SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 229046, September 11, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. NOEL CARDENAS Y HALILI, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
"If the arresting officers were unable to comply with the [requirements under Section 21 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9156], they were under obligation to explain why the procedure was not followed and prove that the reason provided a justifiable ground. Otherwise, the requisites under the law would merely be fancy ornaments that may or may not be disregarded by the arresting officers at their own convenience."1
Accused-appellant [Cardenas] was charged under the following criminal information, which reads:"That on or about the 12th day of September, 2008, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did, then and there, willfully, and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction zero point sixty two (0.62) grams (sic) of dried Marijuana Fruiting tops, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
Upon arraignment on November 26, 2008, the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
x x x x
As culled from the records, the prosecution's version is herein quoted:"On 12 September 2008, a male confidential informant reported to Police Inspector Romeo Rabuya [(PI Rabuya)] of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of Police Station 11, Galas, Quezon City the illegal drug activities of a certain "Boom Tarat-Tarat" (later identified as [accused appellant Cardenas]) in the said area. In response, [PI] Rabuya dispatched Police Officer 2 Jorge Santiago [(PO2 Santiago)] and Police Officer 2 Jayson Perez [(PO2 Perez)] to conduct a surveillance and casing at Unang Hakbang St. in front of No. 78 Galas, Quezon City.
Upon arrival at the area, [PO2] Santiago and [PO2] Perez did not see anyone conforming to the description of [accused-appellant] Cardenas as communicated to them by the confidential informant. The two then returned to the SAID-SOTG and reported their finding to [PI] Rabuya.
[PI] Rabuya recommended that a buy-bust operation be conducted against [accused-appellant] Cardenas, designating [PO2] Santiago as the poseur-buyer who would use the marked Php100.00 bill. The other members of the buy-bust operation team assembled by [PI] Rabuya were Police Officer 1 Erwin Bautista [(PO1 Bautista)], Police Officer 1 Franklin Gadia [(PO1 Gadia)], and [PI] Rabuya himself. The buy-bust operation team likewise coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
After the Pre-Operation Report was prepared, the buy-bust team proceeded to the area near No. 78 Unang Hakbang St., Galas, Quezon City. As agreed, the buy bust team would standby from a distance of about 100 meters while [PO2] Santiago and the confidential informant transact with [accused-appellant] Cardenas. Once the sale was consummated, [PO2] Santiago would scratch his head as a signal for the rest of the team to apprehend [accused-appellant] Cardenas.
When [PO2] Santiago and the confidential informant saw [accused-appellant] Cardenas at the said area, the two proceeded to meet with [accused-appellant] Cardenas. The confidential infom1ant introduced [PO2] Santiago to [accused-appellant] Cardenas.
[Accused-appellant] Cardenas then asked [PO2] Santiago whether he had money to buy drugs. [PO2] Santiago replied in the affirmative by showing the marked Php100.00 bill. Thereafter, [accused-appellant] Cardenas pulled from the right front pocket of his pants one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing marijuana leaves with fruiting tops. [PO2] Santiago handed the marked Php100.00 bill to [accused appellant] Cardenas while the latter handed to him the said one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing marijuana leaves with fruiting tops. At that juncture, [PO2] Santiago scratched his head, as a signal to the rest of the buy-bust team that was on standby that the sale had already been consummated.
[PO2] Santiago then held the hand of [accused appellant] Cardenas to prevent him from escaping. Subsequently, the rest of the buy-bust team led by [PO2] Perez arrived and approached [accused-appellant] Cardenas. [PO2] Perez informed [accused-appellant] Cardenas of his constitutional rights.
[PO2] Santiago then marked the one (1) small heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing marijuana leaves with fruiting tops with his initials "JS" (Jorge Santiago) and "NC" (Noel Cardenas). The Inventory Receipt dated 12 September 2008 was readily accomplished at the same place. A representative of the media, Jimmy Mendoza, President of the PDEA Press Corps, witnessed the marking and inventory of the one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing marijuana leaves with fruiting tops with the markings "JS" and "NC". [PO2] Santiago then placed the seized item in a plastic bag.
[PO2] Santiago and the rest of the buy-bust team, together with [accused-appellant] Cardenas went to Police Station 11. At the police station, [PO2] Santiago turned over the seized item to investigator Police Officer 3 Jonathan Carranza [(PO3 Carranza)].
[PO3] Carranza then prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination dated 12 September 2008 directed to the Chemistry Division of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Office Station 19.
[PO2] Santiago brought the seized item for physical and chemical examination to the aforesaid crime laboratory.
