FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 246999, July 28, 2020
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. MARVIN BALBAREZ Y HERNANDEZ, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
LOPEZ, J.:
The conviction of Marvin Balbarez for illegal possession of dangerous drugs is the subject of review in this appeal assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision1 dated July 11, 2018 in CA-G.R.-HC No. 09558, which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
[Criminal Case No. 18225-2011-C]Marvin denied the accusations and claimed he was driving his tricycle, with two passengers on board, when PO1 Ramos flagged him down. Afterward, PO1 Ramos brought them to the police station and were ordered to strip their clothes. Later, the passengers were allowed to go home while he was left incarcerated.8
That on or about 23 April 2011, in the Municipality of Los Baños, Province of Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell and deliver one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.02 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding authority of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
[Criminal Case No. 18228-2011-C]
That on or about 23 April 2011, in the Municipality of Los Baños, Province of Laguna, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously possess two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.04 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, without the corresponding authority of law.
CONTRARY TO LAW.7
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Decision dated May 30, 2016 rendered by the Regional Trial Court in Calamba City Laguna, Branch 36 in Criminal Case No. 18228-2011-C for Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is AFFIRMED. For failure to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the disposition in the aforesaid Decision pertaining to Criminal Case No. 18225-2011-C is REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and accused-appellant is ACQUITTED of the said charge.
SO ORDERED.11 (Emphasis in the original.)
[Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA 9165]In earlier cases, this Court ruled that the deviation from the standard procedure in Section 21 dismally compromises the evidence, unless (1) such non-compliance was under justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team.16 Later, we emphasized the importance of the presence of the three insulating witnesses during the physical inventory and the photograph of the seized items.17 In People v. Lim,18 it was explained that in case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons for their absence, but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance, thus:cralawred
(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.
[Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165]
(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: x x x 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; (Emphases and italics supplied.)
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umpiang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time - beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest - to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. (Emphasis in the original.)Indeed, the presence of the insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs.19 In People v. Caray20 we ruled that the corpus delicti cannot be deemed preserved absent any acceptable explanation for the deviation from the procedural requirements of the chain of custody rule. Similarly, in Matabilas v. People,21 sheer statements of unavailability of the insulating witnesses, without actual serious attempt to contact them, cannot justify non-compliance.
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 4-25; penned by Associate Justice Ramon A. Cruz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and Pablito A. Perez.
2 CA rollo, p. 84.
3Id. at 85.
4Id. at 86.
5 See records, p. 12.
6Id. at 1; rollo, p. 5.
7Rollo, p. 5.
8 CA rollo, p. 41.
9Id. at 59-69.
10Rollo, pp. 4-24.
11Id. at 23-24.
12 See also People v. Cariño, G.R. No. 233336, January 14, 2019, 890 SCRA 346; People v. Crispo, et al, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018); People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 465 (2018); People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947, 959 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018); People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042 (2018); and People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 736 (2018); People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009).
13People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
14People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
15 RA No. 10640 took effect on July 23, 2014. See OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015. As amended, it is now mandated that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
16People v. De la Cruz, 591 Phil. 259,272 (2008), citing People v. Orteza, 555 Phil. 700 (2007); People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 469-470 (2007); People v. Nazareno, 559 Phil. 387, 392 (2007).
17People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019.
18 G.R. No. 23 1989, September 4, 2018.
19People v. Floras, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, supra note 17; and People v. Maralit y Casilang, G.R. No. 232381, August 1, 2018.
20 G.R. No. 245391, September 11, 2019.
21 G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
22 654 Phil. 461 (2011).
23 TSN, January 18, 2012, p. 5.