THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 233750, June 10, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ROMEL MARTIN Y PEÑA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, A., JR., J.:
This is an appeal1 from the Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-GR. CR-HC No. 07385 promulgated on May 18, 2017, which affirmed the Decision3 dated February 11, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tanauan City, Batangas, Branch 83, in Criminal Case No. CR-11-08-5719, finding accused-appellant Romel Martin y Peña (Martin) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. In Criminal Case No. 11-08-5719, Martin was sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
That on or about the 3rd day of August, 2011, at about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon, at Barangay 2, Poblacion, City of Tanauan, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been authorized by law, did then and there willfully. unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with [marking] "HAS-1" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," with an aggregate weight of 0.04 gram, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.5
Qualitative examination conducted on specimens A1, B1, C1 and D1 to D9 gave POSITIVE result from the tests for the presence of Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.16
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the court finds the accused, ROMEL MARTIN y PE[Ñ]A, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of VIOLATION OF SECTION 5, ARTICLE II OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, in Criminal Case No. 11-08-5719.Dissatisfied with the RTC 's ruling, Martin appealed to the CA, but in its Decision23 on May 18, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC's judgment of conviction. The CA held that the prosecution successfully discharged its burden of establishing the elements of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs. It, likewise, held that while there may have been procedural lapses in handling the seized items, the same would not ipso facto result in the unlawful arrest of Martin nor render inadmissible in evidence the said items as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved and the chain of custody is established. The CA disposed as follows:
Hence, the accused is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PhP500,000.00).
Further, let the shabu marked as Exhibit "J", with submarkings, subject of this case be immediately transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the latter's appropriate disposition.
No pronouncement as to the costs.
SO ORDERED.22 (Emphases in the original)
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated 11 February 2015 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.24 (Emphases in the original)
However, PO2 Magpantay provided contrasting testimonies from those made by PO1 Suriaga:
Pros. Torrecampo Q: After he was arrested, what did he do? PO1 Suriaga A: We searched Romel Martin. Q: Who conducted the search? A: I myself, ma'am. Q: What part of the body did you [search]? A: His waistline and the shorts he was wearing at that time. Q: What was he wearing on top? A: T-shirt, ma'am. Q: What was the result of the search? A: I was able to confiscate two (2) plastic sachets. Q: Where? A: From his pocket. Q: What pocket? A: His left front pocket ma'am. Q: What did you find? A: [T]he money was handed to him by Mr. [Malocloc]. Q: What denomination of money did you find? A: Six (6) pieces of One Hundred (Php100.00) Peso hundred bill[s] with a total amount of Php600.00. Q: Where did you find? A: At the right front pocket. Q: What else did you find? A: None, ma'am. Q: What did you do with the two pieces (2) plastic sachets? A: I also placed my markings. Q: What markings? A: My initials "HAS", ma'am. The two (2) pieces which I got from Romel Martin, I placed the markings "HAS-2" and "HAS-3". Q: What happened to the money that you found in the right pocket? A: I also placed my markings, ma'am. Q: What markings did you place? A: "HAS-5" to "HAS-10", ma'am. Q: Which part of the money did you [place] the initials? Back portion or front portion? A: I could no longer recall, ma'am. Q: Now, those items that you found, will you be able to identify if that will be shown to you? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Now, you said earlier that you were able to find one transparent plastic sachet from Mr. [Malocloc] and you conducted the search in the person of the accused, Romel Martin? A: Yes, ma'am. Q: Where was the item that you found from Mr. [Malocloc] while you were conducting the search? A: With PO2 Magpantay, ma'am. Q: In what point in time did you hand-over the plastic sachet you confiscated from [Malocloc] while you were conducting the search? A: When I conducted the body search on Romel Martin, that was also the time I handed it to PO2 Magpantay. Court: Q: So, that was before the body search you conducted to Romel Martin? A: Yes, Ma'am. Q: It was already marked when it was given? A: Yes, ma'am.30 (Emphasis in the original)
Contrary to the ruling of the trial court, the Court cannot categorize these discrepancies as merely trivial. The testimonies of PO1 Suriaga and PO2 Magpantay are material to the determination of custody of the marked confiscated dangerous drugs after they were marked. PO1 Suriaga testified that after affixing his signature on the sachet, he handed it to PO2 Magpantay but the latter did not confirm this on direct examination. There being confusion as to who had possession of the seized items after they were marked, it constitutes a break in the first link of the chain.
Pros. Torrecampo Q: And when you arrived at the house across the nipa hut, what did you do next, if any? PO2 Magpantay A: Sir Rellian, because the door was already locked, talked to the person inside and ordered him to go out, ma'am. Q: And Officer Rellian told the persons inside to go out, what happened next, if any? A: After few minutes, the two persons, the man and the woman, came out of the house, ma'am. Q: Who are these persons who went out of the house? A: The man along with the woman, who handed the plastic sachet to another man, ma'am. Q: What happened next after they came out of the house? A: PO1 Suriaga immediately frisked the man who handed the plastic sachet to another man, ma'am. Court: Q: And this you are referring to is Romel Martin? A: Yes, your Honor. Court: Proceed Fiscal. Pros. Torrecampo Q: Where were you, Mr. Witness, when Police Officer Suriaga was frisking him? PO2 Magpantay A: I was beside him, ma'am. Q: So what was the result of the search, Mr. Witness? A: PO1 Suriaga recovered two (2) plastic sachets and money, but I don't know in what part of his body were those items recovered, ma'am. Q: How about the plastic sachets? Where did he recover it, Mr. Witness? A: Also from Romel Martin, because we are not allowed to frisk a woman. Court: Q: Did you see from what particular part of the body of Romel Martin were the two plastic sachets recovered by Suriaga? A: It was in the pocket of Romel Martin but I don't know from which pocket, your Honor. Q: You are not sure whether it is in the front, back, left or right side pocket? A: I am not sure your Honor, because while PO1 Suriaga was frisking him, I was with the man who was earlier arrested. Q: How about the money? A: He also recovered money but I am not sure from where it was recovered. Q: But it is also from the pocket? A: Yes, your Honor. Court: Proceed. Pros. Torrecampo Q: After the said plastic sachets and money were confiscated from this accused, what happened next, if any? PO2 Magpantay A: It was marked by PO1 Suriaga, ma'am. xxxx Q: Where did he mark the confiscated items? A: In the area, ma'am. Q: Was it outside or inside the house where these two persons went earlier? A: Outside the house, ma'am. Q: Where were you while Suriaga was marking these items? A: I was beside him, ma'am. Q: Did you see him actually marked the confiscated items? A: Yes, ma'am. xxxx Q: And what markings did he place, if you know? A: His initials "HAS", ma'am. Q: How about your other companion police officers, Rellian and Salayo while Suriaga was marking the confiscated items? A: They were also there, ma'am. Q: So what happened, Mr. Witness, to the person to whom the plastic sachet was given earlier in the nipa hut? A: He was beside us. We did not leave him because he might leave, ma'am. Q: What did you do with the man, Mr. Witness, the one to whom the plastic sachet was given earlier? A: Iyon pong plastic sachet na nakuha sa kanya at iyong plastic sachets na nakuha kay Martin ay sabay na minarkahan ni PO1 Suriaga. Court: Q: Were you able to find out the identity of the other man and the woman so that it will be easier for us which one to tell by name? A: Ang babae po ay si Sheryl. Pros. Torrecampo Q: And do you know her last name? A: I am not sure if Pelayo or Pelagio, and the other man we arrested in the kubo is Bernardo [Malocloc], ma'am. Q: Again, Mr. Witness, who marked the subject items confiscated from Bernardo [Malocloc]? A: PO1 Suriaga, ma'am. Q: Do you know the markings placed by the said officer on the said item? A: He placed his initials "HAS", but I can't remember what is the number, ma'am. Q: How about the items confiscated from Romel Martin? A: Aside from the money, we were able to confiscate two (2) plastic sachets, ma'am. Q: What is the description again of the two (2) plastic sachets recovered from Romel Martin? A: Two (2) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing [white] crystalline [substance], your Honor. Pros. Torrecampo Q: So what happened next, if any, Mr. Witness, after the marking of these two confiscated items outside the house? A: We brought the three (3) arrested persons back to the "kubo" and Sir [Rellian] texted the other members of the team who served as security to proceed to the "kubo", ma'am. xxxx xxx According to PO1 Suriaga, the said plastic sachet was marked after he confiscated the same and that he handed the marked plastic sachet to PO2 Magpantay before he frisked appellant Romel Martin. PO2 Magpantay, aside from not mentioning that he came into the possession of the plastic sachets, testified that all three (3) plastic sachets were marked simultaneously by PO1 Suriaga after the latter police officer was done frisking Romel Martin and had allegedly recovered the other two (2) plastic sachets of shabu.31
The importance of xxx prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also. the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.36 (Citation omitted)The prosecution, likewise, failed to present PO2 Jaime, who allegedly stood as custodian of the items for processing and their subsequent transmittal to the crime laboratory.
It can only be surmised from the Request for laboratory examination submitted to the crime laboratory that the document was signed by Chitadel Carandang Gaoiran (Gaoiran) in behalf of Police Superintendent Manuel Yson Manalo. The pertinent portion of the transcript on PO1 Suriaga's testimony reads:
Q: Who was the duty investigator at that time? A: I could not recall, ma'am. Court: Let us clarify, you have possession of the items seized before you reached the police station and you turning it over to the investigator? Witness: Yes, ma'am. Court: But you cannot remember who is the duty investigator at that time? Witness: As far as I remember it is PO3 Maala, your honor.37
Interestingly, Gaoiran's testimony was never presented as evidence for the prosecution.
Q: There are signatures on the lower left hand corner on the above printed name, P/Supt[.] Manuel Yson Manalo and P[O]3 Rowell Maala both on Exhibits "C" and "D". Whose signatures are that? (sic) A: Those are the signatures of PO3 Maala, and in behalf of P/Supt[.] Manuel Yson Manalo it was signed by our Deputy, Chitadel Carandang Gaoiran. Q: Why do you know that these are their signatures? A: I was just beside them when they affixed their signatures.38
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. 1064044 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 shows 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. It is, likewise, worthy to note that failure of the arresting officers to justify the absence of the required witnesses, i.e., the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected official, constitutes 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 from 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 preserved by the apprehending officer/ team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items. (Emphasis and underscoring Ours)
Without 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 [R.A.] No. 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.46From the records, it is clear that only Ramirez was present to witness the conduct of the inventory. There were no representatives from the DOJ and the media. The photographs of the seized item allegedly taken during the inventory were likewise not presented in evidence. In addition, the prosecution did not offer any justifiable ground to explain its noncompliance with the requirements set forth in Section 21. These glaring procedural lapses militate against its claim that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item had been preserved.
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 xxx 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.The prosecution's failure to justify the arresting officers' noncompliance with the requirements found in Section 21, specifically, the presence of the three required witnesses during the actual inventory of the seized items, is fatal to its case. The unjustified absence of these witnesses during the inventory constitutes a substantial gap in the chain of custody. Such absence cannot be cured by the simple expedient of invoking the saving clause.
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 attesting 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."48 (Citations omitted and emphasis supplied)
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal in GRANTED. The Decision dated May 18, 2017 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07385, which affirmed the judgment of the Regional Trial Court of Tanauan City, Batangas, Branch 83, in Criminal Case No. CR-11-08-5719, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Romel Martin y Peña is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release ROMEL MARTIN y PEÑA unless there are other lawful causes for which he should be further detained, and to return this Order with the certificate of your proceedings within five (5) days from notice hereof.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision the action he has undertaken.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours, (SGD) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
1 CA rollo, pp. 299-300.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, with Associate Justices Normandie B. Pizarro and Jhosep Y. Lopez, concurring; id. at 277-291.
3 Rendered by Presiding Judge Marjorie T. Uyengco-Nolasco; id. at 55-63.
4 Id. at 21.
5 Id. at 21-22.
6 Id. at 22.
7 Id. at 56.
8 Id. at 23.
9 Id. at 278-279.
10 Id. at 23-24.
11 Id. at 24.
12 Id.
13 Id. at 58.
14 Id.
15 Id. at 279-280.
16 Id. at 280.
17 Id. at 24.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 25.
21 Id. at 55-63.
22 Id. at 63.
23 Id. at 277-291.
24 Id. at 291.
25People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 310 (2010).
26People v. Milan, 370 Phil. 493, 499 (1999).
27People v. Robles, 604 Phil. 536, 543 (2009).
28People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
29People of the Philippines v. Ronaldo Paz y Dionisio @ "Jeff," 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 (201l); and People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1175 (2009).
30 CA rollo, pp. 45-46.
31 Id. at 47-50.
32 652 Phil. 347 (2010).
33 Id. at 377.
34 Id. at 368.
35 708 Phil. 121 (2013).
36 Id. at 131.
37 CA rollo, pp. 106-107.
38 Id. at 114.
39People v. Enad, 780 Phil. 346, 358 (2016).
40Lopez v. People, 617 Phil. 109, 120 (2009).
41People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (2010).
42 679 Phil. 268 (2012).
43 Id. at 277-278.
44 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.
45 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
46 Id. at 764.
47 686 Phil. 1024 (2012).
48 Id. at 1053-1054.
49 Article III, Section 14(2) of the Constitution mandates:
Sec. 14. xxx
(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.
50 G.R. No. 210610, January 11, 2018.