Professional Documents
Culture Documents
..
SL:?F:E!i-F: COURT OF THE PH'LIPPINES
t\.~-:_:c 1~1: :i'.-~,v.T101,~ o~.-::;cr.:
1
BY·__ ·--·--
TH1.1E:__ :
;§l!lnniln
SECOND DIVISION
'
PEOPLE OF THE G.R. No. 242947
PHILIPPINES,
Plaintiff-Appellee, Present:
·1 7_
x---------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
CAGUIOA, J.:
• On official leave.
1
See Notice of Appeai C.:ated September ;l, 2018; rollo, pp. 19-21.
2 Rollo, pp. 3--l Ii. Penned by Associate Justice Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas with Associate Justices Edgardo
T. Lloren ::id Walter S. Ong; concutTing.
CA rQ!lo, Pi'- 12-40. Penned by Pre!>iding Judge Ric S. Bastasa.
4
Titled "A~ ACT lNSTITum:a THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING
REPL,BLIC ACT NO. 647 5. OTHERW!SE KNO\VN AS TIIE DANGEROUS OR! JGS Ac1 Of- 1972, As AMENDED,
PR:::·v:DJNG FUNDS T;-JERE:-0R, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 2429.4-.7
CONTRARY TO LAW.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Aimee T. Pilayre, POl Gilbert Daabay, PO3 Michael Angcon, PO2 Lord
Jericho N. Barral [(PO2 Barral)] and SPO2 Roy P. Vertudes [(SPO2
Vertudes)]. Their r~spective testimonies as summed up by the RTC are as
follows: '
xxxx
xxxx
The defense, for its part, presented Mario D. Manabat as [its] sole
witness. The gist of his testimony is as follows:
xxxx
Afte'r trial on the merits, in its Decision6 dated September 5, 2017, the
RTC con~icted accused-appellant Manabat of the crimes charged. The
dispositive portion of the said Decision reads:
5
Rollo, pp. 4-10.
6 CA rollo, pp. 32-40. Penned by Presiding Judge Ric S. Bastasa.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 242947
SO ORDERED. 7
After carefully reviewing the records of the case, the CA found that:
7
Id. at 40.
Id. at 38-39.
9
Rollo, p. 18.
Decision 9 G.R. No. 242947
The Issue
For resolution of the Court is the sole issue of whether the RTC and CA
erred in convicting accused-appellant Manabat of the crimes charged.
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the State bears not only the burden
of proving these elements, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body
of the crime. In drug cases, the dangerous drug itself is the very corpus delicti
of the violation of the law. 13 While it is true that a buy-bust operation is a
legally effective and proven procedure, sanctioned by law, for apprehending
drug peddlers and distributors, 14 the law nevertheless also requires strict
compliance with procedures laid down by it to ensure that rights are
safeguarded.
10
Id. at 13-14.
11
People v. Opiana, 750 Phil. 140, 147 (2015).
12
People v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 198875 (Notice), June 4, 2014.
13
People v. Guzon, 719 Phil. 441, 450-451 (2013).
14
People v. Mantalaba, 669 Phil. 461,471 (2011).
Decision 10 G.R. No. 242947
15
The said section reads as follows:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition ofConfiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous
Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. - The PDEA shall
take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or
laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in
the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the
drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically
inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her 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
thereofI.]
16
People v. Santos, 562 Phil. 458,471 (2007), citing People v. Tan, 401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000).
17
IRR of RA 9165, Art. II, Sec. 21 (a).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 242947
t
planned activity. Verily, a buy-bust team normally has enough time to gather
and bring with it the said witnesses.
The presence of the witnesses from the DOJ, media, and from public
elective office is necessary to protect against the possibility of planting,
contamination, or loss of the seized drug. Using the language of the Court in
People v. Mendoza 19 , without the insulating presence of the representative
from the media or the DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure
and marking of the 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
subject sachet that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely
affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. 20
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during
the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It
is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as
it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any
doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-
bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating
witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the
witnesses would be able testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of
the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of
RA 9165.
Based from the foregoing, the Court holds that the buy-bust operation
was not conducted in accordance with law.
First, it is not disputed whatsoever that the witnesses were called and
eventually arrived a~ the scene of the crime only after the accused-appellant
was already apprehended by P02 Barra/. On cross-examination, P02 Barral
readily admitted that during the apprehension of accused-appellant Manabat,
the witnesses were not present:
Q You mean to say that during the arrest, the witnesses did not arrive
yet?
~
Q Before you proceeded to ABC Printing Press you did not yet
contact the witnesses from the DOJ, the media and from the elected
officials of the barangay right?
Q Only after Mario was arrested and handcuffed that you did contact
those witnesses, correct?
A Yes, sir. 23
Q The witnesses are not shown in these pictures during the search, right?
A No, sir.
A Yes, sir.
A None, sir.
xxx'x
A Yes, sir.
27
TSN dated'October 25, 2016, pp. 18-19.
Decision 14 G.R. No. 242941
Third, the Court notes that the marking of the plastic sachets allegedly
recovered was irregularly done.
xxxx
28
Records, p. 96.
29
See People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 461 (2015).
30
Philippine National Police Drug Enforcement Manual, PNPM-D-O-3-1-99 [NG], the precursor anti-
illegal drug operations manual prior to the 20 IO and 2014 AIDSOTF Manual.
Decision 15 G.R. No. 242947
At this juncture, it is well to point-out that while the RTC and CA were
correct in stating that denial is an inherently weak defense, it grievously erred
in using the same principle to convict accused-appellant Manabat. Both the
RTC and CA overlooked the long-standing legal tenet that the starting point
of every criminal prosecution is that the accused has the constitutional right
to be presumed innocent. 32 And this presumption of innocence is overturned
only when the prosecution has discharged its burden of proof in criminal cases
and has proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, 33 by proving
31
Id; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
32 CONSTITUTION, Art. III, Sec. 14(2). "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved xx x."
33
The Rules of Court provides that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of proof
as excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty. Only moral certainty is required, or tltat
Decision 16 G.R. No. 242947
each and every element of the crime charged in the information, to warrant a
finding of guilt for that crime or for any other crime necessarily included
therein. 34 Differently stated, there must exist no reasonable doubt as to the
existence of each and every element of the crime to sustain a conviction.
degree of proof which produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind. (RULES OF COURT, Rule 133, Sec.
2)
34
See People v. Belocura, 693 Phil. 476, 503-504 (2012).
35
745 Phil. 237 (2014).
36
Id. at 250-251.
37
See People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 350(2015).
38
797 Phil. 671 (2016).
Decision 17 G.R. No. 242947
Both lower courts favored the members of the buy-bust team with
the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duty, mainly
because the accused did not show that they had ill motive behind his
entrapment.
39
Id. at 690. (Emphasis supplied)
40
People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 770 (2014).
41
People v. Catalan, 699 Phil. 603, 621 (2012).
42
699 Phil. 603 (2012).
Decision 18 G.R. No. 2429n.
43
presumption of regularity of performance in their favor. (Emphasis
supplied)
SO ORDERED.
~T.1...1..NI s. CAGUIOA
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
Chairperson
43
Id. at 621.
Decision 19 G.R. No. 242947
AMY l"k;~-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.
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division
Chairperson's Attestation, I certify 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.