SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 238210. May 10, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RONALDO VALLEJO y RESONTO a.k.a. REY MATA, MARICAR TECSON DE MARTINEZ y ARIOJA and JOCELYN LAYSON y ESPIRITU, accused,
RONALDO VALLEJO y RESONTO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 May 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 238210 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee, v. Ronaldo Vallejo y Resonto a.k.a. Rey Mata, Maricar Tecson de Martinez y Arioja and Jocelyn Layson y Espiritu, accused; Ronaldo Vallejo y Resonto, accused-appellant). — We partly grant the appeal.
The validity of the search and seizure
Appellant Ronaldo Vallejo y Resonto asserts that he should be acquitted on account of the glaring inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses pertaining to the items recovered during the search, and because the search was not conducted in accordance with the procedure outlined in the Rules of Court. He claims the search was purportedly done without his presence and that he was not served or at least shown copy of the Inventory of Seized Items/Property. 1
The Court is not persuaded.
For one, as the Court of Appeals (CA) keenly noted, the purported inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies pertained to the seized items from accused Jocelyn Layson (Layson) who had already withdrawn her appeal. Thus, the CA correctly ruled that such portion of the testimony is irrelevant to the present appeal, for it does not relate to the charges against appellant here.
For another, the alleged lapses in the implementation of the search warrant (i.e., the search was not done in appellant's presence) had been controverted by the photographs taken during the search which the prosecution offered in evidence. These photographs clearly established his presence when the search and seizure was performed. Layson herself even admitted the authenticity of the photographs and confirmed that it was appellant who was in the photos. She, too, confirmed that the agents searched the vicinity in their presence. 2
As for the alleged non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Sections 11 3 and 12 4 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, suffice it to state that objections on this ground should have been raised before arraignment. In People v. Torres, 5 the Court held that objections to the legality of the search warrant and the admissibility of the evidence obtained thereby are deemed waived when not raised before arraignment, as here.
Appellant and accused Jocelyn Laysony Espiritu are acquitted of illegal
In drug related cases, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the offense but also the corpus delicti itself. 6 The dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia seized from appellant's house constitute such corpus delicti. It is thus imperative for the prosecution to establish that the identity and integrity of these dangerous drugs and paraphernalia were duly preserved in order to sustain a verdict of conviction. 7 It must prove that the dangerous drugs and paraphernalia seized from appellant's house are indeed the substance offered in court with the same unshakeable accuracy as that required to sustain a finding of guilt.
Here, appellant was charged with illegally maintaining a drug den, illegal possession of dangerous drug and illegal possession of paraphernalia for dangerous drugs allegedly committed on October 22, 2011. The governing law, therefore, is Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 8 before its amendment in 2014. Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.:
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[.] 9
Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 10 further commands:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.]11 (emphasis added)
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 12
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: 13first, the seizure and marking 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 by the forensic chemist to the court. 14
This is the chain of custody rule. It came to fore due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs which render them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 15 This record of movements and custody shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when the transfer of custody was made in the course of the item's safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and its final disposition. 16
Here, the Court observes separate breaches of the chain of custody rule, specifically in the first and last links.
For one, there was no representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to witness the physical inventory and photograph of the seized items — and no valid reason was offered for this omission. In fact, the prosecution failed to even mention anything about at least an attempt to secure the presence of a DOJ representative, much less a valid reason for the absence this personality.
In rendering an acquittal, the Court held in People v. Lim17 that the apprehending team's failure to show that they tried to contact a DOJ representative is a fatal lapse on their part. Mere statements of unavailability of the required witnesses, by themselves do not excuse non-compliance with Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, more so for the glaring absence of any statement thereon. Verily, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that earnest efforts were made to secure the presence of the required witnesses, which the prosecution utterly failed to do here.
For another, National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Forensic Chemist Pascual merely confirmed the existence of the specimen, but her proposed testimony did not contain a statement on how the specimen was handled and preserved. In People v. Ubungen, 18 the Court ruled that absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the seized illegal drug, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established, as here.
Indeed, these crucial lapses in the incipience and tail end of the chain of custody that breached the rule had cast serious uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The metaphorical chain did not link at all, albeit it unjustly restrained appellant's right to liberty.
Notably, the same infirmities attended the chain of custody over the items seized from Layson for they had been inventoried, examined and stored together. As such, they must suffer the same fate — the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets recovered from her possession are rendered questionable.
To be sure, Layson's case was attended by yet another breach in the chain of custody. When Agent Fatima Liwalug (Agent Liwalug) placed the three (3) seized items in a bigger plastic bag and jointly marked the same with her initials instead of individually marking each plastic sachet, 19 the identity and integrity of these items were compromised, breaking the very first link.
In People v. Sorin, 20 the Court ruled that placing the seized sachets in a separate plastic container and marking the latter instead of the former, individually and separately, renders the corpus delicti highly suspect, viz.:
In this case, SPO1 Mugot admitted that he did not mark the plastic sachets which contained the seized drugs, but instead placed the marking on the "transparent plastic cellophane" wherein he placed the seized sachets. To the Court's mind, the act of marking only the cellophane and not the individual plastic sachets renders the corpus delicti highly susceptible to tampering, switching, planting, and contamination of the evidence — the very acts which the requirement of marking seeks to prevent. As the cellophane passed hands, it can now no longer be determined with certainty that its contents have remained intact, especially considering the dearth of testimony from SPO1 Mugot that the cellophane was tightly sealed or, at the very least, secured.
