THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 242017. October 06, 2021
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JR S. MACARONA AND MELOY M. MACARONA, Accused-Appellants.
D E C I S I O N
LEONEN, J.:
Probable cause, which justifies the conduct of a warrantless search and seizure, cannot be based exclusively on an initial tip relayed by a confidential informant. Rather, it must be premised on a myriad of suspicious circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious person to believe that a crime has been committed and the item sought is in the possession of the accused.1 Any alleged contraband seized pursuant to a warrantless search exclusively based on a solitary tip is inadmissible. In the absence of the corpus delicti, the accused must be acquitted.2chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
This resolves the Appeal3 filed by JR S. Macarona and Meloy M. Macarona, collectively referred to as the Macaronas, assailing the Decision4 and Resolution5 of the Court of Appeals that affirmed their conviction for violation of Section 56 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended.
The accusatory portion of the Information against the Macaronas reads:
chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
That on or about January 2, 2015 in the Municipality of Lupon, Province of Davao Oriental, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, mutually conspiring and confederating with each other, without authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, dispense, trade, distribute and transport in their possession Methamphetamine Hydrochloride also locally known as 'Shabu', with an estimated weight of 92.2303 grams, a dangerous drug, without proper license or permit from the authorities, to the damage and prejudice of the state. (Emphasis in the original)Upon arraignment, the Macaronas pleaded not guilty to the crime charged. After pre-trial, the trial on the merits ensued.8chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
CONTRARY TO LAW.7cralawredlibrary
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused JR S. Macarona and Meloy M. Macarona guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.Aggrieved, the Macaronas filed their Notice of Appeal.22 The Regional Trial Court gave due course to the appeal and forwarded the records to the Court of Appeals.23chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
They are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 each.
The four (4) sachets of shabu subject of this case [are] forfeited in favor of the Government and [are] ordered to be turned-over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for [their] appropriate disposition.
SO ORDERED.21cralawredlibrary
WHEREFORE, the assailed Judgment of the Regional Trial Court (11th Judicial Region, Branch 32) of Lupon, Davao Oriental, in Criminal Case No. 1754-15, finding the accused-appellants JR S. Macarona and Meloy S. Macarona guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Article 2, Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (RA9165) is AFFIRMED.The Macaronas filed a Motion for Reconsideration.36 However, the Court of Appeals denied the same.37chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 32 of Lupon, Davao Oriental, is directed to turn over the seized items to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED.35cralawredlibrary
"law enforcers cannot act solely on the basis of confidential or tipped information. A tip is still hearsay no matter how reliable it may be. It is not sufficient to constitute probable cause in the absence of any other circumstance that will arouse suspicion."Where the confiscated drug is excluded from evidence, the prosecution is left without corpus delicti. Therefore, "[a]ny discussion on whether a crime has been committed becomes an exercise in futility."51chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
....
Recently, the Court unequivocally declared in People v. Yanson (Yanson) that a solitary tip hardly suffices as probable cause that warrants the conduct of a warrantless intrusive search and seizure.
In Yanson, which involves an analogous factual milieu as in the instant case, "the Municipal Police Station of M'lang, North Cotabato received a radio message about a silver gray Isuzu pickup — with plate number 619 and carrying three (3) people — that was transporting marijuana from Pikit. The Chief of Police instructed the alert team to set up a checkpoint on the riverside police outpost along the road from Matalam to M'lang."
Afterwards, "[a]t around 9:30 a.m., the tipped vehicle reached the checkpoint and was stopped by the team of police officers on standby. The team leader asked the driver about inspecting the vehicle. The driver alighted and, at an officer's prodding, opened the pickup's hood. Two (2) sacks of marijuana were discovered beside the engine.
In the erudite ponencia of Associate Justice Marvic Mario Victor F. Leonen, the Court held that, in determining whether there is probable cause that warrants an extensive or intrusive warrantless searches of a moving vehicle, "bare suspicion is never enough. While probable cause does not demand moral certainty, or evidence sufficient to justify conviction, it requires the existence of 'a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged.'"
The Court explained that in prior cases wherein the Court validated warrantless searches and seizures on the basis of tipped information, "the seizures and arrests were not merely and exclusively based on the initial tips. Rather, they were prompted by other attendant circumstances. Whatever initial suspicion they had from being tipped was progressively heightened by other factors, such as the accused's failure to produce identifying documents, papers pertinent to the items they were carrying, or their display of suspicious behavior upon being approached." In such cases, the finding of probable cause was premised "on more than just the initial information relayed by assets. It was the confluence of initial tips and a myriad of other occurrences that ultimately sustained probable cause." However, the case of Yanson was markedly different from these other cases. Just as in the instant case, the police officers proceeded to effect a search, seizure, and arrest on the basis of a solitary tip[.]
....
In ruling that the sole reliance on tipped information, on its own, furnished by informants cannot produce probable cause, the Court held that "[e]xclusive reliance on information tipped by informants goes against the very nature of probable cause. A single hint hardly amounts to the existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent [person] to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched."
As correctly explained by the Court in Yanson, "[t]o maintain otherwise would be to sanction frivolity, opening the floodgates to unfounded searches, seizures, and arrests that may be initiated by sly informants."50cralawredlibrary
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. — ...In People v. Saragena,60 we explained that Section 21 of the Republic Act No. 9165 requires that:....
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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....
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon 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 drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.] (Emphases supplied)
the physical inventory and photograph of the seized item must be done in the presence of (a) the accused, the accused's representative, or the accused's counsel; (b) any elected public official; and (c) a representative of the Department of Justice's National Prosecution Service or a media practitioner. These three (3) persons required by law should sign the copies of the inventory of the seized item and be given a copy of the certificate of inventory. This insulates the buy-bust operation "from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity."61 (Citations omitted)In People v. Ferrer,62 we acquitted the accused because of the prosecution's failure to prove that the apprehending officers inventoried and took photographs of the seized items in the presence of the accused and that the accused signed and were furnished a copy of this inventory. We also considered the fact that the certificate of inventory was not signed by the accused, lending truth to the "probability that, in actuality, the inventory was never done in their presence."63chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Pursuant to Ferrer,66 that the accused did not sign the certificate of inventory further lends credence to accused-appellants' claim that the inventory was never done in their presence. As the Court of Appeals itself noted, "[n]o marking or inventory whatsoever was done at the checkpoint."67chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Q You mentioned that you [made] an inventory, are you referring to this? A Yes, sir. Q And... the second page was signed by the elected officials, Rañeses and Clapano? A Yes, sir.65
Endnotes:
* Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2839 dated September 16, 2021.
1 People v. Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020, [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc]; People v. Evardo, G.R. No. 234317, May 10, 2021, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
2 Const., art. III, secs. 2 and 3.
3 CA rollo, pp. 164-166.
4 Rollo, pp. 3-17. The March 27, 2018 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and Walter S. Ong of the Special Twenty-Third Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan De Oro City.
5 CA Rollo, pp. 158 - 159. The July 27, 2018 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Edgardo T. Lloren (Chairperson) and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and Walter S. Ong of the Special Twenty-Third Division, Court of Appeals, Cagayan De Oro City.
6 The relevant portion of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 reads:
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.
7 Rollo, p. 4.
8 Id. at 8.
9 CA Rollo, pp. 46-48.
10 Id. at 92.
11 Id. at 97.
12 Id. at 5.
13 Id.
14 Id. at 6.
15 Id. at 6-7.
16 Id. at 7.
17 CA Rollo, pp. 45-74. The December 27, 2016 Judgment docketed as Crim. Case No. 1754-15 was penned by Presiding Judge Emilio G. Dayanghirang, III of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Lupon, Davao Oriental.
18 Id. at 70.
19 Id. at 51-52, 54.
20 Id. at 71.
21 Id. at 73.
22 Id. at 6.
23 Id. at 8. The February 3, 2017 Order in Crim. Case No. 1754-15 was penned by Presiding Judge Emilio G. Dayanghirang III the Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Lupon, Davao Oriental.
24 Id. at 24-44.
25 Id. at 33.
26 Id. at 38.
27 Id. at 39.
28 Id. at 43.
29 Id. at 79-112
30 Id. at 101.
31 Id. at 91-92.
32 Id. at 111.
33 Rollo, pp. 3-17.
34 Id. at 13-14.
35 Id. at 16.
36 CA Rollo, pp. 138-146. Motion for Reconsideration dated April 25, 2018.
37 Id. at 159.
38 Rollo, pp. 18-19.
39 Id. at 20.
40 People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 591 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
41 People v. Yanson, G.R. No. 238453, July 31, 2019, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
42 Homar v. People, 768 Phil 195 (2015) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
43 CONST., art. III, secs. 2 and 3 provide:
SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Sec. 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation ofthis or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any puipose in any proceeding.
44 CONST., art. III, sec. 2.
45 CONST., art. III, secs. 2 and 3.
46 CONST., Art. III, Sec. 2 and RULES OF COURT, Rule 126, Sec. 4. David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 522 Phil. 705 ([Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, En Banc].
47 People v. Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020, [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc]; People v. Evardo, G.R. No. 234317, May 10, 2021, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]; People v. Yanson, G.R. No. 238453, July 31, 2019, < [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]. In People v Yanson, we recognized the following as exceptional circumstances when warrantless searches and seizures are permissible, namely:
1. warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2. seizure of evidence in plain view;
3. search of a moving vehicle;
4. consented warrantless search;
5. customs search;
6. stop and frisk; and
7. exigent and emergency circumstances.
48 People v. Aruta, 351 Phil. 868, 880 (1998). [Per J. Romero, Third Division].
49 People v. Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020, [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc], citing People v. Yanson, G.R. No. 238453, July 31, 2019, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]. In Sapla, this Court En Banc overturned the ruling in 1, 266 Phil 815, (1990), [Per J. Gutierrez Jr., Third Division], which upheld the validity of an extensive warrantless search based exclusively on a solitary tip. Also see People v. Evardo, G.R. No. 234317, May 10, 2021, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
50 People v. Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020, [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc], as cited in People v. Evardo, G.R. No. 234317, May 10, 2021, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
51 People v. Yanson, G.R. No. 238453, July 31, 2019, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
52 CA Rollo, pp. 47-49.
53 Rollo, pp. 9-10.
54 People v. Sapla, G.R. No. 244045, June 16, 2020, [Per J. Caguioa, En Banc], as cited in People v. Evardo, G.R. No. 234317, May 10, 2021, [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
55 CONST., art. III, secs. 2 and 3.
56 People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
57 People v. Veloo, G.R. No. 252154, March 24, 2021, [Per C.J. Peralta, First Division].
58 People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 901 (2018) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
59 People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1175 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
60 People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
61 Id. at 138.
62 832 Phil. 529 (2018) [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
63 Id. at 545.
64 Rollo, p. 65-66.
65 Id.
66 832 Phil. 529 (2018) [Per J. Martires, Third Division].
67 Rollo, p. 7.
68 Id. at 12.
69 Id. at 6 and CA Rollo, p. 46.cralawredlibrary