Remo y Dizon v. People

THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 239249. September 28, 2020.]

RAUL REMO y DIZON, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 28, 2020, which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 239249 — (RAUL REMO y DIZON, petitioner v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent). — Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision 2 dated October 25, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39180, which affirmed the Decision 3 dated September 7, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Valenzuela City, Branch 172 in Criminal Case No. 97-V-03, finding Raul Remo y Dizon (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," and Resolution 4 dated April 24, 2018 which denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration.

The Facts

The information charging petitioner with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 before the RTC of Valenzuela City states:

That on or about February 8, 2003 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in possession, custody and control, .03 gram, .03 gram, and .06 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (Shabu), knowing the same to be a dangerous drug.

Contrary to law. 5

During arraignment, the petitioner failed to enter a plea and had remained at large. Hence, the trial court ordered the case to be archived on February 24, 2004. A decade after, the Valenzuela Police Station issued a Certificate of Detention that the petitioner was already in custody at their station. Finally, he was arraigned on March 25, 2014 and pleaded not guilty to the violation charged. After the pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 6

The version of the prosecution

At around 9 o'clock in the evening of February 8, 2003, Police Officer 2 (PO2) Miguel Isla (PO2 Isla) was on duty at the Valenzuela Police Station when his fellow police PO2 Tumbaga received a call from a concerned citizen informing their office of the rampant sale and use of illegal drugs at Daangbakal, Valenzuela City. Acting on the information, Chief Police Senior Inspector Danilo Bugay instructed his men, namely, PO2 Isla, PO3 Arquillo, PO2 Tumbaga and PO2 Loteyro, to conduct a surveillance in the subject area. 7 Thereat, while conducting the surveillance operation, PO2 Isla noticed petitioner coming out from an alley and brought out from his pocket a small plastic sachet. 8 PO2 Isla observed, from a distance of five meters, that petitioner was inspecting the plastic sachet which he noticed to be containing white crystalline substance. 9

PO2 Isla, being convinced that the contents of the plastic sachet were shabu, approached petitioner and introduced himself as a police officer. He then seized the same from the hands of the petitioner and arrested him. PO2 Isla then asked the petitioner to empty his pockets to which petitioner obliged, thus, two more plastic sachets allegedly containing shabu were confiscated from him. 10

The police officers brought petitioner along with the seized items to the police station. PO2 Isla immediately marked the items with petitioner's initials "RDR-1," "RDR-2'' and "RDR-3." 11 Thereafter, PO2 Isla turned over the items to the investigator, SPO4 Ronald Sanchez who prepared the request for laboratory examination, affidavit of arrest, case referral and the drug and spot report. 12

On February 9, 2003, SPO4 Sanchez brought the items and the request for laboratory examination to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory which was received by Forensic Chemical Officer Police Inspector Jesse Abadilla Dela Rosa. 13

In the Physical Sciences Report No. D-170-03, it was confirmed that the contents of the three sachets were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 14

The version of the defense

The petitioner, on the other hand, denied the charge against him. He narrated that on February 8, 2003 at around 9 o'clock in the evening, he was inside his sari-sari store in Daangbakal, Malinta, Valenzuela when a commotion erupted due to a stoning incident right in front of his place. This made him decide to close his store and went out through the backdoor. When he was about to enter his house, a man approached him and asked him, "San ka pupunta?" The petitioner replied, "Dito ako nakatira," while pointing to his house. The man together with his two to three companions grabbed him and told him, "Dito ka." The men pulled and brought him to the highway where he was frisked. 15 Despite his protest that he would be the one to empty his pockets, the men still proceeded to inspect the pockets of his shorts. 16

After the men frisked the petitioner, one of them said, "Eto, eto meron oh," while showing him a small plastic sachet. The petitioner denied that the plastic sachet was his but the men answered, "Kanino to?" and hit him on the nape. Thereafter, the petitioner was boarded to a jeep and was brought to the city hall. It was then when he saw the nameplates on the men's jackets and recognized that they were police officers. 17 He was asked of his name and was detained in the city hall. 18

The petitioner is resolute that the police officers fabricated the charge against him and that they planted evidence against him. 19

RTC Ruling

The RTC ruled that the prosecution was able to prove that PO2 Isla caught the petitioner in possession of shabu. It explained that the seized items from the petitioner were properly identified by PO2 Isla who was the one who put the markings thereon. Moreover, the items were found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. 20 The dispositive portion of the decision states:

WHEREFORE, the court finds the accused RAUL REMO y DIZON guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as principal of the crime of violation of Section 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165, otherwise known as, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, and he is hereby sentenced to suffer an imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to seventeen (17) years and eight (8) months as maximum and to pay the fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP300,000.00).

The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency the confiscated drugs for proper disposal.

SO ORDERED. 21

CA Ruling

Aggrieved, petitioner appealed the case before the CA. The petitioner argued before the appellate court that his warrantless arrest, as well as the search incidental thereto, was illegal, thus, the items confiscated from him were inadmissible in evidence. He further claimed that since the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody in handling the seized illegal items, his conviction for the crime charged was erroneous. 22

The appellate court held that the petitioner can no longer question the validity of his arrest since he failed to assail the same before his arraignment. Further, it ruled that the issue of admissibility of the seized items cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. 23 The dispositive portion of the decision states:

WHEREFORE, premised [sic] considered, the Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated 07 September 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 172 in Criminal Case No. 97-V-03 is hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.24

The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the appellate court's decision which was denied for lack of merit in a resolution dated April 24, 2018. 25

Issue

Whether the petitioner is guilty of violation Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165.

The Ruling of this Court

The petition is meritorious.

The general rule is that the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. 26 An exception to the rule is that it does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied in the case under review. 27 Besides, an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review on all questions including those not raised by the parties. 28

The petitioner claimed that the arrest effected upon him and the incidental search were both unlawful and unconstitutional. 29 He explained that he was not doing anything when PO2 Isla arrested him. 30 He added that it was even unlikely for PO2 Isla to see the contents of a small plastic sachet considering that it was already nighttime and the distance between them was about five meters. 31

The Office of the Solicitor General argued that the prosecution has sufficiently established that petitioner was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of the illegal drugs during the surveillance operation. 32

This Court agrees with the petitioner.

In cases of in flagrante delicto arrests, a peace officer or a private person may without a warrant, arrest a person, when, in his/her presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense. The arresting officer, therefore, must have personal knowledge or such fact or as recent case law adverts to, personal knowledge of facts or circumstances convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause. The term probable cause had been understood to mean a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man's belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. Specifically with respect to arrests, it is such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. 33

The validity of in flagrante delicto warrantless arrest requires compliance with the overt act test —

[F]or a warrantless arrest of·in flagrante delicto to be affected, "two elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he [or she] has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer." 34

Here, considering that PO2 Isla was at a considerable distance of five meters away from petitioner who as he alleged was inspecting a plastic sachet of shabu with a miniscule quantity (0.03 or 0.06 gram), it would be highly implausible for him, especially at nighttime — even assuming that he has perfect vision — to ascertain with reasonable accuracy that the petitioner is in illegal possession of a plastic sachet containing dangerous drug.

His act of holding and inspecting something in his hands does not constitute an overt act or even raise a suspicion that he was committing a crime. In short, there was not a single suspicious circumstance. There was no probable cause for PO2 Isla to effect arrest.

In People v. Villareal, 35 this Court ruled that:

Absent any other circumstance upon which to anchor a lawful arrest, no other overt act could be properly attributed to appellant as to rouse suspicion in the mind of PO3 de Leon that he (appellant) had just committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime, for the acts per se of walking along the street and examining something in one's hands cannot in any way be considered criminal acts. In fact, even if appellant had been exhibiting unusual or strange acts, or at the very least appeared suspicious, the same would not have been sufficient in order for PO3 de Leon to effect a lawful warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5, Rule 113.

Neither has it been established that the rigorous conditions set forth in paragraph (b) of Section 5, Rule 113 have been implied with, i.e., that an offense had in fact just been committed and the arresting officer had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the appellant had committed it. The factual circumstances of the case failed to show that PO3 de Leon had personal knowledge that a crime had been indisputably committed by the appellant. It is not enough that PO3 de Leon had reasonable ground to believe that appellant had just committed a crime; a crime must in fact have been committed first, which does not obtain in this case. 36 (Underscoring supplied)

The invalidity of an arrest leads to several consequences, among which are: (a) the failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of an accused; (b) criminal liability of law enforcers for illegal arrest; and (c) any search incident to the arrest becomes invalid thus rendering the evidence acquired as constitutionally inadmissible. 37

It is true that lack of jurisdiction over the person of an accused as a result of an invalid arrest must be raised through a motion to quash before an accused enters his or her plea. 38 Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived and an accused is "estopped from questioning the legality of his [or her] arrest," 39 such as in this case.

Contrary to the ruling of the CA, however, the failure to timely object to the illegality of an arrest does not preclude an accused from questioning the admissibility of evidence seized. 40 The inadmissibility of the evidence is not affected when an accused fails to question the court's jurisdiction over his or her person in a timely manner. 41 Jurisdiction over the person of an accused and the constitutional inadmissibility of evidence are separate and mutually exclusive consequences of an illegal arrest. 42

Here, there was a failure to comply with the overt act test which renders the in flagrante delicto arrest constitutionally infirm. Consequently, the seized items being fruits of the lawful arrest are thus inadmissible in evidence.

