FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 247974, July 13, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. PETER LOPEZ Y CANLAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
CAGUIOA, J.:
This is an appeal1 from the Decision2 dated March 29, 2019 (Assailed Decision) of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09769, which affirmed the Judgment3 dated July 27, 2017 rendered by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Fifth Judicial Region, Branch 34 of Iriga City, in Criminal Cases Nos. IR-10559 and IR-10614 titled "People of the Philippines v. Peter Lopez y Canlas" finding the accused-appellant Peter Lopez y Canlas (Lopez) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violations of Sections 5 and 15, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
When arraigned, Lopez pleaded not guilty to both charges. Trial on the merits ensued.6Criminal Case No. IR-10559:
x x x x
That on or about March 30, 2014, in the evening at Barangay San Francisco, Iriga City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without any authority of law, did, then and there unlawfully and feloniously sell/deliver one (1) medium size (sic) heat sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu" weighing 0.193 gram, a dangerous drug, to PO1 Jonard B. Buenaflor who acted as poseur-buyer and who was with a police asset in a buy-bust operation with the use of four (4) pieces 500 peso bill with serial nos. TC170638, TJ333021, RG551486 and VG967118, to the damage and prejudice of the public interest.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.4Criminal Case No. IR-10614:
x x x x
That in the evening of March 30, 2014, or prior thereto, at San Fracisco, Iriga City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly use methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," as he was found positive for use of 'methamphetamine', a dangerous drug, after he was arrested after a buy-bust operation conducted against him by the members of the Philippine National Police assigned at the Intel Drug Enforcement of the Iriga City Police Station as his urine sample was submitted for laboratory examination per Chemistry Report No. DTC-081-2014 signed by Police Senior Inspector and Forensic Chemist Jun Fernandez Malong of the Camarines Sur Crime Laboratory Office, Naga City, to the damage and prejudice of the public interest.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.5
On [March 20, 2014], the intelligence operatives of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Iriga City held a briefing in preparation for a buy-bust operation against [Lopez]. His identity was confirmed by a confidential asset. PO1 Jonard Buenaflor was designated to act as a poseur-buyer and tasked to use [PhP]2,000.00 as marked money consisting of four five hundred peso bills during the operation.Version of the Defense
The police asset informed PO1 Buenaflor that [Lopez] would meet them in front of Trinidad Building, Tantiado Hardware at San Francisco, Iriga City. As they waited for [Lopez], the back-up operatives positioned themselves in the area. [Lopez] arrived on a motorcycle and proceeded to ask the informant how much they would be buying. PO1 Buenaflor then handed P2,000.00 to [Lopez]. In turn, the latter gave him a small heat-sealed transparent sachet containing crystalline substance which the poseur-buyer suspected as shabu.
PO1 Buenaflor performed the pre-arranged signal by removing his cap to indicate a positive buy-bust operation. He arrested [Lopez], while the back-up operatives rushed to the scene. Representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, and a Barangay Councilor were also called to serve as witnesses to the body search, marking and photographing of seized items. When they arrived, PO1 Buenaflor marked the plastic sachet "JBB 22 3-30-14." Meanwhile, PO3 Ric Reginales [(PO3 Reginales)] searched the person of [Lopez] and recovered from him the following items: (1) buy-bust money, (2) cellphone, (3) lighter, (4) twenty-peso bill, and (5) coins.
Thereafter, the operatives headed to the police station with [Lopez]. The Inventory/Confiscation Receipt was prepared by PO2 Joel Tabangan and signed by the DOJ representative Doris Viñas (Viñas), media representative Gloria Bongais (Bongais), and Barangay Kagawad Ramer Samantela (Samantela). On the other hand, PO2 Roger Tuyay drafted the requests for laboratory examination and drug test.
PO1 Buenaflor delivered the seized plastic sachet and [Lopez] to the provincial crime laboratory for examination. Based on the Chemistry Report No. D-109-2014 and Chemistry Report No. DTC-081-2014 prepared by the forensic chemist Police Senior Inspector (PSI) Jun Malong, the contents of the plastic sachet and [Lopez's] urine tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.7
On [March 30, 2014], [Lopez] just came from a gas station where he met a certain Rico Murillo who gave him P2,000.00. He was instructed by the latter to give the same to a person who he knew went by the name Engineer Tubig. He then rode his motorcycle and went on his way only to be flagged down by PO1 Buenaflor upon reaching Tantiado Hardware. When he inquired what his violation was, the police officer told him to hold the money, but ordered him to stay put. In addition to that, PO1 Buenaflor collected the keys of his motorcycle. After some time, about five to six policemen arrived at the scene.
When Viñas and Bongais showed up, the police officers took photographs of [Lopez], whereas, the money he was holding was placed on the road. He was also frisked, but the police officers found nothing in his person. However, he saw one police officer in civilian clothes take a plastic sachet from his own pocket which he revealed to Viñas and Bongais.
After [Lopez's] arrest, he was taken to the police station where he was photographed with the plastic sachet and the money. Later, he was brought to the crime laboratory. He was provided with water to drink which tasted unpleasant. Nevertheless, he still drank it since the police officers needed his urine sample.8
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered:From the Judgment, Lopez filed a Notice of Appeal dated August 23, 2017.11cralawredSO ORDERED.10
- In Criminal Case No. IR-10559 accused is found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Violation of Section 5 Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the (sic) "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" and accordingly sentencing him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a tine of Php500,000.00.
- In Criminal Case No. IR-10614 accused is found GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime of Violation of Section 15 Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 or the (sic) "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" and accordingly sentencing him to suffer the penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Judgment dated [July 27, 2017] rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Fifth Judicial Region, Branch 34, Iriga City in Criminal Case Nos. IR-10559 and IR-10164 is AFFIRMED.Responding to the arguments raised by Lopez in his appeal, the CA ruled that the prosecution need not have conducted surveillance prior to the buy-bust operation.13 Furthermore, the failure of the prosecution to present the informant in court was not fatal to its case.14
SO ORDERED.12
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, ad minister, 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. (Emphasis supplied)In prosecuting this charge, the State bears the burden of proving the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer, as well as the seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.19 What is material is proof that the transaction or sale took place as a matter of fact, coupled with the presentation in court of the dangerous drug seized as evidence.
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary, especially where the police operatives are accompanied by their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. We have held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance. In the instant case, having been accompanied by the informant to the person who was peddling the dangerous drugs, the policemen need not have conducted any prior surveillance before they undertook the buy-bust operation.36Lopez's reliance on Rojo is likewise misplaced. The Court in Rojo appreciated in favor of the accused the fact that none of the prosecution witnesses saw the accused therein deliver the dangerous drugs to the informant since the police operatives were meters away from the alleged illegal transaction. When the confidential informant in Rojo was not presented in court, the Court found that there was no direct evidence in Rojo to establish the alleged illegal sale: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
In this particular case, the witnesses for the prosecution who were members of the police team at the time of the alleged "buy-bust operation," particularly Sgt. Carbonel and Pat. Balatbat, were in their jeep parked at Beata street, some 100 meters away from the scene. Pat. Alferos was 10 meters away from the informant and the appellant while Pat. Maniquez was about seven (7) meters away and the others stayed at a far distance so as not to arouse suspicion. It was only after the informant gave the signal by scratching the left side of his head with his left hand to indicate that the marijuana was already handed to him and that he in turn gave the money to the appellant that the said police officers converged and arrested the appellant.The prosecution in this case presented the testimony of PO1 Buenaflor who acted as the poseur-buyer. In Rojo, the illegal sale transpired between the accused and the informant alone. Hence, it was necessary for the prosecution therein to present the informant as the police officers were stationed meters away from the alleged illegal sale and could not have seen the transaction from that far a distance. In contrast, the illegal drug and the marked money in this case exchanged hands between Lopez and PO1 Buenaflor. Unlike in Rojo, the prosecution presented direct evidence of the illegal sale in the form of PO1 Buenaflor's testimony.
These are the facts as found by the trial court which show that none of the prosecution witnesses actually saw the appellant deliver the alleged bag of flowering tops of marijuana which was allegedly sold to the informant. It also indicates that they did not see the informant pay the alleged consideration of the sale with a 10-peso bill. They just assumed that the transaction was consummated upon a signal from the informant. There is, therefore, no direct evidence, much less conclusive proof, to establish the alleged unlawful sale of marijuana being pinned on the appellant.
If truly there was such an entrapment that was undertaken in this case, the informant would be the best witness for the prosecution.37
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:The events of this case occurred prior to the effectivity date of Republic Act No. 1064042 which amended Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. Parsing the provision, the law requires that: (1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
(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[.]
Compliance with the chain of custody requirement provided by Section 21, therefore, ensures the integrity of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia in four (4) respects: first, the nature of the substances or items seized; second, the quantity (e.g., weight) of the substances or items seized; third, the relation of the substances or items seized to the incident allegedly causing their seizure; and fourth, the relation of the substances or items seized to the person/s alleged to have been in possession of or peddling them. Compliance with this requirement forecloses opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any manner.77 (Emphasis supplied)To be clear, strict adherence with Section 21 remains to be the rule. This is a singular and rigid standard. Anything less than strict adherence would automatically be a deviation from the chain of custody rule that would only pass judicial muster in the most exacting of standards following the twin-requirements of: (1) existence of justifiable reasons, and (2) preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.78 In these cases, the point of contention should not revolve around the amount of illegal drugs seized, but on whether the constitutional and statutory rights of an accused are protected in the prosecution of the crime he or she stands accused.
Section 15. Use of Dangerous Drugs. - A person apprehended or arrested, who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug, after a confirmatory test, shall be imposed a penalty of a minimum of six (6) months rehabilitation in a government center for the first offense, subject to the provisions of Article VIII of this Act. If apprehended using any dangerous drug for the second time, he/she shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (PhP50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (PhP200,000.00); Provided, That this Section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity or dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of this Act, in which case the provisions stated therein shall apply. (Emphasis supplied)While Section 15 penalizes a person apprehended or arrested for unlawful acts listed under Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and who is found to be positive for use of any dangerous drug,79 a conviction presupposes the prior conduct of an initial screening test and a subsequent confirmatory test both yielding positive results for illegal drug use. In this regard, Section 36 of R.A. No. 9165 provides, in part: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 36. Authorized Drug Testing. - Authorized drug testing shall be done by any government forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH to safeguard the quality of test results. The DOH shall take steps in setting the price of the drug test with DOH accredited drug testing centers to further reduce the cost of such drug test. The drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2) testing methods, the screening test which will determine the positive result as well as the type of the drug used and the confirmatory test which will confirm a positive screening test. Drug test certificates issued by accredited drug testing centers shall be valid for a one-year period from the date of issue which may be used for other purposes. The following shall be subjected to undergo drug testing: x x x. (Emphasis supplied)Meanwhile, Section 38 of R.A. No. 9165 provides: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Section 38. Laboratory Examination or Test on Apprehended/Arrested Offenders. - Subject to Section 15 of this Act, any person apprehended or arrested for violating the provisions of this Act shall be subjected to screening laboratory examination or test within twenty-four (24) hours, if the apprehending or arresting officer has reasonable ground to believe that the person apprehended or arrested, on account of physical signs or symptoms or other visible or outward manifestation, is under the influence of dangerous drugs. If found to be positive, the results of the screening laboratory examination or test shall be challenged within fifteen (15) days after receipt of the result through a confirmatory test conducted in any accredited analytical laboratory equipment with a gas chromatograph/mass spectrometry equipment or some such modern and accepted method, if confirmed the same shall be prima facie evidence that such person has used dangerous drugs, which is without prejudice for the prosecution for other violations of the provisions of this Act: Provided, That a positive screening laboratory test must be confirmed for it to be valid in a court of law. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)From the foregoing, two distinct drug tests are required: a screening test and a confirmatory test. A positive screening test must be confirmed for it to be valid in a court of law. The evidence for the prosecution, however, shows the conduct of only one test.
While PSI Malong mentions the conduct of a "screening test and a confirmatory test" on the urine sample, his testimony on the actual test conducted on the sample as well as the chemical laboratory report presented in court show otherwise.
PROS. JOCOM: Q: In the urine sample that you examined, you indicated in your report that the same gave positive result to the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, and negative for THC metabolites. [N]ow, tell us, how did you arrive at such conclusion or findings that the result was positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride? A: I arrive to this finding, sir, because I conducted the screening test and confirmatory test of the urine specimen, sir. Q: Okay, when you said you conducted confirmatory test, what did you mean by that? A: The urine sample was subjected to TLC, sir, wherein the urine sample was extracted and then, compared with the standard methamphetamine hydrochloride, sir. Q: And what was the result or the color if there was any change in the color that you subject that for test (sic) that you could say that there was the presence of methamphetamine? A: On the TLC plate, sir, we would be able to see that the spot develop of (sic) the same location, sir, meaning they have the same chemical characteristics with the standard methamphetamine hydrochloride, sir. Q: After conducting the confirmatory test, what did you do with the sample, the urine? A: It was placed on (sic) the refrigerator, sir. I sealed it and placed on the refrigerator. Q: Until now, it is with your office? A: It was already discarded, sir.81
Endnotes:
1 Notice of Appeal dated May 2, 2019, Rollo, p. 16.
2 Id. at 3-15; penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, with Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison and Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes concurring.
3 Records (Criminal Case No. IR-10559), pp. 159-164; penned by Presiding Judge Manuel M. Rosales.
4Rollo, pp. 3-4.
5 Id. at 4.
6 Id.
7 Id. at 5-6.
8 Id. at 6.
9 Records (Criminal Case No. IR-10559), p. 163.
10 Id. at 164.
11 Id. at 156.
12Rollo, p. 14.
13 Id. at 8.
14 Id. at 8-9.
15 Id. at 9-10.
16 Id. at 10-13.
17 Id. at 13.
18 Id. at 16.
19People v. Villarta, 740 Phil. 279 (2014).
20 R.A. No. 9165, Art. I, Sec. 3 (ii).
21People v. Asislo, 778 Phil. 509 (2016); People v. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671 (2016).
22People v. Dela Rosa, 655 Phil. 630 (2011).
23 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 3.
24 RTC Records in Criminal Case No. IR-10559, p. 10; TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 6.
25 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 4.
26 TSN dated October 20, 2014, pp. 5-6.
27 TSN dated October 20, 2014, pp. 4-5.
28 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 9.
29 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 8.
30 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 8.
31 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 9.
32 CA rollo, p. 46.
33 256 Phil. 571 (1989).
34 654 Phil. 427 (2011).
35 608 Phil. 259 (2009).
36 Citations omitted.
37People v. Rojo, supra note 33.
38People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018); People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 231383, March 7, 2018, 858 SCRA 94, 104; People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947, 959 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018).
39People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, 867 SCRA 548, 563, citing People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014).
40People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 447-448 (2018).
41 The criminal acts subject of this case occurred prior to the effectivity of Republic Act No. 10640 which took effect on July 23, 2014.
42 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"
43 R.A. No. 9165, Section 21 (2).
44 R.A. No. 9165, Section 21 (3).
45 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 9.
46 TSN dated December 9, 2014, p. 6.
47 TSN dated December 9, 2014, p. 13.
48 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 13.
49 TSN dated December 9, 2014, p. 7.
50 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 11.
51 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 12; TSN dated December 9, 2014, p. 7.
52 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 13.
53 Records (Criminal Case No. IR-10559), p. 12.
54 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 14.
55 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 14; Records (Criminal Case No. IR-10559), pp. 124-125.
56 TSN dated February 17, 2015.
57 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 15.
58 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 16.
59 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 16.
60 TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 17.
61 Records (Criminal Case No. IR-10559), p. 17.
62 TSN dated January 19, 2015.
63 TSN dated August 22, 2014, p. 4.
64 TSN dated August 22, 2014, p. 5.
65 TSN dated August 22, 2014, p. 5.
66 TSN dated August 22, 2014, pp. 5-6.
67 TSN dated August 22, 2014, pp. 3, 7.
68 TSN dated August 22, 2014, p. 8.
69 Brief for the Accused-Appellant, p. 12; CA rollo, p. 49.
70 Id., citing TSN dated October 20, 2014, p. 9.
71 Id.
72People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416 (2009).
73Castro v. People, 597 Phil. 722 (2009).
74Quinicot v. People, supra note 35.
75People v. Luna, 828 Phil. 671, 688 (2018).
76People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024 (2012).
77People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 93 (2014).
78 Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, Sec. 21 (a).
79 See Dela Cruz v. People, 739 Phil. 578 (2014).
80 TSN dated August 22, 2014, p. 8.
81 TSN dated August 22, 2014, pp. 12-13.
82 R.A. No. 9165, Art. I, Sec. 3 (hh).
83 Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, Art. I, Sec. 3 (pp).
84See Dangerous Drugs Board, Board Regulation No. 2, series of 2003, "Implementing Rules and Regulations Governing Accreditation of Drug Testing Laboratories in the Philippines."
85 R.A. No. 9165, Art. I, Sec. 3 (f).
86 Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, Art. I, Sec. 3 (i).
87 Records (Criminal Case No. IR-10614), p. 8.
88 R.A. No. 9165, Sec. 38.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary