SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 231383, March 07, 2018
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JOEY SANCHEZ Y LICUDINE, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by accused-appellant Joey Sanchez y Licudine (Sanchez) assailing the Decision2 dated February 19, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06911, which affirmed the Decision3 dated May 21, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando City, La Union, Branch 27 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 8842 and 8843, finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," respectively, with modification imposing fines therefor.
The prosecution alleged that on July 29, 2010, with the help of a confidential informant, the members of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) and the Philippine National Police (PNP) Regional Public Safety Mobile Battalion organized a buy-bust operation against a certain alias "Totoy" (later on identified as Sanchez), who was allegedly engaged in illegal drug trade at the Bacnotan Public Market, Bacnotan, La Union. After a briefing where, inter alia, PDEA Investigation Officer (IO) 1 Raymund Tabuyo (IO1 Tabuyo) was designated as the poseur-buyer, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. Thereat, IO1 Tabuyo was able to meet Sanchez, who, after receiving the marked money, handed over a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance to the former. After IO1 Tabuyo examined the contents of the plastic sachet, he executed the pre-arranged signal, thus prompting the other members of the buy-bust team to rush to the scene and arrest Sanchez. The buy-bust team searched Sanchez and found two (2) other plastic sachets also containing a white crystalline substance.8Criminal Case No. 8842
That on or about the 29th day of July, 2010 in the Municipality of Bacnotan, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously for and in consideration of in the amount of Five Hundred Pesos, sell and deliver one (1) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride otherwise known as SHABU, a dangerous drug, with a weight of 0.0352 gram to IO1 RAYMUND TABUYO, who posed as buyer thereof using marked money, a Five Hundred Pesos bill bearing Serial Number VX925142, without first securing the necessary permit, license or prescription from the proper government agency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6Criminal Case No. 8843
That on or about the 29th day of July, 2010 in the Municipality of Bacnotan, Province of La Union, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there, wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custody two (2) heat sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.0430 gram and 0.0352 gram, without first securing the necessary permit, license or prescription from the proper government agency to possess the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
[Pros. Crispin Lamong, Jr.] Q: Now, after your recovered [the] 2 sachets and the 1 piece P500.00 buy-bust money, what did you do next?The law requires the presence of an elected public official, as well as representatives from the DOJ and the media during the actual conduct of inventory and photography to ensure that the chain of custody rule is observed and thus, remove any suspicion of tampering, switching, planting, or contamination of evidence which could considerably affect a case. However, minor deviations may be excused in situations where a justifiable reason for non-compliance is explained. In this case, despite the non-observance of the witness requirement, no plausible explanation was given by the prosecution. For instance, in an attempt to justify the absence of any elected public official during the conduct of inventory and photography, IO1 Tabuyo stated on cross-examination that:
[IO1 Tabuyo] A: We conducted an inventory at the transaction area, your honor.
Q: When you said, in the transaction area, how did you conduct an inventory? [sic]
A: We made marking and photographs.
Q: Marking on what items, mr. witness?
A: All, the 3 plastic sachets, sir.
x x x x
Q: Mr. witness, aside from the request you made, what else transpired at the PDEA Office?
A: We requested a DOJ representative to sign the inventory.
Q: Aside from the DOJ representative what else requested Mr. Witness made by your office? [sic]
A: The media representative[,] [Y]our [H]onor.
Q: And were the DOJ representative and media representative were able to sign the inventory? [sic]
A: Yes[,] [S]ir.
x x x x
Q: While the DOJ representative and the media representative signing what happened next[,] if any, mr. witness? [sic]
A: They signed, [Y]our [H]onor.
Q: How about you[?] [W]hat were you doing then at the time the DOJ representative and the media representative signing, [mr.] witness? [sic]
A: I was there[,] [Y]our [H]onor[,] to witness that they signed.
Q: And how about the accused[?] [W]here was he when these DOJ and media representatives were signing?
A: There also, [S]ir.
Q: Mr. [w]itness, do you have any proof to show that these indeed the DOJ representative and the media representative signing?
A: Yes, pictures.
Q: And who took the pictures?
A: Our photographers, [Y]our [H]onor.43 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
[Atty. Loida Martirez] Q: Mr. Witness, in your Certificate of Inventory[,] it appears that there are only three (3) persons who signed, you as the seizing officer, a media representative, and a DOJ representative.At this point, it is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible.45 However, in People v. Umipang,46 the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse."47 Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.48 These considerations arise from the fact that these officers are ordinarily given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. As such, the apprehending officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable.49
[IO1 Tabuyo] A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Where was the elected public official? [W]hy was he not present at the place?
A: We were not able to get one elected official because it was a rush operation and after the inventory we proceeded right away to our office.
