SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 219852, April 03, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DAVE CLAUDEL Y LUCAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
This is an Appeal1 under Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Rules of Court from the Decision2 dated October 22, 2014 of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth (12th ) Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC. No. 05973, which affirmed the Decision3 dated October 31, 2012 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 204, Muntinlupa City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 09-149, which found herein accused-appellant Dave Claudel y Lucas (Dave) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.
That on or about the 26th day of February, 2009, in the City of Muntinlupa, 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 sell, deliver and give away to another a (sic) Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet weighing 0.04 gram, in violation of the above-cite [sic] law.
Contrary to law.4
The prosecution presented its witnesses, [PO2] Rondivar Hernaez ([PO2 Hernaez]) and [PO1] Bob Yangson [(PO1 Yangson]), a member of the buy-bust team. Their combined testimonies established the following facts:
On 26 February 2009, a buy-bust operation was conducted by the operatives of Station Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Group (SAID-SOTG) Muntinlupa Police following a report that a certain Dave Claudel ("Dave") is engaged in illegal drug activities. Prior to the buy-bust operation, Dave was also previously arrested for [v]iolation of RA 9165 involving illegal drugs.
In preparation for the buy-bust-operation [sic], the buy-bust team prepared the Pre-Operational Sheet and Coordination Sheet which they faxed to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). In turn, the buy-bust team received a Certificate of Coordination from PDEA.
Team Leader, Chief Inspector Paningbatan assigned [PO2] Hernaez as the poseur[-]buyer while PO1 Yangson was designated as the immediate back up. C/Insp. Paningbatan handed [PO2] Hernaez a Five Hundred Peso Bill buy-bust money on which the latter wrote his initials "RH" on the lower right portion of the bill. It was agreed upon that [PO2] Hernaez will light a cigarette as a pre-arranged signal that the sale of illegal drugs was consummated.
[PO2] Hernaez admitted that he was already familiar with Dave as he used to see him in court hearings. However, he was not aware whether Dave could also remember him. At any rate, to prevent being recognized, [PO2] Hernaez wore a disguise by changing his clothes. He wore a gray polo shirt, maong pants, leather shoes and a cap to cover his face. He also needed an asset to accompany him as Dave would not sell drugs to anyone except those known to him.
At around 9:30 o'clock [sic] in the evening, the team proceeded to the target place in Tuazon Street, Barangay Poblacion. As planned, [PO2] Hernaez together with the asset walked towards Tuazon Street corner Rizal Street where it was dark and there was no light. The asset pointed [to] alias Dave as the person selling illegal drugs. Upon seeing each other, the asset nodded to Dave. The asset then introduced [PO2] Hernaez to Dave as his kumpare from Parañaque who is interested in buying shabu as there was scarcity of shabu in Parañaque. Dave asked them how much would they buy from him to which [PO2] Hernaez replied, "Php500.00, pare." Dave reached into the secret pocket of his maong pants and told [PO2] Hernaez, "Tamang-tama pare huling kasa ko na lang 'to pauwi na rin ako ". [PO2] Hernaez handed Dave the buy-bust money while Dave handed him a transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. After examining the plastic sachet, [PO2] Hernaez lit his cigarette. [PO1] Yangson, the assigned back-up of [PO2] Hernaez immediately rushed to the scene and assisted in arresting Dave.
After informing Dave of his rights, [PO2] Hernaez and the rest of the buy-bust team brought Dave to their office where they recovered from him the buy-bust money. The plastic sachet remained in [PO2] Hernaez's custody until they reached their office. Upon arriving thereat, [PO2] Hernaez placed the marking "DC" on the seized plastic sachet. They conducted an Inventory of the seized item in the presence of Dave and Rodolfo Baldobino, DAPCO representative.
[PO2] Hernaez explained that they contacted a representative from the media and the barangay but they received a negative reply as it was already around 10:00 or 11:00 o'clock in the evening. Photographs of Dave, the buy-bust team, and the confiscated items were also taken. They also prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination which [PO2] Hernaez and [PO1] Yangson submitted to the Crime Laboratory. [PO2] Hernaez also took custody of the seized item and submitted the same to the Custodian in the Crime Laboratory.
Afterwards, [PO2] Hernaez came to know that the result of the Laboratory Examination yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Thereafter, they executed a Joint Affidavit, a Booking Sheet and Spot Report of the incident.6
The defense presented as its witnesses, the accused himself, Dave Claudel, Ligaya Santos and Emmerlyn Arellano [(Emmerlyn)]. Their combined testimonies narrate the following facts:
On 26 February 2009 at about 6:00 o'clock in the evening in P. Tuazon Street, Poblacion, Muntinlupa City, Dave Claudel was fetching water near the store of his sister, Ligaya Santos ("Ligaya"). Ligaya was manning her store with her employee, Emmerlyn Arellano, when more or less six (6) armed men with guns and handcuffs arrived. Dave eventually came to know that the [sic] two (2) of these men were police officers [PO1] Yangson and [PO2] Hernaez. Dave was surprise[d] when [he was] instructed by the police officers to follow them. He was ordered to raise his hands and then he was handcuffed. The police officers were looking for a can as they bodily searched him. Unaware as to what they were talking about, Dave failed to give an answer. Consequently, one of the men hit him on his face. Dave insisted that nothing was recovered from him. H[is] sister, on the other hand, was crying and trembling with fear as the police officers threatened them saying, "nagbebenta kayo ng drugs kaya ikukulong namin kayo." Dave and Ligaya were taken aboard the police vehicle and were brought to [the] Muntinlupa police station.
