FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 241251, December 10, 2019
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. SAMMY GLOBA Y COTURA, A.K.A. "JR" AND LOUIE ANADIA Y LUGARPO, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J. JR., J.:
This is an appeal from the Decision1 dated March 15, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09201, which affirmed the Decision2 dated January 10, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 82, in Criminal Case No. GL-Q-12-177922, convicting accused-appellants Sammy Globa y Cotura (Sammy) and Louie Anadia y Lugarpo (Louie) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
That on or about the 31st day of July 2012, in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, conspiring together, confederating with and mutually helping with one another, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, three (3) heat-sealed transparent sachets, each containing the following[,] to wit:The prosecution evidence tends to establish that on July 30, 2012, at around 5:00 p.m., the District Anti-Illegal Drugs - Special Operation Task Group received a report from a confidential informant about the illegal drug activities of an alias "JR," later on identified as accused-appellant Sammy, along Cotabato St., Barangay Ramon Magsaysay, Quezon City. Acting upon said information, a buy-bust team was formed, wherein PO2 Jomar Manaol (PO2 Manaol) was tasked to act as poseur-buyer, while PO2 Jeffrey Dela Puerta, together with police officers Hernandez, Itom, Collado, and Ang, was assigned as a blocking and arresting officer.4CONTRARY TO LAW.3(51.10) grams marking "JAM-SCG-0731-12"of white crystalline substance containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
(22.86) grams marking "JAM-SCG-1-07-31-12"
(23.95) gram[s] marking "JAM-SCG-2-07-31-12"
(97.91) grams total weight
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Sammy Globa y Cotura and Louie Anadia y Lugarpo "Guilty" beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision in its entirety:
Accordingly, this Court sentences both accused Sammy Globa Y Cotura and Louie Anadia y Lugarpo to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to each pay a Fine in the amount of Five hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos without eligibility for parole in accordance with R.A. 9346.
The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to transmit to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) the dangerous drugs subject of this case for proper disposition and final disposal.
SO ORDERED.11 (Emphasis in the original)
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the instant appeal is DENIED. Consequently, the decision appealed from is AFFIRMED.Hence, this appeal seeking the reversal of the conviction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.12 (Emphasis in the original)
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:Supplementing this provision is Section 21(a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, which states:(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[.]The Court has consistently ruled and stressed that strict adherence to the above-stated procedure is mandatory as this was set forth as a reasonable safeguard to the possibility of contamination, alteration, or substitution, - whether intentional or unintentional - and even planting of evidence, in drug-related cases considering the unique characteristics of narcotic substances.
It is [during this initial stage of apprehension and confiscation wherein] 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 frameup 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.This is especially true in cases where there is a question as to whether or not a buy-bust operation actually took place as when the accused vehemently denies the same. The persisting doubts in our mind due to the fact that only the police officers were present during the apprehension and confiscation are not without basis as police impunity in such situation becomes inherent.22 Consider this: assuming the evidence was indeed planted, substituted, or altered, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for any accused to overcome by mere denial the oft-favored testimony of police officers.23
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."21
The law, being a creature of justice, is blind towards both the guilty and the innocent. The Court, as justice incarnate, must then be relentless in exacting the standards laid down by our laws - in fact, the Court can do no less. For when the fundamental rights of life and liberty are already hanging in the balance, it is the Court that must, at the risk of letting the guilty go unpunished, remain unforgiving in its calling. And if the guilty does go unpunished, then that is on the police and the prosecution - that is for them to explain to the People.28WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated March 15, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 09201 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellants Sammy Globa y Cotura, a.k.a. "JR," and Louie Anadia y Lugarpo are ACQUITTED of the offense charged on the ground of reasonable doubt. They are ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless they are confined for any other lawful cause.
Endnotes:
1 Penned by CA Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with Associate Justices Socorro B. Inting and Rafael Antonio M. Santos concurring; rollo, pp. 2-24.
2 Penned by Presiding Judge Lyn Ebora-Cacha; CA rollo, pp. 58-74.
3 Id. at 58.
4 Id. at 60.
5 Id. at 61.
6 Id.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 62.
9 Id. at 64.
10 Id. at 66.
11 Id. at 74.
12Rollo, p. 24.
