THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 229669, November 27, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. ESRAFEL DAYON Y MALI @ "BONG," ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
ZALAMEDA, J.:
This appeal1 assails the Decision2 promulgated on 14 December 2015 by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07178, which affirmed the Decision3 rendered on 11 December 2014 by Branch 2. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, in Criminal Case No. 13-299147, finding accused-appellant Esrafel Dayon y Mali @·"Bong" (accused appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
That on or about August 06, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, transport or distribute or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there will fully, unlawfully and knowingly sell or offer for sale to a police officer / poseur[-]buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "BONG" containing ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR ZERO (0.040) gram of white crystalline substance commonly known as Shabu, containing Metamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded "not guilty." After the termination of pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued.
Contrary to law.4 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Esrafel Dayon y Mali GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged in Crim. Case No. 13-299147 and is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500.000.00.
The specimen is forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to turn over with dispatch and upon receipt the said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal and in accordance with the law and rules.
SO ORDERED.9
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The December 11, 2014 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Manila. in Criminal Case No. 13-299147 convicting appellant for violation of Section 5. Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.10 (Emphasis in the original)
I
X X X GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE A VALID BUY-BUST OPERATION.
II
X X X GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH THE INTEGRITY AND IDENTITY OF THE SEIZED PLASTIC [SACHET] OF METAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE.12
Q Now, Mr. Witness. did you take pictures at the place of the arrest? A PO3 Jimenez took the picture while I made the marking and the inventory, sir. Q But this picture was taken where. Mr. Witness? A At the place of the arrest, sir, Purok 2, Isla Puting Bato, sir. Q At the presence of whom. Mr. Witness? A Both accused, sir. Q No one else? A The media, sir. Q Media was here? A Yes. sir. Q During the time of the arrest? A Yes. sir. xxxx Q He was at the place of the arrest, Mr. Witness? Are you sure? A He was being called by us, sir. Q Is he also at (sic) the picture? A No.sir."17
xxxx Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements [the presence of the required witnesses, and the time and place of inventory and photographing] 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; xxx18The applicability of this saving mechanism, however, is conditioned upon the apprehending team rendering a justification for such non-compliance. Failure to tender justification will create doubt as to the identity and evidentiary value of the drugs presented as evidence in court.19 For this saving mechanism to apply, the prosecution must first recognize the lapse or lapses in the prescribed procedures and then explain the lapse or lapses.20
xxxx That effort made in summoning [the] Barangay officials to witness the inventory failed in vain due to the notoriety of the place[,] they refuses (sic) to be part of the incident for fear of reprisal, thus suspects and evidences was (sic) immediately brought at (sic) [the] Police Station, SAID office and turned over for investigation.23The Court finds this statement in the affidavit flimsy and insufficient to explain the procedural lapse. First, it fails to establish that an actual serious attempt to contact the required witnesses was made by the apprehending officers. Second, it only mentions an effort to summon barangay officials, but the law then prevailing also required the presence of a DOJ representative during the inventory and photographing. Finally, the justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proved as a fact because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.24
Thru: The Superintendent
New Bilibid Prison North
BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS
1770 Muntinlupa City
NOW, THEREFORE, you are hereby ordered to immediately release ESRAFEL DAYON y MALI @ "BONG" unless there are other lawful causes for which he should be further detained, and return this Order with the certificate of your proceedings within five (5) days from notice hereof.
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 14 December 2015 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07178 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant ESRAFEL DAYON y MALI @ "BONG" is ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is detained for any other lawful cause.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Decision and to report to this court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
SO ORDERED."
Endnotes:
** Designated as Additional Member of the Third Division per Special Order No. 2728
1Rollo, pp. 20-22.
2Id. at 2-19.
3 CA rollo. pp.55-59.
4 Records, p. 1.
5Id. at 4-5.
6Id. at 7.
7Rollo, pp.7-8.
8 Id. at 8.
9 CA rollo, p. 59.
10Rollo, pp. 18-19.
11 Id. at 20-21.
12 CA rollo, p. 27.
13People v. Angngao, G.R. No. 189296, 11 March 2015, 752 SCRA 531, 541.
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, approved on 15 July 2014.
15 People v. Bangalan, G.R. No.232249, 03 September 2018.
16 In People v. Gutierrez (G.R. No. 236304, 05 November 2018), this Court noted that RA 10640 was approved on 15 July 2014, and published on 23 July 2014 in The Philippine Star (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Metro Section, p. 21) and the Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No.23. World News Section, p. 6). Thus, it became effective 15 days thereafter or on 07 August 2014, pursuant to Section 5 of the law. See also People v. Bangalan, id.
17 Records, TSN dated 09 September 2014, pp. 20-21.
18See also Casona v. People, G.R. No. 179757, 13 September 2017, 839 SCRA 448.
19People v. Velasco, G.R. 219174, 21 February 2018, 856 SCRA 303, 314.
20People v. Alagarme, G.R. No. 184789, 23 February 2015, 751 SCRA 317, 329.
21Ramos v. People G. R. No.233572, 30 July 2018.
22 Records. pp. 4-5.
23 Id. at 5.
24 Supra at note 22.
25People v. Maganon, G.R. No. 234040, 26 June 2019.
26 Id.