SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 243390, October 05, 2020
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALEX BALUYOT Y BIRANDA, Accused-Appellant.
D E C I S I O N
HERNANDO, J.:
On appeal is the October 5, 2017 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07736, which denied accused-appellant Alex Baluyot y Biranda's (Alex) appeal from the August 27, 2015 Consolidated Decision2 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City (RTC). The Consolidated Decision of the trial court found Alex guilty in Criminal Case No. 89534 for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 91653 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
That on or about the 5th day of March, 2013 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver to IO1 RONNEL E. MOLINA, who posed as buyer, One (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "EXH A REM 03/5/2013" containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 0.0372 gram which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, and knowing the same to be such.On the same date, a second Information34 was tiled against Alex for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 or Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Criminal Case No. 89535 in the same RTC. It alleges:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
Contrary to Law.33chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
That on or about the 5th day of March, 2013 in Caloocan City, Metro Manila and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control Two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu) weighing 4.6000 grams & 3.3021 grams, which when subjected for laboratory examination gave POSITIVE result to the tests for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in gross violation of the above-cited law.On April 5, 2013, Alex was arraigned and he pleaded not guilty to both charges.36 On August 1, 2013, pre-trial was held.37 Trial followed.
Contrary to Law.35chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:Alex elevated his case to the CA by filing a notice of appeal,50 in Criminal Case No. 89534 before the RTC.
In Criminal Case No. 89534, the Court finds Accused ALEX BALUYOT y BIRANDA guilty of the offense of [v]iolation of Section 5, Article II, RA 9165, and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay the Fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 89535, the Court finds Accused ALEX BALUYOT y BIRANDA not guilty of the offense of [v]iolation of Section 11, Article II, RA 9165 for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt of the said offense.
The Jail Warden of Caloocan City is hereby directed to transfer the custody of the said accused to National Bilibid Prison, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for the service of his sentence in Criminal Case No. 89534, and for said Jail Warden to forthwith submit a written report of his compliance, or reason for non-compliance herewith.
The drugs subject matter of these cases are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government. In this regard, the Branch Clerk of Court of this Sala is hereby directed to turn over said specimen to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for their immediate destruction in accordance with law.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
SO ORDERED.49chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Consolidated Decision dated August 27, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 127, Caloocan City, in Criminal Case No. 89534, is MODIFIED in that appellant Alex Baluyot y Biranda shall be INELIGIBLE for parole. Except as modified herein, the Consolidated Decision in Criminal Case No. 89534, STANDS.chanroblesvirtualawlibraryAggrieved, Alex elevated his case before this Court.53 The parties opted not to file supplemental briefs with this Court and instead adopted their discussions in their briefs filed with the CA.54
SO ORDERED.52chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
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, 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.To successfully prosecute the offense of Sale of Illegal Drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the following elements must be present: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.57 In a buy-bust operation, the receipt by the poseur-buyer of the dangerous drug and the corresponding receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal sale of dangerous drugs.58 What matters is the proof that the sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus delicti, as evidence.59
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:chanroblesvirtualawlibrarySection 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 (IRR of RA 9165) also provides for the same requirements, the pertinent portion of which reads: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;
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:chanroblesvirtualawlibraryThe foregoing provisions provide that the marking, photographing, and inventory of the seized items must be done immediately after seizure and confiscation of the items in the presence of three witnesses-a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected official.62 The purpose of this rule is to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs in order to fully remove doubts as to its identity.63(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;61chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Under the original provision of Section 21, after seizure and confiscation of the drugs, the apprehending team was required to immediately conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the same 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) a representative from the media and (3) the DOJ, and (4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It is assumed that the presence of these three persons will guarantee "against planting of evidence and frame up," i.e., they are "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." (Emphases supplied)In addition, the case of People v. Mendoza71 mentions:chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
The consequences of the failure of the arresting lawmen to comply with the requirements of Section 21 (1), supra, were dire as far as the Prosecution was concerned. Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the Department of Justice, or any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the sachets of shabu, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the sachets of shabu that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. Indeed, the insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody.72chanRoblesvirtualLawlibraryThis requirement seeks to avoid frame ups or wrongful arrests of persons suspected to be violators of the law. The presence of the three witnesses assures that the officers conducting the operation do not plant evidence on the person or effects of the accused. The prosecution must allege and prove that at the time of the marking, photographing, and inventory of the evidence, the three witnesses were present.
(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[d] futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time 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.74 (Emphasis supplied)The prosecution must show that the apprehending officers employed earnest efforts in procuring the attendance of witnesses for the inventory of the items seized during the buy-bust operation.75 Mere statements of unavailability of the witnesses given by the apprehending officers are not justifiable reasons for non-compliance with the requirement.76 This is because the apprehending officers usually have sufficient time, from the moment they received information about the alleged illegal activities until the time of the arrest, to prepare for the buy-bust operation that necessarily includes the procurement of three (3) witnesses.77 If one of the individuals invited refuses to participate as witness, the apprehending officers can still invite another individual to become a witness.
Endnotes:
1 CA rollo, pp. 143-154. Penned by Associate Justice Victoria Isabel A. Paredes and concurred in by Associate Justices Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now retired Member of this Court) and Renato C. Francisco.
2 Record, pp. 161-182. Penned by Judge Victoriano B. Cabanos.
3 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 Fund s Therefor, and for Other Purposes.
4 TSN, September 20, 2013, pp. 5-7.
5 Authority to Operate Outside Jurisdiction dated March 4, 2013, Certificate of Coordination dated March 5, 2013, Authority to Operate Outside Own Jurisdiction dated March 5, 2013, Authority to Operate dated March 5, 2013, and Pre-Operation Report dated March 5, 2013, as Exhibits "S" to "W," folder of exhibits, pp. 18-22.
6 TSN, September 20, 2013, pp. 10-12.
7 Id.
8 Id. at 12-13; TSN, September 11, 2014, pp. 11-12.
9 Id.
10 TSN, September 20, 2013, p. 15.
11 Id. at 15-19.
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 22-24.
15 Id.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id. at 24-25.
19 Id.
20 Id. at 24-26; TSN, September 11, 2014, pp. 8-10.
21 TSN, September 20, 2013, p. 26; TSN, September 11, 2014, p. 10.
22 TSN, September 11, 2014, pp. 11-12.
23 TSN, September 20, 2013, p. 26.
24 TSN, September 11, 2014, p. 13.
25 TSN, September 20, 2013, pp. 31-33, 38-39.
26 Id. at 48.
27 Id. at 47; Inventory Receipt March 5, 2013 as Exhibit "L," folder of exhibits, p. 7.
28 Request for Drug Test dated March 6, 2013, and Request for Physical/Medical Examination dated March 6, 2013, as Exhibits "H" and "J," folder of exhibits, pp. 3, 5.
29 TSN, August 1, 2013, p. 6.
30 Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DD013-061 dated March 6, 2013 as Exhibit "B," folder of exhibits, p. 2.
31 Chemistry Report No. PDEA-DT013-085 dated March 6, 2013 as Exhibit "I," folder of exhibits, p. 4.
32 Records, p. 2; docketed as Criminal Case No. 89534.
33 Id.
34 Id. at 30; docketed as Criminal Case No. 89535.
35 Id.
36 Certificate of Arraignment, and Order, both dated April 5, 2013.
37 Pre-Trial Order dated August 1, 2013.
38 TSN, December 5, 2014, p. 3.
39 Id. at 4.
40 Id.
41 Id. at 4-5.
42 Id. at 5.
43 Id.
44 Id. at 5-6.
45 Id. at 8.
46 Id.
47Records, pp. 161-182.
48 Id.
49 Id. at 181-182.
50 Id. at 186; Notice of Appeal dated September 4, 2015.
51 CA rollo, pp. 143-154.
52 Id. at 153.
53 Id. at 176-179; Notice of Appeal dated October 26, 2017.
54Rollo, pp. 24-33; Manifestation of Plaintiff-Appellee dated May 27, 2019 and Manifestation of Accused-Appellant dated May 30, 2019.
55 CA rollo, pp. 57-76; Brief for the Accused-Appellant dated March 29, 2016.
56 Id. at 118-134; Brief for the Appellee dated July 29, 2016.
57People v. Magalong, G.R. No. 231838, March 4, 2019 citing People v. Sic-Open, 795 Phil. 859, 869-870 (2016); People v. Eda, 793 Phil. 885, 896 (2016); People v. Amaro, 786 Phil. 139, 146-147 (2016); and People v. Ros, 758 Phil. 142, 159 (2015).
58People v. Addin, G.R. No. 223682, October 9, 2019 citing People v. Magalong, supra.
59People v. Magalong, supra.
60 Republic Act No. 10640, 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", Section 1 (2014).
61 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165. Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," Sec. 21, Art. 11 (2002).
62 See People v. Addin, supra note 58.
63 See People v. Caramat, G.R. No. 231366, December 11, 2019, citing People v. Alboka, G.R. No. 212195, February 21, 2018.
64 811 Phil. 844 (2017).
65 Id. at 859, citing People v. Pavia, 750 Phil. 871 (2015).
66 Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," Sec. 21, Art. II (2002).
67 TSN, September 20, 2013, pp. 31-33, 38-39.
68 Id.
69 CA rollo, p. 152; records, p. 174.
70 G.R. No. 219953, April 23, 2018, citing People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356 (2017).
71 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
72 Id. at 764.
73 G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
74 Id. citing People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018.
75People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 233744, February 28, 2018.
76 Id.
77 Id.
78 Pictures During Inventory as Exhibits "P-1" and "P-2," folder of exhibits, pp. 12-13; Joint Affidavit of Poseur Buyer and Arresting Officer dated March 6, 2013 as Exhibit "R," folder of exhibits, pp. 15-17; TSN, September 20, 2013, pp. 51-52.
79 TSN, September 20, 2013, p. 68.
80People v. Addin, supra note 58.
81 Id.
82 "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."
83 RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Section 2.cralawredlibrary