[Version of the Prosecution]
On 10 August 2004, [Police Officer (PO) 1] Honorio Marmonejo, a police officer assigned at the Makati Police Station Anti Illegal Drugs Special Operation Task Force (SAID-SOTF), received a confidential information regarding the drug pushing activities of a certain alias “Joker” at Llorando Compound, Barangay East Rembo, Makati City. This alias “Joker” was also listed in the said offices watchlist of suspected drug pushers.
Thereafter, an anti narcotics operation was planned by the police officers in order to apprehend alias “Joker”. A buy-bust team was formed comprising of four policemen and eight [Makati Anti-Drug Abuse Council (MADAC)] operatives from Cluster 5. PO1 Marmonejo was designated to act as poseur buyer while the rest of the team served as his back-up. Thereafter, five pieces of P100-bills were provided and marked for use in the operation. PO1 Voltaire Esguerra likewise coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) by accomplishing the necessary coordination form which was acknowledged and received by the PDEA.
At about 5:45 in the afternoon of the same day, the buy-bust team arrived at Llorando Compound, 25th Street, Barangay East Rembo, Makati City for the conduct of the buy bust operation. As the rest of the team positioned themselves strategically in places where they can monitor the transaction, PO1 Marmonejo as the poseur buyer, accompanied by PO1 Mendoza and the informant, entered a slightly opened gate through an alley way where they met a man who asked them where they were going. The informant replied that they were looking for Joker as they were going to purchase shabu from the latter. The man asked how much they were going to buy, to which the informant answered him that he was to purchase P500.00-worth of shabu. The man told them to wait for a while and then called for Joker. The same man thereafter told Joker that there were people who were going to buy from him. Joker asked him how much they were going to purchase, and the man replied that they were going to purchase P500.00-worth of shabu. Joker came out from inside the house, and it was at this instance that PO1 Marmonejo took out the marked money. Joker, in turn, gave him one plastic sachet containing white crystalline powder. The man they met at the alley took the marked money from him and handed it over to Joker. While the transaction was ongoing, the police officers noticed a man, more or less 3 to 4 meters away from them, washing clothes. After having received the buy bust money, Joker faced the man washing clothes and gave the latter one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance as payment for his laundry service.
The transaction having been consummated, PO1 Marmonejo gave the pre-arranged signal of sending a missed call to PO1 Voltaire Esguerra, one of the back-up police officers. PO1 Mendoza, upon receiving the missed call, together with MADAC [operative Juan Siborboro], immediately went inside the house where the entrapment took place and assisted in effecting the arrest of the accused. PO1 Mendoza held alias Joker, who was later on identified as accused-appellant Joel Ancheta, and placed him under arrest. PO1 Marmonejo, on the other hand, arrested the man they met at the alley, who was later identified to be accused-appellant John Llorando. MADAC [operative] Siborboro, for his part, apprehended the man washing clothes, who was later identified as accused-appellant Juan Carlos Gernada.
Recovered from the possession of accused-appellant Ancheta after the latters arrest were the marked money and five (5) other plastic sachets containing the white crystalline substance. On the other hand, accused-appellant Gernada yielded one (1) plastic sachet of white crystalline substance when requested to empty the contents of his pockets.
After informing all of the accused-appellants of their violations and nature of their arrest as well as their constitutional rights, they were subsequently brought to the office of the Makati City Police SAID-SOTF.
Consequently, the plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance were thereafter brought to the crime laboratory for examination and analysis. The results of the laboratory examination revealed that the substance was positive for “methylamphetamine hydrochloride”, otherwise known as “shabu”, a dangerous drug.Version of the Defense
On the other hand, the defense presented as its witnesses the three (3) accused-appellants.
In his defense, the accused-appellant Llorando denied the charge against him and claimed that, at 8:30 p.m. on 10 August 2004, he was cooking inside his house at 25th Avenue, East Rembo, Makati City when three (3) men suddenly entered his house and poked a gun at him and frisked him. When he was subsequently arrested by the three men, accused-appellant Llorando tried to struggle, but to no avail. His brother, who was inside the house, tried to intervene, but was not able to do anything.
Meanwhile, a few meters away from his house lived his brother-in-law, accused-appellant Ancheta and the latters adopted son, accused-appellant Gernada.
The accused-appellants Ancheta and Gernada testified that on 10 August 2004, while Gernada was at the kitchen doing the dishes and Ancheta was sleeping in his room with his wife, five (5) men barged into their house without warning and arrested them. They were brought to a white vehicle, where they saw the accused-appellant Llorando, who was likewise apparently taken by the same group.
All the accused-appellants were subsequently brought by their unknown captors to the latters office at J.P. Rizal, South Avenue, where they were charged afterwards for their alleged illegal drug activities.3
Criminal Case No. 04-2777:
The undersigned Prosecutor accuses JOEL ANCHETA y OSAN alias “Joker” and JOHN LLORANDO y RIGARYO alias “John” of the crime of Violation of Section 5 in relation to Section 26, Article II of R.A. 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about the 10th day of August 2004, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together and both of them mutually helping and aiding one another, without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and deliver zero point ten (0.10) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), which is a dangerous drug.
