FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 224587, July 28, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. SAMMY YUSOP Y MUHAMMAD, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
REYES, J. JR., J.:
On ordinary Appeal1 are the March 27, 2015 Decision2 and the February 11, 2016 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Cagayan De Oro City (CDO) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01002-MTN affirming in toto the February 9, 2012 Judgment4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of CDO, Branch 25 in Criminal Case No. 2011-1109 convicting accused-appellant Sammy Yusop y Muhammad (Yusop) 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 21st day of November 2011, at around 8:30 o'clock in the evening, more or less, at Upper Carmen, [CDO], Province of Misamis Oriental, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, in conspiracy with a certain alyas [sic] LEA LEDESMA, without any legal authority nor corresponding license or prescription to pass, transport, deliver or distribute any dangerous drug, then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously pass, deliver, transport or distribute thru the LBC courier service two (2) pieces of sealed ziplocked big transparent plastic cellophane containing crystalline substance with markings "RECOVERED 01 RDC 11/21/2011 with signature VCMO 11/21/2011 with initial signature" with a net weight of 736.98 grams, and "RECOVERED 01 RDC 11/21/2011 with signature VCMO 11/21/2011 with initial signature" with a net weight of 744.48 or a total weight of 1,481.46 grams, more or less, wherein after a physical, qualitative, and confirmatory tests conducted by an authorized and expert forensic chemist, the same yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, accused well-knowing that the substance recovered from him was a dangerous drug.Upon arraignment, Yusop pleaded not guilty,6 thence, trial ensued.
Contrary to law.
WHEREFORE, [w]e DISMISS the appeal. We AFFIRM in toto the [Judgment] of the [RTC] of [CDO], Branch 25, promulgated on Febaiary 09,The CA held that on the basis of the definite information regarding the subject package and the identity of its consignee, Yusop was lawfully arrested. The CA likewise found Yusop's defense of denial as incredible given the fact that upon confrontation with the PDEA agents, instead of standing his ground like an innocent person, Yusop threw away the subject package and attempted to escape.
2012.
SO ORDERED.18cralawlawlibrary
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:In the case at bench, both the RTC and the CA concluded that, based on the established facts, the present case falls within paragraph (b) of the above-quoted provision. We agree.
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Intelligence Agent 1 Rodolfo S. Dela Cerna, Jr. (IA1 Dela Cerna) likewise testified in this wise: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
Q : Now, before conducting the operation, did it not occur to your mind to secure a search warrant?x x x x A : We had a plan to apply for a Search Warrant, [b]ut, because of the exigency and emergency circumstances, we cannot also afford the safety of our agents. We don't have the luxury of time; [w]e have very few and limited personnel x x x. We cannot actually sacrifice our agents and the subject consignee may pick up the package anytime x x x.Q : Do you mean to tell us that you did not know the exact time as to when the accused will pick up the package? A: Yes, Sir.x x x x Q : Could you not have divided the number of your personnel into two (2) groups? One group will be applying for a Search Warrant and the other group will conduct the operation?A: We cannot sacrifice our agents and as we know, it involves large quantity of shabu and huge amount. And, we believed that he was not alone. We believed he was armed and with armed men. We considered that one. 25
It is thus clear that the PDEA agents intended to obtain a search warrant but, in the end, decided not to because time was evidently of the essence. In the past, the Court said that we should not expect too much of an ordinaiy policeman considering that oftentimes, he has no opportunity to make proper investigation but must act in haste on his own belief to prevent the escape of the criminal.27 Hence, the Court concurs with the common findings of the courts a quo that the PDEA agents were justified in dispensing with the procurement of a warrant due to the exigency, the risks, and the quantity of the dangerous drugs involved in the operation.
Q : xxx Who talked about securing a Search Warrant?A: We talked about it.Q : And, did you agree to secure and apply for a Search Warrant ?A : We did not.Q: Why?A : Because of the urgency of the matter and also because of our limited personnel.Q: When you speak of because of the urgency of the matter, can you elaborate that to us?A : We do not exactly know as to when the consignee will pick up thepackage.Q: You mean to tell us that on that following day, you do not know the specific time as to when the accused will pick up the package?A : Yes, Sir.xxxx Q : Now, when you said because of the limited number of your operatives; What does it mean and can you elaborate it?
A : We consider the consignee to arrive not alone and probably armed. So, we could not sacrifice the safety of our men by pulling out from our already depleted personnel26
SEC. 13. Search incident to a lawful arrest. — A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant.Here, as previously discussed, the warrantless arrest of Yusop was valid. It follows, therefore, that the search and seizure that followed Yusop's arrest which yielded more than one kilogram of shabu was likewise valid and admissible as evidence.
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:In simpler terms, the prevailing law then requires that: (1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventoiy 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 requii'ed to sign the copies of the inventoiy and be given a copy of the same.30 In the case of Lescano v. People,31 the Court held that non-compliance with the chain of custody rule is tantamount to failure in establishing identity of the corpus delicti which is an essential element of the offense and engenders the acquittal of an accused.
