G.R. No. 231983
G.R. No. 231983
G.R. No. 231983
21623
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee That on or about the 4th day of March, 2013, in the City
vs. of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of
CRISPIAN MERCED LUMAYA a.k.a. "IPYANG", and this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then
DEREK JOSEPH LUMAYA, Accused authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully
CRISPIAN MERCED LUMAYA a.k.a. and feloniously possess or have under his control the
"IPYANG", Accused-Appellant following items[,] to wit:
Before the Court is an ordinary appeal1 filed by accused- Two (2) pieces elongated tin foil
appellant Crispian Merced Lumaya a.k.a. "Ipyang"
(Crispian) assailing the Decision2 dated September 14, One (1) piece lighter
2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC
No. 01846, which affirmed the Joint Judgment3 dated
One (1) piece improvised bamboo clip
March 23, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court ofNegros
Oriental, Branch 30 (RTC) in Criminal Case Nos. 21618,
21622, and 21623, finding Crispian guilty beyond which are equipmen[t], instruments, apparatus or
reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5, 11, and 12, paraphernalia fit or intended for smoking, consuming,
respectively, of Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) administering, injecting, ingesting, or introducing any
9165,4 otherwise known as the "Comprehensive dangerous drug into the body[.]
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Contrary to Section 12, Art. II of R.A. 9165.9
The Facts
The prosecution alleged that a tip was received by the
In anInformation5 dated March 20, 2013, Crispian and Philippine National Police (PNP) - Dumaguete Station
his co-accused Derek Joseph Lumaya (Derek; that a certain "Ipyang", who was later identified as
collectively, the accused) were charged of the crime of Crispian, was peddling illegal drugs in San Jose
Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized Extension, Barangay Taclobo, Dumaguete City (Taclobo
under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, before the RTC, ). Acting on the said tip, the police operatives
the accusatory portion of which reads: successfully conducted a test-buy operation at his house
in Taclobo at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning of
February 26, 2013. The following day, they applied for a
Criminal Case No. 21618
search warrant- which was likewise issued on the same
day - before the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City,
That on or about the 4th day of March, 2013, in the City Branch 40 (subject warrant). Meanwhile, at around 9:00
of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of o'clock in the evening of March 4, 2013, a confidential
this Honorable Court, the said accused conspiring informant (informant) reported to the police officers of
together and mutually aiding one another not being then the PNP - Dumaguete Station that Crispian was again
authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully selling illegal drugs at his house. Despite the standing
and criminally sell and/or deliver to a poseur buyer one subject warrant, a buy-bust operation was organized in
(1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement
0.03 gram of white crystalline substance of Agency.10
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly called
"shabu[,"] a dangerous drug. Thus, at around 11:40 in the evening, the buy-bust team,
together with the informant, proceeded to the target area
Contrary to Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. 9165.6 in Barangay Motong. When the accused arrived, Derek
immediately asked the informant how much shabu he
Crispian was likewise charged in two (2) separate would be buying, to which the informant replied that it
Informations7 dated March 20, 2013 of the crimes of was Police Officer I Harry Dumaguit (POl Dumaguit), the
Illegal Possession of Drugs and of Drug Paraphernalia, designated poseur-buyer, who wanted to purchase
respectively defined and penalized under Sections 11 ₱500.00 worth of shabu. Crispian then pulled out one (1)
and 12, Article II of RA 9165, to wit: sachet of shabu and gave it to PO1 Dumaguit, who, in
turn, handed over the PS00.00 buy-bust money. After
Criminal Case No. 21622 examining the sachet of shabu, POI Dumaguit declared
his authority as a police officer, prompting Crispian to
run away. However, the other police operatives rushed
That on or about the 4th day of March, 2013, in the City
towards the accused and arrested them.11 A body
of Dumaguete, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of
search was then conducted, and ten (10) additional
this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then
sachets of suspected shabu were recovered from
authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously possess ten (10) heat-sealed transparent Crispian's possession. Instead of marking the drugs
upon seizure, the team decided to execute the subject
plastic sachets containing a total aggregate weight of
warrant and went to the house of Crispian. Thereat,
20.44 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride,
several drug paraphernalia were found and
commonly called "shabu," a dangerous drug.
confiscated.12 Shortly after, PO1 Dumaguit conducted
the requisite marking and inventory of all the seized
That the accused is found positive for use of items in the presence of the accused, as well as an
Methamphetamine, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. elected public official and representatives from the
DT-023/024-13. Department of Justice (DOJ) and media.13
Concurrently, Police Officer 2 Xandro Paclauna (P02 In a Decision27 dated September 14, 2016, the CA
Paclauna) took photos, apparently showing eighteen affirmed the convictions of the accused, holding that the
(18) sachets of shabu.14 After the operation, the team prosecution competently established an unbroken chain
went back to the police station and prepared the of custody of the dangerous drugs.28 It ruled that the
letterrequest for laboratory examination.15 Subsequently, integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were
PO1 Dumaguit brought the said letter-request, together preserved, as it was shown that PO 1 Dumaguit had
with only eleven (11) seized sachets of shabu, to the exclusive custody of the same from the time they were
PNP Negros Oriental Crime Laboratory, where they confiscated from the accused until they were brought to
were received by Police Chief Inspector Josephine Llena the crime laboratory for testing. In fact, he was able to
(PCI Llena).16 PCI Llena then examined and confirmed positively identify them in court as the same drugs
that the same contained methamphetamine recovered from the accused.29
hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.17
Furthermore, the CA held that the belated marking of the
For their part, the accused interposed the defense of seized drugs was warranted, since the police officers
denial. Derek alleged that at around 8:00 o'clock in the feared that the accused’s companions might escape and
evening of March 4, 2013, he was in the house of his that the contraband stored in Crispian's house would
live-in partner when he received a text message from his disappear.30
cousin, Crispian, inviting him for dinner. At around 9:30
o'clock that same evening, he fetched Crispian and Only Crispian filed the instant appeal.
proceeded to Nilo's tocino joint on a motorcycle. After
dinner, the accused were on their way to the house of The Issue Before the Court
Crispian's friend in Candau-ay, Dumaguete City when it
started to rain; they decided to let the rain pass at the
house of Crispian’s other friend in Barangay Motong. The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not
When the rain stopped, they then proceeded to Crispian's conviction should be upheld.
Candauay, and on the way Derek saw a drunk man
wobbling on the road, so he stopped the motorcycle. The The Court's Ruling
man, however, suddenly grabbed him, introduced
himself as a police officer, and took out a gun. Crispian The appeal is meritorious.
attempted to escape, but the other police officers
arrived, fired their guns, and accosted him. They then Prefatorily, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal
arrested the accused and effected a body search on cases opens the entire case for review, and it is the duty
them. Subsequently, they all went to Crispian's house to of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate
execute the subject warrant and conduct an errors in the appealed judgment whether they are
inventory.18 According to the accused, they were not assigned or unassigned.31 The appeal confers the
informed that the said inventory was a result of the buy- appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders
bust operation and/or implementation of the subject such court competent to examine records, revise the
warrant.19 Thereafter, they were brought to the police judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite
station. the proper provision of the penal law.32
The accused entered a plea of "not guilty" upon Here, Crispian was charged with the crimes of Illegal
arraignment.20 However, only Derek testified for the Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, as well
defense, while Crispian, through counsel, waived his as Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia,
right to present evidence.21 respectively defined and penalized under Sections 5, 11,
and 12, Article II of RA 9165. Case law states that in
The RTC Ruling every prosecution for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs,
the following elements must be proven with moral
In a Joint Judgment22 dated March 23, 2014, the RTC certainty: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
found the accused guilty as charged, and accordingly, object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the
sentenced them as follows: (a) in Crim. Case No. 21618, thing sold and the payment.33 Meanwhile, in instances
the accused were sentenced to suffer the penalty of life wherein an accused is charged with Illegal Possession
imprisonment and ordered to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00 of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish the
each; (b) in Crim. Case No. 21622, Crispian was necessary elements thereof, to wit: (a) the accused was
sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and in possession of an item or object identified as a
ordered to pay a fine of ₱500,000.00; and (c) in Crim. prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized
Case No. 21623, Crispian was sentenced to suffer the by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously
penalty of imprisonment for an indeterminate period of possessed the said drug.34 And finally, to properly
six (6) months and one (1) day, as minimum, to two (2) secure the conviction of an accused charged with Illegal
years, as maximum, and ordered him to pay a fine of Possession of Drug Paraphernalia, the prosecution must
₱10,000.00.23 It found that the prosecution duly show: (a) possession or control by the accused of any
established with moral certainty all the essential equipment, apparatus or other paraphernalia fit or
elements of the crimes charged.24 On the contrary, it did intended for smoking, consuming, administering,
not give credence to Derek's uncorroborated defense of injecting, ingesting, or introducing any dangerous drug
denial in light of the positive and credible testimonies of into the body; and (b) such possession is not authorized
the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, Crispian failed to by law.35
overcome the presumption of regularity afforded to
police officers, as he waived his right to present any
evidence thereto.25
The Court, however, clarified that under varied field P02 Paclauna: Yes, sir.
conditions, strict compliance with the requirements of
Section 21 of RA 9165 may not always be possible.40 In Q: Which of these items are the, [sic] point to me where
fact, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of is the sachet being sold by the accused here?
RA 9165 - which is now crystallized into statutory law
with the passage of RA 1064041 - provide that the said
inventory and photography may be conducted at the A: I can't say, sir, which .....
nearest police station or office of the apprehending team
in instances of warrantless seizure, and that non- Q: Which one? You were supposed to take photographs
compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of of the items being bought or seized? Where are the
RA 9165 - under justifiable grounds - will not render seized items and the bought items, which one?
void and invalid the seizure and custody over the
seized items so long as the integrity and evidentiary A: I could not see clearly, sir, the "kuan'', sir.
value of the seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer or team. 42 In other words, Q: You cannot tell which one is the...?
the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply
with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165 and
A: I cannot clearly see, sir.
the IRR does not ipso facto render the seizure and
custody over the items as void and invalid, provided that
the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is Q: So it is possible that the bought item is not here?
justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the
integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are A: I do not know, sir.
properly preserved.43 In People v. Almorfe,44 the Court
stressed that for the above-saving clause to apply, Q: There's no photograph of the bought item here? How
the prosecution must explain the reasons behind the about these, are these the seized items, all of these?
procedural lapses, and that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized evidence had A: Yes, sir.
nonetheless been preserved.45 Also, in People v. De
Guzman,46 it was emphasized that the justifiable
ground for non-compliance must be proven as a Q: How many items were seized?
fact, because the Court cannot presume what these
grounds are or that they even exist .47 A: I do not know, sir.
While it appears that the apprehending officers in this Q: You do not know?
case did conduct a physical inventory and photography
of the drugs allegedly seized from the accused, it is, A: Yes, sir.
nonetheless, baffling that the number of sachets shown
in the photographs taken (i.e., eighteen [18]) do not Q: The chemist examined eleven (11) sachets, are
correspond with the number of sachets for which the there eleven (11) sachets here? There are eighteen
accused, as per the subject Informations and inventory (18) sachets, how come there are eighteen (18)
report,48 sachets in the picture? The accused is charged with
how many? Possession?
Pros. Montenegro A: All the Dumaguete City Intel personnel sir.
Possession- Section 11, Section 12, and Section 5. Q: Around how many sir?
According to case law, "[t]he first stage in the chain of A: Yes sir.
custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or
related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the x x x x56 (Underscoring supplied)
dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending
officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or
If the police officers themselves admitted that the
other identifying signs, should be made in the presence
marking would only take less than five (5) minutes, and
of the apprehended violator immediately upon
that there were around nine (9) to ten (10) police
arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot
companions to secure the same, then there appears to
be denied, because succeeding handlers of
be no appreciable reason as to why the marking could
dangerous drugs or related items will use the
not have been made immediately after the drugs sachets
marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to
were seized. By the police officers' own account, this
set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related
short period of time would have barely affected their
items from other material from the moment they are
impending implementation of the subject warrant. More
confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the
so, it was not claimed that the safety of the police
criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching,
officers would have been prejudiced if the marking was
planting or contamination of evidence. In short, the
done at the place of seizure. Hence, the police officers
marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery
were not justified in not following the procedure set in the
of the dangerous drugs or related items is
law. To reiterate, "[t]he rule requires that [marking]
indispensable in the preservation of their integrity
should be done in the presence of the apprehended
and evidentiary value." 51 To note, "[m]arking upon
violator and immediately upon confiscation to ensure
immediate confiscation has been interpreted to
that they are the same items that enter the chain and are
include marking at the nearest police station, or x x x
eventually the ones offered in evidence."57
the office of the apprehending team."52
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice