People v. Vicente y Lopez

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 248660. September 29, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MIGUEL VICENTE y LOPEZ A.K.A. "MIKE", accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 248660 (People of the Philippines v. Miguel Vicente y Lopez a.k.a. "Mike"). — The Court resolves to DISPENSE with accused-appellant's filing of his supplemental brief or manifestation in lieu thereof as required in the Resolution dated September 23, 2020.

Before this Court is an ordinary appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant Miguel Vicente y Lopez (Vicente) assailing the Decision 2 dated February 26, 2019 and Resolution 3 dated August 5, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10225. The CA affirmed the Joint Judgment 4 dated September 20, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 21912-AF to 21915-AF, the dispositive portion of which states:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered:

1. In Criminal Case No. 21912-AF, accused LORENETH DOMINGO y CAGNE is hereby found NOT GUILTY, and is hereby ACQUITTED;

2. In Criminal Case No. 21913-AF, accused MIGUEL VICENTE y LOPEZ is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II, of R.A. 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) PESOS;

3. In Criminal Case No. 21914-AF, accused MIGUEL VICENTE y LOPEZ is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 1, R.A. 8294 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from SIX (6) YEARS of prision correccional in its maximum period, as minimum, to SIX (6) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY of prision mayor minimum in its medium period, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Thirty Thousand (P30,000.00) PESOS.

4. In Criminal Case No. 21915-AF, accused MIGUEL VICENTE y LOPEZ is hereby found NOT GUILTY and is hereby ACQUITTED.

No pronouncement as to costs.

The dangerous drugs subject matter of these cases are hereby ordered disposed in accordance with the law.

SO ORDERED.5 (Emphasis in the original)

Vicente was charged in three separate Informations dated July 12, 2013 for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, also known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and violation of Presidential Decree No. (P.D.) 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294. The Informations respectively provide:

Criminal Case No. 21913-AF (violation of Section 5 of RA No. 9165)

That on or about the 10th day of July, 2013, in the City of Cabanatuan, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to a poseur-buyer one (1) pack of white crystalline substance weighing FOUR POINT EIGHTY (4.80) grams, with marking "MLV," and containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "Shabu," a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 6

Criminal Case No. 21914-AF (violation of PD No. 1866, as amended by RA No. 8294)

That on or about the 10th day of July, 2013, in the City of Cabanatuan, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody one (1) Cal. 45 Pistol with Serial No. 31875N (Gold Cup), three (3) pieces of magazines assembly for Cal. 45 and twenty-four (24) pieces of live ammunitions for Cal. 45, without first securing the necessary permit or license to possess such firearm and ammunitions from the Firearms and Explosive Division, Philippine National Police.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 7

Criminal Case No. 21915-AF (violation of Section 11 of RA No. 9165)

That on or about the 10th day of July, 2013, in the City of Cabanatuan, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody ONE HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT (128) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise known as shabu, to wit:

 

