THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 225325, August 28, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ISIDRO RAMOS Y BONDOC, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
In buy-bust operations, the apprehending team's inadequate preparations are not justifiable grounds for its noncompliance with the requirements under Section 21(1) of Republic Act No. 9165, or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
This Court resolves an appeal1 from the Court of Appeals' June 5, 2015 Decision2 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06718. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Regional Trial Court's October 14, 2013 Joint Decision3 convicting Isidro Ramos y Bondoc (Ramos) for violating Article II, Sections 5 and 11 of Republic Act No. 9165.
Two (2) separate Informations were filed before the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando City, Pampanga and docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 17171 and 17172. The Information for Criminal Case No. 17171 read, in part:
That on or about the 10th day of August 2010, in the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been lawfully authorized, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, have in his possession, custody and control seventeen (17) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with marking 'ACY-1 to ACY-17' containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride with a total weight of TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED FORTY SEVEN TEN THOUSANDTHS (0.2247g) of a GRAM, a dangerous drug.The Information for Criminal Case No. 17172 read, in part:
Contrary to law.4
That on or about the 10th day of August 2010, in the City of San Fernando, Pampanga, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without having been lawfully authorized, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, distribute and transport a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings 'AQN' in exchange of one (1) pc. [o]f Five Hundred Peso Bill with serial number MX928465 containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride with a weight of ONE HUNDRED FORTY THREE TEN THOUSANDTHS (0.0143) of a GRAM, a dangerous drug.The cases were tried jointly. Upon arraignment on September 15, 2010, Ramos pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. On January 5, 2011, pre-trial was conducted, after which trial commenced.6
Contrary to law.5
VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FOREGOING, this court finds the accused ISIDRO RAMOS y BONDOC, guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of R.A. 9165 and is hereby sentenced, as follows:Ramos filed a Notice of Appeal43 before the Regional Trial Court. Ramos, through counsel, filed his Brief44 before the Court of Appeals on February 26, 2015. Meanwhile, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Brief45 on May 28, 2015.SO ORDERED.42
- in Criminal Case No. 17171 for Violation of Section 11, Article II, the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to Seventeen (17) Years and Four (4) months, as maximum, and to pay fine of Php300,000.00; and
- in Criminal Case No. 17172 for Violation of Section 5, Article II, the accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay fine of Php500,000.00.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, judgment is hereby rendered by us DENYING the appeal filed in this case. The Joint Decision dated October 14, 2013 which was rendered by Branch 41 of the Regional Trial Court in the City of San Fernando, Pampanga in Criminal Cases Nos. 17171 and 17172 is hereby AFFIRMED.Ramos filed a Notice of Appeal52 before the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, the Office of the Solicitor General filed its Manifestation and Motion53 before this Court manifesting that it would no longer file any supplemental brief. Ramos filed a similar Manifestation.54
SO ORDERED.51 (Emphasis in the original)
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 prosecution 1here failed to show that the buy-bust team had strictly complied with the requirements under Section 21. Thus, it failed to prove accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(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[.]
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 allow the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team.61 (Citation omitted)Here, the apprehending officers admitted that they did not mark, photograph, or inventory the seized items immediately after confiscation. Instead, they waited to complete this first step until they arrived at the police station, around 20 minutes away from the scene of the buy-bust operation.62 When asked why, PO3 Yco testified that they did not bring pens to mark the items. PO2 Navarro, for his part, testified that they could not immediately mark the items since the required witnesses were not present then.63
It bears emphasis that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose. In People v. Tomawis, the Court elucidated on the purpose of the law in mandating the presence of the required witnesses as follows:Police officers are given time to prepare for a buy-bust operation and make necessary arrangements beforehand, fully aware of the strict procedure to follow under Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.69 Assuming that the apprehending team in this case really could not have immediately marked the seized drugs because they had no marker or because the required witnesses were absent, both circumstances were entirely of their own making. If these rendered the immediate marking impracticable, such impracticability was 'their fault and cannot be used as an excuse to not immediately mark the items. If anything, the lack of foresight that led to these circumstance shows that the team did not exert genuine effort to comply with the chain of custody rule.70The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza, without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the 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 subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
The practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so - and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished - does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs.