13People v. Claro, 808 Phil. 455, 464 (2017).
14People of the Philippines v. Rogelio Yagao, G.R. No. 216725, February 18, 2019.
15People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018, 862 SCRA 131, 142.
16People v. Crispo and Herrera, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 356, 369.
17 Id. at 370-371, citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
18See People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 199271 , October 19, 2016, 806 SCRA 513, 536.
19See People v. Sood, G.R. No. 227394, June 6, 2018, 865 SCRA 368, 389.
20 Supra note 15.
21 Id. at 150.
22 See People v. Luna, G.R. No. 219164, March 21, 2018, 860 SCRA 1, 26-27.
23 Id.
24People v. Cabrellos, G.R. No. 229826, July 30, 2018, citing People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 373 (2017).
25People v. Crispo and Herrera, supra note 16, at 377, citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008).
26 Id. at 376-377.
27 Supra note 22.
28 Id. at 36.
CAGUIOA, J.:
I agree with the ponencia that accused-appellants Sammy Globa y Cotura and Louie Anadia y Lugarpo should be acquitted for the prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody of the subject shabu, which placed its integrity in doubt.
Principally, in prosecuting violations of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,1 it is imperative that the identity and source of the seized substances as proof of the corpus delicti be sufficiently established.2 The law and the unambiguous guidelines laid down by the Court have provided exacting safeguards on the preservation of the chain of custody of seized drugs, owing in large part to the ease with which such specimens may be switched, planted, or otherwise contaminated.
The establishment of the integrity of the corpus delicti is ensured by following the procedure provided in Section 21 of RA 9165, to wit:
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:Section 21(a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 (IRR) further specifies where the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items should be done, thus:
(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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours[.]3
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:Given the nature of a buy-bust operation, the possibility of abuse during its conduct is great,5 and law enforcers have been reminded time and again to precisely observe and comply with the above requirements,6 lest their efforts in the State's campaign against illegal drugs be rendered inconsequential due to no other fault than their own. Several cases decided by the Court have so far shown that this failure often occurs during the seizing of the illegal drugs and the inventory thereof, particularly with respect to the site of the physical inventory and photographing of the same.
(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[.]4
The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs must be at the place of apprehension and/or seizure. If this is not practicable, it may be done as soon as the apprehending team reaches the nearest police station or nearest office.In other words, pragmatic convenience does not discharge the apprehending officers from the primary duty to exert every effort to inventory and photograph the confiscated items at the very site where they were seized. In no uncertain terms, this objective is further concretized by the governing internal rules and guidelines of the Philippine National Police (PNP). Under the 1999 Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Manual (PNPDEM),10 or the precursor of the Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation (AIDSOTF-Manual) of 2010 and 2014, the strict procedure in the photographing and inventory of the seized items has been detailed, to wit:
In all of these cases, the photographing and inventory are required to be done in the presence of any elected public official and a representative from the media and the DOJ who shall be required to sign an inventory and given copies thereof. By the same intent of the law behind the mandate that the initial custody requirements be done "immediately after seizure and confiscation," the aforesaid witnesses must already be physically present at the time of apprehension and seizure - a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its very nature, a planned activity. Simply put, the buy-bust team had enough time and opportunity to bring with them these witnesses.
In other words, while the physical inventory and photographing is allowed to be done "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizure," this does not dispense with the requirement of having the DOJ and media representative and the elected public official to be physically present at the time of and at or near the place of apprehension and seizure so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation."
The reason is simple, it is at the time of arrest or at the time of the drugs' "seizure and confiscation" that the presence of the three (3) witnesses is most needed. It is their presence at that point that would insulate against the police practices of planting evidence. x x x9
Anti-Drug Operational Procedures
Chapter V. Specific Rulesx x x x
B. Conduct of Operation: (As far as practicable, all operations must be officer led)
1. Buy-Bust Operation - in the conduct of buy-bust operation, the following are the procedures to be observed: x x x x k. Take actual inventory of the seized evidence by means of weighing and /or physical counting, as the case may be; l. Prepare a detailed receipt of the confiscated evidence for issuance to the possessor (suspect) thereof; m. The seizing officer (normally the poseur-buyer) and the evidence custodian must mark the evidence with their initials and also indicate the date, time and place the evidence was conficated/seized; n. Take photographs of the evidence while in the process of taking the inventory, especially during weighing, and if possible under existing conditions, the registered weight of the evidence on the scale must be focused by the camera; and o. Only the evidence custodian shall secure and preserve the evidence in an evidence bag or in appropriate container and thereafter deliver the same to the PNP CLG for laboratory examination.
Section 2-6 Handling, Custody and Disposition of Drug and Non-These stipulated protocols in the PNPDEM and the AIDSOTF-Manual indicate that when the law provided that the physical inventory and photographing be "immediately after seizure and confiscation," it meant for the inventory and photographing to be done at the very site of seizure, and not elsewhere once removed from the place of arrest.Drug Evidence
2.33. During handling, custody and disposition of evidence, provisions of Section 21 , RA 9165 and its IRR as amended by RA 10640 shall be strictly observed.
2.34. Photographs of pieces of evidence must be taken immediately upon discovery of such, without moving or altering its original position, including the process of recording the inventory and the weighing of illegal drugs in the presence of required witnesses, as stipulated in Section 21, Article II, RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.
xxxx
a. Drug Evidence
(1) Upon seizure or confiscation of illegal drugs or CPECs, laboratory equipment, apparatus and paraphernalia, the operating Unit's Seizing Officer/Inventory Officer must conduct the physical inventory, markings and photograph the same in the place of operation in the presence of: (a) The suspect/s or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and /or seized or his/her representative or counsel; (b) With an elected Public Official; and (c) Any representatives from the Department of Justice or Media who shall affix their signatures and who shall be given copies of the inventory. (2) For seized or recovered drugs covered by Search Warrants, the inventory must be conducted in the place where the Search Warrant was served. (3) For warrantless seizures like buy-bust operations, inventory and taking of photographs should be done at the nearest Police Station or Office of the apprehending Officer or Team.11
When there is failure to comply with the requirements for proving the chain of custody in the confiscation of contraband in a drug buy-bust operation, the State has the obligation to credibly explain such noncompliance; otherwise, the proof of the corpus delicti is doubtful, and the accused should be acquitted for failure to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.16The belated arrival of the insulating witnesses was not justified in this case, let alone recognized, by the apprehending officers, and even on this count alone, without going into the lack of a Department of Justice representative as a witness, the accused already merited acquittal.
Endnotes:
1 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
2People v. Rojas, G.R. No. 222563, July 23, 2018.
3 Underscoring supplied.
4 Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
5People v. Santos. Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 471 (2007).
6People v. Luna, G.R. No. 219164, March 21, 2018, 860 SCRA 1, 36.
7People v. Sampa, G.R. No. 242160, July 8, 2019; citation omitted.
8 G.R. No. 222559, June 6, 2018, 865 SCRA 220.
9 Id. at 251-252; emphasis and underscoring in the original, citations omitted.
10 PNPM-D-O-3-1-99[NG].
11 Emphasis supplied .
12 See People v. Dela Cruz, 666 Phil. 593 (2011); Valdez v. People, 563 Phil. 934 (2007); Arcilla v. Court of Appeals, 463 Phil. 914 (2003 ); and People v. Pagaura, 334 Phil. 683 (1997).
13People v. Sampa, supra note 7.
14 See People v. Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019; People v. Narvas, G.R. No. 241254, July 8, 2019; People v. Dagdag, G.R. No. 225503, June 26, 2019; People v. Nieves, G.R. No. 239787, June 19, 2019; People v. Malana, G.R. No. 233747, December 5, 2018; People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 225786, November 14, 2018; People v. Musor, G.R. No. 231843, November 7, 2018; and People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018, 862 SCRA 131.
15 806 Phil. 533 (2017).
16 Id. at 536.