THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 220142, January 29, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. RONALD SUATING Y SAYON ALIAS "BOK", ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Only the police testified for the prosecution. The actual poseur [-] buyer was not presented, and the police officers were 10 meters away. The alleged contraband was laid out on the table when the barangay official came. There was no testimony on the chain of custody from the attesting officers to the persons who tested the alleged contraband.
In contrast, the accused presented five (5) witnesses from the community to prove that the alleged contraband was not taken from the accused, and that no buy-bust operation occurred. The accused testified that when he was searched, they only found two pesos and fifty centavos (P2.50) on his person.
Yet, the trial court and the Court of Appeals were willing to send this accused to a life in prison and to impose a fine of P500,000.00 for allegedly selling a stick of marijuana.
We reverse. Efforts of law enforcers to go after the real drug syndicates are undermined by these obviously fictitious arrests. All it accomplishes is alienate our people, enable corrupt law enforcers, and undermine the confidence of our people—especially those who are impoverished and underprivileged—on our court's ability to do justice.
Courts must exercise "heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving miniscule amounts of drugs [for] [t]hese can be readily planted and tampered."1
This Court resolves an Appeal2 filed by Ronald Suating y Sayon, alias "Bok" (Suating), from the Decision3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR CEB HC No. 01702 which affirmed the Regional Trial Court4 ruling that he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.5
Two separate (2) Informations were filed against Suating for violations of Sections 56 and 117 of Republic Act No. 9165,8 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The charging portions of the Informations provided:
Upon arraignment, Suating pleaded not guilty to the charges.10 Joint trial on the merits commenced.11Criminal Case No. 8451-69
"That on November 9, 2011 in Silay City, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell one large stick of marijuana cigarette marked as BOK-1, a prohibited drug to an asset of the Silay City PNP posing as a poseur [-] buyer in exchange for three [3] twenty peso bills with serial numbers RS65451 (sic), RT180921, and RT395576 all marked with the underline in the last digit of each serial numbers.
CONTRARY TO LAW . "
Criminal Case No. 8452-69
"That on November 9, 2011 in Silay City, Negros Occidental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in possession and control [one] (1) large rolled stick of Marijuana cigarette with a total weight of 0.14 grams marked as BOK-2, a prohibited drug without any license or permit to possess the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 9
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED:On appeal,38 Suating assailed his conviction, asserting that the trial court was mistaken in relying on the weakness of his defense. He insisted that the prosecution failed to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, as the identity of the confiscated illicit drugs were not sufficiently proven due to non-conformity with the provisions of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165.39
In Criminal Case No. 8451-69, this Court finds accused, Ronald Suating y Sayon a.k.a. "Bok", GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5 , Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002", as his guilt was proven by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, this Court sentences accused , Ronald Suating y Sayon a.k.a "Bok ", to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment, the same to be served by him at the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
Accused named is, further, ordered by this Court to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency.
In Criminal Case No. 8452-69 , this Court finds accused, Ronald Suating y Sayon a.k.a. "Bok", GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 ", as his guilt was proven by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly , and in application of the pertinent provisions of the Indeterminate Sentence Law , this Court sentences accused, Ronald Suating y Sayon a.k.a. "Bok", to suffer the penalty of imprisonment for a period of [sic] from TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO FOURTEEN (14) YEARS , the same to be served by him at the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
Accused named is, further, ordered by this Court to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency.
The two (2) rolled sticks of marijuana cigarettes (Exhibits "H-1" and "H-2", prosecution) are ordered remitted to the office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) at Negros Occidental Provincial Police Office (NOPPO), Camp Alfredo Montelibano, Sr., Bacolod City, for proper disposition.
In the service of the sentences imposed on him by this Court, accused named shall be given full credit for the entire period of his detention pending trial.
NO COSTS.
SO ORDERED.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated July 29, 2013 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69 of Silay City, in Criminal Case No. 8451-69 to 8452-69, is hereby AFFIRMED.Hence, this appeal.46
SO ORDERED.45 (Emphasis in the original)
(1) [T]he identity of the buyer and the seller , the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor[.]73In sum, the occurrence of the sale should be established.
[1] [T]he accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; [2] such possession was not authorized by law; and [3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.75In both cases, the confiscated illicit drugs from the accused comprises the corpus delicti of the charges,76 "i.e., the body or substance of the crime [which] establishes that a crime has actually been committed."77 It is of paramount importance to maintain the integrity and the identity of the corpus delicti. Thus, the chain of custody rule warrants that "unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."78
First , the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;In this case, a prearranged police entrapment led to Suating's apprehension. However, despite a carefully planned and coordinated buy-bust operation, there were still irregularities committed in the course of the entrapment, which caused apparent lapses to the chain of custody rule.82
Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court.81 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
In effecting the provisions of Republic Act No. 9165, the Implementing Rules and Regulations92 read:
(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;91 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Notwithstanding the mandatory directive of the law as construed from its use of the word "shall,"94 the police officers miserably failed to comply with the specific procedures in handling the seized marijuana cigarettes allegedly taken from accused-appellant.
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, furtlter, 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;93 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
"WHEREFORE, the Court of Appeals' December 22, 2014 Decision in CA-G.R. CEB HC No. 01702 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Ronald Suating y Sayon is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered to be immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.NOW, THEREFORE, You are hereby ordered to immediately release RONALD SUATING Y SAYON 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 of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.
The Regional Trial Court is directed to tum over the two (2) sticks of marijuana cigarettes subject of this case to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED."
Endnotes:
1 Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 479 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
2 CA rollo, pp. 87-89
3 Rollo, pp. 4-15. The Decision dated December 22, 20 14 was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (Chairman, now a member of this Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Jhosep Y. Lopez of the Nineteenth Division of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
4 CA rollo, p p . 29-38. The Decision dated July 29,2013 in Criminal Case Nos. 8451-69 and 8452-69 was penned by Presiding Judge Felipe G. Banzon of the Regional Trial Court of Silay City, Branch 69.
5 Rollo, p. 14, CA Decision.
6 Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 5, provides:
SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.
The penalty of imprisonment ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any controlled precursor and essential chemical, or shall act as a broker in such transactions.
. . . .
7 Republic Act No. 9165 (2002) , sec. 11, provides:
SECTION 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. - The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
....
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
...
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a: fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00 , if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium , morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu ", or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy", PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
8 Rollo, p. 5.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 CA rollo, p. 30.
12 Id. The witnesses for the Prosecution are: Police Chief Inspector Paul Jerome Puentespina, PO2 Christopher Panes, SPO1 Rayjay Rebadomia, Hon. Ireneo Celis, PO2 Reynaldo Bernil, Jose Junsay, Jr., PO2 Ian Libo-on, and PO2 Ariel Magbanua.
13 Id. at 31.
14 Id.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Rollo, p. 6.
18 CA rollo, p. 31.
19 Id. at 32.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Rollo, p . 7 .
26 CA rollo, p. 32.
27 Rollo, p . 7.
28 Id.
29 Id . The witnesses for the defense were Albert Salonga, Aileen Capote, Luz Maalat, Jenelyn Javellana, and Romeo Suating.
30 CA rollo, p. 33.
31 Rollo, p. 7 .
32 CA rollo, pp. 37-38.
33 Id. at 36 .
34 Id. at 34-36 .
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 Id. at 37-38.
38 Id. at 10-28, Brief for Accused-Appellant.
39 Rollo. p. 9.
40 Id. at 14.
41 Id. at 10.
42 Id.
43 Id.
44 Id. at 13.
45 Id. at 14.
46 CA rollo, pp. 87-89 .
47 Rollo, p. I.
48 CA rollo, pp. 94-95.
49 Rollo, pp. 22-23.
50 Id. at 24-28, Manifestation; and 32-34, Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief.
51 CA rollo, p . 19, Brief for the Accused-Appellant. Suating was firm that he did not commit the charge and that he does not own the articles seized from his possession.
52 Id.
53 See Rollo, pp. 9-10, CA Decision.
54 CA rollo, p . 20, Brief for the Accused-Appellant.
55 Id. at 21.
56 Id. at 23.
57 Id. at 24.
58 Id. at 25.
59 Id .
60 Id.
61 Id. at 26.
62 Id. at 52-69, Brief for the Appellee.
63 Id. at 58.
64 Id. at 59.
65 Id. at 60.
66 Id . at 61.
67 Id. at 67.
68 People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
69 People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
70 Franco v. People, 780 Phil. 36, 43 (2016) [Per J. Reyes, Third Division].
71 People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
72 People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
73 Id. at 29 citing People v. Alberto, 625 Phil. 545 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
74 Id.
75 Id. citing Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 686 Phil. 137 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, First Division].
76 Id.
77 People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 426 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
78 People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division] citing Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752 (2012) [Per J. Perez, Second Division] .
79 People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 434 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
80 Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 , 587 (2008) [ Per J. Tinga, Second Division] citing United States v. Howard-Arias, 679 F.2d 363, 366; and United States v. Ricco, 52 F.3d 58.
8l People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265 , 278 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing People v. Remigio, 700 Phil. 452 (2012) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
82 CA rollo, p. 34 .
83 Id. at 35.
84 Id. at 36.
85 Id. at 34.
86People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416,427 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
87 Id.
88 Id.
89 Id.
90 Republic Act No. 9165 (2002) was the prevailing law before its amendment in 2014 by Republic Act No. 10640.
91 Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21(1).
92 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 (2002).
93 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21 (a).
94 People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J . Brion, Second Division ].
95 People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
96 People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
97 Id. at 541.
98 See CA rollo, p. 24, Brief for Accused-Appellant.
99 People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
100 See CA rollo, pp. 31-32.
101 People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
102 Id. at 283.
103 Rollo, p. 7; and CA rollo, p. 32.
104 The Decision of the Court of Appeals mentioned that based on the version of the Prosecution, the inventory and photograph of the seized illicit drugs were undertaken in the presence of an elected public official. However, the Court of Appeals seemingly deviated from this thereby stating in its discussion that the inventory was signed by, among others, representatives from the media and the Department of Justice whose names were apparently not disclosed or their circumstances not even elaborated in the records of the case. Also, they were not made as witnesses for the defense.
105 Rollo, p. 7.
106 CA rollo, p. 57, Brief for the Appellee. That the inventory and photograph were made in the presence of Cells and a Barangay Kagawad was similarly affirmed in the Brief of the Appellant at pages 16-17 of the CA Rollo.
107 People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 356, 376 (2018) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
108 Id. at 375.
109 CA rollo, p. 25.
110 See CA rollo, pp. 32-33; and rollo, p. 7.
111 See People v. Coreche, 612 Phil. 1238 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].
112 People v. Casacop, 755 Phil. 265, 278 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
113 People v. Crispo, G. R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 356, 377-378 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
114 Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 475 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
115 Id.
116 Id. at 476.
117 People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008) [Per J.Brion, Second Division].
118 People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
119 CA rollo, p. 35, RTC Decision.
120 Id. at 36.
121 Lescano v. people, 778 Phil. 460, 479 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division] citing People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
122 CA rollo, p. 36.
123 Rollo, p. 13.
124 people v.Capuno, 655 Phil. 226 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
125 Id. at 244.
126 See Rollo, p. 7 , CA Decision.
127 People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J.Brion, Second Division].
128 Id. at 244.
129 Id .
130 Id.
131 See Lescano v. People, 778 Phil. 460, 470 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].