THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 238519, June 26, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. DESIREE DELA TORRE Y ARBILLON, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
This is an appeal filed by appellant Desiree Dela Torre y Arbillon of the Decision1 dated July 27, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08268, affirming with modification the Decision2 dated April 13, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 64 in Criminal Case Nos. 15-1009 and 15-1010.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On March 14, 2015, at around 11:00 a.m., PSupt. Mario Ignacio alerted his team and tasked them to conduct an anti-narcotics operation in Barangay Palanan, Makati City. Prosecution witness PO1 Mauro Pagulayan was informed that their target was a certain alias "Zandra" who was suspected to sell illegal drugs in Barangay Palanan. After conducting an anti-narcotics operation in said area, their team, headed by P/Insp. Crisanto Racoma, had a briefing. PO1 Pagulayan was designated as the poseur-buyer. He was given a P1,000.00 bill, with serial number RM289309, to be used as marked money. It was also agreed that PO1 Pagulayan would give a pre-arranged signal of scratching the side of his body when the sale was consummated. Meanwhile, PO1 Mario Maramag was designated as police backup, while the rest of the team would serve as perimeter security.3
PO1 Maramag coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and submitted a coordination form in order to legalize the buy-bust operation. Then, PO1 Pagulayan called their regular informant to locate alias Zandra. A few hours after, their informant confirmed alias Zandra's location and so they proceeded to meet the informant at Cash & Carry in Barangay Palanan. From Cash & Carry, PO1 Pagulayan and the rest of the team proceeded on foot towards Diesel Street. There, a female person whom the informant identified as alias Zandra stood at the side of the street. PO1 Pagulayan and the informant approached her and the informant introduced PO1 Pagulayan as his friend who wanted to get shabu. Alias Zandra asked him how much he needed and he said P1,000.00, to which alias Zandra. repliec, "akin na ang pera." PO1 Pagulayan handed the marked money to her and she placed it inside her pocket. Thereafter, alias Zandra took out three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances suspected to be shabu and asked PO1 Pagulayan to choose among the three. After he had chosen, alias Zandra returned the two plastic sachets inside her left pocket. PO1 Pagulayan placed the sachet containing white crystalline substances suspected to be shabu inside his pocket and, thereafter, introduced himself to alias Zandra as a policeman. PO1 Maramag then arrived and assisted PO1 Pagulayan in arresting alias Zandra. PO1 Pagulayan asked alias Zandra, to take out from her pocket the marked money, as well as the two other plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances suspected to be shabu. PO1 Maramag then informed alias Zandra of the Miranda rights. They also called for a barangay official who could witness the inventory of the seized items. However, as a lot of people had already started to gather around them, they decided to head to the barangay hall in Palanan.4
Inside the barangay hall, PO1 Pagulayan made an inventory of the seized items and marked the sachet containing white crystalline substances suspected to be shabu, subject of the sale, as "M.A.P," and the two other sachets recovered from the appellant as "M.A.P-1" and "M.A.P-2," respectively. The seized items were marked and inventoried in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Jose A. Villa, Jr. The barangay kagawad signed the Inventory Receipt as proof that he was there to witness the inventory of the seized items. Photos of the appellant, as well as the seized items and buy-bust money, were also taken. Then, PO1 Pagulayan prepared a request for laboratory examination, the chain of custody form, and a request for drug test. He, thereafter, brought these documents, as well as the seized items, to the crime laboratory. PCI May Andrea Bonifacio conducted a qualitative examination of the three heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances marked as "M.A.P" weighing 0.26 gram, "M.A.P-1" weighing 0.25 gram, and "M.A.P-2" weighing 0.27 gram, and found each one of them to be positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. She then reduced her findings on Chemistry Report No. D-227-15.5
Appellant was charged in two separate informations for violation of Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 on March 16, 2015, to wit:
In Criminal Case No. 15-1009:
On the 14th day of March 2015, in the city of Makati, the Philippines, accused, without the necessary license or prescription and without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver, and give away Methamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing zero point twenty six (0.26) gram, a dangerous drug, in consideration of Php1,000.In Criminal Case No. 15-1010:
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
On the 14th day of March 2015, in the city of Makati, the Philippines, accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess or otherwise use any dangerous drug and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in her possession, direct custody and control a total of zero point fifty two (0.52) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.Upon arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty to both crimes as charged. During pre-trial, the parties agreed to dispense with the testimony of PO3 Voltaire Esguerra and, instead, stipulated on the following: 1) lack of knowledge as to how the appellant was arrested and as to the confiscation of the evidence, and that he was the investigator of the case; 2) he prepared and signed the investigation report, request for drug test, and chain of custody form; 3) he could identify the appellant and the seized items; 4) he signed the inventory receipt of the three pieces of transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substances from PO1 Pagulayan; 5) after receiving the seized items from PO1 Pagulayan, he returned the same to the latter for delivery to the crime laboratory as appearing in the chain of custody form; and 6) the scanned image of the P1,000.00 bill is a faithful reproduction of the original.8
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision with modification as to the fine imposed. The dispositive portion of which reads:SO ORDERED.11
- In Criminal Case No. 15-1009, finding the accused Desiree Dela Torre y Arbillon, GUILTY of the charge for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 and sentencing her to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php300,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
- In Criminal Cases Nos. 15-1010, finding the accused Desiree Dela Torre y Arbillon, GUILTY of the charge for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 and sentencing her to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years of imprisonment and to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (Php300,000.00) without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated 13 April 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 64 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the fine in Criminal Case No. 15-1009 which shall be increased to Php500,000.00 to conform with the imposable fine as provided in Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.Thus, the instant appeal raising the same issues raised before the appellate court:
SO ORDERED.12
Appellant would like to impress upon this Court that there were significant deficiencies in the chain of custody which render the identity and integrity of the specimen submitted in evidence. Appellant alleged that the marking of dangerous drugs or related items should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest; however, in this case, appellant claimed that the seized drug items were not marked on site, but in the barangay hall, at least an hour or two after the arrest was made.I
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY.II
THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF DENIAL FOR BEING EASILY CONCOCTED AND A COMMON DEFENSE PLOY IN CASES INVOLVING DANGEROUS DRUGS.13
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:Supplementing the above-quoted provision, Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates:
(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[.]
(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.20On July 15, 2014, R.A. No. 10640 was approved to amend R.A. No 9165, it incorporated the saving clause contained in the IRR, thus:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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.In the case of People v. Mendoza,20 the Court stressed that without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice (DOJ), or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the seized drugs, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of R.A. No. 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 said drugs that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.21
On cross-examination:
PROSECUTOR Do you have any proof that there was an inventory conducted at the barangay hall? WITNESS Yes, ma'am. PROSECUTOR And what proof do you have? WITNESS The inventory form, ma'am. PROSECUTOR If I show to you a copy of that inventory, will you be able to identify it? WITNESS Yes, ma'am. PROSECUTOR I have here, Mr. Witness, an Inventory Receipt dated March 14, 2015 already marked as our Exhibit E. Will you please go over this and tell us what relation has this with the Inventory Form which you said was accomplished at the barangay hall? WITNESS My signature appears there. PROSECUTOR Witness, Your Honor, is pointing to his signature appearing above the name PO1 Mauro Pagulayan. Mr. Witness, it appears to be handwritten, whose handwriting is this? WITNESS That is my handwriting, ma'am. PROSECUTOR And who were present during the inventory? WITNESS The elected barangay official. PROSECUTOR Who is that? WITNESS Kag. Jose Villa. PROSECUTOR Who else? WITNESS My back-up Mario Maramag. PROSECUTOR How about the accused, where was she during the inventory? WITNESS She was beside me, ma'am.25 (Emphases supplied.)
It must be emphasized that the mere marking of the seized drugs, as well as the conduct of an inventory, in violation of the strict procedure requiring the presence of the accused, the media, and responsible government functionaries, fails to approximate compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.27 The presence of these personalities, and the immediate marking and conduct of physical inventory after seizure and confiscation, in full view of the accused, and the required witnesses cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality.28 Relative thereto, the prosecution likewise failed to provide any explanation as to why it did not secure the presence of a representative from the DOJ and the media. There was no showing of even an attempt to contact representatives from the DOJ and the media. Minor deviations may be excused in situations where a justifiable reason for non-compliance is explained.29 However, in the instant case, despite the non-observance of the witness requirement, no plausible explanation was given by the prosecution.
ATTY. PERALTA Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Witness, you mentioned in your Sinumpaang Salaysay that the buy bust operation was conducted on March 14, 2015, is that correct? WITNESS Yes, sir. ATTY. PERALTA What time did you arrest the accused? WITNESS Around 2:30, sir. ATTY. PERALTA In the morning or in the afternoon? WITNESS In the afternoon, sir. ATTY. PERALTA And after the arrest, did you immediately conduct the physical inventory of the items that you seized? WITNESS No, sir. We decided to go to the barangay hall to conduct the inventory. ATTY. PERALTA Did you immediately go to the barangay hall? WITNESS No, sir, after the buy bust operation, we ordered the suspect to bring out the contents of her pocket. ATTY. PERALTA You conducted the physical inventory of the items that you allegedly seized from the accused? WITNESS No, sir, we conducted the inventory at the barangay hall. ATTY. PERALTA So, you did the inventory? WITNESS Yes, sir. ATTY. PERALTA Did you do this immediately? WITNESS Yes, sir. ATTY. PERALTA What time did you do this? WITNESS Around 3:00 to 4:00 in the afternoon. ATTY. PERALTA Did you indicate the time when you conducted the physical inventory of the items that you seized, did you indicate it in the inventory receipt? WITNESS No, sir. ATTY. PERALTA Mr. Witness, you would agree with me that you turned over the items that you seized to PO3 Voltaire Esguerra, is that correct? WITNESS Yes, sir. ATTY. PERALTA And based on your Chain of Custody Form, PO3 Voltaire Esguerra turned it over to you? WITNESS Yes, sir. ATTY. PERALTA What time did he turn over it to you? WITNESS Around 5:00 o'clock, sir. ATTY. PERALTA What day? WITNESS March 14. ATTY. PERALTA Was the time indicated when the items were turned over by PO3 Esguerra? WITNESS No, sir. ATTY. PERALTA What time did you receive the items from PO3 Esguerra? WITNESS Around 5:00 o'clock, sir, I did not know the specific time. ATTY. PERALTA Was the time indicated? WITNESS No, sir. ATTY. PERALTA And after that, you turned over the item that you seized to PCI May Bonifacio? WITNESS Yes, sir. ATTY. PERALTA Was the time indicated? WITNESS Yes, sir. ATTY. PERALTA What time? WITNESS Around 6:00 o'clock, sir. They put the time there. ATTY. PERALTA And during the physical inventory, Mr. Witness, was there a representative from the [DOJ] present? WITNESS Only the barangay elected official, sir. ATTY. PERALTA There was none? WITNESS Yes, sir. ATTY. PERALTA Was there a representative from the media present? WITNESS None, sir. ATTY. PERALTA That would be all, Your Honor.26 (Emphases supplied.)
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated July 27, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08268 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Desiree Dela Torre y Arbillon is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release DESIREE DELA TORRE y ARBILLON unless there are other lawful causes for which she 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 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 Decision, the action he/she has taken.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-13; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr., and concurred in by Associate Justices Samuel H. Gaerlan and Jhosep Y. Lopez.
2 CA rollo, pp. 45-51; penned by Judge Gina Bibat-Palamos.
3Rollo, p. 4.
4Id. at 4-5.
5Id. at 5.
6 Records, p. 3.
7Id at 7.
8Rollo, p. 3.
9Id. at 3-4.
10 CA rollo, pp. 109-110.
11 Records, p. 144.
12Rollo, p. 12.
13 CA rollo, p. 23.
14People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015).
15People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015).
16 See People v. Viterbo, et al., 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014). See also People v. Alivio, et al., 664 Phil. 565, 576-580 (2011); and People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1175 (2009).
17People v. Romy Lim y Miranda, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
18Id.
19 Took effect on July 4, 2002.
20 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
21Id. at 764.
22 See People v. Goco, 797 Phil. 433, 443 (2016).
23People v. Almorfe, et al., 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
24People v. De Guzman y Danzil, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
25 TSN, June 23, 2015, pp. 7-8.
26Id. at 15-18.27People v. Dela Victoria, April 16, 2018, G.R. No. 233325.
28Id.
29People v. Crispo, March 14, 2018, G.R. No. 230065.
30People v. Reyes and Santa Maria, April 23, 2018, G.R. No. 219953.