Emmanuelito Limbo Vs People of The Phils
Emmanuelito Limbo Vs People of The Phils
Emmanuelito Limbo Vs People of The Phils
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
'
1
Rollo, pp. 14-33.
2 Id. at 45-60. Penned by Associate Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh with Associate Justices Ricardo R.
Rosario and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring.
3
Id. at 38-43.
4
Id. at 61-74. Penned by Presiding Judge Myra B. Quiambao
5
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," approved on June 7, 2002.
~
Decision 2 G.R. No. 238299
The Facts
This case stemmed from an Information 6 filed before the RTC accusing
petitioner of the crime of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and
penalized under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. The prosecution alleged
that at around 4:30 in the afternoon of August 30, 2010, acting on a tip about
the purported drug activities at Mendiola Street, Barangay Alabang,
Muntinlupa City, Police Officer (PO) 3 Manuel Amodia, Jr. (PO3 Amodia),
PO2 Mark Sherwin Forastero (PO2 Forastero), and PO2 Alfredo Andes (PO2
Andes) conducted monitoring and surveillance at the said place. In an alley in
front of San Roque Church, PO3 Amodia saw petitioner talking to an
unidentified person. Growing suspicious, he approached them and noticed that
petitioner was holding two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance on his palm and was showing it to his companion.
Convinced that these were prohibited drugs, PO3 Amodia immediately
arrested petitioner and seized the sachets from him, then proceeded to inform
him of his rights under the law and the reason for his arrest, while the other
person was able to evade the authorities. Immediately thereafter, they decided
to return to their office because petitioner was trying to break free
("nagpupumiglas siya "). Thereat, the arresting officers allegedly placed calls
to certain persons who are representatives from the media, the Department of
Justice (DOJ) and local elected officials urging them to come; however, after
more or less two (2) hours of waiting, they decided to proceed without their
presence, and instead, called upon a certain Ely Diang, a local government
employee ofMuntinlupa City. They then conducted an inventory, 7 marked the
evidence, took photographs, 8 and prepared other relevant documents. They
also prepared a Request for Laboratory Examination on Seized Evidence9
which was forwarded to the Southern Police District Crime Laboratory
(Crime Laboratory) together with the two (2) sachets containing white
crystalline substance. Later, upon laboratory examination, 10 the substance was
identified as metamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 11
For his part, petitioner denied the charges against him and claimed that
he was framed by the police officers. He explained that he was simply riding
his motorcycle traversing the comer of Mendiola Street when he was accosted
and grabbed by PO3 Amodia, PO2 F orastero, and PO2 Andes. PO2 Andes
told him that he had managed to procure evidence against him ("[e]to may
ebidensya na ako sa iyo"), showing him two (2) sachets containing white
crystalline substance. 12 ~
6
Dated August 31, 2010. Id. at 75-76.
7
See Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized dated August 30, 20 IO; records, p. 11.
8
See id. at 120.
9
Id. at 122.
IO See Physical Science Report No. D-315-1 OS signed by Police Chief Inspector Abraham Verde Tecson;
id. at 123.
11
See rollo, pp. 45-4 7 and 62-64.
12
See id. at 64-66.
~
Decision 3 G.R. No. 238299
In a Decision 13 dated October 14, 2014, the RTC found petitioner guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced
him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1)
day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum,
and to pay a fine in the amount of P300,000.00. 14 It found the prosecution to
have sufficiently proved all the elements of the crime based on the testimony
of PO3 Amodia, which was shown to be credible. It also found that the failure
to physically inventory and photograph the sachets seized from petitioner in
the manner prescribed by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 was justified
considering the attempt to comply with the same and that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the evidence had been properly preserved. 15 Aggrieved,
petitioner appealed 16 to the CA.
In a Decision 17 dated May 22, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling. 18
It likewise found that all the elements of the crime charged were proven
beyond reasonable doubt and that the deviation from the requirements under
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 wasjustified. 19
13
Id. at 61-74.
14
Id. at 74.
15
Id. at 67- 74.
16
See Notice of Appeal dated October 27, 2014; id. at 89-90.
17
Id. at 45-60.
18
Id. at 60.
19
See id. at 49-59.
20
See Motion for Reconsideration (Re: Decision dated May 22, 2017) dated June 17, 2017; CA rol/o, pp.
129-141.
21
Rollo, pp. 38-43.
22
The elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165
are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such
possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said
drug. (See People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018; People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 231383,
March 7, 2018; People v. Magsano, G.R. No. 231050, February 28, 2018; People v. Manansala, G.R.
No. 229092, February 21, 2018; People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, January 31, 2018; and People v.
Mamangon, G.R. No. 229102, January 29, 2018; all cases citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 348
[2015] and People v. Bio, 753 Phil. 730, 736 [2015]).
23
See People v. Crispo, id.; People v. Sanchez, id.; People v. Magsano, id.; People v. Manansala, id.;
People v. Miranda, id.; and People v. Mamangon, id. See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601
(2014).
y
Decision 4 G.R. No. 238299
delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal.2 4
To establish the identity of the dangerous drug with moral certainty, the
prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from
the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence
of the crime. 25 As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires,
inter alia, that the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the seized
items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation of the same. In
this regard, case law recognizes that "[ m ]arking upon immediate confiscation
contemplates even marking at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team." 26 Hence, the failure to immediately mark the confiscated
items at the place of arrest neither renders them inadmissible in evidence nor
impairs the integrity of the seized drugs, as the conduct of marking at the
nearest police station or office of the apprehending team is sufficient
compliance with the rules on chain of custody. 27
The law further requires that the said inventory and photography 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: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 28 a
representative from the media AND the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any
elected public official; 29 or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA
10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service OR the media. 30 The law requires the presence of these
witnesses primarily "to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and
remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 31
24
See People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024,
I 039-1040 (2012).
25 See People v. Ano, G.R. No. 230070, March 14, 2018; People v. Crispo, supra note 22; People v.
Sanchez, supra note 22; People v. Magsano, supra note 22; People v. Manansala, supra note 22; People
v. Miranda, supra note 22; and People v. Mamangon, supra note 22. See also People v. Viterbo, supra
note 23.
26
People v. Mamalumpon, 767 Phil. 845, 855 (20 I 5), citing lmson v. People, 669 Phil. 262, 270-271
(2011). See also People v. Ocfemia, 718 Phil. 330,348 (2013), citing People v. Resurreccion, 618 Phil.
520, 532 (2009).
27
See People v. Tumzdak, 791 Phil. 148, 160-161 (2016); and People v. Rollo, 757 Phil. 346,357 (2015).
28 Entitled "AN Acr 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,"' approved on July 15, 2014.
29
See Section 21 (1 ), Article II of RA 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations.
30
See Section 21 (1), Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640.
31
See People v. Miranda, supra note 22. See also People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
32
See People v. Miranda, id. See also People v. Macapundag, G.R. No. 225965, March 13, 2017, 820
SCRA 204, 215, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 24, at 1038.
~
Decision 5 G.R. No. 238299
t
33
See People v. Segundo, G.R. No. 205614, July 26, 2017, 833 SCRA 16, 44, citing People v. Umipang,
id.
34
See People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214,234 (2008).
35
See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
36
Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of RA 9165 pertinently states: "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."
37 Section 1 of RA 10640 pertinently states: "Provided, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items."
38
People v. Almorfe, supra note 35.
39
People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637,649 (2010).
40
See People v. Manansala, supra note 22.
41
See People v. Gamboa, supra note 24, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 24, at 1053.
42
See People v. Crispo, supra note 22.
~
Decision 6 G.R. No. 238299
In the present case, there was a deviation from the witness requirement
as the conduct of inventory and photography was not witnessed by a member
of the media, a representative from the DOJ, and an elective public official.
This may be easily gathered from the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized45
which only confirms the presence of an employee of the local government of
Muntinlupa City, i.e. Ely Diang. Such finding is confirmed by the testimony
of P03 Amodia on direct and cross-examination, to wit:
Direct Examination
[Fiscal Tomas Ken Romaquin, Jr.]: Are you familiar with the rule that when
you conduct inventory, you must request for the presence of several
witnesses, among them should be representative from the Department of
Justice and elected local official and representative from the media and so
on?
[P03 Amodia]: Yes, sir.
Cross-Examination
[Atty. John Michael Zambales]: And also in your direct examination Mr.
Witness, you also said that you tried to call those needed in order for the
markings like media, elected officials, is that right?
[P03 Amodia]: Yes, sir.
xxxx
43
Supra note 22.
44
See id.
45
Records, p. 11.
46
TSN, September 18, 2012, p. 11.
~
Decision 7 G.R. No. 238299
In People v. Umipang, 49 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." 50 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 non-compliance, 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. 51
t
Pertinently, the Court in People v. Lim, 52 explained that the absence of
the required witnesses must be justified based on acceptable reasons 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
47
TSN, September 18, 2012, p. 27.
48
See ro/lo, pp. 63-64.
49
Supra note 24.
50
Id. at 1053.
51
People v. Crispo, supra note 22.
52
See G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
~
Decision 8 G.R. No. 238299
However, none of these circumstances exist in this case. The mere fact
that the witnesses contacted by the police officers failed to appear at their
office within a brief period of two (2) hours is not reasonable enough to justify
non-compliance with the requirements of the law. Indeed, the police officers
did not even bother to follow up on the persons they contacted, thus, it cannot
be said that genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted to comply with the
witness requirement.
his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other
reason.
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA M#R~ERNABE
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson
53
See id., citing People v. Sipin, G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018.
54
See People v. Patacsil, G.R. No. 234052, August 6, 2018.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 238299
S. CAGUIOA /2,f.~
l7'l:sociate Justice
AMY /!l:~0-JA
Associate Justice
VIER
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.
CERTIFICATION