People v. Torres

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 237421. July 14, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.LEOPOLDO ELENTORIO TORRES, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 14, 2021which reads as follows: acEHCD

"G.R. No. 237421 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus LEOPOLDO ELENTORIO TORRES, accused-appellant.

After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court REVERSES the Decision 1 dated May 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals Special Twentieth Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01958 which affirmed the Judgment 2 dated October 17, 2014 of Branch 30, Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 2013-21962 convicting accused-appellant Leopoldo Elentorio Torres (Torres) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165. 3

Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 imposes upon the members of the buy-bust team to strictly comply with the following requirements: (1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 4

It must be emphasized that Section 21 of R.A. 9165 requires the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation and in the presence of the aforementioned required witnesses, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 5

In a long line of cases, 6 the Court has held that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory, is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose. 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. 7 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 drugs. 8

In the instant case, the buy-bust team failed to strictly comply with the mandatory procedure required under Section 21.

The mandatory witnesses under Section 21, media representative Neil Rio (media representative Rio), Barangay Captain Gaudencio Sisneros (Barangay Captain Sisneros), and DOJ representative Anthony Chilius Benlot (DOJ Representative Benlot) arrived only after the apprehension of Torres and Oliver Neri Tacaba (Tacaba). In fact, they were only called after Torres and Tacaba were already apprehended. None of the aforementioned witnesses was present at the time or near the place of the arrest and the seizure of the illegal drugs. The witnesses were only "called in" by the buy-bust team at the time of the photography and inventory of the seized items.

Worse, it is clear from the testimonies of the required witnesses that they were only made to sign the inventory receipt — which were already prepared by the police officers prior to their arrival at the police station. They basically admitted that they merely signed the inventory receipt without actually witnessing the inventory. Their testimonies are as follows:

[TESTIMONY OF BARANGAY CAPTAIN SISNEROS]

Q: Mister Witness, when you went to the police station, this alleged inventory of Property Seized which you said you had signed, this was already filled up when you went there, is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: And Mr. Witness, you cannot recall anymore who signed first the Inventory of Property Seized. You do not know who signed first also[?]

A: I do not know who signed first. 9

[TESTIMONY OF MEDIA REPRESENTATIVE RIO]

Q: Good morning, Mr. Rio. Sir, when you arrived at the scene to, (sic) when you arrived at the area where you were supposed to sign the receipt of property seized, sir, were all the items already placed on the table, sir?

A: Yes, they were already on the table.

Q: They were already prepared, sir?

A: Yes.

Q: And when you arrived, sir, the entries in the receipt of inventory were already written, sir?

A: Yes, it's already written. 10

[TESTIMONY OF DOJ REPRESENTATIVE BENLOT]

Q: Mister Witness, good morning. What time were you called for the inventory?

A: Between 7 to 7:30, sir.

Q: You were not informed, Mr. Witness, that the incident happened much earlier than 7 o'clock, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: You will also agree with me, Mr. Witness, that you did not see when these documents were, (sic) the Inventory of Property Seized was filled up, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: So you just signed it, Mr. Witness, at 7:45 in the evening, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Mister Witness, you could not even tell who signed first in this inventory, is that correct?

A: Yes, sir. 11

At first glance, the police officers in this case may appear to have complied with the requirements of Section 21. Upon closer inspection of the records, however, as illustrated above, there were serious deviations from Section 21 that the Court cannot just simply brush aside. Furthermore, the buy-bust team failed to give any justifiable reason or explanation for the foregoing deviations from the law.

It bears emphasis that 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 "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 required witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the buy-bust 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." Most importantly, the required witnesses must actually witness the marking and the inventory of the seized items.

Finally, under the 2010 Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation, one of the critical procedures that must be observed in the conduct of buy-bust operations is the marking of the evidence with the initials of the apprehending officer/evidence custodian, as well as indicating the date, time and place the evidence was confiscated/seized. In People v. Narvas, 12 non-compliance with this critical procedure was one of the grounds for the acquittal of the accused in that case. Here, the plastic sachets were marked not with the initials of the apprehending officer, but with the initials of the arrested persons, and without indicating the time and place the pieces of evidence were supposedly confiscated. This further makes the procedure employed by the police officers in this case highly irregular.

All in all, since the prosecution failed to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs remained uncompromised, the Court is called upon to acquit Torres.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated May 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01958 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant LEOPOLDO ELENTORIO TORRES is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and is ORDEREDIMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

By:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 4-26. Penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez, with Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.

2. CA Rollo, pp. 66-77. Penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.

3. AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, approved June 7, 2002.

4.People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018, 887 SCRA, 329, 363.

5.People v. Musor, G.R. No. 231843, November 7, 2018, 885 SCRA 154, 170.

6.People v. Espejo, G.R. No. 240914, March 13, 2019, 897 SCRA 205; People v. Caranto, G.R. No. 217668, February 20, 2019, 894 SCRA 18; People v. Cabezudo, G.R. No. 232357, November 28, 2018, 887 SCRA 448; People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 225786, November 14, 2018, 885 SCRA 26; People v. Bricero, G.R. No. 218428, November 7, 2018, 885 SCRA 1; People v. Musor, id.; People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 225736, October 15, 2018, 883 SCRA 218; People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385 (2018).

7.People v. Tomawis, id. at 408.

8.Id. at 409.

9. TSN dated August 12, 2014, p. 8.

10. TSN dated August 5, 2014, p. 6.

11. TSN dated July 31, 2014, pp. 6-7.

12. G.R. No. 241254, July 8, 2019, 908 SCRA 125.