Verily, therefore, a verdict of acquittal for the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia is in order for both appellant and Layson.
To be sure, the benefits of this appeal extends to Layson, appellant's co-accused below even if she did not join him here. Thus Rule 122 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. —
(a) An appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter; (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
So must it be.
Appellant is guilty of maintaining a drug den
As for the charge of maintaining an illegal drug den, we reckon with the rulings of the courts below.
A drug den is defined under Section 3 (l), Article I of RA 9165, thus:
Section 3. Definitions. — As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:
xxx xxx xxx
(l) Den, Dive or Resort. — A place where any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal purposes, distributed, sold or used in any form. (Emphasis supplied)
In People v. Rom, 21 the Court defined a drug den as a lair or hideaway where prohibited or regulated drugs are used in any form or are found. It added that its existence may be proved not only by direct evidence but may also be established by proof of facts and circumstances, including evidence of the general reputation of the house, or its general reputation among police officers. 22 There, the Court considered the testimony of the police officer who acted as poseur-buyer and saw several persons inside the house using dangerous drugs sufficient to establish that the property was used as a drug den.
Here, the trial court considered the following evidence to support its conclusion that appellant was maintaining his residence as a drug den: Special Investigator Joel Otic's (SI Otic) testimony that he, together with the crew of GMA 7's Imbestigador, conducted a series of surveillance operations at appellant's house; using a hidden camera, they discovered that people went to his house for pot; these surveillance operations took place over four (4) separate days with at least two (2) days in between; they regularly saw appellant administering and selling drugs to different persons; during the implementation of the search warrant, SI Otic and Agent Liwalug caught Soledad Castalone de Agcaoili and Maricar Tecson de Martinez in flagrante delicto sniffing shabu inside appellant's house and in his presence; finally, the application for search warrant included a photo showing appellant himself sniffing shabu inside his house. 23 The trial court, as affirmed by the CA, thus rejected appellant's bare denial as opposed to the prosecution's positive testimonies and strong pieces of evidence.
Indeed, a bare denial is an inherently weak defense, especially when unsubstantiated by convincing evidence. For it is not enough to engender reasonable doubt, particularly where the prosecution presents sufficiently telling proof of guilt, 24 as here.
All told, the CA did not commit reversible error when it affirmed the verdict of conviction for violation of Section 6, Article II of RA 9165.
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is PARTLY GRANTED. The Decision 25 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08404 dated August 9, 2017, is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
In Criminal Case No. C-87139, appellant RONALDO VALLEJO y RESONTO a.k.a. "Rey Mata" is GUILTY of Maintaining a Drug Den under Section 6, Republic Act No. 9165. He is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and ordered to pay fine of P500,000.00.
In Criminal Case No. C-87141, appellant RONALDO VALLEJO y RESONTO a.k.a. "Rey Mata" and accused JOCELYN LAYSON y ESPIRITU are ACQUITTED of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Republic Act No. 9165.
In Criminal Case No. C-87142, appellant RONALDO VALLEJO y RESONTO a.k.a. "Rey Mata" and accused JOCELYN LAYSON y ESPIRITU are ACQUITTED of Illegal Possession of Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs under Section 12, Republic Act No. 9165.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused Jocelyn Layson y Espiritu from custody, unless she is being held for some other lawful cause, and to inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from notice.
Let entry of judgment immediately issue in Criminal Case Nos. C-87141 and C-87142.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA Decision, pp. 12-15.
2. CA Decision, p. 15, citing TSN, Jocelyn Layson, March 9, 2016, pp. 14-16.
3.Section 11.Receipt for the property seized. — The officer seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property. (10a)
4.Section 12.Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and proceedings thereon. —
(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been made, and if none, shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return was made. If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been complained with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book on search warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return, the result, and other actions of the judge.
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court. (11a)
5. 533 Phil. 227, 244 (2006), citing Demaisip v. CA, 271 Phil. 392 (1991).
6. See People v. Calates, G.R. No. 214759, April 4, 2018, 860 SCRA 460, 469.
7.Calahi v. People, 820 Phil. 886, 900 (2017), citing People v. Casacop, 778 Phil. 369, 376 (2016) and Zafra v. People, 686 Phil. 1095, 1105-1106 (2012).
8. Entitled "An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Act of 1972, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and for Other Purposes," approved on June 7, 2002.
9.Id.
10. Entitled "Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act No. 9165, approved on August 30, 2002."
11.Id.
12.People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542 (2017).
13. As defined in Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002:
b. "Chain of Custody" means the 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[.]
14.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015).
15.Jocson v. People, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019, citing People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1026 (2017).
16.People v. Diputado, 811 Phil. 160, 170-171 (2017).
17. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, citing People v. Ramons, G.R. No. 233744, February 28, 2018.
18. G.R. No. 225497, July 23, 2018.
19. CA Rollo, pp. 65-66.
20. 757 Phil. 360, 374 (2015).
21. 727 Phil. 587, 605-606 (2014).
22.Id.
23. RTC Decision, pp. 16-18.
24.People v. Quigod, 633 Phil. 408, 427 (2010), citing People v. Eugenio, 443 Phil. 411 (2003), and People v. Del Mundo, 418 Phil. 740 (2001).
25. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla, and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and Rodil V. Zalameda (now an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court); rollo, pp. 2-17.