Even assuming arguendo that the arrest was legal and valid and the seized items were admissible in evidence, the failure of the police operatives to comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 makes the identity and integrity of the items questionable.

In cases involving illegal trading and possession of dangerous drugs, the seized dangerous drug from the accused constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. 43 Proof beyond reasonable doubt must be adduced in establishing the corpus delicti — the body of the crime whose core is the confiscated illicit drug. 44 It is important that the State establish with moral certainty the integrity and identity of the illicit drugs as the same as those examined in the laboratory and subsequently presented in court as evidence. 45 This rigorous requirement, known under R.A. No. 9165 as the chain of custody, 46 performs the function of ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 47

Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is a critical means to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody 48 by providing for the procedures to be followed in the seizure, custody and disposition of confiscated, seized and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 provides:

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemical, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs 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;

xxx xxx xxx

Filling in the details as to where the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items should be made is Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 (IRR) which reads:

Sec. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — x x x

(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the dangerous 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 and custody over said items[.] (Emphasis supplied)

The same likewise provides for a saving clause in case of non-compliance with the requirements of R.A. No. 9165 and the IRR, thus:

x x x 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; (Emphasis supplied)

In the present case, the police officers failed to mark the items at the place of the arrest. The marking was done in the police station by PO2 Isla in front of SPO4 Sanchez. There is not an iota of evidence that it was done in front of the petitioner, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. Further, the testimony of prosecution witnesses that photographs during the inventory were taken, no such photographs were adduced as evidence.

It has been settled that the presence of the persons who should witness the post-operation procedures is necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity. The insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody. We have noted in several cases that a buy-bust operation is susceptible to abuse, and the only way to prevent this is to ensure that the procedural safeguards provided by the law are strictly observed. 49 In the present case, not only have the prescribed procedures not been followed, but also (and more importantly) the lapses not justifiably explained. 50

The minuscule quantity of confiscated illicit drugs heightens the importance or a more stringent conformity to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 51 The inevitable consequences of failure to observe this unflagging strictness and rigor in the law is emphasized in the case of People v. Ismael, 52 thus — "there was already a significant break such that there can be no assurance against switching, planting, or contamination. The Court has previously held that, 'failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt.'" 53

As no less than the liberty of an accused is at stake, appellate courts, this Court included, must, in turn, sift the records to determine if, indeed, the apprehending team observed Section 21 and if not, if the same is justified under the circumstances. 54If, from such full examination of the records, there appears unjustified failure to comply with Section 21, it becomes the appellate court's bounded duty to acquit the accused, and perforce, overturn a conviction. 55

WHEREFORE, the Decision dated September 7, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 172 in Criminal Case No. 97-V-03, and the Decision dated October 25, 2017 and Resolution dated April 24, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39180 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Raul Remo y Dizon is hereby ACQUITTED and is ordered immediately RELEASED from confinement unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

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

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 11-35.

2.Id. at 38-45; penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Manuel M. Barrios and Filomena D. Singh.

3.Id. at 70-73; penned by Judge Nancy Rivas-Palmones.

4.Id. at 47 and 47-A.

5.Id. at 39.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 39.

8.Id. at 39-40.

9.Id.

10.Id. at 40.

11.Id.

12.Id.

13.Id. at 126-127.

14.Id. at 40.

15.Id. at 14.

16.Id.

17.Id.

18.Id. at 14-15.

19.Id. at 15.

20.Id. at 73.

21.Id.

22.Id. at 43.

23.Id.

24.Id. at 44.

25.Id. at 47-47-A.

26. See People v. Villarta, 828 Phil. 259, 275 (2018).

27.Id.

28.Id.

29.Rollo, p. 129.

30.Id.

31.Id.

32.Id.

33.People v. Chua Ho San, 367 Phil. 703, 717 (1999).

34.Veridiano v. People, 810 Phil. 642, 658 (2017) citing People v. Cogaed, 740 Phil. 212, 238 (2014).

35. 706 Phil. 511 (2013).

36.Id. at 519-520.

37.Veridiano v. People, supra note 34 at 653.

38.Id. at 654.

39.Id.

40.Id.

41.Id.

42.Id.

43.People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 367 (2017).

44.People v. Ga-a, G.R. No. 222559, June 6, 2018, 865 SCRA 220, 245.

45.Id.

46.Id.

47.Id. at 245-246.

48.Id. at 246.

49.People v. Alvarado, et al., G.R. No. 830 Phil. 785, 803 (2018).

50.Id.

51.People v. Sagana, supra note 42 at 358.

52.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 (2017).

53.Id. at 34-35.

54.People v. Ga-a, supra note 43 at 270.

55.Id.