People v. Suating (2020) - 10.5
People v. Suating (2020) - 10.5
People v. Suating (2020) - 10.5
DECISION
LEONEN, J : p
Only the police testified for the prosecution. The actual poseur [-]
buyer was not presented, and the police officers were 10 meters away. The
alleged contraband was laid out on the table when the barangay official
came. There was no testimony on the chain of custody from the arresting
officers to the persons who tested the alleged contraband.
In contrast, the accused presented five (5) witnesses from the
community to prove that the alleged contraband was not taken from the
accused, and that no buy-bust operation occurred. The accused testified that
when he was searched, they only found two pesos and fifty centavos (P2.50)
on his person.
Yet, the trial court and the Court of Appeals were willing to send this
accused to a life in prison and to impose a fine of P500,000.00 for allegedly
selling a stick of marijuana.
We reverse. Efforts of law enforcers to go after the real drug syndicates
are undermined by these obviously fictitious arrests. All it accomplishes is
alienate our people, enable corrupt law enforcers, and undermine the
confidence of our people — especially those who are impoverished and
underprivileged — on our court's ability to do justice.
Courts must exercise "heightened scrutiny, consistent with the
requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving
miniscule amounts of drugs [for] [t]hese can be readily planted and
tampered." 1
This Court resolves an Appeal 2 filed by Ronald Suating y Sayon, alias
"Bok" (Suating), from the Decision 3 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-
HC No. 01702 which affirmed the Regional Trial Court 4 ruling that he was
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs. 5
Two separate (2) Informations were filed against Suating for violations
of Sections 5 6 and 11 7 of Republic Act No. 9165, 8 otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. The charging portions of the
Informations provided:
Criminal Case No. 8451-69
"That on November 9, 2011 in Silay City, Negros Occidental,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell one large stick of marijuana cigarette marked as BOK-
1, a prohibited drug to an asset of the Silay City PNP posing as a
poseur [-] buyer in exchange for three [3] twenty peso bills with serial
numbers RS65451 (sic), RT180921, and RT395576 all marked with
the underline in the last digit of each serial numbers.
CONTRARY TO LAW."
Criminal Case No. 8452-69
"That on November 9, 2011 in Silay City, Negros Occidental,
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously have in possession and control [one] (1) large rolled stick
of Marijuana cigarette with a total weight of 0.14 grams marked as
BOK-2, a prohibited drug without any license or permit to possess the
same.
CONTRARY TO LAW." 9
Upon arraignment, Suating pleaded not guilty to the charges. 10 Joint
trial on the merits commenced. 11
The testimonies of the witnesses 12 for the prosecution corroborated
the following account of events:
Acting on a tip from concerned constituents and barangay officials, the
Philippine National Police of Silay City (PNP Silay) effected a surveillance to
verify whether or not Suating was selling marijuana within the area of
Barangay Mambulac Elementary School. 13 After several test buys, the
Information against Suating was confirmed. 14
In coordination with the Regional Office of the Philippine Drug
Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Iloilo City, the police officers planned a buy-
bust operation. They prepared three (3) P20.00 bills with serial numbers
RS654551, RT180921, and RT395576. As marking, they underlined the last
digit of each bill's serial number. They subscribed to the marked money
before City Prosecutor Ma. Lisa Lorraine Atotubo, and the use of the same
was entered in their blotter book under entry number 01723. 15
Before the buy-bust operation, a short briefing commenced. PO2
Reynaldo Bernil (PO2 Bernil) handed the marked money to a confidential
asset who was the designated poseur [-] buyer. 16
On the afternoon of November 9, 2011, 17 the operation ensued.
The poseur [-] buyer went to the premises of Barangay Mambulac
Elementary School, ahead of the police officers. 18 Shortly thereafter, he
called PO2 Bernil when Suating was already "within his sight." 19 The rest of
the police officers followed, positioning themselves approximately 10 meters
away from the area of operation and about 50 meters away from the school.
20
PO2 Bernil was the point person of the entrapment. He saw the poseur
[-] buyer approach Suating and engage in a short conversation with him. He
also witnessed when Suating left the area of operation, only to return to the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
poseur [-] buyer after a few minutes. While Suating and the poseur [-] buyer
were talking, the latter took out the marked money from his pocket and gave
it to Suating. In exchange, Seating handed unknown articles suspected to be
marijuana. 21
After the sale, the poseur [-] buyer left the area. He proceeded to
where PO2 Bernil was in order to surrender the large stick of suspected
marijuana cigarette bought from Suating. PO2 Bernil then handed the item
to PO2 Ian Libo-on (PO2 Libo-on), who marked it with "BOK-1." 22
PO2 Bernil and the other police officers immediately moved towards
Suating and restrained his hands. After introducing themselves as persons of
authority, they apprehended Suating and informed him of his constitutional
rights. Suating's father, along with the other unidentified individuals,
attempted to stop the arrest but to no avail. 23
Thereafter, the police officers brought Suating to a police station in
Silay City, and proceeded to conduct a body search on him in the presence
of Kagawad Jose Junsay of Barangay Mambulac. Found in his possession
were the marked money used during the operation, together with another
large rolled cigarette stick of suspected marijuana, which was marked "BOK-
2" by PO2 Libo-on. 24
In the presence of an elected official, the police officers inventoried and
photographed the confiscated items. After the request letter was prepared,
the items were brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory 25 of the Negros
Occidental Police Provincial Office in Bacolod City. 26 Under Chemistry Report
No. D-217-2011, Forensic Officer Paul Jerome Puentespina (Forensic Officer
Puentespina) examined the seized illicit drugs, which yielded positive for
marijuana. 27
On the other hand, Suating denied all charges against him and claimed
that he was merely framed by the police. 28
Suating detailed in his testimony, which the witnesses corroborated,29
that he was allegedly buying fish in the flea market of Barangay Mambulac
30 on the day of the buy-bust operation, when a police officer suddenly
apprehended him. The police officer brought him to a room in Silay City
Police Station where they asked him certain questions. When Barangay
Kagawad Junsay arrived, Suating was frisked. However, they were only able
to recover two pesos and fifty centavos (P2.50) from his possession.
Thereafter, the police officers took his photo, made him sign a document,
and later brought him to the Negros Occidental Police Provincial Office where
he was made to urinate in a disposable cup. 31
The Regional Trial Court convicted Suating of the charges. 32
The Regional Trial Court did not find merit in Suating's contention that
the buy-bust operation did not happen, 33 specifying how Suating was
apprehended through a well-planned entrapment, which was conducted
after monitoring and validation by the police officers. 34
The Regional Trial Court found the testimonies of police officers Bernil
and Libo-on to be "detailed and straightforward[.]" 35 Hinging on the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
presumption of regularity in the performance of their official duties, and in
the absence of any convincing proof that they have ill intent to falsely testify
against Suating, the trial court upheld the testimonies of the arresting
officers. 36 The dispositive portion of the trial court Decision read:
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED:
In Criminal Case No. 8451-69, this Court finds accused, Ronald
Suating y Sayon a.k.a. "Bok," GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as his
guilt was proven by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, this Court sentences accused, Ronald Suating y
Sayon a.k.a "Bok," to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment, the
same to be served by him at the National Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa
City, Province of Rizal.
Accused named is, further, ordered by this Court to pay a fine
of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency.
In Criminal Case No. 8452-69, this Court finds accused, Ronald
Suating y Sayon a.k.a. "Bok," GUILTY beyond any reasonable doubt of
Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as his
guilt was proven by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, and in application of the pertinent provisions of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, this Court sentences accused, Ronald
Suating y Sayon a.k.a. "Bok," to suffer the penalty of imprisonment
for a period of [sic] from TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY TO
FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, the same to be served by him at the National
Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, Province of Rizal.
Accused named is, further, ordered by this Court to pay a fine
of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency.
The two (2) rolled sticks of marijuana cigarettes (Exhibits "H-1"
and "H-2", prosecution) are ordered remitted to the office of the
Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) at Negros Occidental
Provincial Police Office (NOPPO), Camp Alfredo Montelibano, Sr.,
Bacolod City, for proper disposition.
In the service of the sentences imposed on him by this Court,
accused named shall be given full credit for the entire period of his
detention pending trial.
NO COSTS.
SO ORDERED. 37
Footnotes
1. Lescano v. People , 778 Phil. 460, 479 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]
citing People v. Holgado , 741 Phil. 78 (2014) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division].
2. CA rollo, pp. 87-89.
3. Rollo , pp. 4-15. The Decision dated December 22, 2014 was penned by
Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (Chairman, now a member of this
Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and
Jhosep Y. Lopez of the Nineteenth Division of the Court of Appeals, Cebu City.
4. CA rollo, pp. 29-38. The Decision dated July 29, 2013 in Criminal Case Nos. 8451-
69 and 8452-69 was penned by Presiding Judge Felipe G. Banzon of the
Regional Trial Court of Silay City, Branch 69.
5. Rollo , p. 14, CA Decision.
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years
and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to
Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous
drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or
cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil,
methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such
as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those
similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without
having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond
therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of
marijuana.
8. Rollo , p. 5.
9. Id.
10. Id.
14. Id.
15. Id.
16. Id.
17. Rollo , p. 6.
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. Id.
24. Id.
25. Rollo , p. 7.
26. CA rollo, p. 32.
27. Rollo , p. 7.
28. Id.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
29. Id. The witnesses for the defense were Albert Salonga, Aileen Capote, Luz
Maalat, Jenelyn Javellana, and Romeo Suating.
30. CA rollo, p. 33.
31. Rollo , p. 7.
36. Id.
39. Rollo , p. 9.
42. Id.
43. Id.
47. Rollo , p. 1.
48. CA rollo, pp. 94-95.
51. CA rollo, p. 19, Brief for the Accused-Appellant. Suating was firm that he did not
commit the charge and that he does not own the articles seized from his
possession.
52. Id.
59. Id.
60. Id.
61. Id. at 26.
69. People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
70. Franco v. People, 780 Phil. 36, 43 (2016) [Per J. Reyes, Third Division].
71. People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
72. People v. Ismael , 806 Phil. 21 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
73. Id. at 29 citing People v. Alberto , 625 Phil. 545 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo,
Second Division].
74. Id.
75. Id. citing Reyes v. Court of Appeals , 686 Phil. 137 (2012) [Per J. Bersamin, First
Division].
76. Id.
77. People v. Garcia , 599 Phil. 416, 426 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
78. People v. Ismael , 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division]
citing Fajardo v. People , 691 Phil. 752 (2012) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
79. People v. Garcia , 599 Phil. 416, 434 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
80. Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division]
citing United States v. Howard-Arias , 679 F.2d 363, 366; and United States v.
Ricco, 52 F.3d 58.
81. People v. Casacop , 755 Phil. 265, 278 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division]
citing People v. Remigio, 700 Phil. 452 (2012) [Per J. Perez, Second Division].
82. CA rollo, p. 34.
88. Id.
89. Id.
90. Republic Act No. 9165 (2002) was the prevailing law before its amendment in
2014 by Republic Act No. 10640.
93. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165 (2002), sec. 21
(a).
94. People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
95. People v. Ismael , 806 Phil. 21 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division].
96. People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
97. Id. at 541.
101. People v. Casacop , 755 Phil. 265 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
102. Id. at 283.
105. Rollo , p. 7.
106. CA rollo, p. 57, Brief for the Appellee. That the inventory and photograph were
made in the presence of Celis and a Barangay Kagawad was similarly
affirmed in the Brief of the Appellant at pages 16-17 of the CA Rollo.
107. People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 356, 376
(2018) [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
108. Id. at 375.
112. People v. Casacop , 755 Phil. 265, 278 (2015) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
113. People v. Crispo, G.R. No. 230065, March 14, 2018, 859 SCRA 356, 377-378
[Per J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division].
114. Lescano v. People , 778 Phil. 460, 475 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second Division].
115. Id.
117. People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 234 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
118. People v. Garcia , 599 Phil. 416 (2009) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
124. People v. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226 (2011) [Per J. Brion, Third Division].
125. Id. at 244.
127. People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214 (2008) [Per J. Brion, Second Division].
128. Id. at 244.
129. Id.
130. Id.
131. See Lescano v. People , 778 Phil. 460, 470 (2016) [Per J. Leonen, Second
Division].