THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 212626, June 03, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROLANDO TERNIDA Y MUNAR, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
The failure of law enforcers in buy-bust operations to photograph seized drugs in accordance with Article II, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, combined with the prosecution's failure to address this omission, raises doubt on the identity of the drugs seized, especially when the amount of dangerous drugs allegedly taken from the accused is minuscule.
This Court resolves an appeal1 of the October 30, 2013 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05208, which affirmed the conviction of Rolando Ternida y Munar (Ternida) for violating Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
An Information was filed charging Ternida with selling 0.0402 gram of shabu, in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. It read in part:
That on or about the 17th day of November 2009, in the City of San Fernando, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law and without first securing the necessary permit, license or prescription from the proper government agency, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, dispense and deliver one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as "Shabu" a dangerous drug, weighing ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR HUNDRED TWO (0.0402) gram to PO2 RICARDO ANNAGUE, who posed as a poseur buyer thereof using marked money one (1) piece of One Thousand peso bill bearing serial number 526998.Upon arraignment, Ternida pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. Pre-trial was conducted, and trial on the merits then ensued.4
CONTRARY TO LAW.3
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused ROLANDO TERNIDA y Munar is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00).On appeal,12 Ternida argued that the prosecution failed to preserve the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. He pointed out that the seized item was not marked with the date of seizure, which meant that it could not be distinguished from other evidence that may have been in the police officer's possession. Moreover, he claimed that the drugs allegedly seized were not photographed. He asserted that the prosecution did not give justifiable grounds for the apprehending officers' failure to comply with the chain of custody requirements under the law.13
SO ORDERED.11 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the instant appeal is hereby ordered DISMISSED, and the appealed decision rendered by Branch 66 of the RTC of San Fernando City, La Union in Criminal Case No. 8514 on 06 July 2011 is AFFIRMED in toto.Thus, Ternida filed a Notice of Appeal. In its December 5, 2013 Resolution,25 the Court of Appeals gave due course to Ternida's appeal and elevated the case records to this Court.26 Accused-appellant and plaintiff-appellee, in compliance with this Court's July 23, 2014 Resolution,27 filed their respective Manifestations on September 9, 201428 and September 26, 2014.29
SO ORDERED.24 (Emphasis in the original)
(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[.]That the photographing and physical inventory of the seized drugs must be done immediately where seizure had taken place minimizes the possibility that evidence may be planted. Noncompliance with this legally mandated procedure, upon seizure, raises doubt that what was submitted for laboratory examination and as evidence in court was seized from an accused.32
Even assuming arguendo that there is a deviation from the cited provision, the same does not affect the prosecution of the case. It does not render the evidence gathered inadmissible and certainly could not reasonably lead to the acquittal of appellant. As held by the Supreme Court, the failure of arresting officers to comply with a Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) regulation is a matter strictly between the DDB and arresting officers and is totally irrelevant to the prosecution of the criminal case. There is no provision or statement in any law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. Indeed, the commission of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drug is considered consummated once the sale is established and the prosecution thereof is not undermined by the failure of the arresting officers to comply with the regulations of the DDB. In the case at bar, the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs was clearly proven by the prosecution.33 (Citations omitted)In support of this argument, the Office of the Solicitor General cited People v. De los Reyes,34 a 1994 case where this Court rejected the accused's argument that the arresting officers failed to comply with a 1979 Dangerous Drugs Board regulation. Such reliance-despite the passage of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act in 2002, which expressly requires the apprehending team to seize the drugs in a specific way-is misplaced, outdated, and rejected.
(a) ... 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[.]35This Court has expounded on this provision in People v. Miranda:36
The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 may not always be possible. In fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 - which is now crystallized into statutory law with the passage of RA 10640 - provide that the said inventory and photography may be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 - under justifiable grounds - will not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer or team. Tersely put, the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165 and the IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.Thus, before courts may consider the seized drugs as evidence despite noncompliance with the legal requirements, justifiable grounds must be identified and proved. The prosecution must establish the steps taken to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved.38 It has the positive duty to establish its reasons for the procedural lapses.
In People v. Almorfe, the Court stressed that for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the , integrity and value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been preserved. Also, in People v. De Guzman, it was emphasized that the justifiable ground for non compliance must be proven as , a fact, because that Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.
To be sure, this Court is not impervious to the sentiments of the State when it is left to deal with the seemingly unfair situation of having a drug conviction overturned upon grounds that it was not able to meet in the proceedings a quo. However, there is no gainsaying that these sentiments must yield to the higher imperative of protecting the fundamental liberties of the accused. Besides, the law itself apprises our law enforcement authorities about the requirements of compliance with the chain of custody rule. Case law exhorts that the procedure in Section 21 of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. Therefore, as the requirements are clearly set forth in the law, then the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further review.37 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for miniscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels.43WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals October 30, 2013 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05208 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Rolando Ternida y Munar is ACQUITTED for the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for some other lawful cause.
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals October 30, 2013 Decision in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05208 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Rolando Ten1ida y Munar is ACQUITTED for the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for some other lawful cause.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release ROLANDO TERNIDA y MUNAR unless there are other lawful causes for which he should be further detained, and to return this Order with the certificate of your proceedings within five (5) days from notice hereof.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision. For their information, copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1 The appeal was filed under Rule 124, Section 13(c) of the Rules of Court.
2Rollo, pp. 2-13. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, and concurred in by Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes of the Fourteenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. at 2-3.
4 Id. at 3.
5 Id. at 4 and CA rollo, p. 13.
6 CA rollo, pp. 13-14.
7 Id. at 14 and rollo, p. 5.
8 Rollo, p. 5.
9 Id. at 5-6.
10 CA rollo, pp. 12-20. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge Victor O. Concepcion of Branch 66, Regional Trial Court, San Fernando City, La Union.
11 Id. at 20.
12 Id. at 45-67.
13 Id. at 53-55.
14 Id. at 55.
15 Id. at 58-59.
16 Id. at 59.
17 Id. at 60.
18 Id. at 64.
19 Id. at 86-104.
20 Id. at 96-99.
21 Id. at 102.
22 Id. at 101.
23Rollo, pp. 2-13.
24 Id. at 12.
25 CA rollo, p. 127.
26Rollo, p. 1.
27 Id. at 19-19-A.
28 Id. at 22-26.
29 Id. at 28-31.
30People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
31People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018, [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
32See People v. Orteza, 555 Phil. 700 (2007) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].
33 CA rollo, pp. 100-101.
34 299 Phil. 460 (1994) [Per J. Melo, Third Division].
35 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21(a).
36 G.R. No. 229671, January 31,2018, [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
37 Id.
38See People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, [Per J. Peralta, En Banc] and J. Leonen, Concurring Opinion in People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, [Per J. Peralta, En Banc].
39People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 98 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
40 Transcript of Stenographic Notes taken on November 9, 2010.
41 Transcript of Stenographic Notes taken on April 29, 2010, pp. 16-17.
42 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
43 Id. at 100.