FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 243796, September 08, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ROWENA BUNIEL Y RAMOS AND ROWENA SIMBULAN Y ENCARNADO, Accused,
ROWENA BUNIEL Y RAMOS, Accused-Appellant.
R E S O L U T I O N
LOPEZ, J.:
For consideration of this Court is the Decision1 dated May 31, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08192, which affirmed in toto the Joint Decision2 dated March 16, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13 of the City of Manila, in Criminal Case Nos. 12-291642 and 12-291643, finding the accused-appellant Rowena Buniel y Ramos (in Criminal Case No. 12-291642) guilty of violation of Section 5,3 Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165.4chanrobleslaw
Criminal Case No. 12-291642
Illegal sale of dangerous drugs
The undersigned accuses ROWENA BUNIEL y RAMOS (a) "WENG" of a violation of Section 5, Article II [RA No.] 9165, committed as follows:
That on or about May 30, 2012 in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, 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 marked as "TK" containing ZERO POINT ONE ZERO EIVE (0.105) gram of white crystalline substance known as "shabu", which after a qualitative examination gave positive result to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5 (Emphasis in the original.)
Criminal Case No. 12-291643
Illegal possession of dangerous drugs
The undersigned accuses ROWENA SIMBULAN y ENCARNADO of a violation of Section 11(3), Article II, [RA No.] 9165. committed as follows:
That on or about May 30, 2012, in the City of Manila Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession and under her custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "TK1" containing ZERO POINT ONE FOUR ZERO (0.140) gram of white crystalline substance commonly known as "shabu", which after a qualitative examination gave positive result to the test for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6 (Emphasis in the original.)
(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.
(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, 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;
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. Umipang, 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 noncompliance, 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: citation omitted.)
The prosecution and the defense also stipulated on the following as regards PCI Elisa G. Reyes and her testimony:
2.) On May 30, 2012, PCI Elisa G. Reyes received from PO3 Archie Bernabe a letter request for laboratory examination dated May 30, 2012 x x x requesting for the conduct of laboratory examination on two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings TK and TK1 already marked as Exhibits B-1 to "B-2"; 3.) Upon receipt of the letter request for laboratory examination as well as the specimens. PCI Reyes conducted a laboratory examination; x x x x 6. ) PCI Elisa G. Reyes will be able to identify the request for laboratory examination, chemistry report, and the specimens. 7. ) Due execution, existence, and authenticity of the documents i.e. request for laboratory examination and the chemistry report. 8. ) PCI Reyes presented the specimens as well as the request for laboratory examination to the prosecutor and to the defense counsel and were turned over to the prosecution for safekeeping purposes and were shown to the defense counsel and; 9. ) PCI Reyes has no personal knowledge with regard to the actual source of the specimens.76
Endnotes:
* Per raffle dated June 29, 2020.
1Rollo, pp. 2-27; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Victoria Isabel A. Paredes. See also CA rollo, pp. 112-136.
2 CA rollo, pp. 58-65; penned by Judge Emilio Rodolfo Y. Legaspi III. See also records, pp. 209-217.
3 SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drags and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty x x x 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.
4 An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425. Otherwise Known as The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, As Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, And For Other Purposes, June 7, 2002.
5 Records, p. 2.
6Id. at 3.
7Id. at 1-3.
8Id. at 50, 51; and pp. 52 and 54.
9Id. at 74-76.
10Id. at 115-116.
11Id. at 120-121.
12Id.
13Id. at 139-143.
14Id. at 127-128.
15 TSN, January 17, 2013. p. 5. See also Prosecution's Exhibits, pp. 5-6.
16 Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 5.
17Id. at 5-6.
18 TSN, January 17, 2013, pp. 6.
19 Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 16.
20 TSN, January 17, 2013, pp. 6-7.
21 Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 11.
22Id. at 12.
23 TSN, January 17, 2013, p. 7.
24Id. at 4-5, 9. See also records, pp. 120-121; p. 139.
25Id. at 9-10.
26Id. at 10.
27Id.
28Id. at 10-11.
29Id. at 11-12.
30Id. at 12-13.
31Id. at 13.
32Id. at 13-14.
33Id. at 14.
34Id. at 14-15.
35Id. at 16.
36Id. at 16-17.
37Id. at 17.
38Id. at 19.
39 Records, pp. 127-128.
40 TSN, September 13, 2013. p, 6. See also Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 14.
41Id. at 7.
42 Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 13, Receipt of Property/Evidence Seized.
43Id. at 14.
44 TSN, September 13, 2013, pp. 12-13. See also records, pp. 115-116; and Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 15.
45 Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 4.
46Id. at 1.
47Id. at 7-8.
48 TSN, September 13, 2013, pp. 7, 12. See also records, pp. 74-76; pp. 115-116, Order; and Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 14.
49 Records, pp. 115-116. See also Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 1.
50Id. at 74-76.
51Id.; see also Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 2.
52 Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 2.
53 Records, p. 75; Minutes dated November 29, 2013, p. 114.
54 TSN, September 8, 2015, pp. 3-11.
55 CA rollo, p. 64. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:Criminal Case No. 12-291642WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court finds the accused ROWENA BUNIEL y RAMOS GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as principal for violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (for pushing shabu) as charged and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a Fine in the amount of P500,000.00.In Criminal Case No. 12-291643WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt, this Court finds accused ROWENA SIMBULAN y ENCARNADO NOT GUILTY.
The plastic sachets of shabu are ordered confiscated in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance with law.
This Court orders the immediate release from detention of ROWENA SIMBULAN y ENCARNADO unless she is held for a lawful cause.
Issue a mittimus order committing ROWENA BUNIEL y RAMOS to the Correctional Institution for Women for service of sentence.
Send copies of this Decision to the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), to the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and to the Director of the Manila Police District (EPD).
SO ORDERED. (Underscoring in the original.)
56 CA rollo, pp. 15-16; records, pp. 220-221.
57 Rollo, p. 27. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the trial court's Decision dated March 16, 2016 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
58 Rollo, pp. 28-29.
59Id. at 33; id. at 39.
60People of the Philippines v. Suarez, G.R. No. 223141, June 6, 2018, 865 SCRA 281, 290.
61Id.
62 RA No. 10640 took effect on July 23, 2014. See OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015.
63 Under Section 21, Article II, RA No. 9165, as amended by RA No. 10640, 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. See also People v. Bangalan G.R. No. 232249, September 3, 2018, 878 SCRA 533, where the Supreme Court clarified that the inventory and photography shall be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (1) if prior to the amendment of RA No. 9165 by RA No. 10640, "a representative from the media AND the Department of Justice, and any elected public official"; or (b) if after the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by RA No. 10640, "an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service OR the media." (Emphasis and underscoring in the original.)
64People v. Dela Cruz, 591 Phil. 259, 271 (2008); People v. Nazareno, 559 Phil. 387 (2007); and People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458 (2007).
65People v. Gadiana, 644 Phil. 686, 694 (2010).
66 G.R. No. 233744, February 28, 2018, 857 SCRA 175, quoted in People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
67 See People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; and People v. Maralit, G.R. No. 232381, August 1, 2018.
68 G.R. No. 245391, September 11, 2019.
69 G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
70 Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 15.
71 Records, p. 127.
72 Records, pp. 127-128.
73 Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 13.
74 TSN, January 17, 2013, p. 6.
ATTY. DELOS SANTOS:
Q: There is [sic] no representative from the DOJ who witness [sic] the markings?
A: None Sir.
Q: How about an elected Brgy. Official?
A: Also none Sir. (Emphasis supplied.)
75 Prosecution's Exhibits, p. 1.
76 Records, p. 75.
77 654 Phil. 461 (2011), cited in People v. Ambrosio, G.R. No. 234051, November 27, 2019.
78Id. at 466.
79 See Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
80People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2019.
81People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226, 244 (2011).