THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 234773, June 03, 2019
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ALMASER JODAN Y AMLA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
PERALTA, J.:
Before us is an appeal filed by appellant Almaser Jodan y Amla assailing the Decision1 dated June 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08262 which affirmed the Judgment2 dated June 19, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 78, in Criminal Case No. Q-08-150522, convicting him of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.
In an Information3 dated January 4, 2008, appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as follows:
That on or about [the] 4th day of October, 2007 in Quezon City, [Philippines,] accused without lawful authority did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction a dangerous drug, to wit:
Zero point zero three (0.03) [gram] of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride also known as "SHABU".
CONTRARY TO LAW.4
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused ALMASER JODAN y AMLA beyond reasonable doubt for having violated the provisions of Section 5, Article II, of Republic Act No. 9165, more known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment, and to pay the fine of Php500,000.00 pesos, Philippine Currency, plus the cost of suit. The accused being a detention prisoner, his period of preventive imprisonment shall be properly credited in his favor in strict conformity with the provisions of existing rules and regulations on the matter.
The dangerous drug submitted as evidence in this case is hereby ordered to be transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for destruction and /or disposition pursuant to the provisions of our laws, rules and regulations on the matter.
Let the Mittimus and necessary documents be prepared for the immediate transfer of the custody of accused to the Bureau of Corrections, National Bilibid Prisons in Muntinlupa City, pursuant to OCA Circular No. 4-92-A.
SO ORDERED.33
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 or 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[.]
(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[.]
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.x x x x
Section 21(a) of RA 9165 needs 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 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 wherein 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.43
Q: Did you strictly comply with the essential prerequisite in mandatory procedures in drug operation under Sec. 21 of RA 9165? A: "Iyong Inventory Receipt lang po ang inexecute namin that time." Q: You mean to tell the Honorable Court that what you mean by strict compliance in Sec. 21 [of] RA 9165 is the execution of the Inventory Receipt? A: Yes, sir. Q: That's all? A: That's all, sir.[45]
It must be emphasized that the prosecution must be able to prove a justifiable ground in omitting certain requirements provided in Sec. 21 such as, but not limited to the following: 1) media representatives are not available at that time or that the Police operatives had no time to alert the media due to the immediacy of the operation they were about to undertake, especially if it is done in more remote areas; 2) the Police operatives, with the same reason, failed to find an available representative of the National Prosecution Service; 3) the Police officers, due to time constraints brought about by the urgency of the operation to be undertaken and in order to comply with the provisions of Article 12552 of the Revised Penal Code in the timely delivery of prisoners, were not able to comply with all the requisites set forth in Section 21 of R.A. 9165.
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 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. (Citation omitted.)
TO: | The Director General BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS 1770 Muntinlupa City | |
| Thru: | CSSupt. Gerardo F. Padilla Superintedent New Bilibid Prison BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS 1770 Muntinlupa City |
"WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 30, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08262 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Almaser Jodan y Amla is accordingly ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to immediately cause the release of appellant from detention, unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and to inform this Court of his action hereon within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision"
SO ORDERED."
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 2-10; penned by Associate Justice Japar B. Dimaampao, and concurred in by Associate Justices Franchito N. Diamante and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
2 CA rollo, pp. 46-60; penned by Presiding Judge Fernando T. Sagun, Jr.
3 Records, pp. 1-2.
4 Id. at 1.
5Id. at 45
6 TSN, June 2, 2009, pp. 15-16.
7Id. at 6-7.
8Id. at 16-17.
9 TSN, June 5, 2008, p. 15; TSN, June 2, 2009, p. 17
10 TSN, June 5, 2008, pp. 15-16.
11Id. at 13.
12 TSN, June 2, 2009, pp. 18-19.
13Id. at 19-20.
14Id. at 26.
15Id. at 27-28.
16Id. at 28.
17Id. at 29.
18Id. at 29-30.
19 TSN, August 4, 2009, p. 4.
20 TSN, June 5, 2008, p. 19.
21 TSN, November 18, 2008, pp. 3-5.
22Id.; TSN, September 30, 2008, pp. 3-4.
23 TSN, September 30, 2008, p. 5.
24 TSN, March 15, 2010, p. 6.
25 TSN, March 21, 2011, pp. 8-10.
26Id. at 10-11.
27Id. at 11.
28Id. at 13-14.
29 TSN, May 30, 2011, p. 6.
30Id. at 7-8.
31Id. at 9.
32 TSN, October 4, 2011, p. 10.
33 CA rollo, p. 60.
34People v. Morales y Midarasa, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010).
35People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 591 (2017).
36People v. Nila Malana y Sambolledo, G.R. No. 233747, December 5, 2018.
37Id., citing People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441, 451 (2013).
38Id.
39 Took effect on July 23, 2014.
40 Senate Journal, Session No. 80, 16th Congress, 1st Regular Session, June 4, 2014, p. 348.
41Id.
42Id.
43Id. at 349-350.
44People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017, 834 SCRA 225, 247.
45 TSN, September 30, 2008, pp. 11-12.
46 TSN, November 18, 2008, pp. 5-6.
47 TSN, June 5, 2008, p. 13.
48 TSN, September 30, 2008, pp. 17-18.
49Mira v. Vda. de Erederos, et al., 721 Phil. 772, 790 (2013).
50People v. De Guzman y Danzil, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
51 G.R. No. 219953, April 23, 2018.
52 Article 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. In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. (As amended by E.O. Nos. 59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively).
53 G .R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018.
54People v. Malou Alvarado y Flores, et al., G.R. No. 234048, April 23, 2018, citing People v. Macud, G.R. No. 219175, December 14, 2017.