SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. JOHNNY ARELLAGA Y SABADO ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
Accused-appellant Johnny Arellaga y Sabado (appellant) assails the September 30, 2016 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07604 which affirmed the June 15, 2015 Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 2, in Criminal Case Nos. 13-297289 and 13-297290 finding him guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 91653 for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, respectively.
In Criminal Case No. 13-297289, appellant was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 allegedly committed as follows: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
That on or about May 23, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully[,] and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control three (3) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing white crystalline substance commonly known as "shabu" with the following markings and recorded net weights:In Criminal Case No. 13-297290, appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 allegedly committed as follows: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
"JSA-1" ZERO POINT ZERO THREE EIGHT (0.038) gram "JSA-2" ZERO POINT ZERO ONE NINE (0.019) gram "JSA-3"- ZERO POINT ZERO THREE THREE (0.033) gram
or with a total net weight of ZERO POINT ZERO NINE ZERO (0.090) gram, which after qualitative examination gave positive results to the tests for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.4cralawlawlibrary
That on or about May 23, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver, transport, or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully[,] and knowingly sell or offer for sale to a police officer/poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "JSA" containing ZERO POINT ZERO ONE EIGHT (0.018) gram of white crystalline substance commonly known as "shabu," which after qualitative examination gave positive results to the tests for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.Appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges during the arraignment.6
Contrary to law.5cralawlawlibrary
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows, to wit:Aggrieved by the RTC's Decision, appellant appealed to the CA.
In Crim. Case No. 13-297289, finding accused JHONNY ARELLAGA y SABADO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 17 years and 4 months as maximum, and to pay a fine of 300,000.00 and
In Crirn. Case No. 13-297290, finding accused JOHNNY ARELLAGA y SABADO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00.
The specimens are 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 specimens to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in accordance with the law and rules.
SO ORDERED.8cralawlawlibrary
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the 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. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be same drugs seized from the accused.13cralawlawlibraryWith regard to the charge for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: "(1) the 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."14
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 Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) further elaborate on the proper procedure to be followed in Section 21(a), Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It provides: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
(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; (Emphasis supplied)
(a) The apprehending office/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;In this case, the Court finds that the buy-bust team failed to establish the presence of the three required witnesses at the time of the inventory and photograph taking of the drugs. Neither was it shown that there were justifiable grounds for their absence. As PO3 Baladjay himself testified: ChanRoblesVirtualawlibrary
[ATTY. GONZALES]: Likewise, you have no personal knowledge as to the ultimate source of the evidences which were submitted to you during the investigation, am I correct?The Court has held that the presence of the required number of witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory, is mandatory, and that their presence serves an essential purpose.19 In the present case, the Inventory of Property / Seized [Evidence]20 shows that there was only one (1) witness, a certain Rene Crisostomo of the MPD Press Corp.
[PO3 BALADJAY]: Yes, ma'am.
Q: In fact, you could not remember how many items, at this time, am I correct?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Mr. Witness, you earlier said that the inventory was merely submitted to you, correct?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: It was not done in your office?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And when it was done, you were not present?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: And you were not the one who wrote the entries in that receipt form?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: This document was merely submitted to you together with the evidences? A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Mr. Witness, likewise, when you were conducting the investigation of this accused, was there any presence of media man at that particular time?
A: None, ma'am.
Q: Likewise, was there any presence of D.O.J. representative?
A: None, ma'am.
Q: How about counsel for the accused, was he assisted by counsel when he was being investigated?
A: None, ma'am.18cralawlawlibrary
The presence of the three witnesses must be seemed not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which 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 frame-up 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.In this case, there was only one witness during the most crucial stage of the buy-bust operation: the apprehension and inventory. This clearly falls short of what is required by Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
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 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."
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) the constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.The IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides for a saving clause to ensure that not every non-compliance with the procedure for the preservation of the chain of custody will prejudice the prosecution's case against the accused. For the saving clause to apply, however, the following must be present: (1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.
Endnotes:
1 CA rollo, pp. 108-125; penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon and concurred in by Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela.
2 Records, pp. 87-94, penned by Presiding Judge Sarah Alma M. Lim.
3 Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
4 Records, p. 2.
5 Id. at 3.
6 Id. at 23.
7 Id. at 92.
8 Id. at 94.
9 CA rollo, p. 119.
10 Id
11 Id. at 130.
12 Brief for Accused-Appellant, id. at 20-41.
13People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
14Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 686 Phil. 137, 148 (2012).
15People v. Adrid, 705 Phil. 654, 670 (2013).
16Fajardo v. People, 691 Phil. 752, 758-759 (2012).
17 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."
18 TSN, October 2, 2013, p. 9.
19People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 234151, December 5, 2018.
20 Records, p. 12.
21 G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018.
22 G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary