FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248606. July 7, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. LEONORA VILLASIS y BAAL @ "TITA" @ "LEONORA VILLASIS y VAAL" AND GRACE ASTORIANO y UGAY, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 7, 2020 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248606 (People of the Philippines v. Leonora Villasis y Baal @ "Tita" @ "Leonora Villasis y Vaal" and Grace Astoriano y Ugay). — For this Court's consideration is the appeal of accused-appellants Leonora Villasis y Baal and Grace Astoriano y Ugay of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated May 30, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09697 that denied their appeal and affirmed the Consolidated Decision 2 dated July 20, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 165, Marikina City, in Criminal Case Nos. 2013-4190-D-MK, 2013-4191-D-MK and 2013-4192-D-MK, and convicting them of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The facts follow.
On June 25, 2013, around 8:00 p.m., a confidential informant went to the Philippine National Police, Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID)-Special Operations Task Group (SOTG), Marikina City to report that a certain woman, alias "Aling," was selling shabu at Group 129, Molave St., Barangay Parang, Marikina City. The police officers immediately verified the information, prepared the Pre-Operational Report, and coordinated with the District Anti-Illegal Drugs Office and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. 3
A team was then formed, with PO2 Nelson E. Zaragosa as the leader, and SPO1 Luis Fortuno, PO2 Antonio Delos Reyes, PO3 Jhoseph Dela Paz, PO3 Bartolome Rosales and PO1 Rod Yacub as members. The team met with the confidential informant at Jollibee, Molave St., located near the target area. The confidential informant told the team that "Aling" was not at the target area but the latter entrusted the prohibited drugs to a certain "Tita." The team eventually decided to wait for the arrival of Aling. 4
Around 9:30 p.m., PO2 Zaragosa and the confidential informant agreed to go to the house of Tita since Aling has not yet arrived, while the rest of the team positioned themselves near Tita's house. 5
When the confidential informant saw Tita, he asked her as to the whereabouts of Aling, and Tita told him that Aling was not around. Tita also informed them that the "stuff" in her possession has already been paid for. Thereafter, Tita went inside the house and when she returned, she casually handed to another woman a plastic sachet containing what appeared to be a white crystalline substance. PO2 Zaragosa immediately approached them and introduced himself as a police officer and arrested Tita, who was later identified as Villasis, and the other woman, who was also later identified as Astoriano. 6
The plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance was recovered from the right hand of Villasis by PO2 Zaragosa and was marked with "LVB 06-25-13." PO2 Zaragosa was also able to recover from Astoriano the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance that Villasis earlier gave to Astoriano, and marked the same with "GDA 06-05-13." Prior to the marking and inventory of the seized items at the place of arrest, the team called for a media representative, Edwin Moreno, and Barangay Kagawad Nathaniel Serin of Barangay Parang, Marikina City, who later arrived and executed the Inventory of Evidence. The photos of the accused-appellants with the seized items were also taken at the place of arrest. 7
Thereafter, the team proceeded to the Amang Rodriguez Medical Center for the medical examination of accused-appellants before the latter were brought to the SAID-SOTG office. At the SAID-SOTG office, requests for laboratory examination and for drug test were prepared, and PO2 Zaragosa personally delivered those request letters and the seized items to the EPD Crime Laboratory Office, which were all received by P/CINSP Stella S. Garciano at 4:25 a.m. of June 26, 2013. 8
The result of the laboratory examination showed that the two plastic sachets, marked as "LVB 06-25-13" with 0.10 gram and "GDA-06-25-13" with 0.06 gram, contained Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. The said findings were indicated in Chemistry Report No. D-209-13-E. The same items were then resealed with masking tape and marked with "D-209-13E A 6/26/13 SSG" and "D-209-13E B 6/26/13 SSG," respectively, and were turned over to the evidence custodian until they were presented in court. 9
A Chain of Custody Form was executed and the drug test conducted on the urine samples provided by the accused-appellants showed traces of Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug. 10
Thus, the following Informations were filed against accused-appellants for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165:
For Villasis:
Crim. Case No. 2013-4190-D-MK
"That on or about the 25th day o[f] June 2013, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly sell, deliver, and/or give away to one Grace Astoria y Ugay @ Grace, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.06 gram of white crystalline substance which gave positive result to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited laws.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
Crim. Case No. 2013-4191-D-MK
"That on or about the 25th day o[f] June 2013, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in possession, and control 0.10 gram of white crystalline substance suspected as shabu, contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent [plastic sachet] which gave positive result to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 11
For Astoriano:
Crim. Case No. 2013-4192-D-MK
"That on or about the 25th day of June 2013, in the City of Marikina, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in possession, and control 0.06 gram of white crystalline substance suspected as shabu, contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent [plastic sachet] which gave positive result to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 12
On their arraignment, both accused-appellants entered a plea of "not guilty." Thus, trial on the merits ensued. 13
The prosecution presented the testimonies of PO2 Zaragosa, SPO1 Fortuno, PO2 Delos Reyes, PO3 Dela Paz, PO3 Rosales, PO1 Yacub, P/CINSP Garciano and P/CINSP Dante Javiñas, Jr. 14
Villasis, during her testimony, claimed that on the date and time pertaining to this case, she was playing "tong-its" with Astoriano and a certain Jennifer, at the latter's house in Barangay Parang, Marikina City, when, suddenly, two male persons in civilian clothes appeared and introduced themselves as police officers. The men asked them to stand up and to tell them their home addresses, which accused-appellants and the rest did. When Villasis said that she was from Tumana, one of the men said, "Ito, taga Tumana ito, sigurado may dala ito." Villasis asked the police officer what he meant and the latter said, "bato." Villasis denied that she was in possession of any dangerous drug, which angered the police officer and resulted into a brief argument. Thereafter, they were brought to the police station. Accused-appellants were detained at the police station, while Jennifer was released. According to Villasis, the police officers asked for money in exchange for their release but they did not comply, hence, the police officers filed the criminal cases against them. 15
Astoriano also denied the charges against her and corroborated the testimony of Villasis. 16
The RTC, in its Consolidated Decision dated July 20, 2017, convicted accused-appellants of the charges against them in the Informations, thus:
WHEREFORE, in Criminal Case No. 2013-4190-D-MK, finding accused LEONORA VILLASIS y BAAL @ TITA aka LEONORA VILLASIS y VAAL @ TITA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine of Php500,000.00. The period of detention of said accused shall be fully credited in her favor.
In Criminal Case No. 2013-4191-D-MK, finding accused LEONORA VILLASIS y BAAL @ TITA aka LEONORA VILLASIS y VAAL @ TITA GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to TWENTY (20) YEARS as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 2013-4192-D-MK, finding accused GRACE ASTORIANO y UGAY @ GRACE GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, she is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of TWELVE (12) YEARS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to TWENTY (20) YEARS as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00).
The dangerous drugs submitted as evidence in these cases are hereby ordered to be immediately transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED. 17
The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused-appellants. According to the RTC, although no "buy-bust" occurred because there was no sale that transpired, Villasis was still caught delivering, giving away or distributing dangerous drugs to Astoriano, which is within the purview of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC also held that the integrity of the seized items was properly preserved.
When the case was elevated to the CA, it denied the appeal of accused-appellants and affirmed the Consolidated Decision of the RTC, thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Consolidated Decision dated 20 July 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Branch 165, Marikina City, in Criminal Case Nos. 2013-4190-D-MK, 2013-4191-D-MK, and 2013-4192-D-MK is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 18
According to the CA, the RTC did not err in convicting the accused-appellants because illegal delivery of dangerous drugs is also punished under the same law in which they were charged and all the elements of the said crime, as well as those of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, have been proven beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The CA ruled that the chain of custody of the seized items was properly established and there was no proof that a break in that chain occurred or happened.
Hence, this appeal.
Accused-appellants raise the following issues:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS THEREOF.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THAT THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED ITEMS WERE PRESERVED.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE PROCEDURE FOR THE CUSTODY AND CONTROL OF THE SEIZED PROHIBITED DRUGS WAS COMPLIED WITH. 19
The appeal deserves merit.
Under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following are punished:
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute[,] dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. (Emphasis supplied)
In this case, what allegedly transpired was the delivery of dangerous drugs as there was no sale involved among the persons involved. Section 3 of the same law defines the word "delivery" as follows:
Section 3. Definitions. — As used in this Act, the following terms shall mean:
xxx xxx xxx
(k) Deliver. — Any act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with or without consideration. 20
Thus, in the prosecution of illegal delivery of dangerous drugs, it must be proven that (1) the accused passed on possession of a dangerous drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means; (2) such delivery is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused knowingly made the delivery. 21
Also, under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or illegal possession of dangerous drugs, another crime charged against accused-appellants, the following must be proven before an accused can be convicted:
[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 dangerous drugs. 22
It cannot be overemphasized that in cases involving violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence should be given to the narration of the incident by the prosecution witnesses, especially when they are police officers who are presumed to have performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary. 23 Additionally, in weighing the testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses vis-a-vis that of the defense, it is a well-settled rule that in the absence of palpable error or grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge, the trial court's evaluation of the credibility of witnesses will not be disturbed on appeal. 24
It is of paramount importance that the identity of the dangerous drug be established beyond reasonable doubt; and that it must be proven with certitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. In fine, the illegal drug must be produced before the court as exhibit and that which was exhibited must be the very same substance recovered from the suspect. 25 Thus, the chain of custody carries out this purpose "as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 26
To ensure an unbroken chain of custody, Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 specifies:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody andcontrol 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)
Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
(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[.]
Under the original provision of Section 21, after seizure and confiscation of the dangerous drugs, the apprehending team is required to immediately conduct a physically inventory and photograph of the same in the presence of: (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) a representative from the media, and (3) the Department of Justice (DOJ), and (4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It is assumed that the presence of these persons 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." 27 Now, the amendatory law 28 mandates that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of: (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The incident in this case took place on June 25, 2013 or before the effectivity 29 of R.A. No. 10640, thus, the original provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 should have been followed, and under the said Section, after seizure and confiscation of the drugs, the apprehending team is required to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the same in the presence of: (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) a representative from the media, and (3) the DOJ, and (4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
In this case, a representative from the DOJ was not present and a review of the records does not provide any explanation from the arresting officers as to the reason for such absence. In People v. Angelita Reyes, et al., 30 this Court enumerated certain instances where the absence of the required witnesses may be justified, thus:
It must be emphasized that the prosecution must able to prove a justifiable ground in omitting certain requirements provided in Sec. 21 such as, but not limited to the following: 1) media representatives are not available at that time or that the police operatives had no time to alert the media due to the immediacy of the operation they were about to undertake, especially if it is done in more remote areas; 2) the police operatives, with the same reason, failed to find an available representative of the National Prosecution Service; 3) the police officers, due to time constraints brought about by the urgency of the operation to be undertaken and in order to comply with the provisions of Article 125 31 of the Revised Penal Code in the timely delivery of prisoners, were not able to comply with all the requisites set forth in Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
Furthermore, there is also doubt as to the actual presence of an elected public official during the inventory of the confiscated items as shown in the inconsistent statement of the arresting officer, thus:
Q: Now, Mr. Witness, when you testified earlier you said that the barangay official as well as the media representative signed the Inventory of Evidence at the place of arrest, do you affirm that Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: But in your salaysay Mr. Witness, in your Salaysay ng Pag-Aresto you said on paragraph 5 "x x x Agad akong gumawa ng Inventory of Confiscated Evidence at kami ay nagpatawag ng barangay official ng Parang at walang available x x x" do you affirm this Mr. Witness?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: So in short, Mr. Witness so it is not true that since the barangay official was not available during that time so it is not true that barangay official affixed his signature at the place of arrest?
A: The barangay official arrived, ma'am.
Q: Now Mr. Witness, since you said earlier you were the one who prepared your Salaysay ng Pag-Aresto, is that correct?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And in fact, you read your Salaysay ng Pag-Aresto?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And in fact you affixed your signature in your Salaysay ng Pag-Aresto?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And despite the fact Mr. Witness according to you that the barangay official arrived at the place of arrest, even it is stated in your Salaysay ng Pag-Aresto that you call for a barangay official and the barangay official is not available you still signed your Salaysay ng Pag-Aresto?
A: Yes, ma'am. 32
Certainly, the prosecution bears the burden of proof to show valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 33 It has the positive duty to demonstrate observance thereto in such a way that, during the proceedings before the trial court, it must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the law. 34 Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. The rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item. 35 A stricter adherence to Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is miniscule 36 since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration.
As such, accused-appellants' acquittal in this case is ordered for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated May 30, 2019, denying the appeal and affirming the Consolidated Decision dated July 20, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 165, Marikina City in Criminal Case Nos. 2013-4190-D-MK, 2013-4191-D-MK and 2013-4192-D-MK, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellants Leonora Villasis y Baal and Grace Astoriano y Ugay are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They are ordered IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, for immediate implementation. Said Superintendent is ordered to report to this Court within five (5) working days from receipt of this Resolution the action he/she has taken.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-17. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes.
2. CA rollo, pp. 61-80. Penned by Judge Acerey C. Pacheco.
3.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
4.Id. at 6.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 6-7.
9.Id. at 7.
10.Id.
11. CA rollo, pp. 41-42.
12.Id. at 42-43.
13.Rollo, p. 5.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 7.
16.Id. at 7-8.
17. CA rollo, pp. 79-80.
18.Rollo, p. 16.
19. CA rollo, pp. 40-41.
20. Section 3, Article 1 of R.A. No. 9165.
21. See People v. Mercindo Bobotiok, Jr. y Lontok, G.R. No. 237804, July 4, 2018.
22.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
23.People v. Steve, et al., 740 Phil. 727, 737 (2014).
24.People v. Alacdis, 811 Phil. 219, 232 (2017); citation omitted.
25.People v. Mirondo, 771 Phil. 345, 356-357 (2015).
26.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
27.People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 373 (2017).
28. R.A. No. 10640.
29. July 23, 2014.
30. G.R. No. 219953, April 23, 2018.
31. Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. — The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of; twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent. In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. (As amended by E.O. Nos. 59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively).
32. CA rollo, pp. 51-52.
33. See People v. Macapundag, 807 Phil. 234, 243 (2017).
34. See People v. Jovencito Miranda y Tigas, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018; People v. Ronaldo Paz y Dionisio, G.R. No. 229512, January 31, 2018; People v. Philip Mamangon y Espiritu, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018; and People v. Alvin Jugo y Villanueva, G.R. No. 231792, January 29, 2018.
35.People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 144 (2017).
36. See People v. Bobby S. Abelarde, G.R. No. 215713, January 22, 2018; People v. Amroding Macud y Dimaampao, G.R. No. 219175, December 14, 2017; People v. Pablo Arposeple y Sanchez, G.R. No. 205787, November 22, 2017; Aparente v. People, 818 Phil. 935, 937 (2017); People v. Cabellon, 818 Phil. 561, 574 (2017); People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 121 (2017); People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482, 485 (2017); People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 358 (2017); and People v. Segundo, 814 Phil. 697, 700 (2017).