~

~
).\epublit of tbe :tlbilippfne11
.,,upremt <!r:ourt
;flllanila

THIRD DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/I\1esdames:
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution
dated September 30, 2020, which reuds asfOllows:

"G.R. No. 239652 (Ronald Rrimuela y Oriana, Petitioner, v. People

of the Philippines, Respondent). - Before us is a Petition for Review on
Certiorari 1 by petitioner Ronald Brimuela y Oriana (Brinrnela) assailing the
Decision' rendered by lhc Court of Appeal (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39603
promulgated on 14 febiuary 2018, affirming his conviction for violating
Section 11, Article II ofRepL1blic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as pronounced in the Decision rendered on 25
January 2017 by Branch 65, Regional Trial Court ofMak.ati City in Criminal
Case No. R-MKT-J 6-02660-CR. 3

Antecedents

An h1forrnation was flied against Brimucla charging him of illeg:,1

possession of Methamphctamine Hydrochloride (shabu), punishable under
Section 11, Article Tl of.RA 9165. 4 Petitioner v..at; indicted thusly:

On the z7cii day of October 2016, in the City of \fakati, the .Philippines,
aCClL~cd, not being authorized by law to posses~ or otherwise use any
dangerous drug and without the corresponding prescription, did then aud
!here willfully, unlav;fully and feloniously have l\1 his possession, direct
custody and control one (1) lllial sealed transparent plafftic sachet con!Wning
zero point z.ero three (0.03) gram of metharnphetamine hydrochloride
(~habu), a dangerous drug.

lwllo, pp. 10-25.

' Id. at 30-41; pe.lliled by As,uciatc lustice Ricardo R. Rosario, (now a Mmnbm· nfthe Court} and concurred
in by Associate J11Stices Ldnardo B. PcTalLa, Tr. and Ronaldo B. Martin of the FolJrl(;{,"IJLh Di,isi<Jll of the
Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id. al 69-73. penned by Judge Edgardo M. Cal dona.
4 SECTION Tl Possession o/DungerousDrug,; The penalty of life imprisonmcnl l<l death and a fine
tallging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (Pl0,000,000.00) shall be
imposed npon any person, who, unless ai:t!horized by law, shall possess all) dangeTOu.s drug in fue
following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof· x x x

- over -
 Resolution -2 - G.R.No.239652
September 30, 2020

CONTR.i\RYTO LAW.'

During his arraignmeut, Brimuela pleaded not guilty to the charge.

Thu~, hial on the merits ensucd_t,

The prosecution's version of the facts starts in the early morning of

27 October 2016 when POl Marcos Berog (POl Berog) and POI Christian
Quimbo (P01 Quimbo), while on roving patrol duty, chanced upon
Brimuela who was then ~landing under a street lamp posl. POI Berog and
POI Quimbo allegedly approached Brimuela because he was acting
suspicious and was holding a plastic sachet containing what appeared to be a
white crystalline suhstauce. When Britnuela noticed the presence or the
police officers, he allegedly said, "Sir, punggamit ko Zang po ito, pasensya
na po. " Brimucla was then placed under arrest, and the confiscated sachet
was marked "AQ."7

Brimuela was then brought to the nearest barangay hall where the
sei7cd contraband was inventoried and photographed in the presence of
Barangay Captain Jaime T. Duallo. POI Berog and POl Quimbo then
proceeded to police station where a request for laboratory examination of the
confiscated substance was made. POI Berog, wbo was allegedly in
possession of the confiscakd substance up to that time, turned it over to the
forensic chemist. A11cr qualitative examination of the subjed specimen, the
same was found to be methamphetaminc hydrochloride, a dangerous drug,
weighing 0.03 grams. The prosecution alleged that the confiscated drug was
the same sample they brought to the court during trial. 8

Meanwhile, Brimuela denied that he was ever in possession of the

seized drug. Jle testified thaL in lhc evening of 27 October 2016, he and his
wife were inside a parked vehicle when men in plain clothes approached
them and asked about the location of a suspeCLed drug pusher named
"Sunny." When Brimuela answered that he did not know who they were
looking for, the men arrested him instantly. During his cros~-cxamination,
Brimuela testified that he did not know the police officers who arrested him
and only came lo know during trial. He also denied having any grudge with
the police officers who arrested him. 9

Ruling of the RTC

As mentioned, the trial court found Brimuela guilty as charged. The

dispositive portion of the RTC's judgment reads:

• Rollo, pp. 30-31.

• Id.at 31.
ld.at31-32 .
• Jd, UL 32-33.

' "
-over- "'
(149)
 Resolution -3 - G.R. No. 239652
September 30, 2020

\VU:KH.EFORE, premises considered. the court finds the accused,

Ronald Brimuela y Oriana, GIJTLlY beyond reasonable doLibt of the crime
of violation of Section 11 of Article II, R.A ..'-lo. 9165 and sentences him
to suftCI the penalty of imprisonment or twelve (12) years and one (I) day,
as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and cighl (8) months, as max,m,m:i,
and lo pay a fine ofThr,ie Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00).

The Branch Clerk. of Court is directed to transmit the plastic sachet

containing shabu subject maller of this case to the PDEA for said agency's
appropriate disposition.

SOORDERRD. 10

The RTC ruled that the testimony of the prosecution's witness that a
plaslic sachet containing a white crystalline substance, which later on turned
out tu be shabu, was recovered from Brimucla, coupled with the fact that he
did not have any license or prescription to possess the same, established
Brirnuela's animus possidendi or his free and conscious intention lo possess
or control a prohibited drug. Moreover, the corpus delicti was proved by the
prosecution.

According to the trial courl, lhc drug presented during trial was the
same drug recovered from Brimuela considering that the prosecution's
evidence were able to establish an unbroken link: fi-om Brimuela, to the
arresting officer, to the forensic chemist, then to the court. 11 Finally, the RTC
brushed aside the observed failure uf the arresting ofricers to secure
representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOI) and
held the same as non-fatal to the prosecution's case. The RTC opines that
the police officer's omission could be excused so long as the evidentiary
value of the seized drug is prcserved. 12 Brimuela appealed his conviction tu
the Court of Appeals.

Ruling of the CA

The CA affinned Brimuela"s conviction, disposing his appeal m this

wise:

W7-fF.:REFORE, the appeal is DENIED and !h<o ass~iled Decision 1s

AfFIR!vfED in toto.

SO 0\UlERED. 13

ao id. at 73.

" l<l.at71-72.
"" Id. at 72-73.
ld. at 40.

- over-
"'
(149)
Resolution -4 - G.R. No. 239652
September 30, 2020

In sustaining the RTC's ruling, appellate court reasoned:

I) Brimuela's first time challenge against the legality of his arrest

could not be enlertained on appeal. The same should have been raised
before entering his plea;I 4

2) The ;;eizcd drug is admis~iblc in evidence because the same ,vas

recovered during his in fl agrante delicto arrest:; 15

3) The fact that the arresting officers were not in their uniforms or that
the arrest was made after their tour of duty does render said arrest illegal; 1"

4) Failure lo comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 was not fatal to the

prosecution's case so long as the evidenliary value of the seized sample is
intact. Moreover, prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody; and,

5) The elements of the crime charged were proven by the prosecution

and could not be defeated by Brimuda's unsubstantiated defense of denial
and frame-up.

Wnen the CA denied his motion for reconsiderdtion, Drinmela filed

the present Petition for Review on Certiorari to challenge his conviction.

Issue

The Court is confronted with the task of determining whether or not

Brimuela was con-eclly convicted of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Brimucla maintains his innocence by highlighting the police officers' failure
to observe Se1.,-tion 21 of RA 9165, specifically their failure lo secure the
presence of media and DOJ representatives to -witness the inventory and
photograph-taking of the seized drug, coupled with the prosecution's failure
to provide justifiable excuses to explain the lapses. 17

Ruling of the Court

The petition is meritmioru;.

\Vhlle the general rule says that factual issues are outside the ambit of
a petition for review, an exception could be made when the trial cm1rl

" Jd at 34.
" IJ. al35.
" Id al 36.
" Id. at 17-23.

- over -
 Resolution -5 - G.R. No. 239652
September 30, 2020

misconstrued facts and circumstances of substance which if con~idered

would alter the outcome of the case. 18 Wr:, find that the trial court, and the
CA as well, made a glaring misapprehension of facts, warranting the Court's
review of the controversy at hand.

Tn prosecutions of violation of RA 9165, it is impr:,rative to establish

that the drugs seized at the time of arrest, or the corpus delicti, was the srune
body of evidence presented in court. T11e State is under strict obligation to
r:,stablish beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drugs by
showing that the drugs offered in court as evidence were the same substance
recovered from the accused. This requirement is satisfied when the chain of
custody mr:-chanism provided undt'T RA 9165, which objective is to remove
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidencc,' 9 are faithfully
complied with. The rule~ on establishing chain of cuslody is now a mandatory
policy. 20 Section 21 ofRA 9165, as amended, provides;

SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or

Surrendered Dangero11s Drugs. Plant Soun;e~ of Dangerous Drugs,
Controlled Precw-sors and Essential Chemicals, lnstrumcnts/Paraphemalia
and/or Labornlory Equipment. - Tue PDEA shall lake charge and have
custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled
precursors and e.ssernial chemicals, as well as ins1mmeuls/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, sdzed and/or Sillrcndcred, for
proper dil.'jlosition in the following manner:

(1) The apprehending team hav111g initial custody and control of the
<langeTO\lS drugs, controlled precursors ,m<l essential chemicals.
instrllill.ents/paraphernalia and/or laborntOTy equipment shall, immediately
after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the sciz~..J.
items and photograph the same in the presence of the accu~ctl or the
person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or sei,cd, or
his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public t1fficial and a
representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who
shall be required to sib'Il the copies of the inventory aml be given a copy
thereof: Provided, Umt the physical inventory and photograph shall be
conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the
nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending
officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures:
Provided, finally, Thal noncompliance of these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long a~ the i11tegrity and the evidcntiary value of the
seized itetIL~ are pmp<lrly pi-eserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall
not render \'oid :md im-alid such seizures and custody over said items. x x x
(Emphasis supplied)

It is readily apparent thal under the present law, the conduct of

physical inventory and pbotographing of the seized drug must be done in the
presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were
confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an

" Samiugo L,ghierage Corporation v Court of"Appea/s, 476 Phil. 579 (20M); G.R No. 139629, 21 June
2004 [Per J. Carpio].
1' People v. Angngao, 755 Phil. 597 (2015); G.R "'-IQ 189296, 11 March2015 [Per J. Bersamin].
"° People,: Lim. G.R. No. 231989, 04 September 2018 [Per J. Peralta].

~ over-
 Resolution -6 - G.R. No. 239652
September 30, 2020

elected public official, and, (3) a represenLativc of the National Prosecution

Service or the media. Tlere, it is undisputed that only a barangay official
was present when the seized drug was inventoried and photographed. 21
Another violation was committed by the arresting officers when the
inventory and photograph-taking ¼as conducted in a barangay hall instead
of the nearest police station. 22

Even more damning is the prosecution's failure to give an explanation

on why the above-quoted witness requirement was not observed. w·e have
repeatedly held it is the prosecution's duty to give adequate justification for
the arresting officers' non-compliance with the procedure laid down in
Section 21 of RA 9165. 2 ' Moreover, the explanation must be proven as a
fact in accordance "'ith the rules on evidence, and it is not enough that the
apprehending officers simply mention a justifiable ground, they must also
clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on
the steps they took to preserve tbe integrity of the seized items. 24

There is nothing on record lo show that the arresting officers made

any attempt to explain the lapses they committed. Worse, the CA tried 10
justify the arresting officers' mistake by suggesting that the unavailability of
the required -witnesses could be explained by the fact that the arrest was
made at such an odd hour. 25 Courts should alway~ be reminded not to engage
in speculation or estimation of what the prosecution's reasons might be just
lo sustain a conviction.

We urge our law enforcers to observe Section 21 of RA 9165 to the

letter. The Court will not tolerate non-compliance especially when the
subject specimen is of minuscule quantity where the probability of planting,
tampering, or contaminating evidence is amplificd. 26

WHEREFORE, the Appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of

the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39603, affirming the Decision
rendered on 25 January 2017 by Branch 65, Regional Trial Court of Makali
City, finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section
11, Article lI of RA 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Accordingly, petitioner Ronald Brimuela y Oriana is hereby

ACQUlTTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. The Bureau of
CoJTcctions is ORDERED to CAUSE the IMMEUlATE RELEASE of
petitioner Ronald Brimucla y Oriana unless the latter is being lawfully
held for another cause. Let fill entry of final judgment be issued i=ediately.

s1 Id.
22 Id.
" People v. [Wales. G.R, No. 233656, 02 October2019 [Per J. Ca!Jliol.
04 People v Sipin, G.R, :;/o. 221290. 71 June 2018 [}'er J.Pcralta].
25
Rollo. p. 38.
26 Veriiio v. People. G.R. No. 225710, 19 June 2019 [Per J. Leo.nen].

- over-
Resoluti.oo -7 - G .R. No. 239652
September 30, 2020

Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the

Bureau of Corrections, New Bilibid Prison, Muntinlupa City, for immediate
implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is
ordered to report to this Court within five (5) working days from receipt of
this Resolution the action he has taken.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

~~~<,)~~ ....~
MISAEL DOJ\1INGO C. BATTUNG III
Division Clerk ofCourt
<..
11:.(1.._

Special & Appealed Cases Service PGen. Diomardo B. Carlos

PUBLIC ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CHIEF, PHIUPPIN£ NATIONAL POLICE
DOJ Agencies Building National Headquarters
East Avenue cor. NIA Road Camp Craine, Quezon City
I I 04 Diliman, Quezon City
The Director General
COURT OF APPEALS PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
CA G.R. CR No. 39603 PDEA Bldg., NIA Northside Road
IOOO Manila Nmional Govemment Center
Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City
OFFICE OF T HE SOLICITOR GENERAL
134 Amorsolo Street The Chairman
Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD
3'~ Floor DDB-PDEA Bldg.,
The Presiding Judge NIA Northside Road
REGIONAL TRlAL COURT National Go,•em ment Center
Branch 65, Manila Brgy. Pinyahan, Quezon City
1200 Makati City
(Crim. Case Ko. R-MKT-16-02660-CR) PHlLJPPIN£ JUDICIAL ACADEMY
Research Publications and Linkages Office
The Director General Supreme Court, Manila
BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS [research_philja@yahoo.com)
1770 Muminlupa City
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE
The Superintendent Supreme Court. Manila
New Bilibid Prison [For uploading pursuant to A.M . 12-7•1 -SC]
BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS
1770 Muntinlupa Cir)' LIBRARY SERVICES
Supreme Court, Manila
Ronald Brimuela y Oriana
c!o The Superintendent Judgment Division
BUREAU OF CORRECTIONS JUDICIAL RECORDS OFFICE
1770 Muntinlopa City Supreme Court, Manila

G.R. No. 2396S2 (149)

,;.,, URES