Criminal Case No. 04-2778:
The undersigned Prosecutor accuses JOEL ANCHETA y OSAN alias “Joker” of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about the 10th day of August 2004, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession direct custody and control a total weight of zero point twenty nine (0.29) grams of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
Criminal Case No. 04-2779:
The undersigned Prosecutor accuses JUAN CARLOS GERNADA y HORCAJO of the crime of Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about the 10th day of August 2004, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession direct custody and control zero point zero three (0.03) gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) which is a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
Criminal Case No. 04-3015:
The undersigned Prosecutor [accuses] JOHN LLORANDO y RIGARYO alias “Jake” of the crime of Use of Dangerous Drug under Section 15 of Republic Act No. 9165, committed as follows:
That sometime on or before or about the 10th day of August 2004, in the City of Makati, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to use dangerous drug, and having been arrested and found positive for use of Methamphetamine after a confirmatory test, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug in violation of the said law.
At the outset, we take note that the present case stemmed from a buy-bust operation conducted by the SAID-SOTF. We thus recall our pronouncement in People v. Garcia:A buy-bust operation gave rise to the present case. While this kind of operation has been proven to be an effective way to flush out illegal transactions that are otherwise conducted covertly and in secrecy, a buy-bust operation has a significant downside that has not escaped the attention of the framers of the law. It is susceptible to police abuse, the most notorious of which is its use as a tool for extortion. In People v. Tan, this Court itself recognized that “by the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great. Thus, courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses.” Accordingly, specific procedures relating to the seizure and custody of drugs have been laid down in the law (R.A. No. 9165) for the police to strictly follow. The prosecution must adduce evidence that these procedures have been followed in proving the elements of the defined offense. (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)Congress introduced another complementing safeguard through Section 86 of R.A. 9165, which requires the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Philippine National Police (PNP), and Bureau of Customs (BOC) to maintain close coordination with PDEA in matters of illegal drug-related operations:
Section 21 of R.A. 9165 delineates the mandatory procedural safeguards that are applicable in cases of buy-bust operations:
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; (Emphasis supplied.)x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Given the nature of buy-bust operations and the resulting preventive procedural safeguards crafted in R.A. 9165, courts must tread carefully before giving full credit to the testimonies of those who conducted the operations. Although we have ruled in the past that mere procedural lapses in the conduct of a buy-bust operation are not ipso facto fatal to the prosecutions cause, so long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved, courts must still thoroughly evaluate and differentiate those errors that constitute a simple procedural lapse from those that amount to a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the safeguards drawn by the law. Consequently, Section 21(a) of the [2002 Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. 9165 (IRR)] provides for a saving clause in the procedures outlined under Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, which serves as a guide in ascertaining those procedural aspects that may be relaxed under justifiable grounds, viz:x x x x x x x x x
We have reiterated that “this saving clause applies only where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds” after which, “the prosecution must show that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized have been preserved.” To repeat, noncompliance with the required procedure will not necessarily result in the acquittal of the accused if: (1) the noncompliance is on justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.
Accordingly, despite the presumption of regularity in the performance of the official duties of law enforcers, we stress that the step-by-step procedure outlined under R.A. 9165 is a matter of substantive law, which cannot be simply brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. The provisions were crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment. In People v. Coreche, we explained thus:The concern with narrowing the window of opportunity for tampering with evidence found legislative expression in Section 21 (1) of RA 9165 on the inventory of seized dangerous drugs and paraphernalia by putting in place a three-tiered requirement on the time, witnesses, and proof of inventory by imposing on the apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs the duty to “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”. (Emphasis supplied and citations omitted.)
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Raffled dated 10 October 2011 in lieu of Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes, who took no part due to prior action in the Court of Appeals.
1 The Decision in CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 03540 was penned by CA Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez and concurred in by Associate Justices Bienvenido L. Reyes and Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla.
2 The Decision of Makati City RTC was penned by Judge Gina M. Bibat-Palamos. It included the judgment in Criminal Case No. 04-3015; however, since accused-appellant Llorando pled guilty of violating Sec. 15 of R.A. 9165, he no longer appealed Criminal Case No. 04-3015 to the CA.
3 CA Decision at 4-8 (CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 03540, 30 November 2010), rollo, pp. 5-9.
4 Brief for the Accused-Appellant at 10-12 (People v. Ancheta, CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 03540, decided on 30 November 2010), CA rollo, pp. 50-52. In our 19 October 2011 Resolution, this Court noted the Manifestation of accused-appellants that they were adopting as their supplemental brief the 5 June 2009 Brief for the Accused-Appellants, which they filed with the CA (rollo, p. 41).
5 Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee at 6-14 (People v. Ancheta, CA-G.R. CR H.C. No. 03540, decided on 30 November 2010), CA rollo, pp. 77-85. In our 19 October 2011 Resolution, this Court noted the Manifestation of the Office of the Solicitor General that it was adopting as its supplemental brief the 7 October 2009 Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, it filed with the CA (rollo, p. 41).
6 Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee, supra note 5, at 14-16, CA rollo, pp. 85-87.
7 G.R. No. 190321, 25 April 2012.
8 People v. Umipang, supra note 7.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 People v. Umipang, supra note 7.
13 People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, 25 February 2009, 580 SCRA 259.
14 Id. at 277.
15 The data were derived from a statistical report regarding violations of R.A. 9165 filed from 2006 to 2011. The Judicial Records Office of the Supreme Court prepared the report dated 4 April 2012.
16 See People v. Garcia, supra note 13.