SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251972. March 23, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.REYNALDO BAG-ID TANTIADO @ "TATAY", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated23 March 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251972 (People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Bag-id Tantiado @ "Tatay"). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated 26 June 2019 of the Court of Appeals n (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02470. The CA affirmed the Joint Judgment 2 dated 13 December 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Branch 30, Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, in Crim. Case Nos. 2015-22920 and 2015-22921 finding herein accused-appellant Reynaldo Bag-id Tantiado (a) "Tatay" (appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.
Antecedents
Appellant was charged under two separate Informations, viz.:
Criminal Case No. 2015-22920:3
That on or about the 11th day of May, 2015, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused not being then authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a police poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of white crystalline substance containing 0.19 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as shabu, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165.
Criminal Case No. 2015-22921:4
That on or about the 11th day of May, 2015, in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused not being then authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally keep and possess ONE (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 6.96 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, locally known as "shabu," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165.
Duly assisted by counsel, appellant entered a plea of "not guilty" during arraignment. 5 Trial on the merits ensued. CAIHTE
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution established that at around 12 midnight of 10 May 2015, the office of the City Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Force Group (CAIDSOTG) of the Dumaguete City Police Station received information from its confidential agent that a certain "Tatay" is selling shabu at Barangay Calindagan, Dumaguete City. Senior Police Officer 4 Dario Paquera (SPO4 Paquera) instructed the confidential agent to arrange a transaction with Tatay. After 20 minutes, the confidential agent returned and informed SPO4 Paquera that he had made a deal to buy P500.00 worth of shabu from Tatay. A buy-bust operation was immediately organized. Police Officer 1 Rey Tano (PO1 Tano) was designated as the poseur buyer, to be accompanied by the confidential agent. PO2 Larry B. Aquitan (PO2 Aquiatan) was designated as the immediate back-up. PO1 Tano was given one P500.00 bill as buy-bust money. PO2 Aquitan coordinated the impending buy-bust operation with the local Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) office. 6
Subsequently, the buy-bust team proceeded to Purok Matinabangon II, Barangay Calindagan, Dumaguete City where the confidential agent had arranged to buy shabu from Tatay. PO1 Tano and the confidential agent proceeded to the area on board a motorcycle, while PO2 Aquiatan followed them using another motorcycle. The rest of the team proceeded to the area on board an unmarked four-wheeled vehicle.
Upon arriving at the area, PO1 Tano parked his motorcycle and waited for Tatay. After about 10 minutes, Tatay arrived on board a motorcycle. Tatay stopped infront of PO1 Tano and the confidential agent. Without disembarking from his motorcycle, Tatay asked them if they would be getting shabu and asked for their money. PO1 Tano told Tatay that he wanted to buy P500.00 worth of shabu. Upon hearing this, Tatay immediately gave PO1 Tano one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance in exchange for the P500.00 given by the latter.
After concluding that the sachet contained shabu, PO1 Tano immediately informed Tatay of his authority as a police officer, arrested the latter, and informed him of his constitutional rights in the Visayan dialect, which he affirmed to have understood. When asked for his complete name, Tatay answered that his name is Reynaldo Bag-id-Tantiado.
Following the arrest, PO1 Tano conducted a body search on Tatay and he was able to find the following items in Tatay's possession: (1) one big heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, (2) the P500.00 buy-bust money, (3) one piece disposable lighter, (4) one piece improvised tooter, (5) two pieces rolled tin foils, (6) twelve pieces empty transparent sachets, (7) one piece caliber .22 magnum black widow hand gun without serial number, and (8) five pieces caliber .22 ammunition. PO1 Tano seized and confiscated these items and arrested Tatay again, this time for illegal possession of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearm. PO1 Tano also seized and confiscated the motorcycle used to get to the meeting place.
At the crime scene, PO1 Tano marked all of the items he bought, seized, and confiscated from Tatay as follows: (1) with initials "RBT-BB-05-11-15" for the one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing shabu which was the object of the sale; and (2) with initials "RBT-P7-05-11-15" for the one (1) big sealed transparent plastic sachet which was found in possession of Tatay after the body search. The other items recovered were likewise marked by PO1 Tano.
PO1 Tano likewise conducted an inventory of the items at the crime scene, in the presence of appellant and a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, Anthony Chilius Benlot (Benlot), the only witness who arrived then. PO1 Tano and Benlot both signed the Inventory of Property/Items Seized. 7 PO2 Placido Xandro Paclauna, who took photographs during the inventory, also signed the Inventory.
Appellant was then brought to the Dumaguete City Police Station. PO1 Tano had sole possession of all the items seized. The inventory of the seized items was continued at the police station in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Roxan Pahayahay (Pahayahay), and media practitioner Brandon Teves (Teves), who both signed the Inventory. PO1 Tano thereafter placed the two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets inside a brown envelope, tape-sealed, and signed the same. PO1 Tano also prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test 8 addressed to the Provincial Chief of the PNP Crime Laboratory in Dumaguete City, which was signed by SPO4 Dario Paquera. PO1 Tano brought appellant and the brown envelope containing the seized items to the crime laboratory for examination and drug test.
The seized items were received by PO2 Robert Pama (PO2 Pama), the duty officer, at 8:50 in the morning of 11 May 2015. After ascertaining that the contents of the brown envelope tallied with the request, PO2 Pama resealed the brown envelope and kept the same in his locker to which only he had access. At 11:00 in the morning of the same day, PO2 Pama gave the brown envelope to Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena (PCI Llena), who marked anew the seized items and weighed the same. The qualitative examination conducted by PCI Llena yielded a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 9 The screening and confirmatory tests conducted on the urine sample from appellant likewise gave a positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. Before submitting the specimens to the trial court, PCI Llena kept the same in the evidence vault of the crime laboratory, which only she could access.
Version of the Defense
For his part, appellant denied the charges and claimed that all the pieces of evidence allegedly recovered from him were planted by his arresting officers. According to appellant, he was on his way home at past 12 midnight of 11 May 2015, coming from a drinking spree at Dumaguete City Boulevard, when he noticed a motorcycle following him. The person on the motorcycle overtook him, blocked his path, and asked him to stop. Appellant saw that the person had a gun so he did as he was told and disembarked from his motorcycle. The person told him to hand over his gun. Appellant was surprised since he did not have a gun with him. After a few minutes, more people arrived at the scene. Appellant was handcuffed and they searched for a gun and shabu which they were not able to recover from him. Appellant testified that they took his P100.00 gas money.
After an hour, a police mobile patrol arrived. Some things were placed in front of the mobile patrol, which upon closer examination of appellant, were some shabu and a gun, allegedly recovered from appellant. He also averred that the police officers tried to extort P200,000.00 from him in exchange for his freedom. However, he did not have any money. He argued that he was indiscriminately arrested by the police officers in order to reach their "quota."
Ruling of the RTC
On 13 December 2016, the RTC rendered a Joint Judgment 10 finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00. He was also found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and sentenced to supplier the penalty of 20 years and 1 day, to life imprisonment, and to pay a fine of P400,000.00.
The RTC held that the prosecution successfully proved the existence of all the elements necessary for appellant's conviction for the illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. It was shown that appellant was the subject of a buy-bust operation, where a warrantless arrest is justified. Also, the RTC ruled that there was compliance with the law as to the disposition and preservation of the subject drugs, and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs have not been compromised. The prosecution had established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the sold sachet of shabu, from the time this was first bought from appellant, until it was submitted for examination. On the other hand, appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up were deemed unworthy of belief in light of the positive and credible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
Ruling of the CA
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling in the assailed Decision 11 dated 26 June 2019. The CA held that from the documentary and testimonial evidence presented by the prosecution, there was no missing link in the chain of custody. The prosecution adequately proved the corpus delicti of the offense. Further, the CA declared that the absence of the requisite witnesses during the inventory and the marking of the seized items, does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. Due to the lateness of the hour, the other witnesses were not able to witness the inventory at the crime scene. The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty was not overcome by the self-serving assertions of appellant.
Hence, this appeal filed by appellant. HEITAD
Issue
For the Court's resolution is whether the CA correctly affirmed the conviction of appellant for illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is meritorious.
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated drug constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is essential, therefore, that the identity and integrity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty. In order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on its identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same, and account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drug is seized up to its presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 12
The two separate Informations alleged that the crimes charged were committed on 11 May 2015. In this regard, the governing law is RA 10640 which became effective on 23 July 2014. Section 1 of RA 10640, amending Section 21 of RA 9165, outlines the procedure that police officers must strictly follow to preserve the integrity of the confiscated drugs and/or paraphernalia used as evidence, viz.:
Section 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," is hereby amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 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 person/s 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.
"xxx xxx xxx
"(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;
"xxx xxx xxx."
RA 10640 now only requires two witnesses to be present during the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items: (1) an elected public official; and (2) either a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media.
The Court observed in People v. Lim13 that the saving clause previously contained in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 was essentially incorporated or inserted into the law by RA 10640 which, to restate, pertinently provides that "[n]oncompliance 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."
Hence, for this saving mechanism under RA 10640 to apply, the self-same conditions must be met, viz.: those laid down in previous jurisprudence interpreting and applying Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 prior to its amendment, to wit: (1) the prosecution must acknowledge or recognize the lapse/s in the prescribed procedure, and then provide justifiable reasons for said lapse/s; and (2) the prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items has been properly preserved. 14 The justifiable ground/s for failure to comply with the procedural safeguards mandated by the law must be proven as a fact, as the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 15
In this case, while the marking and inventory took place after seizure and confiscation, only one of the required two witnesses was present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. It was only Benlot, a DOJ representative, who was present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items at the crime scene. The mandate of RA 10640 is clear that there be presence of at least two witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized items. 16 The sole presence of the DOJ representative will not suffice as compliance.
During his testimony, PO2 Tano failed to provide a justifiable reason or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21. The police officers did not even acknowledge or recognize the lapse in the procedure. When asked about the other witnesses, PO2 Tano testified that "maybe because they were sleeping and there were not being contacted immediately." 17 This sweeping explanation cannot serve to condone the police officers' deviation from the prescribed procedure. ATICcS
The Court has held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." 18
The Court cannot consider the signature of the other two witnesses, Barangay Kagawad Pahayahay, an elected public official, and Teves, a media representative, as compliance with Section 21 to complete the required witnesses. It should be noted that Barangay Kagawad Pahayahay and Teves were present at the police station in the early morning of 11 May 2015, after the inventory and photographing at the crime scene. More so, they were merely required to sign the Inventory of Property/Items Seized, which had already been prepared prior to their arrival.
Pahayahay testified that she only received a text message from the police officers asking her to be a witness in the early morning of 11 May 2015, 19 after the buy-bust operation had been conducted. She went to the police station where she was just asked to sign the Inventory. 20 Likewise, Teves testified that when he arrived at the police station, the seized items were placed on top of the table, with the Inventory already filled-out, and the items already marked. 21
The presence of the required witnesses will guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame up," i.e., they are "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." 22 In People v. Mendoza, 23 the Court ruled that "without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the shabu, 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) might again rear their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affect the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused-appellant. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would preserve an unbroken chain of custody."
Time and again, the Court has ruled that noncompliance with the chain of custody requirements raises doubts on the credibility of the corpus delicti, and consequently, on the very claim that an offense penalized by RA 9165 was committed. The prosecution's failure to establish beyond reasonable doubt the critical elements of the offenses charged against accused-appellant can only serve to warrant his acquittal. 24
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated 26 June 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB CR-HC No. 02470 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Accordingly, appellant Reynaldo Bag-Id Tantiado @ "Tatay" is ACQUITTED for the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is confined for some 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 General is directed to report the action he/she has taken to this Court within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (SAJ E. M. Perlas-Bernabe, on Official Leave; Hernando, J., designated as Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2882 dated 17 March 2022.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 5-23. Penned by Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Emily R. Aliño-Geluz and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga.
2.CA rollo, pp. 43-56.
3. Records, p. 3.
4.Id. at 54.
5.Id. at 101.
6.Id. at 22. Certificate of Coordination with PDEA.
7.Id. at 25.
8.Id. at 30.
9.Id. at 36. Chemistry Report DT-134-15.
10.CA rollo, pp. 43-56. Records, pp. 167-173.
11.Rollo, pp. 5-23.
12.People vs. Fulinara, G.R. No. 237975, 19 June 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
13. G.R. No. 231989, 04 September 2018 [Per J. Peralta].
14.People vs. Maganon, G.R. No. 234040, 26 June 2019 [Per J. Del Castillo].
15.Id.
16.People vs. Ruiz, G.R. No. 243635, 27 November 2019 [Per J. Carandang].
17. TSN, 19 October 2016, p. 14.
18.People vs. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024 (2012), G.R. No. 190321, 25 April 2012 [Per J. Sereno], cited in People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 233744, 28 February 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
19. TSN, 20 October 2016, p. 6.
20.Id. at 7.
21. TSN, 24 October 2016, p. 3.
22.People vs. Oliva, G.R. No. 234156, 07 January 2019 [Per J. Peralta].
23. 736 Phil. 749 (2014), G.R. No. 192432 [Per J. Bersamin], 23 June 2014, as cited in People vs. Maganon, supra at 14.
24.People vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 238339, 07 August 2019 [Per J. Leonen].
n Note from the Publisher: Written as "Court of the Appeals" in the official document.