Appeal of Drug-related Conviction under Section 13(c), Rule 124 in the Philippines, Slides of Art

Download Appeal of Drug-related Conviction under Section 13(c), Rule 124 in the Philippines and more Slides Art in PDF only on Docsity! ll\epublic of tbe llbilippines ~up~eme ~ourt ;fflnnila SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, G.R. No. 217668 - versus - Present: CARPIO, J., Chairperson, PERLAS-BERNABE, CAGUIOA, J. REYES, JR., and HERNANDO,* JJ. BENJIE CARANTO y AUSTRIA, Promulgated: Accused-Appellant. 2 0 FE 8 2019 x-------------------------------------~~x DECISION CAGUIOA, J.: This is an Appeal1 under Section 13(c), Rule 124 of the Rules of Court from the Decision2 dated September 26, 2014 of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Division (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05877, which affirmed the Decision3 dated January 2, 2012 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 60, Baguio City (RTC) in Criminal Case No. 30936-R, finding herein accused-appellant Benjie Caranto y Austria (Benjie) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165,4 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended. The Facts The Information5 filed against Benjie for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 pertinently reads: Designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2630 dated December 18, 2018. See Notice of Appeal dated October 28, 2014, rollo, p.17. Rollo, pp. 2-16. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz with Associate Justices Magdangal M. De Leon and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr., concurring. CA rollo, pp. 37-42. Penned by Judge Edilberto T. Claravall. Entitled "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" (2002). . Records, p. 1. ( , Decision 2 G.R. No. 217668 That on or about the 4th day of August, 2010, along the vicinity of Dr. Cari[fi]o St[.], Baguio City National High School, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, [and] feloniously sell, deliver, give away, and/or distribute one ( 1) heat[-]sealed plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride weighing .07 gram which, after confirmatory test, was found positive for methamphetami~e hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, to P02 Christian Romero Boado Regional Anti[-]Illegal Special Operation Task Group of the Cordilllera Administrative Region, in violation of the aforecited provision oflaw. CONTRARY to SECTION 5, ART II OF REPUBLIC ACT 9165.6 Upon arraignment, Benjie pleaded not guilty to the offense charged.7 Version of the Prosecution The version of the prosecution, as summarized by the CA, 1s as follows: 6 Id. The prosecution presented three witnesses, namely: Police Senior Inspector Rowena Fajardo Canlas, P02 Christian Boado, and SP02 Raymund Tacio, in order to prove that in exchange for One Thousand (Pl ,000.00) Pesos, Benjie delivered one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing .07 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride to P02 Boado, acting as poseur buyer. Through the testimony of these witnesses, the prosecution was able to establish the following facts: P02 Christian Boado of the Regional Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (RAIDSOTG). On August 3, 2010, their office coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Authority-Cordillera Administrative Region (PDEA-CAR) in Camp Dangwa as evidenced by a Coordination Form. At around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of August 4, 2010, SP04 Romeo Abordo received an information from a Confidential Informant (CI) that a certain Benjie was engaged in the sale of illegal drugs. At that time, Benjie, who may be found at Dr. Carifio Street, was looking for a prospective buyer of a certain amount of drugs valued at One Thousand (Pl ,000.00) Pesos. Upon learning this, a buy-bust operation was organized under the leadership of Superintendent Glen Lonogan. Thereafter, a buy-bust team was formed composed of Captain Melchor Ong as team leader; SPO 1 Jones Tacayan as Evidence Custodian; SPOl Albert Lag-ey as Investigator on case; SP04 Romeo Abordo as second team leader, and SP02 Raymund Tacio as back-up operative. Superintendent Lonogan, then, instructed Captain Ong to brief the team about the operation. Capt. Ong designated P02 Boado to act as poseur buyer and gave him two (2) Five Hundred (P500.00)-Peso bills, with Serial Number HS576991 and 7 Rollo,p.3 Decision 5 G.R. No. 217668 Benjie was brought to Camp Dangwa, La Trinidad, Benguet. He was allegedly forced to admit ownership of a plastic sachet containing shabu. He claimed that he was interrogated for about three (3) hours. He also claimed that the men boxed him causing a tear in his white driver's uniform. Thereafter, he was brought to Police Station 5 and the men allegedly called for media persons to come over. Then he was brought to Baguio General Hospital for medico-legal examination. During his testimony, he denied having received a text message from any person regarding the buying and selling of shabu or having anything to do with the sale of shabu. He clarified that the plastic sachet of shabu and the two (2) Five Hundred (P500.00)-Peso bills were only shown to him at the police officers' office in Camp Dangwa. On cross-examination, Benjie stated that he does not recall having done anything which could have angered the arresting officers. Al Caranto's testimony was admitted and stipulated on by the parties as follows: "1. That he is a driver-reliever of the accused Benjie Caranto; 2. That on August 4, 2010, he met Benjie Caranto at the Total Gasoline Station located at Legarda Road, Baguio City; 3. That he brought the accused, Benjie Caranto, to Carino Street and dropped him at that place; and 4. That after dropping the accused, he saw that he was approached by three male persons."9 Ruling of the RTC In the assailed Decision dated January 2, 2012, the RTC held that all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs had been proven by the prosecution. 10 The prosecution clearly and adequately presented in detail the transaction that took place between the accused and the poseur-buyer. 11 It further ruled that in the absence of proof of motive to falsely impute a serious crime against an accused, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty shall prevail over the accused's self-serving defense of denial and frame-up. 12 He was informed of his constitutional rights and the procedures in relation to the accused and the evidence obtained from him was presumed to have been properly observed absent any fact showing the contrary. 13 The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: 9 Id. at 6-7. 1° CA rollo, p. 40. 11 Id. at 41. 12 Id. 13 Id. at 41-42. Decision 6 G.R. No. 217668 WHEREFORE, the Court finds accused BENJIE CARANTO y AUSTRIA GUILTY BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT of the crime charged. He is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay the fine of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (PS00,000.00) as provided for by Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165. SO ORDERED. 14 Aggrieved, Benjie appealed to the CA. Ruling of the CA In the assailed Decision dated September 26, 2014, the CA affirmed Benjie's conviction. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated January 2, 2012 of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 60, in Criminal Case No. 30936-R which convicted accused-appellant Benjie Caranto y Austria for the sale of illegal drugs in violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. 15 The CA ruled that the prosecution was able to sufficiently establish the presence of all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 16 It further ruled that in cases involving violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act, credence is given to prosecution witnesses who are police officers for they enjoy the presumption of having performed their duties in a regular manner, unless there is evidence to the contrary suggesting ill-motive on their part or deviation from the regular performance of their duties. 17 Since no proof of such ill-motive on the part of the buy-bust team was adduced by Benjie, the RTC did not err in giving full faith and credence to the prosecution's account of the buy-bust operation. 18 Also, it held that the police officers' failure to take photographs of the seized items while in the presence of the accused, a member of the media, a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected Barangay official does not affect the admissibility of the seized drugs. 19 Lastly, it held that although the police officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, their non-compliance did not affect the evidentiary weight of 14 Id. at 42. is Rollo, p. 15. 16 Id. at 8. 17 Id. at 12. is Id. 19 Id. at 14. Decision 7 G.R. No. 217668 the drug seized from Benjie as the chain of custody of evidence was shown to be unbroken under the circumstances of the case.20 Hence, the instant appeal. Issue Whether or not Benjie's guilt for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 was proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court's Ruling The appeal is meritorious. The accused is accordingly acquitted. In cases involving dangerous drugs, the confiscated drug constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense21 and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction.22 It is essential, therefore, that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs be established with moral certainty.23 Thus, in order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on its identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to its presentation in court as evidence of the crime.24 In this regard, Section 21, Article II of RA 9165,25 the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, outlines the procedure which the police officers must strictly follow to preserve the integrity of the confiscated drugs and/or paraphernalia used as evidence. The provision requires that: ( 1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) that the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a 20 Id. at 15. 21 People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017, 834 SCRA 225, 240. 22 Deri/o v. People, 784 Phil. 679, 686 (2016). 23 People v. Alvaro, G.R. No. 225596, January 10, 2018, p. 9. 24 People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 229092, February 21, 2018, p. 5. 25 The said section reads as follows: 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. - 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: (I) 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[.] Decision 10 G.R. No. 217668 corpus delicti, and thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. The presence of the three witnesses must be secured 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. 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 and 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."36 Second, the buy-bust team failed to offer any explanation for their failure to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21. It is evident that the police officers had more than ample time to secure the presence of the required witnesses at the place of arrest and seizure. As admitted by SP02 Tacio, they were conducting a surveillance of the area on August 3, 2010, a day prior to the actual alleged buy-bust operation. 37 On said date, they could have already instructed the three mandatory witnesses to join them in their buy-bust operation the following day. Moreover, it was not the first time that P02 Christian Boado (P02 Boado) acted as a poseur-buyer in a buy-bust operation.38 Thus, he and his team already knew the standard procedure in a bust operation. Hence, they should have had the foresight to do all the necessary preparations for it. It bears stressing that the prosecution has the burden of (1) proving their compliance with Section 21, RA 9165, and (2) providing a sufficient explanation in case of non-compliance. As the Court en bane unanimously held in the recent case of People v. Lim, 39 36 People v. Tomawis, supra note 34, at 11-12. 37 TSN, May 31, 2011, p. 82. 38 TSN,Mayl0,2011,p.53. 39 G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018. Decision 11 G.R. No. 217668 It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as: (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) 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.40 (Emphasis in the original and underscoring supplied) The saving clause does not apply to this case. As earlier stated, following the IRR of RA 9165, the courts may allow a deviation from the mandatory requirements of Section 21 in exceptional cases, where the following requisites are 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.41 If these elements are present, the seizure and custody of the confiscated drug shall not be rendered void and invalid regardless of the noncompliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 21. In this regard, it has also been emphasized that the State bears the burden of proving the justifiable cause.42 Thus, for the said saving clause to apply, the prosecution must first recognize the lapse or lapses on the part of the buy-bust team and justify or explain the same. 43 Breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21 committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised.44 As the Court explained in People v. Reyes:45 40 Id. at 13, citing People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018, p. 17. 41 COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, as amended by RA 10640, Sec. 21 ( 1 ). 42 People v. Beran, 724 Phil. 788, 822 (2014). 43 People v. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671, 690 (2016). 44 People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 352 (2015). 45 Supra note 43. Decision 12 G.R. No. 217668 Under the last paragraph of Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, a saving mechanism has been provided to ensure that not every case of non-compliance with the procedures for the preservation of the chain of custody will irretrievably prejudice the Prosecution's case against the accused. To warrant the application of this saving mechanism, however, the Prosecution must recognize the lapse or lapses, and justify or explain them. Such justification or explanation would be the basis for applying the saving mechanism. Yet, the Prosecution did not concede such lapses, and did not even tender any token justification or explanation for them. The failure to justify or explain underscored the doubt and suspicion about the integrity of the evidence of the corpus delicti. With the chain of custody having been compromised, the accused deserves acquittal: x x x46 (Emphasis supplied) In the present case, the prosecution neither recognized, much less tried to justify or explain, the police's deviation from the procedure contained in Section 21. The police officers did not offer any justifiable reason for the absence of the required witnesses during the buy-bust operation itself, especially where, as here, they had more than sufficient time to secure their presence prior to the planned arrest. The integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti has thus been compromised, thus necessitating the acquittal of Benjie. The presumption of innocence of the accused vis-a-vis the presumption of regularity in performance of official duties. The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a constitutionally protected right.47 The burden lies with the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt by establishing each and every element of the crime charged in the information as to warrant a finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included therein.48 Here, reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty despite the lapses in the procedures undertaken by the buy-bust team is fundamentally unsound because the lapses themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity.49 The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 50 Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent. 51 46 Id. at 690. 47 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 14, par. (2): "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved xx x." 48 People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476, 503-504 (2012). 49 People v. Mendoza, supra note 35, at 770. 5o Id. 51 People v. Catalan, 699 Phil. 603, 621 (2012). Decision 15 G.R. No. 217668 National Police to conduct an investigation on this incident and other similar cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. Finally, the Court exhorts the prosecutors to diligently discharge their onus to prove compliance with the provisions of Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, and its IRR, which is fundamental in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. To the mind of the Court, the procedure outlined in Section 21 is straightforward and easy to comply with. In the presentation of evidence to prove compliance therewith, the prosecutors are enjoined to recognize any deviation from the prescribed procedure and provide the explanation therefor as dictated by available evidence. Compliance with Section 21 being integral to every conviction, the appellate court, this Court included, is at liberty to review the records of the case to satisfy itself that the required proof has been adduced by the prosecution whether the accused has raised, before the trial or appellate court, any issue of non-compliance. If deviations are observed and no justifiable reasons are provided, the conviction must be overturned, and the innocence of the accused affirmed. 62 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated September 26, 2014 of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Division in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 05877, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Benjie Caranto y Austria is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Superintendent is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision the action he has taken. Further, the National Police Commission is hereby DIRECTED to CONDUCT AN INVESTIGATION on the police officers involved in the buy-bust operation conducted in this case. SO ORDERED. S. CAGUIOA 62 See People v. Jugo, G.R. No. 231792, January 29, 2018. Decision WE CONCUR: 16 Associate Justice Chairperson G.R. No. 217668 ESTELA ~E~BERNABE Associate Justice ~ !..-~~ E c. RRYES, JR. ssociate Justice RAMO~HERNANDO Associate Justice ATTESTATION I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. Q4:: ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice Chairperson, Second Division Decision 17 G.R. No. 217668 CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. ./