MLV1 = 5.00grams,	MLV2 = 4.83grams,	MLV3 = 4.90grams,
MLV4 = 4.74grams,	MLV5 = 4.80grams,	MLV6 = 4.76grams,
MLV7 = 1.94grams,	MLV8 = 2.01grams,	MLV9 = 1.95grams,
MLV10 = 2.04grams,	MLV11 = 2.20grams,	MLV12 = 1.97grams,
MLV13 = 2.09grams,	MLV14 = 1.00grams,	MLV15 = 1.01grams,
MLV16 = 0.80grams, n	MLV17 = 0.95grams, n	MLV18 = 1.15grams,
MLV19 = 1.04grams,	MLV20 = 6.90grams,	MLV21 = 1.09grams,
MLV22 = 0.50grams, n	MLV23 = 1.40grams,	MLV24 = 1.30grams,
MLV25 = 1.35grams,	MLV26 = 1.09grams,	MLV27 = 0.86gram,
MLV28 = 0.80grams, n	MLV29 = 1.06grams,	MLV30 = 1.30grams,
MLV31 = 1.10grams,	MLV32 = 1.25grams,	MLV33 = 1.10grams,
MLV34 = 1.15grams,	MLV35 = 1.10grams,	MLV36 = 1.00grams, n
MLV37 = 0.95gram,	MLV38 = 1.11grams,	MLV39 = 1.15grams,
MLV40 = 0.87gram,	MLV41 = 1.10grams,	MLV42 = 1.25grams,
MLV43 = 1.15grams,	MLV44 = 1.11grams,	MLV45 = 1.01grams,
MLV46 = 1.18grams,	MLV47 = 0.59gram,	MLV48 = 0.83gram,
MLV49 = 0.15gram,	MLV50 = 1.10grams,	MLV51 = 0.86gram,
MLV52 = 1.17grams,	MLV53 = 0.20gram,	MLV54 = 1.40grams,
MLV55 = 1.25grams,	MLV56 = 1.35grams,	MLV57 = 0.86gram,
MLV58 = 0.98gram,	MLV59 = 1.04grams,	MLV60 = 0.88gram,
MLV61 = 0.90gram,	MLV62 = 1.13grams,	MLV63 = 1.30grams,
MLV64 = 1.09grams,	MLV65 = 1.21grams,	MLV66 = 1.20grams,
MLV67 = 1.01grams,	MLV68 = 0.05gram,	MLV69 = 1.01grams,
MLV70 = 1.30grams,	MLV71 = 1.25grams,	MLV72 = 0.16gram,
MLV73 = 0.12gram,	MLV74 = 0.16gram,	MLV75 = 0.20gram,
MLV76 = 0.25gram,	MLV77 = 0.15gram,	MLV78 = 0.25gram,
MLV79 = 0.16gram,	MLV80 = 0.14gram,	MLV81 = 0.19gram,
MLV82 = 0.11gram,	MLV83 = 0.16gram,	MLV84 = 0.16gram,
MLV85 = 0.07gram,	MLV86 = 0.23gram,	MLV87 = 0.11gram,
MLV88 = 0.16gram,	MLV89 = 0.20gram,	MLV90 = 0.22gram,
MLV91 = 0.11gram,	MLV92 = 0.10gram,	MLV93 = 0.11gram,
MLV94 = 0.34gram,	MLV95 = 0.29gram,	MLV96 = 0.20gram,
MLV97 = 0.18gram,	MLV98 = 0.14gram,	MLV99 = 0.26gram,
MLV100 = 0.25gram,	MLV101 = 0.21gram,	MLV102 = 0.15gram,
MLV103 = 0.15gram,	MLV104 = 0.36gram,	MLV105 = 0.10gram,
MLV106 = 0.13gram,	MLV107 = 0.30gram,	MLV108 = 0.11gram,
MLV109 = 0.19gram,	MLV110 = 0.11gram,	MLV111 = 0.17gram,
MLV112 = 0.25gram,	MLV113 = 0.36gram,	MLV114 = 0.18gram,
MLV115 = 0.12gram,	MLV116 = 0.22gram,	MLV117 = 0.18gram,
MLV118 = 0.11gram,	MLV119 = 0.19gram,	MLV120 = 0.19gram,
MLV121 = 0.16gram,	MLV122 = 0.35gram,	MLV123 = 0.25gram,
MLV124 = 0.11gram,	MLV125 = 0.35gram,	MLV126 = 0.11gram,
MLV127 = 0.21gram,	MLV128 = 0.30gram,

 

weighing a total of ONE HUNDRED THIRTEEN POINT EIGHTY FOUR (113.84) GRAMS, a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 8

Loreneth Domingo (Domingo) was also charged with violation of Section 11 of R.A. 9165 in an Information which states:

That on or about the 10th day of July, 2013, in the City of Cabanatuan, Republic of the Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not authorized by law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, control and custody four (4) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of white crystalline substance, with markings and weights as follows: "LCD" — 4.30 grams; "LCD-1" — 4.30 grams; "LCD-2" — 4.25 grams; and "LCD-3" — 4.25 grams, or a total of SEVENTEEN POINT ONE (17.1) grams, containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "Shabu," a dangerous drug.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 9

