‘Republic othe Piipines Supreme Court Alla SECOND DIVISION PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, GR_No.231796 Plain Appellee, Preset PERLAS-BERNABE, J, Chairperson, HERNANDO, = versus - INTING, DELOS SANTOS, and BALTAZAR-PADILLA,’ Wl JOHNNYARELLAGAYSABADO —_Promuleste: Accused Appellant 24 Aub DECISION HERNANDO, J: Accused-appellant Johnny ArellagaySabado (appellant assis the September 30, 2016 Decision’ ofthe Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No, 07604 which affirmed the June 15, 2015 Decision ofthe Regional Til Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 2, in Criminal Case Nos. 13-297289 and 13-297290 finding Bima auilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article I of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 fo illegal sale and possession of dangerous drs, respectively. ‘ei 25; peed y Asosue ce Maggs M, De Lon ad concen by Anne Isls Eth Yat sd Nia iV ‘econ 7-8, ped Pring a Sea lM Lim. 7 Compreensie Bune Dre et F208Desison 2 GR.No.251796, In Criminal Case No, 13-297289, appellant was charged with violation of ‘Section 11, ict I of RA. No, 9165 allegedly committed a follows: ‘Tat ono about Mey 23, 2013, in the Cy of Man, Pippin, aid sees 0% ving been authorized by lwo poses ay gers da en ‘thre wlfly, nll ad Kong hn a hs psc nner ‘isan nol Ue est xed aspen past sachets ech onanng ‘hiteeysline substance commonly knowns shabu th he fling aay snared a eit: ZEROPONTZEROTHREEEIGHT (0038) gam ‘ZERO POINT ZERO ONE NINE (0015) gm ZEROPONTZEROTHREE THREE (003) or wth tol et weigh of ZERO POINT ZERO NINE ZERO (2.00) aa, wish flr quite exsnintion gave pose rl to thet or meds Iyoeorde a dangerous dg Contrary toa In Criminal Case No. 13-297290, appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Anticle Il of R.A. No. 9165 allegedly committed as follows: ‘Tat on orsbou May 23,203, inthe Cy of Marl, Philipines, he sad sects nothing atria yk to sel dsp, dele, taper, ods ‘anyon lhe wily lly] el Kw lo ofr for ale poe fers bayer ane (1) head spe sic ‘seet with matkings ISA" conning ZERO POINT ZERO ONE LICHT (0018) tam of whe eqtlinesubdence coun now #5 “shabu which ae qualitative examination yave poste rity the tess for methane Iolo, dangeos d, Coatay tw! Appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges during the anaignment* Version ofthe Prosecution: The prosecution presented two witnesses Plice Officer 3 (PO3) Nito Baladjay (PO3 Baladay) and Police Oficer 2 (PO2) Reynold Reyes (PO2 Reyes). Their {estimonies are summarized as follows ‘On May 23, 2013, at around 4:14 pm, based on a tip by a confidential informant that appellant vas looking for a buyer of shabu, PO2 Reyes conducted a ‘buy-bust operation against the appellant where he himself posed as the poscur buyer of shabu, After PO2 Reyes handed to appellant the PS00.00 bill marked with his inal, “RR.” appellant went to his motorcycle and retrieved a coin purse from its 5 kenDecision 3 GR.No. 251796 compartment. Appellant opened the coin purse and pulled out four beat sealed ‘eansparent sachets containing shat appeared to be shabu. After inspecting one sachet, PO2 Reyes touched his eft ear o signal the rest ofthe buy-bust team that the sale had been consummated. PO2 Reyes the introduced himself s a police officer and amested appellant, He then fisked the appellant and recovered from him the marked money and the coin ‘parse containing three more heat-sealed sachets, PO? Reyes matked the sachet he bought fom appellant with “ISA,” while the other tte sachets found ia appellant's possession were marked a5 “JSA-1," ISA-2," and “ISA3." PO2 Reyes then took photos of the crime scene athe evidence recovered ftom appellant. PO2 Reyes also accomplished an Inventory of Property/Seized Evidence. ‘Thereafes, he tumed over the seized evidence together with the Chain of Custody form to P03 Balajay upon aval athe police station. Version ofthe Defense: The defense presented the testimonies of appellant and his stepdaughter, Nice Andrea Cruz (Nica), Appellant claimed that on May 23,2013, he andl Nica were tthe house of his ‘motherirlaw watching television when suddenly, POD Reyes and POS Baladjay ‘barged in. One of the police oficers pointed a firearm at him while PO2 Reyes proceeded to search the second floor ofthe hou. Appellant claimed that duc tothe {unwarranted invasion and search ofthe house, personal items such as cellular phones, Jewelry, and cash were los and presumably stolen. ‘The police officers then brought appellant the police station where the police demanded money in exchange for his release. Appellant claimed that he Was repeatedly punched and inteogated about the drugs, Te police officers covered his face with aplastic bag causing hm to lose canstiosnes ‘After three days, appellant was released and thereafier charged with legal sale and possession of drugs, ‘ica estfed that on May 23, 2013, fivto sic men i civilian clothing entered their house. They pointed « gun at her and appellant and proceedsd to search the _sevont floor Nica only identified PO3 Balada. She claimed thatthe men handcuffed ‘appellant and brought him to de ground floor living room. The men told Nica tokeep que since she was crying and shouting a the time After the men bad lef, Nica discovered that her grandmother's jewelry and «ash were missing. She fled an incident repor atte precinct andthe brangay. She ‘also visited appellant at the DistctAnillezal Drags unit in Ermita, Manila where he was detained twas there that appellant old her tat the police beat him up whileDecision 4 GR No. 231796 his head was covered witha plastic bag, She also claimed thatthe police asked for ‘money Ruling of the Regional Trial Court ‘On June 15,2015, the RFC found appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections Sand 11, Ale H of RA, No. 9163, The RTC was conned ‘appellant asthe person who received the 500.00 marked money in exchange forthe beat-sealed sachet of shabu.? The RTC likewise found that the prosection hed exablshed that uring his ares, appellant was in possession of three edionel plastic sachets of shabu. The RTC also found an unbroken chain of custody ofthe seized drugs. ‘The dispositive portion ofthe RTC's Decision reads \WHEREFORE, james bey ender as ollows to wit n Crim, Case No, 1329728, Sing ened JOHNNY ARELLAGA y SABADO, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt ofthe erie hanged nd het Senin sui the ndtemint pest 12 years an I dy ta ‘Yea amon as maxi do pay ine oF PO and In Grim, Cow No. 13297250, ing ated JOHNNY ARELLAGAy SSABADO, GUILTY teyond reasnae duo he eine ego nd ic ety Sentence inprsonnont nto uy fino P0000 00 Thespesia fried in vor ofthe goverment th BrachClek ‘of Coat, zomg! hy the Branch Shes dtd totam over wil pn ‘po ep the said spines othe Pilppne Dre Eafrcomet Agony (PDEA) fr roper digas naccndnce with law aes SoonDERED! ‘Agarieved by the RTC's Decision, appellant appealed tothe CA. Ruling ofthe Court of Appeals: (On September 30, 2016, the CA affimed the RTC's Decision and held that ll the cements of the crimes were present. According tothe CA, the RTC was comect in finding PO2 Reyes’ testimony sulficient to prove appellant's guilt beyond reesonable doubt, especially since the chain of custody was unbroken? Further the (CA bela hat even if the requirements of Section 21, Atile af RA. No, 9165 were ‘ot titty complied with, the integrity and evidentiary value the seized tems were propery preserved!" ica “esDecision 5 GR No.231796 Dissatisfied withthe CA's Decision, appellant filed a Notice of Appeal. Issue The sue inthis caseis whether appellants guilty ofillegal sale and possession of shabu. Appellant anges that the RTC erroneously convicted him since the amesting officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21, atcle Hot Rm 'No-9165. claims that the prosecution filed to sufiiety establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs through an unbroken chain of custody. Lastly, appellant assets thatthe RTC ered in not appreciating his defense of denial and extortion.” Our Rating ‘The appeal is meritorious, Accordingly, the appellant is acquit ‘To sou a conviction rile sa of dangerous dps under Scion 5, Arie Ho A. No 9165, the prosction musa te fling cements) ‘he deity fhe bye andthe slr, th ojo oth sal nits coin (9) Galery of he ing soda the payment fe ‘What simp a ‘he sale transaction of drugs actualy tok pce a th te eet oe tno ‘rope reseed os evden in eo al isshown bese dre et With regard to the charge for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: “(1) the accused vas in possession of dangerous drugs; (2) such possession was not authorized by la; and () the accused was feely and conssiously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs" Inillegal drugs cases, the drugs seized fom the accused constitute the corpus delet ofthe offense, Thus ts of tmstimportance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be clearly shown to have been duly preserved with meal etait. “This means that on top of te elements of possession or illegal sale, the fact thatthe substance illepally sold or possesses, inthe fs instance, the very substance adduced in court rst likewise be esublshed with the same exacting degyee of xtiude as that required in sustaining a convieton.” “The chain of custody rule performs this function as itensures that unnecessary doubts conceming the ident of the evidence are removed." 2 Pepe tar SPH 3, 29(2017, Rey Cowra: PIS? (010, "pe an 58 a 0 13). Ry Pepe 81 Pl 151587392012,Decision 6 GR No. 231796 After a careful review ofthe record ofthe case, we find tha the prosecution failed to clearly establish thatthe requirements of Section 21, Article I of RA No. 9165 have been complied with, particularly regarding the threewitness rule, R.A, No. 9165, rir to its amendment by R.A. No. 10640” on July 15,2014, {isthe law applicable as the alleged crimes in this case were commited on May 23, 2013. ‘The original version of Section 21 requires the presence of three witnesses uring the inventory and photograph taking: (I) ‘media representative, (2) representative fom the Department of Justice (DON); and (3) any elected public official Section 21 pertineely tates: Sesion 21. Custody and Disposion of Contes, Seized, andor Surender Dangerous Drops, Plan Sourece uf Dangcous Drugs, Conte) Preors ond Essen Chemicals InsmmersPaaphemals and Laser auipnent=The PDEA dl ike dane an hve cao fall agro dns lat sourss of dangers drs contd pressor and exe eacmiy ss ‘ellasinsrunenprapemalis andor rson cpm so canted, ead an suendee, or pepe depen inthe lowing mano (0) The appealing eating init cused an cor ofthe dogs shal, immedi wer sir and coscton, physteally inventory and photegraph ‘he same in the presence of de ccuse tthe persons fan whom sec ets ‘wore confuenedandior seed, or hivher representative. or counsel ‘epresentatve from the media ad the Department vf lates (M0. day ‘ete public ficial who shall be require sg the copes ft atory abe given copy thea (Emphasis) ‘The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) further elaborate onthe proper ‘procedure to be followed in Section 21(a), Article I of R.A. No. 9165. It provides () The apprctenting aici having tl isa al cont of the ows sl, inne afer seis and confocal ive sd ‘strap de samen he presence of he scl or the psn’ om Who ah ems were confscatsd andor seized. or hivtr tptenative or com, & ‘epesative fom te media andthe Deparment af sce (DOD) an any led ifaw hl be rogue sign tcp the eucy ane ge ‘oy theo Provide, th he psalm nl horn shai ced sth ple wher te serch warant ise rath eet police salon Fa sues of of the apprehending offerte, whic is atte eae of ‘waa seies; Provide, futher tht nocomplince wih thee egemens| une sift proud, kong asthe inant ad the evidentiary vale of Seanltensane pope preserve by th apreending fica, dal ma eer ‘oan invalid such tues and ety ver sl es AN ACT TO EURTHER STRENGTHEN TH ANTL-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GovERNMENT, AMENDING FOR TIE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACTNO ates OTHERWISE NOWNAS THE “COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS AC TO omDecision 7 GRNo. 251796 ln this ease, the Court finds thatthe buy-bust team fied to establish the presence ofthe three required witnesses atte ime ofthe inventory and photograph ‘aking of the drugs. Neither was it shovm tha there were justifiable grounds for thei ubsence. As POS Baladjay himself testified [ATTY GONZALES} Likewise, youve 0 penoaal nomad aso he inte sours ofthe evidenss wich ere submit you ding the weston, cone [POS BALADIAYI: ex man. (Qc you could ot remember aw mays a hist, eam? A You mata Me Wines, ou eater sid hatte ier was merely submits oo, ews not done in our aie? AvYes man (QeAnd whet as dons, you wee nt press? A Yes maa (And you weet he ne wh wot th ees in tee fa? A Yes (0: This dbeunent as merely submit oyu opto ith te evidence A: Ye, (QM Wines ikois when you ver coating ths invsipsion of his ewe, ‘nee any reseed man ht parla in ‘Aso, am Qe Likewis, ys there any presence of DO. ene? A: None mam (ow to fr ec we ay onl ae ing oe The Court has held thatthe presence ofthe required number of witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory, is mandatory, and that their presence serves an essential purpose.” Inthe present case, the Inventory of Property! Seed [Evidence shows that there was only one (I) wites, a cetain Rene Crisostomo ‘ofthe MPD Press Corp Infor Dalen GR Ne 2415, seer 5208Decision . GR No. 231796 In People Temes the Cour held: “The pesiee of he the wines mist be sce mat aly rig the ‘vets but memory a he ine of he wares ares sth ih Inch he presence ofthe thee Wiese met ede is i reset he tne of ere al conseton thet wd bk any dubs sure ‘ny, and imei of he seid dg If the bya operation lea onde the presence oft inating wines would le crower he wl tense of fameup as the wines would fe ale to teal th he byt ‘opsaton ander of he siz drugs wee do int pesence i ccrtan th Secon 2 of RATES, “The prac of pace opersives of ot ringing the intended place of net ete wines, when iy coulda doo an aling em sO place of iene to wes the inventory al photographing of the ug ony ater the by-nst operation sae bee nhl docs ot acicne h prpt of ‘he aw inhavng hese wineses prevent or asl pin the pling of aes To res, the presence ofthe te wines tthe sie of seine and onfscaton of the ds mus be sxe snd complied wih tt ine of tae ‘ara ares sich ht thy arerequited beat oranda othe ‘mest 0 ha they can be ey to witness the sven an ographing the ‘sand an conse ds "immediaely afer se and confiscation” In this case, tere was only one witness during the most crucial stage of the buy-bust operation: the apprehension and inventory. This ley falls short of whats equted by Section 21, AnicleIl of R.A. No, 9165, Tt bears stressing thatthe prosecution has the burden of proving compliance \ith the requirements of Section 21, In ease of deviation from or non-compliance withthe suid requirement, the prosecution must provide sufficient explanation wy Section 21 was not complied with. The Cour has held in People Line thatthe following are justifiable reasons for not securing three witnesses during the inventory and photograph taking: (Deir atendance wa impossible cause the ple of et was @ eM thi sly ring We inven and peta othe seid russ was sated by anime einoryaeton ofthe assed ay pers acting fot ‘ad in hisher behalf @)tbe elected offal thamsaves were invoked in he Pnisube acts spt be appended (3) amet eflrtsto scutes a 4DOsarmesia resentative ssn lected pif within epee oad ‘ewer Arise 125 ofthe Revs Peal Coe prove fle tough no ta te ‘aresing offices, who fee the tat of being chal wth tary detetion ‘(Stine casi andurgeney oft aig operations, which en rey ‘psf confident asets,pevered he a efor fo ining th presses of le reqused wines even before tones cou eae 2.GR No. 228890, Api 18,2018, GR. No 2188 Sepa 4,018,Decision 9 OR. No. 231796 ‘TheIRRof A. No. 9165 provides fora saving clause to ensure that not every ‘non-compliance withthe procedure fr the preservation of the chain of custody will Prejudice the prosecution's ease against the accused. For the saving clause to apoly, however, the following must be 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 propetly preserved bythe apprehending team. Inthis case, the prosecution didnot explain the absence ofthe three required \wimesses nor did it try to justify the police's deviation from the mandatory procedure lined in Setion 21, Without the thee witnesses, there is resonable doube onthe idemty of the seized drups itself. Without the three witnesses, the Court i unsure \whether ther had been planting of evidence and/or contamination ofthe seized dass Because ofthis the integrity and evidentiary value ofthe corpus dec had ben ‘compromised. Consequently appellant must be acquited. Alltold, the Court finds thatthe prosecution filed: 1) overcome appellant's ‘resumption of innocence; (2) prove thatthe requirements of securing three witnesses in Section 21, Article I of R.A. No. 9165 had been complied with; (3) offer any ‘explanation fr non-compliance with Section 21, rice I of R.A. No. 9165; and (4) provethe corpus deter of the exime with moral certainty, For these reasons, the Cour 'sconstuined to acquit the appellant. WHEREFORE, the appeal ie GRANTED, The azailed Dosiion of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No, O7604 dated September 30, 2016 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Appellant Johnny Arellaga y Sabada is hereby ACQUITTED for failure ofthe prosocution to prove bis guilt eyand resonable oul Hes ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, uniess he iscanfined for any other lawl cause Le a copy of this Decision be fumished to the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director of the ‘Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court the action he has taken Within five days from receipt ofthis Decision. A copy shall also be furnished to the Director General of the Philippine National Police and the Department of Justice for their information and guidance. Let entry of judgment be made immediatelyDecision 0 OR. No. 231796 ‘SO ORDERED, foe oh iON PAULL. HERNANDO Associate Justice \WECONCUR: Senior Associate Justice Chairperson pot ad Associate Justice om official leave PRISCILLA J. BALTAZAR-PADILLA, Associate JusticeDecision " GR. No. 231796, ATTESTATION 1 attest thatthe conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the ease was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division wistasl ESTELA M, FERLAS-BERNABE, Senior Associate Justice ‘Chairperson CERTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII ofthe Constitution, and the Division CChaitperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision ‘had been reached in consultation before the ease was assigned to the writer of the opinion ofthe Courts Division.