Upon arrival at the police station, one of the arresting officers spoke to Ligaya. The police officer informed her that she is suspected of being involved in her brother's illegal drug activities. Ligaya denied the said allegation and insisted that her brother is not selling drugs. Thereafter, the police officers turned their attention to Dave sitting next to her. The police officers questioned Dave about his illegal drug activities and forced him to admit as to the location of some cash. Dave denied having knowledge of what they were talking about.
Afterwards, another police officer talked to Ligaya and told her that she could go home but before she could leave the precinct[,] she must give One Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php100,000.00) for Dave's release. Ligaya responded that they did not have that amount of money to which the police officers answered, "tutuluyan nila si Dave". The police officer[s] then showed her a sachet which they will use as evidence against Dave. Thereafter, she was release[d] from the precinct while Dave remained incarcerated.
After Ligaya left, [PO2] Hernaez spoke to Dave and showed him one (1) plastic sachet and one (1) Five Hundred Peso bill that will be used as evidence against him. Dave questioned the evidence as the same was not his and was not recovered from him. However, [PO2] Hernaez remained silent. Instead, he was put in jail. Dave only became aware of the charge against him when he was taken and presented before the Fiscal.7
WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime herein charged, DAVE CLAUDEL y LUCAS is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of P500,000.00
The preventive imprisonment undergone by the accused shall be credited in his favor.
The drug evidence is ordered transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.
Issue a MITTIMUS committing accused DAVE CLAUDEL y LUCAS to the New Bilibid Prison (NBP) for the service of his sentence pending any appeal that he may file in this case.
SO ORDERED.12
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Judgment dated 31 October 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Muntinlupa City Branch 204 in Criminal Case No. 09-149 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.14
Q: When you reached your office what did you do with the item? A: I placed markings, sir. x x x x Q: Aside from the marking what else did you do in your office? A: We made a Certificate of inventory, sir. Q: Where was the accused when the Inventory was made? A: He was present and beside me, sir. Q: Who were the witnesses to the inventory, if you can recall? A: Rodolfo Baldobino, a DAPCO representative, sir. Q: Why only DAPCO representative not the Barangay official/elected official, DOJ or media? [sic] A: We contacted the media and Barangay officials but they had negative reply to us, sir. Q: What time was it when the Inventory was made? A: It was late in the evening, around 10:00 or 11:00 in the evening, sir. Q: What efforts did you take in order to obtain the presence or signature of the witnesses just mentioned? A: We tried to contact the barangay and the media representative but they never came, sir. Q: What about the Barangay, what did the Barangay tell you when you asked for their presence? A: That there were no Barangay officials around at that time, sir.31
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza,33 without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."34
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.40 (Underscoring added, emphasis omitted)
Under the last paragraph of Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, a saving mechanism has been provided to ensure that not every case of non-compliance with the procedures for the preservation of the chain of custody will irretrievably prejudice the Prosecution's case against the accused. To warrant the application of this saving mechanism, however, the Prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses, and justify or explain them. Such justification or explanation would be the basis for applying the saving mechanism. Yet, the Prosecution did not concede such lapses, and did not even tender any token justification or explanation for them. The failure to justify or explain underscored the doubt and suspicion about the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti. With the chain of custody having been compromised, the accused deserves acquittal.46 (Emphasis supplied)
Endnotes:
1See Notice of Appeal dated November 6, 2014; rollo, p. 17.
2 Id. at 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan, with Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Elihu A. Ybañez concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 69-79. Penned by Presiding Judge Juanita T. Guerrero.
4Rollo, p. 3.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 4-7.
7 Id. at 7-8.
8 Supra note 3.
9 CA rollo, p. 75.
10 Id.
11 Id. at 78.
12 Id. At 78-79.
13 Supra note 2.
14Rollo, p. 16.
15 Id. at 9.
16 Id. at 12.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 14.
19People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017, 834 SCRA 225, 240.
20Derilo v. People, 784 Phil. 679, 686 (2016).
21People v. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596, January 10, 2018, p. 9.
22People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018, p. 5.
23 The said section reads as follows:
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. – 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[.]
24See RA 9165, Art. II, Sec. 21 (1) and (2).
25 IRR of RA 9165, Art. II, Sec. 21 (a).
26People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
27People v. Ceralde, G.R. No. 228894, August 7, 2017, 834 SCRA 613, 624-625.
28People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
29People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
30People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 123 (2013).
31 TSN dated August 20, 2009, pp. 13-15.
32 G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018.
33 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
34People v. Tomawis, supra note 32 at 11-12.
35 TSN dated August 20, 2009, p. 15.
36 Id.
37 Id. at 5-6.
38 Id. at 4.
39 G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
40 Id. at 13, citing People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018, p. 17.
41 RA 9165, Sec. 21(1), as amended by RA 10640, Sec. 1.
42People v. Beran, 724 Phil. 788, 822 (2014).
43People v. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671, 690 (2016).
44People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 350 (2015).
45 797 Phil. 671 (2016).
46 Id. at 690.
47 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 14(2): "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved x x x."
48People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476, 503-504 (2012).
49 People v. Mendoza, supra note 33 at 769.
50 Id. at 770.
51People v. Catalan, 699 Phil. 603, 621 (2012).
52 393 Phil. 68, 133 (2000).
53People v. Mateo, 582 Phil. 390, 410 (2008), citing People v. Ong, 476 Phil. 553 (2004) and People v. Juatan, 329 Phil. 331, 337-338 (1996).
54People v. De la Cruz, 666 Phil. 593, 605 (2011).
55 TSN dated August 20, 2009, p. 13.
56 Id. at 14.
57Rollo, p. 7.
58 Id.
59 Id. at 8.
60 Id.
61 Id.
62 Id.
63People v. Daria, Jr., 615 Phil. 744, 767 (2009).
64 See People v. Jugo, G.R. No. 231792, January 29, 2018, p. 10.