THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 233800, March 06, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. MINDA PANTALLANO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, A., JR., J.:
On appeal1 is the Decision2 dated April 24, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01420-MIN which affirmed accused-appellant Minda Pantallano's (Pantallano) conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. In a Decision3 promulgated on March 27, 2015, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iligan City, Branch 6, found Pantallano guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Possession and Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs and meted on her the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P300,000.00 and P500,000.00, respectively.
On April 26, 2012, Pantallano was arraigned in both cases. The two Informations were separately read in Cebuano-Visayan dialect which is known to and spoken by her. She entered a plea of "Not Guilty" in both cases.6CRIM. CASE NO. 06-15918
That on or about March 1, 2012, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously have in his (sic) possession, custody and control, four (4) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug, with a total weight of 0.350 gram, more or less.
Contrary to and in violation of Section 11 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.CRIM. CASE NO. 06-15919
That on or about March 1, 2012, in the City of Iligan, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver for the amount of P300.00 one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance commonly known as Shabu, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.5
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby pronounces the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of the provisions of Sec. 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 (possession) in Criminal Case No. 06-15918 and imposes upon her the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine of P300,000.00, as provided under Section 11, Article II, paragraph 3 of R.A. 9165, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.Pantallano moved for reconsideration,26 but the same was denied by the trial court in a Resolution27 dated May 4, 2015. The trial court, however, sought it proper to rectify the penalty earlier imposed. The amended penalty reads as follows:
The four sachets of shabu marked as Exhibit I x x x and the eight (8) pieces of empty large rectangular-shaped plastic sachets marked as Exhibit J are hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
Moreover, the Court finds the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of the provisions of [Section] 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165 (sale) in Criminal Case No. 06-15919 and imposes upon her the penalty of life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00, as provided under Section 5, Article II, paragraph 1 of R.A. 9165, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The sachet of shabu weighing 0.03 gram [marked as Exhibit I], subject of the buy-bust is hereby forfeited in favor of the government.
The preventive imprisonment of the accused shall be credited in full in the service of her sentence.
SO ORDERED.25
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.On appeal, the appellate court affirmed the RTC decision. According to the CA, the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs have been sufficiently established by the prosecution. It, likewise, opined that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved as shown by the categorical narration of IO1 Salang and IO1 Patino. The dispositive portion of the CA Decision29 dated April 24, 2017 reads:
However, as the Court inadvertently failed to apply the indeterminate sentence law in imposing the penalty in Criminal Case No. 06-15918, the March 12, 2015 Decision is hereby amended rectifying the penalty imposed in Criminal Case No. 06-15918 to read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 06-15918
For : Violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165 (possession)
The accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for violation of the provisions of Sec. 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165 and imposes upon her the penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and a fine of P300,000.00, as provided under Section 11, Article II, paragraph 3 of R.A. 9165, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The four sachets of shabu marked as Exhibit I [Nb: with a total weight of 0.350 gram] and the eight (8) pieces empty large rectangular shaped plastic sachets marked as Exhibit J are hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government.
SO ORDERED.28
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated March 12, 2015 of the [RTC], Branch 06, Iligan City, in Criminal Case Nos. 06-15918 and 06-15919 is AFFIRMED.Hence, the present appeal.
SO ORDERED.30
- Conviction of Pantallano on mere presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties of the arresting officers is improper in the case at bar;
- The strict procedure under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was not complied with;
- The admission in evidence of the sachets of alleged shabu was in violation of appellant's right against unreasonable searches and seizures;
- The corpus delicti was not established with moral certainty.
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:In 2014, R.A. No. 1064037 amended R.A. No. 9165, specifically Section 21 thereof, to further strengthen the anti-drug campaign of the government. Paragraph 1 of Section 21 was amended, in that the number of witnesses required during the inventory stage was reduced from three (3) to only two (2), to wit:
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 and underscoring Ours)
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:A comparison of the cited provisions show that the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 10640 reduced the number of witnesses required to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs from three to two - an elected public official AND a representative of the National Prosecution Service (DOJ) OR the media. These witnesses must be present during the inventory stage and are likewise required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same, to ensure that the identity and integrity of the seized items are preserved and that the police officers complied with the required procedure. Failure of the arresting officers to justify the absence of any of the required witnesses, i.e., the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected official shall constitute as a substantial gap in the chain of custody.
1. The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s for whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official AND a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly by the apprehending officer/ team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. (Emphasis and underscoring Ours)
(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 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.The use of the word "shall" means that compliance with the foregoing requirements is mandatory. Section 21 (a) clearly states that physical inventory and the taking of photographs must be made in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel and the following indispensable witnesses: (1) an elected public official, (2) a representative from the DOJ and (3) a representative from the media. The Court, in People v. Mendoza,38 explained that the presence of these witnesses would preserve an unbroken chain of custody and prevent the possibility of tampering with or "planting" of evidence, viz.:
[W]ithout the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the [seized 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 [said drugs] that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.39As culled from the records and highlighted by the testimonies of the witnesses themselves, only one out of three of the required witnesses was present during the inventory stage. There were no representatives from the DOJ and the media. Neither was it shown nor alleged by the arresting officers that earnest efforts were made to secure the attendance of these witnesses. To the Court's mind, the lower courts relied so much on the narration of the prosecution witnesses that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved without taking into account the weight of these procedural lapses.
To conclude, judicial notice is taken of the fact that arrest and seizures related to illegal drugs are typically made without a warrant; hence, subject to inquest proceedings. Relative thereto, Sections 1 (A.1.10) of the Chain of Custody [IRR] directs:Simply put, the prosecution cannot simply invoke the saving clause found in Section 21 - that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved - without justifying their failure to comply with the requirements stated therein. Even the presumption as to regularity in the performance by police officers of their official duties cannot prevail when there has been a clear and deliberate disregard of procedural safeguards by the police officers themselves. The Court's ruling in People v. Umipang42 is instructive on the matter:(A.1.10) Any justification or explanation in cases of noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/ affidavits of the apprehending/ seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/ confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units other than the PDEA pursuant to Section 86(a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 shall be presented.While the above-quoted provision has been the rule, it appears that it has not been practiced in most cases elevated before Us. 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:
- 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.41
Minor deviations from the procedures under R.A. 9165 would not automatically exonerate an accused from the crimes of which he or she was convicted. This is especially true when the lapses in procedure were recognized and explained in terms of justifiable grounds. There must also be a showing that the police officers intended to comply with the procedure but were thwarted by some justifiable consideration/reason. However, when there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law (R.A. 9165), serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. This uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties. As a result, the prosecution is deemed to have failed to fully establish the elements of the crimes charged, creating reasonable doubt on the criminal liability of the accused.In the present case, the prosecution failed to justify their non-compliance with the requirements found in Section 21, specifically, the presence of the three required witnesses during the actual inventory of the seized items. The unjustified absence of these witnesses during the inventory stage constitutes a substantial gap in the chain of custody. Such absence cannot be cured by the simple expedient of having them sign the certificate of inventory. There being a substantial gap or break in the chain, it casts serious doubts on the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. As such, Pantallano must be acquitted.
For the arresting officers' failure to adduce justifiable grounds, we are led to conclude from the totality of the procedural lapses committed in this case that the arresting officers deliberately disregarded the legal safeguards under R.A. 9165. These lapses effectively produced serious doubts on the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti, especially in the face of allegations of frame-up. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we must resolve the doubt in favor of accused-appellant, as every fact necessary to constitute the crime must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
As a final note, we reiterate our past rulings calling upon the authorities to exert greater efforts in combating the drug menace using the safeguards that our lawmakers have deemed necessary for the greater benefit of our society. The need to employ a more stringent approach to scrutinizing the evidence of the prosecution especially when the pieces of evidence were derived from a buy-bust operation redounds to the benefit of the criminal justice system by protecting civil liberties and at the same time instilling rigorous discipline on prosecutors.43 (Citations omitted)
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, the present appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated April 24, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01420-MIN, convicting accused-appellant Minda Pantallano of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Minda Pantallano is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged. The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is ordered to cause her immediate release, unless she is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release MINDA PANTALLANO unless there are other lawful causes for which she should be further detained, and to return this Order with the certificate of your proceedings within five (5) days from notice hereof.
SO ORDERED."
| Very truly yours, |
(SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN | |
Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
* Designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.
1 CA rollo, pp. 22-23.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Perpetua T. Atal-Pano, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Ronaldo B. Martin, concurring; id. at 104-124.
3 Rendered by Judge Leonor S. Quiñones; id. at 49-61.
4 Id. at 49-50.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 50.
7 Id. at 51.
8 Id.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 57.
11 Id. at 53.
12 Id. at 55.
13 Id. at 58.
14 Id. at 55-56.
15 Id. at 34.
16 Id.
17 Id. at 35.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 37.
20 Id.
21 Id. at 50.
22 Id. at 43.
23 Id. at 57.
24 Id. at 49-61.
25 Id. at 61.
26 Id. at 62-72.
27 Id. at 73-77.
28 Id. at 76-77.
29 Id. at 104-124.
30 Id. at 123.
31People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 38 (2017); Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 686 Phil. 137, 148 (2012), citing People v. Sembrano, 642 Phil. 476, 490-491 (2010).
32People v. Ismael, supra, at 29.
33People of the Philippines v. Ronaldo Paz y Dionisio, G.R. No. 229512, January 31, 2018, citing People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014); People v. Alivio, et al., 664 Phil. 565, 580 (2011); People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1175 (2009).
34Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grains of marijuana.
35 679 Phil. 268 (2012).
36 Id. at 277-278.
37 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 June 9, 2014.
38 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
39 Id. at 764.
40 G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
41 Id.
42 686 Phil. 1024 (2012).
43 Id. at 1053-1054.
44 Article III, Section 14(2) of the Constitution mandates:
Sec. 14. x x x
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
45 G.R. No. 210610, January 11, 2018.