Q: So you are now trying to tell us that you did not coordinate with any barangay official that is why they were not present, Mr. Witness.
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And is it not a requirement that you have to coordinate with a local official, Mr. Witness, so that they will be present during the inventory[?] [sic]
A: No, ma'am.
Q: That is not a requirement Mr. Witness?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: So you went to Bacnotan [P]ublic [Mjarket which is a public place and you were not able to see even one elected public official at the place, Mr. Witness?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: That is just very near the municipal hall, is that correct, Mr. Witness?
A: (no answer)
Q: So you also did not coordinate with the Bacnotan Police, Mr. Witness?
A: We coordinate, ma'am, [sic]
Q: You coordinate with the Bacnotan PNP.
A: The precinct at the left side of the public market.
Q: You just coordinated with them after the operation when you were there already, is that correct?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: You just saw the police sub-station there, is that correct?
A: No, ma'am.44 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against drug addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution covers with the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty alike against any manner of high-handedness from the authorities, however praiseworthy their intentions."In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21[, Article II] of RA 9165, as amended. As such, they must have the initiative to not only acknowledge but also justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings before the trial court. Since compliance with the procedure is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same was not raise, or even threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court, including this Court, from fully examining the records of the case if only to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If no such reasons exist, then it is the appellate court's bounden duty to acquit the accused, and perforce, overturn a conviction."52
Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the right of the individual in the name of order. [For indeed,] [o]rder is too high a price for the loss of liberty. x x x.51
Endnotes:
* Acting Chief Justice per Special Order No. 2539 dated February 28, 2018.
1 See Notice of Appeal dated March 16, 2016; rollo, pp. 17-18.
2Rollo, pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda with Associate Justices Sesinando E. Villon and Pedro B. Corales concurring.
3 CA rollo, pp. 80-85. Penned by Presiding Judge Carlito A. Corpuz.
4 Entitled "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.
5 See Information in Criminal Case No. 8842; records (Crim. Case No. 8842), p. 1; and Information in Criminal Case No. 8843; records (Crim. Case No. 8843), p. 1. See also rollo, pp. 4-5.
6 Records (Crim. Case No. 8842), p. 1.
7 Records (Crim. Case No. 8843), p. 1.
8 See rollo, pp. 6-7. See also CA rollo, pp. 80-81.
9 Records (Crim. Case No. 8842), p. 2; and records (Crim. Case No. 8843), p. 2. See also rollo, p. 7 and CA rollo, p. 81.
10 See CA rollo, pp. 81 and 83.
11 Records (Crim. Case No. 8842), p. 14; and records (Crim. Case No. 8843), p. 14.
12 See Chemistry Report Number: D-066-10; records (Crim. Case No. 8842), p. 13; and records (Crim. Case No. 8843), p. 13.
13 See rollo, p. 12. See also CA rollo, p. 82.
14 See CA rollo, p. 83.
15 Id. at 80-85.
16 Id. at 84-85.
17 Id. at 83-84.
18 See Notice of Appeal dated May 28, 2014; records (Crim. Case No. 8842), pp. 151-153; and records (Crim. Case No. 8843), pp. 54-56.
19Rollo, pp. 2-16.
20 Id. at 14-15.
21 See id. at 12-13.
22 See id.
23 See Notice of Appeal dated March 16, 2016; id. at 17-18.
24 See People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
25People v. Comboy, G.R. No. 218399, March 2, 2016, 785 SCRA 512, 521.
26People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348 (2015).
27People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015).
28 See People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
29 See People v. Sumili, supra note 26, at 349-350.
30 Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,'" approved on July 15, 2014. The crime subject of this case was allegedly committed before the enactment of RA 10640, or on July 29, 2010.
31 See Section 21 (1) and (2), Article II of RA 9165.
32 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
33 Id. at 764.
34 See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
35 See Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165.
36People v. Goco, G.R. No. 219584, October 17, 2016, 806 SCRA 240, 252.
37 631 Phil. 51 (2010).
38 Id. at 60; citation omitted.
39 630 Phil. 637 (2010).
40 Id. at 649.
41 Records (Crim. Case No. 8842), p. 14; and records (Crim. Case No. 8843), p. 14.
42 Records (Crim. Case No. 8842), p. 2; and records (Crim. Case No. 8843), p. 2. See also rollo, p. 7 and CA rollo, p. 81.
43 TSN, July 6, 2011, pp. 8-10.
44 TSN, October 5, 2011, pp. 11-12.
45People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052 (2012).
46 Id.
47 Id. at 1053.
48 See id.
49 See People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018.
50 See People v. Umipang, supra note 45, at 1039-1040; citation omitted.
51 See People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018; citations omitted.
52 See id.