On February 19, 2014, Vicente and Domingo were arraigned and both pleaded not guilty. 10 During the pre-trial on September 17, 2014, the parties agreed to stipulate "on the fact of arrest of both accused with qualification that the same is illegal, that there is no motion to quash filed based on illegal arrest and that both accused were arrested in the vicinity of Araullo University, Cabanatuan City at the gas station fronting the said university, within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court." 11

Version of the Prosecution

Plaintiff-appellee alleged that on July 10, 2013, the confidential informant (CI) informed the Drug Enforcement Unit of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Cabanatuan City that Vicente was engaged in illegal drug trade activities in Barangay Bitas, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija. 12 PO1 Sherwin Hernandez (PO1 Hernandez) was tasked by his superior, Captain Joel Dela Cruz, 13 to conduct surveillance within the area. After PO1 Hernandez conducted the surveillance with the CI, the CI contacted Vicente. 14 The CI called Vicente through his cellphone that was on loudspeaker. 15 The CI said he had a companion 16 who will buy "isang bulto," which is equivalent to five grams, P18,000.00. 17 Thereafter, a buy-bust team was formed wherein PO1 Hernandez was designated as the poseur-buyer. 18 PO2 Jay Lester Arenas (PO2 Arenas), PO3 Romeo Miranda, SPO2 Adriano Umali, SPO2 Arman Liwag (SPO2 Liwag), and PO3 Dereck Reyes (PO3 Reyes) were his back-up. 19 PO1 Hernandez was given 18 pieces of P1,000.00-bill as buy-bust money so he could purchase a bundle of shabu. 20

The buy-bust team proceeded to the target area at 10:15 p.m. 21 When Vicente arrived, the CI talked to him. Afterward, PO1 Hernandez was required to board Vicente's vehicle. 22 Vicente was in the vehicle together with Domingo. 23 Vicente handed one plastic sachet of shabu to PO1 Hernandez who in turn gave the buy-bust money to the former. 24 After noticing that Vicente was armed with a firearm, PO1 Hernandez alighted from the vehicle and made the pre-arranged signal for the buy-bust team. Vicente and Domingo were arrested. 25

PO1 Hernandez recovered the buy-bust money from Vicente and found an attaché case containing 128 sachets of shabu under the driver's seat of the vehicle. 26 PO2 Arenas found four plastic sachets on Domingo's seat while PO3 Reyes found a firearm with live ammunitions on the side of the driver's seat. Vicente was unable to produce the required license for the firearm. 27

The buy-bust team brought Vicente, Domingo, and the seized items to the police station. 28 At the station, PO1 Hernandez marked the sachet of shabu subject of the sale and the sachets inside the attaché case while PO2 Arenas marked the sachets taken from Domingo's seat. 29 PO3 Reyes marked the firearm. 30 PO1 Hernandez conducted an inventory in the presence of Vicente, Domingo, media representative Steve Gusuico (Gusuico), Department of Justice representative Wilson Leabres (Leabres), and Berlin Verayo (Verayo), an elected public official. 31 PO1 Hernandez also prepared the request for laboratory examination. 32

PO1 Hernandez and PO2 Arenas brought the request and the seized items to the Nueva Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory. Police Senior Inspector Jebie C. Timario (PSI Timario) received it and conducted an examination. The specimens tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Her findings for the sachets taken from Domingo are stated in Chemistry Report No. D-180-2013 33 while her findings for the sachets seized from Vicente are stated in Chemistry Report No. D-181-2013 34 Thereafter, PSI Timario sealed the sachets, placed her markings, and stored them inside a long brown envelope which she also marked. She turned over the envelopes to the evidence custodian, SPO1 Vicente Soriano (SPO1 Soriano). PSI Timario retrieved the envelopes containing the sachets from SPO1 Soriano and brought it to the RTC when she testified on March 19, 2014. 35

