SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 233572, July 30, 2018
ALFREDO A. RAMOS, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated March 21, 2017 and the Resolution3 dated August 4, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 38528, which affirmed the Decision4 dated August 27, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 67 (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 12-0227, finding petitioner Alfredo A. Ramos (Ramos) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs as defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165,5 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That on or about the 1st day of May 2012, in the Municipality of Angono, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly possess and have in his custody and control 0.05 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, also known as "shabu", a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.The prosecution alleged that on May 1, 2012, acting upon the information of a police asset that a certain "Nonong" later identified as Ramos - was bringing in shabu from Lupang Arienda to Barangay (Brgy.) San Roque, Angono, Rizal, Senior Police Officer 1 (SPO1) Pablo Medina (SPO1 Medina), together with three (3) other police officers, took their positions at Col. Guido St., Brgy. San Roque. After waiting for a while, Ramos arrived at the location, and later, two (2) unidentified men came and talked to him. The three (3) men then started fighting, which prompted the police officers to approach and pacify them. However, the men escaped, except for Ramos who was caught by SPO1 Medina. Ramos then took something from his pocket and tried to throw away a pack of cigarettes containing a plastic sachet, which SPO1 Medina was able to intercept. Thereafter, the latter proceeded to the Angono Police Station where he turned over Ramos and the seized items to police investigator SPO1 Ian Voluntad (SPO1 Voluntad) for marking and taking of photographs. Thereat, SPO1 Voluntad marked the plastic sachet with "AAR-1" and the cigarette pack as "AAA-2" and then delivered the items to the crime laboratory where it was confirmed7 that the seized items contained 0.05 gram of methamphetamine hyrdrochloride or shabu, an illegal drug.8
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
[PROSECUTOR CO]: In this inventory it appears that there is no signature coming from an elected official, media representative and DOJ representative, why is it so?At this point, it is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible.37 However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced.38 In People v. Umipang,39 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."40 Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance.41 These considerations arise from the fact that police 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 full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police 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 circumstance, their actions were reasonable.42
[SPO1 Medina]: At that time, there were no available barangay kagawad(s), Sir.
[PROSECUTOR CO]: How [about] the media and the DOJ representative, did you exert effort at that time?
[SPO1 Medina]: We exerted effort but there nobody was (sic) available, Sir.36
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 this 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 raised, 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."46
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.45
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 12-39.
2 Id. at 41-56. Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. concurring.
3 Id. at 58-62.
4 Id. at 84-85. Penned by Presiding Judge Dennis Patrick Z. Perez.
5 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.
6Rollo, p. 42.
7 The chemistry report is not attached to the rollo.
8See rollo, p. 42. See also id. at 84.
9 Id. at 44. See also id. at 68-69.
10 Id. at 84-85.
11 Id. at 85.
12 See id.
13 See Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated September 1, 2016; id. at 65-83.
14 Id. at 41-56.
15 See id. at 46-55.
16 See motion for reconsideration dated April 18, 2017; id. at 110-120.
17 Id. at. 58-62.
18 Id. at 12-39.
19 See People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015).
20People v. Comboy, G.R. No. 218399, March 2, 2016,785 SCRA 512, 521.
21People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 (2015).
22 See People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
23 See People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 349-350 (2015).
24 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 May 1, 2012.
25 See Section 21 (1) and (2), Article II of RA 9165.
26 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
27 Id. at 764; emphases and underscoring supplied.
28 See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
29 See Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165. See also People v. Ceralde, G.R. No. 228894, August 7, 2017.
30 See People v. Goco, G.R. No. 219584, October 17, 2016, 806 SCRA 240, 252; citation omitted.
31 631 Phil. 51 (2010).
32 Id. at 60; citation omitted.
33 630 Phil. 637 (2010).
34 Id. at 649.
35 See rollo, p. 44.
36 Id. at 51.
37People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052 (2012).
38 See id. at 1052-1053.
39 Id.
40 Id. at 1053.
41 See id.
42 See People v. Manansala, supra note 21.
43 See People v. Umipang, supra note 38, at 1039-1040.
44 See People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, citing People v. Umipang, id. at 1038.
45 See Bulauitan v. People, G.R. No. 218891, September 19, 2016, 803 SCRA 367, 387.
46 See People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018.
PERALTA, J.:
I concur with the ponencia in acquitting petitioner Alfredo A. Ramos of the charge of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, or violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165),1 respectively. I agree that the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the arresting officers' non-observance of the three-witness rule under Section 212 of R.A. No. 9165, i.e., why an elected public official and representatives from the Department of Justice and the media were not present during the inventory of the seized drugs. At any rate, I would like to emphasize on important matters relative to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended.
To properly guide law enforcement agents as to the proper handling of confiscated drugs, Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 filled in the details as to where the inventory and photographing of seized items had to be done, and added a saving clause in case the procedure is not followed:3
(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.It bears emphasis that R.A. No. 10640,4 which amended Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, now only requires two (2) witnesses to be present during the conduct of the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized items, namely: (a) an elected public official; and (b) either a representative from the National Prosecution Service or the media.
Numerous drug trafficking activities can be traced to operations of highly organized and powerful local and international syndicates. The presence of such syndicates that have the resources and the capability to mount a counter-assault to apprehending law enforcers makes the requirement of Section 21 (a) impracticable for law enforcers to comply with. It makes the place of seizure extremely unsafe for the proper inventory and photograph of the seized illegal drugs.However, under the original provision of Section 21 and its IRR, which is applicable at the time the petitioner committed the crime charged, the apprehending team was required to immediately conduct a physical inventory and photograph the drugs after their seizure and confiscation in the presence of no less than three (3) witnesses, namely: (a) a representative from the media, and (b) the DOJ, and; (c) any elected public official who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be given copy thereof. The presence of the three witnesses was intended as a guarantee against planting of evidence and frame up, as they were "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity."9
x x x x
Section 21 (a) of RA 9165 need to be amended to address the foregoing situation. We did not realize this in 2002 where the safety of the law enforcers and other persons required to be present in the inventory and photography of seized illegal drugs and the preservation of the very existence of seized illegal drugs itself are threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of drug syndicates at the place of seizure. The place where the seized drugs may be inventoried and photographed has to include a location where the seized drugs as well as the persons who are required to be present during the inventory and photograph are safe and secure from extreme danger.
It is proposed that the physical inventory and taking of photographs of seized illegal drugs be allowed to be conducted either in the place of seizure of illegal drugs or at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending law enforcers. The proposal will provide effective measures to ensure the integrity of seized illegal drugs since a safe location makes it more probable for an inventory and photograph of seized illegal drugs to be properly conducted, thereby reducing the incidents of dismissal of drug cases due to technicalities.
Non-observance of the prescribed procedures should not automatically mean that the seizure or confiscation is invalid or illegal, as long as the law enforcement officers could justify the same and could prove that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are not tainted. This is the effect of the inclusion in the proposal to amend the phrase "justifiable grounds." There are instances where there are no media people or representatives from the DOJ available and the absence of these witnesses should not automatically invalidate the drug operation conducted. Even the presence of a public local elected official also is sometimes impossible especially if the elected official is afraid or scared.8
Section 29. Criminal Liability for Planting of Evidence. - Any person who is found guilty of "planting" any dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical, regardless of quantity and purity, shall suffer the penalty of death.However, non-observance of such police administrative procedures should not affect the validity of the seizure of the evidence, because the issue of chain of custody is ultimately anchored on the admissibility of evidence, which is exclusively within the prerogative of the courts to decide in accordance with the rules on evidence.
Section 32. Liability to a Person Violating Any Regulation Issued by the Board. - The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and a fine ranging from Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person found violating any regulation duly issued by the Board pursuant to this Act, in addition to the administrative sanctions imposed by the Board.
Endnotes:
1 "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"
2 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:
ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(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;
3People v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 225690, January 17, 2018.
4 "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."
5 Senate Journal, Session No. 80, 16th Congress, 1st Regular Session, June 4, 2014, p. 348.
6Id.
7Id.
8Id. at 349-350.
9People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017.
10People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018; People v. Paz, G.R. No. 229512, January 31, 2018; and People v. Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018.
11People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, August 23, 2017.
12Id.
13 Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. — The penalties provided in the next preceding article shall be imposed upon the public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the period of twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent; eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
14People v. Ramirez, supra note 3.
15People v. Gajo, G.R. No. 217026, January 22, 2018.
16 G.R. No. 202206, March 5, 2018.