To restate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."68 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted)
It is lamentable that while our dockets are clogged with prosecutions under Republic Act No. 9165 involving small-time drug users and retailers, we are seriously short of prosecutions involving the proverbial "big fish." We are swamped with cases involving small fry who have been arrested for mimscule amounts. While they are certainly a bane to our society, small retailers are but low-lying fruits in an exceedingly vast network of drug cartels. Both law enforcers and prosecutors should realize that the more effective and efficient strategy is to focus resources more on the source and true leadership of these nefarious organizations. Otherwise, all these executive and judicial resources expended to attempt to convict an accused for 0.05 gram of shabu under doubtful custodial arrangements will hardly make a dent in the overall picture. It might in fact be distracting our law enforcers from their more challenging task: to uproot the causes of this drug menace. We stand ready to assess cases involving greater amounts of drugs and the leadership of these cartels.74WHEREFORE, the June 5, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06718 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Isidro Ramos y Bondoc is ACQUITTED for the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from confinement unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.
Very truly yours, (SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III Deputy Division Clerk of Court |
"WHEREFORE, the June 5, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06718 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Isidro Ramos y Bondoc is ACQUITTED for the prosecution's failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from confinement unless he is being held for some other lawful cause.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release ISIDRO RAMOS y BONDOC 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 to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report the action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.
For their information, copies shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
Let entry of final judgment be immediately issued.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours, (SGD) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG III Deputy Division Clerk of Court |
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Raffle dated August 22, 2019.
1Rollo, pp. 19-21.
2 Id. at 2-18. The Decision was penned by Associate Justice Isaias P. Dicdican, and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a member of this Court) and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes of the Special Ninth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 CA rollo, pp. 46-70. The Joint Decision was penned by Judge Divina Luz P. Aquino-Simbulan of Branch 41, Regional Trial Court, San Fernando City.
4Rollo, p. 3.
5 Id.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 3-4. Sometimes, Francisco Palo was named "Lorenciano Palo."
8 CA rollo, pp. 50-51.
9Rollo, p. 5.
10 CA rollo, p. 52.
11 Id.
12Rollo, p. 5.
13 Id. at 5 and CA rollo, p. 51.
14 CA rollo, p. 130.
15 Id. at 55.
16 Id. at 58.
17 Id. at 124.
18 Id. at 55.
19 Id. at 51 and 129. Sometimes in the rollo, Zaragosa was spelled "Zaragoza."
20 Id. at 51.
21Rollo, p. 6.
22 Id. at 6-7.
21 CA rollo, pp. 53-54.
24 Id. at 131-132.25 Id. at 59-60.
26Rollo, p. 7.
27 CA rollo, p. 61.28 Id.
29 Id. at 62 and rollo, p. 8.
30 Id.
31 Id. at 63 and rollo, p. 9.
32 Id. at 63-64.
33Rollo, p. 9.
34 CA rollo, p. 65.
35 Id. at 62.
36 Id. at 46-70.
37 Id. at 65.
38 Id. at 67.
39 Id. at 68.
40 Id. at 66.
41 Id. at 67.
42 Id. at 69.
43 Id. at 17-18, Notice of Appeal.
44 Id. at 30-45, Accused-Appellant's Brief.
45 Id. at 109-172, Appellee's Brief.
46 Id. at 39.
47 Id. at 41.
48 Id. at 40.
49 Id.
50Rollo, pp. 2-18.
51 Id. at 17.
52 Id. at 19-20, Notice of Appeal.
53 Id. at 29-33, OSG's Manifestation and Motion.
54 Id. at 34-38, Ramos' Manifestation.
55 CONST., art. III, sec. 14(2) provides:
(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. (Emphasis supplied)
56People v. Royol, G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
57People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134, 142 (2010) [Per J. Mendoza, Second Division].
58People v. Alconde, G.R. No. 238117, February 4, 2019, [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
59People v. Claudel, G. R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019, [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
60 Id.
61 Id.
62 CA rollo, p. 124.
63 Id.
64 Id. at 124 and 130-131.
65People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, (Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division] citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
66 Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21(1), as amended by Republic Act No 10640 (2013), provides:
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 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:
(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 persons 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.
67People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
68 G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 20!9, [Per J. Caguioa, Second Division].
69People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
70People v. Misa, G.R. No. 236838, October 1, 2018, [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
71 CA rollo, p. 55.
72 Id. at 59.
73 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
74 Id. at 100.