sulayao's pocket since SPO3 Bacarra was not the one who recovered the said sachets from Sulayao. The trial court opined that PO1 Dela Cruz's testimony ought to be given more weight than SPO3 Bacarra's narration on the matter, and that the inconsistency thereon merely proved that their testimonies were not concocted or rehearsed. 22 The trial court likewise resolved that the elements of Illegal Possession of Prohibited Drugs were present in the case. 23
The trial court did not give credence to Sulayao's uncorroborated testimony that he intended to use the money recovered from him to buy milk for his child. Neither did the trial court give credence to his assertion that he did not sell shabu to PO1 Dela Cruz. The trial court held that if the allegation of extortion were true, Sulayao should have filed a charge against PO1 Dela Cruz. His non-filing of a case showed that the alleged extortion was not be true. 24
The fallo of the Joint Decision reads, viz.:
WHEREFORE, finding accused Romeo Sulayao y Masinda guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offenses charged in these two (2) cases, he is hereby sentenced in Crim. Case No. MC03-7541-D (For Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165 for illegal possession of dangerous drugs) an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and One (1) day, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) years, as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00, and to pay the cost; and in Crim. Case No. MC03-7542-D (For Violation of Sec. 5, Article II, R.A. 9165 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs) to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, and to pay the cost.
The preventive imprisonment of the accused shall be credited in full in Crim. Case No. MC03-7541-D if he agrees in writing to abide by the disciplinary rules imposed by the City Jail on inmates, otherwise it shall be 4/5 thereof.
The evidence in these cases, three (3) plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, or commonly known as shabu, dangerous drugs, are ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
Upon the finality of this joint decision, the Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turn over the aforementioned evidence to the PDEA, under proper receipt, to be disposed of according to law, and the receipt to be attached to the records of these cases; and also the Branch Clerk of Court is directed to turn over the original bills P60.00 (3 pieces of P20.00) to the Bureau of National Treasury, also under proper receipt, for proper disposition thereof.
SO ORDERED. 25
Aggrieved, Sulayao appealed 26 the case interposing the following assignment of errors, to wit:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN GIVING FULL WEIGHT AND CREDENCE TO THE PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE CREDENCE NOTWITHSTANDING ITS FAILURE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED DRUGS.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EVERY LINK IN THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE SEIZED ITEMS.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE HIS GUILT BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. 27
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its February 6, 2015 Decision, 28 the appellate court emphasized that the prosecution for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 depends on the credibility of the witnesses who are the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation. The CA sustained the findings of the trial court with regard to the credibility of witnesses as well as in relation to the factual questions. 29 In the matter of compliance with the requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the appellate court hinged on the saving clause which is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Based on evidence, the CA observed that the police officers complied with the chain of custody rule in handling the seized items. 30
The appellate court likewise pointed out that Sulayao only raised the issue of noncompliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 for the first time on appeal that is fatal to his case. The CA viewed Sulayao's assertion of frame-up and denial with disfavor. He neither proffered evidence as to the alleged ill motive of the police officers to incriminate him. Absent such, the testimonies of the police officers deserved credit. 31
The dispositive portion of the appellate court's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is DISMISSED. The Joint Decision dated 10 December 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 210, in Criminal Case Nos. MC03-7541-D and MC03-7542-D is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 32
Unrelenting, Sulayao brought the case before this Court via an appeal. 33 In lieu of filing their supplemental briefs, both parties manifested 34 that they would be adopting the discussion and arguments in the brief for the plaintiff-appellee 35 and the brief for the accused-appellant. 36
Issue
Whether Sulayao is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Illegal Possession and Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. Sulayao is acquitted of the charges of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
People v. Estonilo37 instructs that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review to the extent that a conviction may be reversed into an acquittal, viz.:
The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law. 38
The Court, as the reviewing tribunal, finds reasonable doubt on Sulayao's culpability for Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
Without a doubt, the prosecution satisfactorily established all the elements of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs. However, the same is not true with the requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. In drugs cases, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to establish both the elements of the offense and compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 that safeguards the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items until their presentation as evidence in court. On this procedural aspect, the prosecution had fallen short in securing its case against Sulayao.
The elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 are the following: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. On the other hand, the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are the following: (1) the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of such dangerous drugs. 39
The prosecution established that indeed an illegal sale of dangerous drugs took place between Sulayao as seller, and PO1 Dela Cruz as poseur-buyer. PO1 Dela Cruz identified Sulayao as the seller during the buy-bust operation. Notably, the illegal sale transaction was consummated when Sulayao handed the sachet containing white crystalline substance to PO1 Dela Cruz, who, in turn, gave the amount of P60.00 as payment therefor. As for the illegal possession, Sulayao was caught in possession of two more plastic sachets of shabu when he was frisked after his arrest. Sulayao freely possessed the illegal drugs without authority to do so.
Nonetheless, while the prosecution adequately established the elements of the offenses, the procedural aspect remained questionable.
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, before it was amended by RA 10640,40 laid down the procedure in handling seized dangerous drugs, to wit:
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 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; (Emphasis Supplied)
Parenthetically, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) provides that noncompliance therewith may be excused for justifiable reasons provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti are preserved. The provision reads:
(a) The apprehending office/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; (Emphasis Supplied)
Clearly, the police officers failed to observe the procedural requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. Even more, they failed to justify their noncompliance. Worse, they did not even attempt to offer any plausible explanation. In particular, the prosecution did not present any inventory sheet or photographs of the seized evidence in court. The prosecution merely offered the following documents: (a) referral letter to the city prosecutor's office; 41 (b) pinagsamang sinumpaang salaysay of SPO3 Bacarra and PO1 Dela Cruz; 42 (c) arrest report; 43 (d) request for laboratory examination; 44 (e) request for drug test examination; 45 (f) Physical Science Report No. D-1957-03E; 46 (g) facsimile to the PDEA; 47 (h) pre-operation/coordination form; 48 (i) three (3) pieces of P20.00 bill; 49 (j) brown envelope containing plastic sachets; 50 and (k) spot report to the PDEA. 51
The aforementioned documents merely prove that a coordinated buy-bust operation occurred, that Sulayao was arrested for an alleged illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, and that the sachets seized from him tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. What was lacking is an inventory report signed by the accused, a representative from the media and DOJ, and an elected public official. This requirement is material and significant to remove any doubt of tampering of the seized items. The lack of an inventory creates a vacuum and breaks the chain of custody. Moreover, the law enforcers failed to provide a justifiable reason for their failure to observe said procedure and establish every link of the chain. This is clear from PO1 Dela Cruz's testimony during his direct and cross-examination, viz.:
[PROSECUTOR LARON]:
And what happened after you have investigated and blottered the incident in your office, what happened next Mr. Witness?
[PO1 DELA CRUZ]:
As a standard operating procedure, at the office we have the evidence marked by the person who had recovered the same.
Q: And after marking those evidence what happened next, Mr. Witness?
A: I turned over the evidences (sic): [1] the one which I bought; [2] the two other sachets which I recovered to the drug investigator PO1 Dadula for the preparation of the required request for Crime Laboratory Examination in order to determine whether or not the crystalline substance which I bought and the crystalline substance contained in the two plastic sachets which I further recovered from the accused are genuine shabu. 52
[ATTY. FUENTES]:
Was there a representative or counsel present for the accused, Mr. Witness, during the time you made an inventory?
[PO1 DELA CRUZ]:
None, sir.
Q: Was there a representative from the media for that matter, Mr. Witness?
A: None, sir.
Q: Was there a representative also from the Department of Justice?
A: None, sir.
Q: How about an elected public official?
A: None, sir.
Q: But you are aware that this is a provision of law?
A: No, sir. 53
Evidently, the buy-bust operation was irregular. While the elements of Illegal Sale and Possession of Dangerous Drugs were duly established, the chain of custody rule was not. While RA 9165 was a relatively new law at that time, everyone especially the police officers are not excused from complying therewith. Thus, in light of their non-compliance with the procedure outlined in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the acquittal of Sulayao is warranted. Compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 is required as much as the elements of the offense must be established.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The February 6, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04862 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Romeo Sulayao y Masinda is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be made immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Caguioa, J., designated additional Member per November 24, 2021 raffle vice Dimaampao, J., who recused himself due to prior action in the Court of Appeals; Gaerlan, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 131-132.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-14. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion and concurred in by Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
3. CA rollo, pp. 58-72. Penned by Judge Maria A. Cancino-Erum.
4. Records, p. 2; Record, p. 10.
5.Id. at 2.
6.Id. at 10.
7.Id. at 21.
8.Id. at 29.
9.Rollo, pp. 4-5.
10.Id. at 5.
11. TSN, August 4, 2004, pp. 326-332.
12.Id. at 333-341.
13.Id. at 341-349.
14.Id. at 349-352.
15.Id. at 352-358.
16.Id. at 358-363.
17. Records, p. 207.
18. TSN, October 20, 2008, pp. 295-309.
19. CA rollo, pp. 58-72.
20. Records, pp. 451-452.
21.Id. at 451.
22.Id. at 452.
23.Id. at 453.
24.Id. at 452-453.
25. CA rollo, pp. 26-27.
26.Id. at 28.
27.Id. at 42.
28.Rollo, pp. 2-14.
29. CA rollo, p. 121.
30.Id. at 122-125.
31.Id. at 125-126.
32.Rollo, pp. 13-14.
33. CA rollo, pp. 131-132.
34.Rollo, pp. 22-24, for the plaintiff-appellee; Rollo, pp. 26-27, for the accused-appellant.
35. CA rollo, pp. 99-112.
36.Id. at 42-56.
37. G.R. No. 248694, October 14, 2020.
38.People v. Estonilo. G.R. No. 248694, October 14, 2020, citing People v. Bagamano, 793 Phil. 602, 607 (2016).
39.People v. Buesa, G.R. No. 237850, September 16, 2020.
40. An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government, amending for the purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
41. Records, p. 201.
42.Id. at 202.
43.Id. at 203.
44.Id. at 205.
45.Id. at 206.
46.Id. at 207.
47.Id. at 198.
48.Id. at 209.
49.Id. at 199.
50.Id. at 199.
51.Id. at 210.
52. TSN, August 4, 2004, pp. 354-355.
53. TSN, October 3, 2006, pp. 438-439.