G.R. No. 240431




G.R. No. 240431, July 7, 2020, ♦ Decision, Peralta, [J] ♦ Concurring Opinion, Caguioa, [J] [ G.R. No. 240431, July 07, 2020 ] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. MARLON BOB CARANIAGAN SANICO A.K.A. "MARLON BOB," ACCUSED-APPELLANT. CONCURRING OPINION CAGUIOA, J.: I concur. The ponencia is correct in granting the petition and acquitting the accused-appellant on the ground of reasonable doubt. Jurisprudence is well-settled that in cases involving dangerous drugs, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense.1 Corpus delicti is the body or substance of the crime, and establishes the fact that a crime has been actually committed.2 In turn, the manner through which the identity of the corpus delicti is preserved with moral certainty is through strict compliance with Section 21, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. Thus, the existence of dangerous drugs is a condition sine qua non for conviction for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs.3 In particular with cases of alleged violation of Section 5, RA 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), what is material is the proof that the transaction or sale transpired, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti.4 Section 21 of RA 9165 states: SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, 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 thereof; (2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination; (3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours[.] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Furthermore, Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 (IRR) filled in the details as to where the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items should be done: i.e., at the place of seizure, or at the nearest police station, or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, thus: SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, 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 preyursors 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: (a) The apprehending officer/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 thereof: Provided, that 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, further, that noncompliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Section 21 of RA 9165 and its IRR plainly require the apprehending team to conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of the accused, with: (1) an elected public official, (2) a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ), and (3) a representative of the media, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" found in both RA 9165 and its IRR means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs are to be made immediately after, or at the place of, apprehension. And only if this is not practicable can the inventory and photographing then be done as soon as the apprehending team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office. There can be no other meaning to the plain import of this requirement. By the same token, this also means that the required witnesses should already be physically present at the time or near the place of apprehension - a requirement that can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. Simply put, the apprehending team has enough time and opportunity to bring with them said witnesses. To be sure, this has been the Court's interpretation in a number of cases.5 For warrantless seizures, the arresting officers may accomplish the inventory and take photographs at the nearest police station, or at the nearest office of the apprehending team, but only when the prevailing circumstances render it impracticable to do so at the place of arrest.6 In other words, while the physical inventory and photographing are allowed to be done "at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures," this does not dispense with the requirement of having all the required witnesses to be physically present at the time or near the place of apprehension. The reason is simple. It is at the time and place of arrest or at the time and place of the drugs' "seizure and confiscation" - that the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time and place of seizure and confiscation that would insulate against the police practice of planting evidence. The presence of the witnesses at the time and place of arrest and seizure is required because while buy-bust operations deserve judicial sanction if carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal safeguards, it is well to recall that by the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets of or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great.7 Borrowing the language of the Court in People v. Mendoza,8 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 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972) again rear their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject sachets that were evidence of the corpus delicti, and1 thus adversely affected the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused.9 Thus, it is compliance with this most fundamental requirement - the presence of the "insulating" witnesses in the inventory conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation - that the pernicious practice of planting of evidence is greatly minimized if not foreclosed altogether. Stated otherwise, this is the first and foremost requirement provided by Section 21 to ensure the preservation of the "integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs" in a buy-bust situation, which, as already explained, is by its nature, a planned operation. To reiterate, the presence of the three witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the place and time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of the arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after seizure and confiscation." Thus, the practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the representative of the DOJ, the media representative, and the elected public official, when they could easily do so - and "calling them in" to the police station to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished - does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs. In the present case, while the police officers conducted an inventory in the presence of the three required witnesses, they only did so a day after the seizure of the confiscated items. When asked to explain why, the police officers merely stated that they were unable to secure the attendance of the required witnesses on the same day - hence, they conducted the inventory the day after.10 Without question, this does not comply with the requirement of the inventory being conducted "immediately after seizure and confiscation" and in the presence of the required witnesses. During this considerable lapse of time, the drugs could already have been planted - and the marking, inventory, and transfer from the police officers to the crime laboratory only proves the chain of custody of planted drugs. Clearly, therefore, it is the immediate marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items, as well as the insulating presence of the witnesses in this process, that serve to prevent switching, planting, or contaminating the seized evidence.11 The strict observance of these requirements is further underscored in instances when drugs are seized as a result of a planned operation, such as the implementation of a search warrant or the conduct of a buy-bust operation like in the present case. There being forethought and advance preparation involved, there is little margin for error on the arresting officers' compliance with Section 21. Based on these premises, I vote to GRANT the Petition. Footnotes 1 People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018, 862 SCRA 131, 142. 2 People v. Calates, G.R. No. 214759, April 4, 2018, 860 SCRA 460, 469. 3 People v. Magat, 588 Phil. 395, 402 (2008). 4 People v. Dumangay, 587 Phil. 730, 739 (2008). 5 People v. Fatallo, G.R. No. 218805, November 7, 2018, accessed at ; People v. Callejo, G.R. No. 227427, June 6, 2018, 865 SCRA 405. 6 Id. 7 People v. Santos, Jr., 562 Phil. 458, 471 (2007). 8 736 Phil. 749 (2014). 9 Id. at 764. 10 Ponencia, p. 6. 11 People v. Mendoza, supra note 8 at 761. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation