SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 223713, January 07, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. RODELINA MALAZO Y DORIA, Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO, ACTING C.J.:
That on or about the 28th day of April, 2008, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused RUBELINA MALAZO Y DORIA, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, sell and deliver to a customer Shabu contained in one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet, weighing more or less 0.15 gram, without authority to do so.Another Information was filed on the same date indicting Malazo for illegal possession of shabu. The accusatory portion reads:
Contrary to Article II, Section 5, R.A. 9165.4
That on or about the 28th day of April, 2008, in the City of Dagupan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, RUBELINA MALAZO Y DORIA, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally, have in [her] possession, custody and control Shabu contained in three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets, weighing more or less 0.190 gram, without authority to possess the same.During her arraignment on 13 May 2009, Malazo pleaded not guilty. A pre-trial was conducted on 7 October 2009. A trial on the merits of the two cases ensued thereafter.
Contrary to Article II, Section 11, R.A. 9165.5
WHEREFORE, judgement is hereby rendered in:The RTC held that the prosecution, through the testimony of P/Insp. Cabaddu, was able to establish positively the events that took place on 28 April 2008. Furthermore, the qualitative examination conducted by P/SInsp. Malojo on the contents of the subject bur heat-sealed plastic sachets "gave POSITIVE results to the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug."8 Between P/Insp. Cabaddu's positive testimony and Malazo's bare denial, the RTC found the former more credible.
1. Crim. Case No. 2008-0225[-D] finding accused Rodelina Malazo y Doria GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt with Violation of Art. [II], Sec. 5 of RA 9165 otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (PhP 500,000.00) Pesos; and,
2. Crim. Case No. 2008-0226[-D] finding accused Rodelina Malazo y Doria GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt with Violation of Art. [II], Sec. 11 of RA 9165 otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and is hereby sentenced to suffer imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) [day] to twenty (20) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (PhP 300,000.00).
The subject four (4) plastic sachets of shabu are hereby ordered disposed of in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.7
An astute perusal of the records of the instant case would affirm that there was substantial compliance with the law and the integrity of the drug seized from accused-appellant was preserved. Contrary to accused appellant's claim, there was no broken chain in the custody of the seized item, found to be shabu, from the time when P/Insp. Cabaddu seized the shabu up to the time when it was turned over to the Forensic Chemist of the PNP Crime Laboratory Office for laboratory examination.9The dispositive portion of the Court of Appeals' Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgement is hereby rendered by us DENYING the appeal filed in this case. The Joint Decision dated November 3, 2011 rendered by Branch 44 of the Regional Trial Court in Dagupan City in Criminal Case Nos. 2008-0225-D and 2008-0226-D is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.10
Section 21. x x x.Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 reads:
(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)
Section 21. x x x.The original provision of Section 21(1) enumerates the four persons who need to be present during the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the drugs after the apprehending team seizes and confiscates the same. These are: (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media; (3) a representative from the DOJ; and (4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The presence of these persons will guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame up." They are "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity."15
(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 personls 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 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;
According to Section 21(a) of the IRR, non-compliance with the procedure shall not render void and invalid the seizure and custody of the drugs only when: (1) such non-compliance was under justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.
Q: After you have arrested the two (2) accused Rodelina Malazo and Marcelina Doria, what did you do next? A: I prepared the confiscation receipt. x x x x Q: After you have prepared the confiscation receipt, what else did you do, if there was any? A: We brought the suspect [to] the Dagupan City Police Station to conduct another investigation and prepare the filing of these cases. x x x x Q: And, with the items which you said that you were in possession [of], what did you do with those items? A: After preparing all the documents, [I gave the case folder] to PO2 Carvajal to bring the items to the crime laboratory. Q: Before giving [them] to PO2 Carvajal what did you do with the items recovered from the accused and the one [which is] the subject matter of the filing, if there was any? A: I [took a picture of] the items, ma'am. x x x x Q: You also mention[ed] the pictures, whose pictures [are you] referring to? A: The pictures of the suspect, witness Kagawad and the items seized. x x x x Q: You said that after you have prepared the documents, you turned over the items subject matter of these cases to PO2 Carvajal, why did you turn over the same to PO2 Carvajal? A: I assigned him to bring the items to the crime laboratory for laboratory examination, Your Honor.16
It must be noted that the above-mentioned guidelines are prospective in nature. This was explained in the Court's Resolution, dated 13 November 2018, in People v. Lim. The Court stated:
- In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.
- In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.
- If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause.
- If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court.
x x x. Thus, in order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket any orchestrated or poorly built up drug-related cases, the following should henceforth be enforced as a mandatory policy:Recent jurisprudence has expounded on the policy by consistently ruling that the prosecution must at least adduce a justifiable reason for non observance of the rules or show a genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses, in accordance with the rules on evidence. The rules require that the apprehending officers do not simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item. We reiterate that a stricter adherence to this rule is required especially when the quantity of the illegal drugs is miniscule since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, and alteration.19 The apprehending team may, but is not limited to, use any of the following reasons for failing to obtain the required witnesses, as held in People v. Sipin:20
x x x x
Synonymous to "henceforth" are "from now on," "from this point forward," "henceforward," "afterward," "later," "subsequently," "hereupon" or "thereupon." Without doubt, the mandatory policy in Lim is applicable only to drug cases under R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, filed in court after the promulgation of Lim on September 4, 2018.
x x x. Such policy does not apply to cases filed before the promulgation of Lim where the accused has already been arraigned and is undergoing continuous trial, because the justifiable reasons for noncompliance with Section 21, R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, can still be established during trial. Non-compliance with the policy in Lim is not a ground for acquittal based on reasonable doubt or violation of the chain of custody rule, which can only be decreed after trial, or pursuant to a demurrer to evidence under Section 23, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court.18 (Emphasis supplied)
The prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses was not obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official[s] themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.There being no justifiable reason for the non-compliance with Section 21, RA 9165, we find it necessary to acquit Malazo for failure of the prosecution to prove Malazo's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 2630 dated 18 December 2018.
1Rollo, pp. 2-17. Penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, with Associate Justices Michael P. Elbinias and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes concurring.
2 CA rollo , pp. 8-16. Penned by Judge Genoveva Coching-Maramba.
3 Also referred to in the Records as "Rubel ina Malazo y Doria."
4 Records (Crim. Case No. 2008-0225-D), p. 1.
5 Records (Crim. Case No. 2008-0226-D), p. 1.
6Rollo, p. 4.
7 CA rollo, p. 16.
8 Id. at 15.
9Rollo, p. 14.
10 Id. at 16.
11 CA rollo, p. 64.
12 G.R. No. 231989, 4 September 2018.
13People v. Lim, id., citing United States v. Rawlins, 606 F.3d 73 (2010).
14 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."
15People v. Señeres, G.R. No. 231008, 5 November 2018, citing People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, 2 August 2017, 834 SCRA 225.
16 TSN, 24 August 2010, pp. 7-8, 11-12.
17 Supra note 12.
18 Id.
19People v. Señeres, G.R. No. 21008, 5 November 2018, citing People v. Saragena, G.R. No. 210677, 23 August 2017, 837 SCRA 529 and People v. Abelarde, G.R. No. 215713, 22 January 2018.
20 G.R. No. 224290, 11 June 2018.