Vicente was charged with illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165 as well as illegal possession of firearms under P.D. 1866, as amended. Domingo was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Plaintiff-appellee presented the following as its witnesses: (1) PO1 Hernandez; (2) PO3 Reyes; (3) PSI Timario; and (4) PO2 Arenas. 36

Version of the Defense

Vicente testified for his defense. He also presented Ryan Tenjoco (Tenjoco) as his witness. Vicente alleged that PO1 Hernandez and police officer Jonie Jane Navarro (Navarro) went to his house in November 2012. Vicente has known Navarro since childhood because they live in the same barangay while PO1 Hernandez was the classmate of his nephew Benson Perez. PO1 Hernandez and Navarro asked money from him because he was allegedly selling drugs. They told him to deliver payment weekly for him to continue selling drugs. However, Vicente denied that he was selling drugs. In truth, he was jobless and he had no money. Thus, PO1 Hernandez and Navarro left his house. 37

In the evening of July 10, 2013, Vicente was on his way home when he saw Domingo, the sister-in-law of his cousin, and offered to give her a ride. They went to a gas station to fill up gas for his vehicle. While at the gas station, Tenjoco called Vicente and asked him to wait for him at the station so that the former could give his payment. Vicente agreed and finished filling up gas. Suddenly, two cars blocked his way. A person alighted from one of the cars and shot one of his tires. 38 Two armed men approached him whom he later identified as PO3 Reyes and SPO2 Liwag. They pulled him out of the car and handcuffed him. Vicente denied selling drugs or carrying firearms. He also denied having an attaché case inside his vehicle. 39

Ryan testified that he has known Vicente since 2009. On July 10, 2013, he was at a hospital in Cabanatuan City to fetch his friend EJ Galvan. Police officers arrived at the hospital and started punching him. They asked him how they could get to "Mike Vicente." Tenjoco initially denied knowing the person. But after the policemen mauled him, Tenjoco admitted that he knows him. The policemen asked Tenjoco to call Vicente. Tenjoco complied and told Vicente to meet him in front of Araullo University. 40

Tenjoco and the policemen waited for Vicente at the gas station. When he arrived, the police officers blocked his path. One of the officers shot the tires of Vicente's vehicle. The policemen pulled Vicente out of the vehicle and ordered him to lie face down. According to Tenjoco, the attaché case found in the vehicle was his. Domingo did not present any evidence in her defense. 41

Ruling of the Regional Trial Court

In its September 20, 2017 Joint Judgment, 42 the RTC acquitted Domingo and Vicente of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, R.A. 9165. However, the RTC found Vicente guilty of violation of Section 5, R.A. 9165, sentenced him to life imprisonment, and ordered him to pay a fine of P500,000.00. He was likewise found guilty of violation of Section 1, R.A. 8294 and was sentenced to a penalty of imprisonment of six (6) years of prision correccional as minimum to six (6) years, eight (8) months, and one (1) day of prision mayor as maximum, and ordered to pay a fine of P30,000.00. 43

The RTC ruled that all the elements for illegal sale of dangerous drugs were proven in this case. PO1 Hernandez testified that Vicente sold shabu to him for P18,000.00. He narrated how the transaction took place and established that it was successfully consummated. PSI Timario presented and identified the drug specimens in court. 44 Tenjoco's testimony did not aid Vicente's defense. Instead, it corroborated plaintiff-appellee's claim that someone contacted Vicente and he agreed to meet at the gas station. Tenjoco also confirmed Vicente's presence at the gas station. The RTC noted that a person would have hesitated to meet someone at 10:30 p.m. just to receive the meager amount of P750.00. Moreover, Vicente could have presented the CCTV footage at the gas station on the day of the incident to support his defense but he did not do so. 45

The RTC further held that there was compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165. PO1 Hernandez marked the seized items once he arrived at the police station. The marking of the items at the police station is allowed under the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165. PO1 Hernandez had custody of the drug specimens before he turned it over to PSI Timario. 46

The RTC likewise found Vicente guilty of illegal possession of firearms. PO3 Reyes testified that he recovered a cal. .45 firearm beside the driver's seat in Vicente's vehicle. He took custody of it and marked it at the police station. PO3 Reyes identified the firearm when he appeared in court. The Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) of the PNP certified that Vicente was not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind, including the firearm found in his vehicle. 47

However, the RTC acquitted Vicente of illegal possession of dangerous drugs because the actual weight of some of the confiscated sachets were different from the weight stated in the Information. The Information stated that the sachets marked as "MLV-20" and "MLV-43" respectively weighed 6.90 grams and 1.15 grams. But the actual weight of the sachet marked as "MLV-20" is 0.90 gram while the actual weight of the sachet marked as "MLV-43" is 1.15 grams. The variances in the weight of the sachets made the RTC doubt the identity of the corpus delicti of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. As for Domingo, there was no proof that she had actual or constructive possession of the sachets of drugs found in her seat. Vicente simply offered Domingo a ride. That she may have known that she was sitting on the sachets is not enough to convict her. 48 Vicente filed a motion for reconsideration. When the RTC denied it in an Order 49 dated October 27, 2017, he appealed to the CA.

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On February 26, 2019, the CA rendered its Decision 50 as follows:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Appeal is DENIED. Accordingly, the Joint Judgment dated 20 September 2017 issued by Branch 24, Reginal Trial Court of Cabanatuan City is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.51 (Emphasis in the original)

The CA agreed with the RTC that all the elements for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of R.A. 9165 were proven in this case. The witnesses for plaintiff-appellee described the buy-bust operation in detail. PO1 Hernandez identified Vicente as the one who sold him one plastic sachet of shabu in exchange for P18,000.00. 52 Vicente's warrantless arrest was thus justified. 53 The fact that there was no proof of coordination of the PNP with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency is of no moment because it is not an indispensable requirement for Vicente's conviction. 54

The CA likewise found that the chain of custody was sufficiently established in this case. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. PO1 Hernandez testified that he marked the seized items and conducted an inventory in the presence of the mandatory witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. 9165, namely DOJ representative Leabres, media representative Gusuico, and elected public official Verayo. PSI Timario received the items from PO1 Hernandez and conducted an examination on it. The items were positive for shabu. 55

As for Vicente's conviction of the crime of illegal possession of firearms, the CA upheld the factual findings of the RTC. PO3 Reyes identified the firearm that he found in Vicente's vehicle when he appeared in court. The FEO-PNP issued a certification that Vicente is not a licensed/registered firearm holder of any kind or caliber. 56 Vicente's denial and allegation that he was framed up was not supported by evidence. He failed to show that the police officers had ill motives. 57

With respect to the penalties imposed by the RTC, the CA ruled that these were proper and within the range prescribed by law. 58 Vicente filed a Motion for Reconsideration but it was denied by the CA. He then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari59 before this Court asking for his acquittal. On September 23, 2020, the Court resolved to treat Vicente's petition as an ordinary appeal and notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs. 60 Plaintiff-appellee filed a Manifestation praying that it be excused from filing a supplemental brief because its brief before the CA adequately adduced all its relevant arguments. 61

Proceedings before this Court

Accused-appellant's Arguments

In his petition, Vicente assailed the failure of the police operatives to mark the seized items at the place of arrest. He claimed that there was no valid justification for the marking of the items at the police station. It was not even explained why the items were not marked at the place of arrest. There was no commotion that prevented it. In addition, the police officers placed the items in their pocket instead of securing it in an evidence kit provided by their office. 62 Thus, the integrity of the drug specimens has been destroyed and Vicente should be acquitted. 63

Plaintiff-appellee's Arguments

Plaintiff-appellee argued in its brief 64 that all the elements for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 were established in this case. PO1 Hernandez positively identified Vicente as the one who sold him one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance that later tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride per Chemistry Report No. D-181-2013. PO1 Hernandez identified in court the sachet which he marked with "MLV." He gave P18,000.00 in exchange for the sachet of shabu. Thus, the buy-bust transaction was successfully consummated. 65

Plaintiff-appellee further argued that it was able to identify the corpus delicti of the crime and establish its chain of custody. PO1 Hernandez took custody of the sachet of shabu subject of the sale. This item, together with the other items confiscated from Vicente, were subjected to an inventory at the police station in the presence of Vicente, Domingo, representatives from the media and the DOJ, and an elected public official. PO1 Hernandez marked the sachet subject of the sale as "MLV" and the sachets taken from the attaché case as "MLV-1" to "MLV-128." On July 11, 2013, PO1 Hernandez submitted the request for laboratory examination and the confiscated items to the Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3, Nueva Ecija Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. It was received by PSI Timario who weighed the contents of each sachet and recorded it on the request. She conducted a qualitative examination on the specimens through physical, chemical, and confirmatory tests and found that all the sachets taken from Vicente and Domingo tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. PSI Timario's findings are stated in Chemistry Report Nos. D-180-2013 and D-181-2013. Thereafter, she sealed the sachets with a masking tape, marked it with her initials, and placed the sachets taken from Vicente and Domingo into two separate brown envelopes which she also sealed and marked with her initials. PSI Timario turned over the envelopes to SPO1 Soriano. She retrieved the envelopes from SPO1 Soriano on March 19, 2014 and brought them to court. The foregoing shows that the chain of custody was not broken. The integrity and identity of the corpus delicti have been preserved. There was no showing that the evidence was tampered with. 66

Plaintiff-appellee also argued that Vicente was rightfully convicted of violation of R.A. 8294. PO3 Reyes found a Colt Caliber .45 pistol with magazine and loaded with live ammunitions beside Vicente when he searched the latter's vehicle. It was in between the driver's seat and the console box. PO3 Reyes asked Vicente if he had the pertinent documents authorizing him to carry the firearm but he was not able to produce any. PO3 Reyes marked the firearm as "MLV-130." He identified the firearm and Vicente in court. He also submitted a Certification dated December 3, 2014 from the FEO that Vicente is neither licensed to possess the firearm nor is the firearm registered under his name. 67

Issues

The issues in this case are:

I. Whether the CA erred in upholding the conviction of Vicente for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165; and

II. Whether the CA erred in upholding the conviction of Vicente for violation of P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is granted.

Vicente was convicted of violating Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 for selling 4.38 grams of shabu placed in a plastic sachet that was marked as "MLV" and offered as Exhibit C-1. 68 In order to sustain his conviction, the integrity and evidentiary of this specimen should have been preserved in accordance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165. Section 21 of R.A. 9165 states:

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[.]

Time and again, this Court has said that Section 21 is not a mere procedural technicality but a matter of substantive law. It cannot be disregarded as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. 69 If there are perceived deviations from Section 21, the prosecution must acknowledge and justify these deviations. 70 It must likewise show that: (1) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 71 The justification must be proven as a fact. 72

Plaintiff-appellee must also establish the links in the chain of custody of the seized items, namely: first, 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 by the forensic chemist to the court. 73

Plaintiff-appellee failed to prove that the integrity and evidentiary value of the specimen were preserved in this case. First, the sachet containing the specimen was not immediately marked at the place of arrest. Plaintiff-appellee did not offer any explanation why the sachet was not marked at the place of arrest. Marking is important because it separates the marked drugs and items from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time of the seizure from the accused until the moment of disposal at the end of the criminal proceedings. 74 Considering that aside from the sachet subject of the sale, there were 128 sachets confiscated from Vicente and four from Domingo, it would have been prudent to mark the sachet subject of the sale immediately so as to avoid the possibility of getting it mixed up with the other sachets. The police operatives' failure to immediately mark the seized sachets makes it uncertain if the sachet marked as "MLV" was indeed the sachet subject of the sale.

Second, there were no witnesses when the items were seized from Vicente. In People v. Tomawis, 75 the Court explained that it is the presence of the witnesses required under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 "at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug." 76 Buy-bust operations are planned ahead of time, thus giving the police officers the opportunity to secure the presence of the witnesses beforehand. Here, there is no showing that an attempt was made by the police officers to ensure that the required witnesses would be present during their operation.

Third, the inventory of the seized items was not conducted immediately after these were brought to the police station. PO3 Arenas testified that "during that night, sir, we were not able to secure representatives from the media, the DOJ and Barangay Officials, so the processing was made the following morning sir." 77 The lapse of time from when the items were seized from Vicente until an inventory was made is considerable. This lapse defeated the purpose of requiring the presence of witnesses during the inventory. In addition, the Inventory of Property Seized was not signed by Vicente even though it is required by Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

Moreover, PO1 Hernandez stored the sachet of shabu subject of the sale in his right pocket after receiving it from Vicente. 78 He claimed that he did not remove the sachet from his pocket until he marked it 79 and that he was the only one who held the sachet until the inventory was conducted. 80 However, PO1 Hernandez cannot recall the approximate time that they conducted the inventory. 81 The Court has already ruled that keeping the seized items in a pocket is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring its integrity. 82 Therefore, PO1 Hernandez's act of storing the sachet subject of the sale in his pocket is highly irregular and unacceptable. The integrity of the specimen is doubtful in view of the significant amount of time that it was kept in PO1 Hernandez's pocket before an inventory was done in the presence of the witnesses required under Section 21 of R.A. 9165.

Plaintiff-appellee has not provided sufficient justification for the foregoing lapses. As such, it cannot be said that the integrity and evidentiary value of the specimen contained in a plastic sachet marked as "MLV" has been preserved. Vicente's conviction for Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 therefore, cannot be sustained. There is no credible evidence to support it.

The conduct of the buy-bust operation itself is not believable. First, though the CI said that there was an on-going sale of illegal drugs in front of Araullo Lyceum, 83 which is in front of the gasoline station, 84 PO1 Hernandez only found persons drinking at the side of the gasoline station when they conducted a surveillance. 85 They did not see Vicente selling illegal drugs. 86Second, PO1 Hernandez did not explain why it was necessary for them to return to the police station before contacting Vicente when he and the CI were already at the area where the alleged sale of illegal drugs was taking place. Third, the date and time agreed upon by the CI and Vicente for the transaction was not mentioned by any of the witnesses of plaintiff-appellee. Hence, it was not established how Vicente knew that he was supposed to meet the CI and PO1 Hernandez in the evening of July 10, 2013. Fourth, Vicente himself said that he knew PO1 Hernandez was a police officer because the latter was the classmate of his nephew Benson Perez who was also a policeman. 87 Though PO1 Hernandez denied knowing Vicente before the incident, he admitted that Benson Perez was his classmate. 88 In addition, Vicente resides in Brgy. Bakero which is located in the same city where the police station of PO1 Hernandez is situated. 89 Vicente cannot be expected to sell shabu to PO1 Hernandez despite knowing that the latter was a police officer. All told, the Court is not persuaded that a buy-bust operation was conducted in this case. Consequently, there was no lawful basis for Vicente's arrest because he was not caught committing any crime at the time of his arrest. Section 3 (2) 90 in relation to Section 2, 91 Article III of the 1987 Constitution is clear that any evidence obtained in violation of the prohibition against unlawful warrantless arrest shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Thus, the items allegedly seized from Vicente resulting from his arrest are inadmissible in court, including the firearm marked as "MLV-130" and offered as Exhibit M. 92

Even assuming that the firearm was lawfully taken from Vicente, PO3 Reyes did not state that he immediately marked it at the place of arrest. He also failed to identify what steps he undertook to secure the firearm, whether he stored it in a separate container after confiscating it from Vicente. Therefore, it is dubious if the firearm presented in court was the same firearm allegedly taken from Vicente. As such, the Court cannot uphold Vicente's conviction of violation of P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294, for illegal possession of a firearm.

All told, the Court cannot sustain the ruling of the CA upholding the conviction of Vicente for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294. The Court can neither turn a blind eye to nor excuse the lapses committed by the police operatives in the handling of the seized items in this case.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 26, 2019 and the Resolution dated August 5, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10225 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Miguel Vicente y Lopez is hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes charged against him and is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to inform this Court of the action he has taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof.

SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on official leave.)

By authority of the Court:

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

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 28-36.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court); id. at 8-23.

3.Id. at 25-26.

4.Id. at 61-75.

5.Id. at 75.

6. Records (Criminal Case No. 21913-AF), pp. 1-2.

7. Records (Criminal Case No. 21914-AF), pp. 1-2.

8.Rollo, pp. 63-64.

9.Id. at 62.

10. Records (Criminal Case No. 21913-AF), p. 84.

11.Id. at 141.

12.Rollo, p. 12.

13. TSN dated February 19, 2014, p. 13.

14.Rollo, p. 66.

15. TSN dated April 16, 2014, p. 8.

16.Id. at 27.

17. TSN dated February 19, 2014, pp. 21-22.

18.Rollo, p. 12.

19. TSN dated February 19, 2014, p. 20.

20.Rollo, p. 12.

21.Id. at 67.

22.Id. at 12.

23.Id. at 67.

24.Id. at 12.

25.Id. at 12-13.

26.Id. at 67.

27.Id. at 13.

28.Id.

29.Id. at 67-68.

30.Id. at 73.

31. Records (Criminal Case No. 21913-AF), p. 22.

32.Rollo, p. 13.

33. Records (Criminal Case No. 21913-AF), p. 13.

34.Id. at 15.

35. TSN dated March 19, 2014, pp. 9, 11, 15, 16.

36.Rollo, p. 64.

37.Id. at 69.

38.Id. at 14.

39.Id. at 70.

40.Id.

41.Id. at 70-71.

42.Supra note 4.

43.Rollo, p. 75.

44.Id. at 71.

45.Id. at 73.

46.Id. at 72.

47.Id. at 73.

48.Id. at 74.

49. Penned by Presiding Judge Ana Marie C. Joson-Viterbo; CA rollo, pp. 63-64.

50.Supra note 2.

51.Rollo, p. 22.

52.Id. at 17.

53.Id. at 18.

54.Id. at 19.

55.Id. at 20.

56.Id.

57.Id. at 21.

58.Id. at 22.

59.Id. at 28-36.

60. CA rollo, p. 195.

61.Rollo, pp. 132-135.

62.Id. at 31-32.

63.Id. at 35.

64. CA rollo, pp. 80-100.

65.Id. at 91.

66.Id. at 94-96.

67.Id. at 97-98.

68. Records (Criminal Case No. 21913-AF), p. 185.

69.People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1059 (2018).

70.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, citing People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 92 (2018).

71.Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019.

72.People v. Gamboa, 833 Phil. 1055, 1069 (2018).

73.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015).

74.Saranillas-Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 193862, October 1, 2019.

75. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).

76.Id. at 409.

77. TSN dated August 6, 2014, p. 15.

78. TSN dated February 19, 2014, p. 31.

79. TSN dated March 26, 2014, p. 4.

80. TSN dated March 4, 2015, p. 20.

81.Id. at 18.

82.People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816, 834 (2014).

83. TSN dated February 19, 2014, p. 14.

84.Id. at 22.

85.Id. at 18.

86. TSN dated April 16, 2014, pp. 8-9.

87. TSN dated March 2, 2016, p. 5.

88. TSN dated April 16, 2014, p. 9.

89. TSN dated February 19, 2014, p. 13 and TSN dated March 2, 2016, p. 3.

90. Section 3.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

91. Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

92. Records (Criminal Case No. 21913-AF), p. 194.

n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.