In Chemistry Report No. D-455-2008 dated 12 September 2008, Engr. Leonard M. Jabonillo [(Engr. Jabonillo)], Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory confirmed that the seized item from [accused appellant] Cardenas consisting of one (1) small heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing marijuana leaves with fruiting tops weighing 0.62 gram with the markings "JS" and "NC," was indeed a dangerous drug, marijuana. After examination, [Engr.] Jabonillo turned over the one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing marijuana leaves with fruiting tops with the markings "JS" and "NC" to the evidence custodian of the PNP Crime Laboratory."
On the other hand, accused-appellant [Cardenas'] version is as follows:"On 12 September 2008, at around 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, [accused-appellant Cardenas] was at home sleeping with (sic) his mother, TERESITA CARDENAS [(Teresita)] was with her granddaughter watching the television, when four (4) to five (5) policemen suddenly barged in their house. They told Teresita that they wanted to talk to her son. When she replied that [accused appellant Cardenas] was sleeping, they suddenly went inside her son's room. Awakened by the presence of the policemen, [accused-appellant Cardenas] was shocked that he was being accused of selling marijuana. He was apprehended and brought to Police Station 11 in Galas, where he was forced to admit his alleged crime but refused to do the san1e. He was subsequently brought for inquest on 13 September 2008 where he learned that he was being charged for selling marijuana. (TSN, 7 September 2011, pp. 4-7; TSN, 14 August, pp. 2-4)"8
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Noel Cardenas y Halili "Guilty" beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
Accordingly, this Court sentences accused Noel Cardenas y Halili to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a Fine in the amount of Five [H]undred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency the dangerous drug subject of this case for proper disposition and final disposal.
SO ORDERED.9
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated June 5, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 82, in Criminal Case No. Q-08-154072 is hereby AFFIRMED.In sum, the CA found that "[a]ll told, the totality of the evidence presented in the instant case indubitably confirms accused-appellant's guilt of the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt."12
SO ORDERED.11
Section 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[.]22 (Emphasis supplied)
SECTION 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:In sum, in the conduct of buy-bust operations, the law provides that: (1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom 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 ru1d/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and ru1y 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[.]23
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,26 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.27Permissible Non-Compliance of
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 controve1i the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able 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 tl1ey can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation".28
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 acquitta1.32
Q: You did not ask the presence of the Barangay to witness the preparation of the inventory receipt, right, Mr. Witness? A:No, sir. COURT: Why? A:Because we were together with media representative, sir. ATTY. BARTOLOME: You did not ask the presence of the Department of Justice to witness the preparation of this document, Mr. Witness? A:No sir, because I thought that one representative was okay. COURT:Who is the media representative? A:Jimmy Mendoza, President of the PDEA Press Corps. x x x x Q:But you were familiar with Section 5, Republic Act. (sic) 9165? A:Yes, sir. Q:Despite of that you did not comply right, Mr. Witness? A:Yes, sir. x x x x Q:What is your basis in saying that was already enough, Mr. Witness? A:I thought, sir, that was already enough.33
In the instant case, as factually found by the RTC itself, "[PO2] Santiago marked the marijuana with his initials 'JS' for Jorge Santiago and 'NC' for Noel Cardenas."38 The date, time, and place of the operation were not indicated on the markings, in clear contravention of the PNP's own set of procedures for the conduct of buy-bust operations. Simply stated, the marking of the evidence was irregularly done.Anti-Drug Operational Procedures
Chapter V. Specific Rulesx x x x
B. Conduct of Operation: (As far as practicable, all operations must be officer led)
1. Buy-Bust Operation- in the conduct of buy-bust operation, the following are the procedures to be observed:
a. Record time of jump-off in unit's logbook;
b. Alertness and security shall at all times be observed:
c. Actual and timely coordination with the nearest PNP territorial units must be made;
d. Area security and dragnet or pursuit operation must be provided;
e. Use of necessary and reasonable force only in case of suspect's resistance;
f. If buy-bust money is dusted with ultra violet powder make sure that suspect gel hold of the same and his palm/s contaminated with the powder before giving the pre-arranged signal and arresting the suspects;
g. In pre-positioning of the team members, the designated arresting elements must clearly and actually observe the negotiation/transaction between suspect and the poseur-buyer;
h. Arrest suspect in a defensive manner anticipating possible resistance with the use of deadly weapons which maybe concealed in his body, vehicle or in a place within arms' reach;
i. After lawful arrest, search the body and vehicle, if any, of the suspect for other concealed evidence or deadly weapon;
j. Appraise suspect of his constitutional rights loudly and clearly after having been secured with handcuffs;
k. Take actual inventory of the seized evidence by means of weighing and/or physical counting, as the case may be;
1. Prepare a detailed receipt of the confiscated evidence for issuance to the possessor (suspect) thereof;
m. The seizing officer (normally the poseur-buyer) and the evidence custodian must mark the evidence with their initials and also indicate the date, time and place the evidence was confiscated/seized;
n. Take photographs of the evidence while in the process of taking the inventory, especially during weighing, and if possible under existing conditions, the registered weight of the evidence on the scale must be focused by the camera; and
o. Only the evidence custodian shall secure and preserve the evidence in an evidence bag or in appropriate container and thereafter deliver the same to the PNP CLG for laboratory examination.37 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
x x x We should remind ourselves that we cannot presume that the accused committed the crimes they have been charged with. The State must fully establish that for us. If the imputation of ill motive to the lawmen is the only means of impeaching them, then that would be the end of our dutiful vigilance to protect our citizenry from false arrests and wrongful incriminations. We are aware that there have been in the past many cases of false arrests and wrongful incriminations, and that should heighten our resolve to strengthen the ramparts of judicial scrutiny.To stress, the accused can rely on his right to be presumed innocent. It is thus immaterial, in this case or in any other cases involving dangerous drugs, that the accused put forth a weak defense.
Nor should we shirk from our responsibility of protecting the liberties of our citizenry just because the lawmen are shielded by the presumption of the regularity of their performance of duty. The presumed regularity is nothing but a purely evidentiary tool intended to avoid the impossible and time-consuming task of establishing every detail of the performance by officials and functionaries of the Government. Conversion by no means defeat the much stronger and much firmer presumption of innocence in favor of every person whose life, property and liberty comes under the risk of forfeiture on the strength of a false accusation of committing some crime.44
Endnotes:
1People v. Ancheta, 687 Phil. 569, 581 (2012). Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
2 See Notice of Appeal dated July 11, 2016; rollo, pp. 14-16.
3Rollo, pp. 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Socono B. Inting, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla, concurring.
4 Second Division.
5 CA rollo, pp. 56-64. Penned by Presiding Judge Lily Ann M. Padaen.
6Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT No. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
7Rollo, pp. 2-6.
8 CA rollo, pp. 89-93.
9 Id. at 63-64; emphasis in the original.
10 Id. at 61.
11 Rollo, p. 12.
12 Id.
13People v. Opiana, 750 Phil. 140, 147 (2015).
14People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441, 451 (2013).
15People v. Punzalan, 773 Phil. 72, 91 (2015).
16People v. Guzon, supra note 14, citing People v. Dumaplin, 700 Phil. 737, 747 (2012).
17People v. Ubungen, G.R. No. 225497, July 23, 2018.
18People v. Guzon, supra note 14, citing People v. Remigio, 700 Phil. 452, 464-465 (2012).
19 CA rollo, p. 78.
20 TSN, October 13, 2009, pp. 13-14.
21People v. Santos, 562 Phil. 458, 472 (2007), citing People v. Tan, 401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000).
22 Section 21 of RA 9165 was amended by RA 10640, entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF RA 9165 WHICH IMPOSED LESS STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS IN THE PROCEDURE." RA 10640, which imposed less stringent requirements in the procedure under Section 21, was approved only on July 15, 2014.
23 IRR of RA 9165, Sec. 21. Emphasis supplied.
24 IRR of RA 9165, Art. II, Sec. 21(a).
25 G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018, 862 SCRA 131.
26 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
27 Id. at 764.
28People v. Tomawis, supra note 25 at 149-150.
29 See People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 461 (2015).
30 See People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 352 (2015).
31 797 Phil. 671 (2016).
32 Id. at 690.
33 TSN, October 13, 2009, pp. 22-24.
34 CA rollo, p. 63; emphasis supplied.
35 Id. at 58.
36 PNPM-D-O-3-1-99 [NG], the precursor anti-illegal drug operations manual prior to the 2010 and 2014 AIDSOTF Manual.
37 Id; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
38 CA rollo, p. 58.
39Rollo, p. 11.
40 1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 14(2). "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved x x x."
41 The Rules of Court provides that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof as excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or that degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. [RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Sec. 2.]
42 People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476, 503-504 (2012).
43 745 Phil. 237 (2014).
44 Id. at 250-251; emphasis supplied.
45 1987 CONSTITUTION, Art. II, Sec. 5.