(l)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 inventoiy 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 Laboratoiy 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 daigs 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.
The presence of only two out of the three required insulating witnesses was corroborated by 102 Liezel Baldovino (102 Baldovino): ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
x x x x Q : Alright. What happened after you have subdued [Yusop]? A : 1A1 Dela Cema asked him what was inside the package. At first, he was reluctant. But, later on, he cooperated. x x x x Q : Can you tell us what [Yusop] said? A : That there is shabu inside. Q : Do you mean to tell us that [Yusop] told IA1 Dela Cema that what was contained inside the package [was] shabu? A: Yes, Sir.
Q : After that, what happened next? A : After that, we called Councilor [Abaday] to witness the opening of the package and the Media was already there. Q : What Media are you referring to? A: ABS-CBN. Q : Why was the ABS-CBN already there? A: On the first day of operation, the Camera Man was with us and the Anchorman was within the vicinity of SM. x x x x Q : You said you made an inventoiy; Where did you actually make the inventoiy? A : At the crime scene. x x x x Q : Okay. So, after you made the inventoiy, what happened next? A: After the inventoiy, we let Councilor [Abaday] and [Bolivar] of the ABS-CBN signed [sic] the inventoiy. x x x32
It was also apparent in the testimony of IA1 Dela Cerna: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
x x x x Q: For emphasis purposes, Madam Witness, do you mean to tell us that these pictures were taken by you during the confiscation of evidence and inventory of the evidence?A: Yes, Sir.Q : You said that you were taking photographs of the evidence confiscated during the inventory. Can you tell us who were present during the inventory?A: The representative of the media from ABS-CBN and Councilor [Abaday] of the City Council.33x x x x Q: You said you made an inventory; Where did you actually make the inventory?A : At the crime scene
Equally telling is the Inventoiy35 sheet which contains the signatures of Councilor Abaday and media representative Bolivar only.
Q : And, upon hearing that there was [shabu] inside, what did you do if any?A : I called up ABS-CBN and Councilor [Abaday].Q : Why did you call up ABS-CBN and Councilor Abaday?A : I wanted them to witness the opening of the package and to witness the inventory.x x x x Q : Now, Mr. Witness, you said that you inventoried the items confiscated; Kindly tell us if thai inventory was reduced into writing?A : Yes, Sir. It was.Q : If that Inventory of that confiscated items is shown to you; Will you be able to recognize it?
A : Yes, Sir.x x x x Q : By the way, Mr. Witness, I forgot to ask you if the representative of the ABS-CBN [Bolivar] and Councilor [Abaday] have affixed their signatures on your written inventory, [Did] they [sign] your written inventory?A: Yes, Sir.34
Endnotes:
1See Notice of Appeal dated March 8, 2016; CA rollo, pp. 186- i 87.
2 Penned by Associate Justice Oscar V. Badelles, with Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Rafael Antonio ML Santos, concurring; id. at 149-162.
3 Id. at 181-182.
4 Penned by Judge Arthur L. Abundiente; records, pp. 160-183.
5 Id. at 3.
6See Certificate of Arraignment dated December 13. 2011; id. at 55.
7 Id. at 105.
8 Id. at 106.
9 Id.
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 Id. at 107.
13 Id.
14 Id.
15 The two pieces of sealed transparent plastic cellophane each containing crystalline substance were marked "RECOVERED 01 RDC ! 1/21/2011 with signature VCMO 11/21/2011 with initial signature" with a net weight of 736 98 grams, and "RECOVERED 01 RDC I 1/21/201 ! with signature VCMO 11/21/20! I with initial signature" with a net weight of 744.48 grams; See also Inventory and Pictures, id. at 15-24.
16 Id.
17 See Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DD-2011-019; id. at 13.
18 CA rollo, p. 161.
19See Resolution dated July 7, 2016, rollo, pp. 21 -22.
20 Article III, Section 2.
21 A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC. October 3, 2000.
22People v Comprado, G.R. No. 213225, April 4, 2018; People v. Gardon-Mentay, G.R. No. 223 140, September 4, 2019.
23 746 Phil. 301 (2014).
24 G.R. No. 238659, June 3, 2019.
25 TSN, January 16, 2012, pp. 22-23.
26 TSN, January 17,2012, pp. 5-6.
27Pestiloa v. Generoso, supra note 23.
28Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 238141, July 1, 2019.
29People v. Binasing, G.R. No. 221439, July 4. 2018.
30People v Manansala, G.R. No. 229509, July 3, 2019.
31 778 Phil. 460(2016).
32 TSN. January 16, 2012. pp. 11 and 15.
33 TSN (IO1 Liezel Baldovino), January 17, 2012, p. 15.
34 TSN (1A1 Rodolfo S. Dela Cerna, Jr.). January 17. 2012. pp. 10, 15. and 16.
35 Records, p. 15.
36People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018.
37People v. Dumagay. G.R. No. 216753, February 7, 2018.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary