G.R. No.

233744, February 28, 2018 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-

Appellee, v. WILSON RAMOS Y CABANATAN, Accused-Appellant.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 233744, February 28, 2018

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILSON

RAMOS Y CABANATAN, Accused-Appellant.

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Before the Court is an ordinary appeal 1 filed by accused-appellant Wilson Ramos y

Cabanatan (Ramos) assailing the Decision2 dated March 21, 2017 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07864, which affirmed the Judgment3 dated
October 23, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 79 (RTC) in
Criminal Case No. Q-10-167524 finding him 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."

The Facts

This case stemmed from an Information 5 filed before the RTC charging Ramos of the
crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the accusatory portion of which states:

That on or about the 12th day of November 2010, in Quezon City,

Philippines, the above-named accused, without lawful authority, did
then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade[,] administer,
dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit
or transport, or act as broker in the said transaction, dangerous drugs,
to wit:

one (1) heat[-] sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point
zero eight ten (0.0810) gram of white crystalline subs[tance]

one (1) heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point

zero four five nine (0.0459) gram of white crystalline subs[tance]

one (1) heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point

zero six one six (0.0616) gram of white crystalline subs[tance]

one (1) heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point

zero five one nine (0.0519) gram of white crystalline subs[tance]
 one (1) heat[-] sealed transparent plastic sachet containing zero point
zero five thirty (0.0530) gram of white crystalline subs[tance]

with a total of ZERO POINT TWENTY NINE THIRTY FOUR (0.2934)

grams, all positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride otherwise
known as shabu.

CONTRARY TO LAW.6 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)

The prosecution alleged that at around 8:00 o'clock in the evening of November 12,
2010, the operatives of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) went to
Pingkian, Pasong Tamo, Quezon City, in order to implement a pre-organized buy-
bust operation targeting a certain "Wilson" (later identified as Ramos) who was
known to be a notorious drug pusher in the area. Upon arrival, the poseur-buyer,
Intelligence Officer 1 Cesar Dealagdon, Jr. (IO1 Dealagdon) and the confidential
informant met with Ramos, who immediately demanded the money. Since IO1
Dealagdon requested that the "item" be shown first, Ramos took out a black coin
purse from his pocket and pulled out five (5) sachets containing the
suspected shabu therefrom. After giving the marked money to Ramos and receiving
the sachets from him, IO1 Dealagdon performed the pre-arranged signal, prompting
his back-ups to swoop in and arrest Ramos. Ramos was then frisked, resulting in the
recovery of the marked money, and thereafter, was brought to the police station.
Thereat, the PDEA operatives conducted the inventory and photography of the
seized items in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Jose Ruiz (Kgd. Ruiz). IO1
Dealagdon then brought the seized items to the PDEA Crime Laboratory where the
contents were confirmed7 to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu.8

For his part, Ramos pleaded not guilty to the charge against him and interposed the
defenses of denial and frame-up.9 He maintained that at around 3 o'clock in the
afternoon of the day he was arrested, he was driving his tricycle towards home when
he decided to park at a jeepney terminal. After a while, a motor vehicle stopped near
him, from which armed men came out. He was asked where the "items" were but
after answering that he did not know, the armed men mauled him and forcefully
boarded him inside their vehicle. He was then taken to Camp Crame where he saw
the man arrested before him released from custody. Finally, Ramos claimed that he
only saw the black coin purse and the five (5) small plastic sachets for the first time
after they came from Barangay Pinyahan en route to the PDEA Office.10

The RTC Ruling

In a Judgment11 dated October 23, 2015, the RTC found Ramos guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged, and accordingly, sentenced him to suffer the
penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of P500,000.00.12

The RTC found that all the essential elements in the Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs
have been proven, to wit: (a) the transaction or sale took place; (b) the corpus
delicti or the illicit drug was presented as evidence; and (c) the buyer and seller were
identified. It found that the prosecution was able to establish that a sale actually took
place between IO1 Dealagdon, the poseur-buyer, and Ramos, who was caught
in flagrante delicto selling shabu, during the conduct of a buy-bust operation.
Moreover, the RTC held that the prosecution has sufficiently shown that the integrity
and evidentiary value of the confiscated items were duly preserved in this case,
pointing out that the chain of custody of the said items was shown to be continuous
and unbroken, from the time IO1 Dealagdon recovered the same from Ramos until
they were turned over to the PDEA Crime Laboratory and examined. Accordingly, the
RTC upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of duty of the arresting
officers in the absence of showing that they were motivated by ill will against Ramos.
Finally, the RTC rejected Ramos's defenses of denial and frame-up, being inherently
weak defenses against the positive testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.13

Aggrieved, Ramos appealed14 to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision15 dated March 21, 2017, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC ruling, holding
that the prosecution had shown the presence of all the elements of the crime
charged.16 It further refused to give credence to Ramos's insistence that the arresting
officers failed to observe the chain of custody rule regarding the disposition of the
seized items, i.e., failure to make an inventory at the place of his arrest in the
presence of a media man or a government official, as the PDEA operatives offered a
justifiable explanation for the same. In view thereof, as well as the fact that the
arresting officers sufficiently complied with the proper procedure in the handling of
the seized items, the CA concluded that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
seized items have been preserved.17

Hence, this appeal.18

The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA correctly upheld
Ramos's conviction for the crime charged.

The Court's Ruling

At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire
case for review, and thus, it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and
appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or
unassigned.19 "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case
and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed
from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law."20

Ramos was charged with the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, defined and
penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. In every prosecution of unauthorized
sale of dangerous drugs, it is essential that the following elements be proven beyond
reasonable doubt: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the
consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment.21

Moreover, the prosecution must prove with moral certainty the identity of the
prohibited drug, as the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus
delicti of the crime. It has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous
drugs so as to obviate any unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous
drugs on account of switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. Accordingly,
the prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain from the moment
the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime.22
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 outlines the procedure which the police officers must
follow when handling the seized drugs in order to preserve their integrity and
evidentiary value.23 Under the said section, prior to its amendment by RA
10640,24 the apprehending team shall, among others, immediately after seizure
and confiscation conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized
items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were
seized, or his 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 of the same, and the
seized drugs must be turned over to the PNP Crime Laboratory within twenty-four
(24) hours from confiscation for examination.25 In the case of People v.
Mendoza,26 the Court stressed that "[without the insulating presence of the
representative from the media or the [DOJ], or any elected public official during
the seizure and marking of the [seized drugs], the evils of switching, 'planting'
or contamination of the evidence that had tainted the buy-busts conducted under
the regime of RA No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again reared their ugly
heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation
of the [said drugs], that were evidence herein of the corpus delicti, and thus
adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the
accused. Indeed, the x x x presence of such witnesses would have preserved an
unbroken chain of custody."27

The Court, however, clarified that under varied field conditions, strict compliance with
the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 may not always be possible. 28 In fact, the
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 - which is now crystallized
into statutory law with the passage of RA 10640 - provide that the said inventory and
photography may be conducted at the nearest police station or office of the
apprehending team in instances of warrantless seizure, and that non-compliance
with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165 - under justifiable grounds - will
not render void and invalid the seizure and custody over the seized items so
long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly
preserved by the apprehending officer or team.29 In other words, the failure of the
apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA
9165 and its 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 justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are properly preserved. 30 In People v. Almorfe,31the Court
explained that for the above-saving clause to apply, the prosecution must
explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and that the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized evidence had nonetheless been
preserved.32 Also, in People v. De Guzman,33 it was emphasized that the justifiable
ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court
cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist.34

After a judicious study of the case, the Court finds that the police officers committed
unjustified deviations from the prescribed chain of custody rule, thereby putting into
question the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized
from Ramos.

First, although it is true that the seized plastic sachets were marked in the presence
of Ramos himself and an elected public official, i.e., Kgd. Ruiz, the same was not
done in the presence of any representative from the DOJ and the media. IO1
Dealagdon admitted this when he testified on direct and cross-examinations, thus:

DIRECT EXAMINATION:

[ACP Bartolome]: Mr. witness, who were present during the inventory?

[IO1 Dealagdon]: The accused alias Wilson, Barangay elected official,

Kagawad Ruiz, me, Agent Oliver dela Rosa, and other members of
team, sir.

Q: How about DOJ representative?

A: None, sir.35

CROSS-EXAMINATION:

[Atty. Manzano]: After the arrest of alias Wilson, you immediately

proceeded to Barangay Pinyahan, correct?

[IO1 Dealagdon]: Yes, ma'am.

Q: And according to you, you conducted the marking, inventory and

photograph?

A: Yes, ma'am.

Q: The marking and inventory was not done in the presence of

representative from the Media and DOJ, correct?

A: Yes, ma'am.36

When asked to explain the absence of any representatives from the DOJ and the
media during the conduct of inventory and photography, Intelligence Officer 1 Oliver
Dela Rosa (IO1 Dela Rosa), another member of the buy-bust team, testified:

[ACP Bartolome]: Who were present during the preparation of this

Inventory?

[IO1 Dela Rosa]: Kagawad Ruiz, sir.

Q: Of what barangay?

A: Brgy. Pinyahan, sir.

Q: Why is it that there [is] no signatures in this space provided for the
representative of the DOJ and media?

A: There was no media available, sir.

Q: Why?
 A: It was past office hours and we cannot find a media, sir.37

The Court finds the aforesaid explanation inadequate for the saving clause to apply.
As may be gleaned from the records, as early as 2:30 in the afternoon of November
12, 2010, the PDEA operatives already conducted a briefing where they organized
the buy-bust operation against Ramos; and such operation was implemented at 8
o'clock in the evening of even date.38 Verily, the PDEA operatives had hours to spare
before the buy-bust team was deployed in Pingkian, Pasong Tamo, Quezon City to
implement the entrapment operation against Ramos. They could have used that time
to secure the presence of representatives from the DOJ and the media who would
have accompanied them in the conduct of the inventory and photography of the items
to be seized from Ramos on account of the buy-bust; but unfortunately, they did not.

It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render
the confiscated items inadmissible.39 However, a justifiable reason for such failure or
a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required
witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced.40 In People v.
Umipang,41 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." 42 Verily, mere statements of
unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are
unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance.43 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.44

Second, the combined weight of the seized specimens, which initially

weighed 0.2934 gram during the first qualitative examination,45 decreased
to 0.2406 during the re-examination46 by the second forensic chemist. These were
the same items that IO1 Dealagdon identified in court as those that he had previously
marked. Although the discrepancy of 0.0528 in the amounts may be considered
negligible, the prosecution, nonetheless, did not even venture to explain how the
discrepancy came about. As already adverted to, the saving clause "applies only (1)
where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained
the cited justifiable grounds, and (2) when the prosecution established that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. The
prosecution, thus, loses the benefit of invoking the presumption of regularity and
bears the burden of proving — with moral certainty — that the illegal drug presented
in court is the same drug that was confiscated from the accused during his arrest."47

Verily, the procedural lapses committed by the PDEA operatives, which were
unfortunately left unjustified by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond
reasonable doubt against Ramos, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus
delicti had been compromised.48 It is well-settled that the procedure in Section 21 of
RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be
brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an
impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects.49 As such, since the
prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for non-compliance with Section 21
of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640, as well as its IRR, Ramos's acquittal is
perforce in order.

As a final note, the Court finds it fitting to echo its recurring pronouncement in recent
jurisprudence on the subject matter:

The Court strongly supports the campaign of the government against

drug addiction and commends the efforts of our law enforcement
officers against those who would inflict this malediction upon our
people, especially the susceptible youth. But as demanding as this
campaign may be, it cannot be more so than the compulsions of the
Bill of Rights for the protection of liberty of every individual in the
realm, including the basest of criminals. The Constitution covers with
the mantle of its protection the innocent and the guilty alike against
any manner of high-handedness from the authorities, however
praiseworthy their intentions.

Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in
disregarding the right of the individual in the name of order. [For
indeed,] [o]rder is too high a price for the loss of liberty. x x x.50

In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the positive duty to
prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as
amended. As such, they must have the initiative to not only acknowledge but
also justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during the
proceedings before the trial court. Since compliance with this procedure is
determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and
ultimately, the fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the
same was not raised, or even threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude
the appellate court, including this Court, from fully examining the records of the case
if only to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely complied with, and if
not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If no such reasons
exist, then it is the appellate court's bounden duty to acquit the accused, and
perforce, overturn a conviction.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 21, 2017 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 07864 is hereby REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Wilson Ramos y Cabanatan
is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is
ordered to cause his immediate release, unless he is being lawfully held in custody
for any other reason.

SO ORDERED.