G.R. No. 263341 - Concurring Opinion




G.R. No. 263341, February 4, 2025, ♦ Decision, Lopez, [J] ♦ Concurring Opinion, Caguioa, [J] ♦ Dissenting Opinion, Lazaro-Javier, [J] ♦ Dissenting Opinion, Leonen, [J] EN BANC G.R. No. 263341, February 04, 2025 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, vs. ALFREDO ACDANG Y BALANGEN AND ALLAN ACDANG Y BALANGEN, ACCUSED, ALLAN ACDANG Y BALANGEN,** ACCUSED-APPELLANT. CONCURRING OPINION CAGUIOA, J.: I concur in acquitting accused-appellant Allan Acdang y Balangen (Allan). The apprehending team (Team Omega) in this case failed, without any justifiable reason, to secure the mandatory insulating witnesses required under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 91651 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, during the marking, photographing, and inventory of the marijuana plants from the two plantation sites, which Allan and his brother, Alfredo, were cultivating. There is no serious question that, based on the records, there were no representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ), the media, and an elected public official when Team Omega did their operation and inventory at the plantation sites and at the house of Alfredo.2 Indeed, the prosecution also admitted that the media representative who signed the inventory was present only when the police officers were already at the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Office at Camp Dangwa in La Trinidad, which were hours after the arrest of the brothers.3 In its Brief,4 the prosecution, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), argued that Team Omega's noncompliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is justified because of the circumstances surrounding the seizure of the drugs, i.e., the remoteness of the area, the seven-hour hike from the drop off point, and the distance between the plantation sites and the nearest police station.5 Likewise, the prosecution asserted that despite the procedural lapses in the chain of custody rule, the apprehending officers substantially complied with the requirements under the law,6 which, consequently, did not affect the integrity of the confiscated drugs. These protestations of the OSG are not well taken, and should be discarded. Team Omega had enough time to prepare and execute their operation in Sitio Mocgao It must be emphasized that Team Omega's operation to go to the marijuana plantation sites was a planned activity. This means that they had all the time to organize, prepare, and comply with the requirements of the law. Notably, the prosecution's evidence indicated that Team Omega had already been at the first plantation site *the day prior* to the arrest of Allan and Alfredo. Police Officer 2 (PO2) Christian R. Boado testified that during the final briefing of Team Omega, two days prior to the incident, the police officers already knew that they were going to two plantations in Sitio Mocgao, and that one of the persons in-charge of the plantations was named Alfredo, thus:7 Court: Q[:] How did you learn that there is a second plantation? A[:] We learned that when we had our final briefing at PDEA Region 1, Camp Diego Silang, San Fernando City, La Union, your Honor. Court: Q[:] Who gave you the information that there is a second plantation? Witness: A[:] Director Roberto Opeña, your Honor. Q[:] Anyway, during your briefing, were you told how many plantations you are going to visit? A[:] We were told, your Honor. Q[:] How many plantations were mentioned? A[:] They identified to us two (2) plantations, your Honor. Q[:] Did they identify any person who is supposed to be in-charge of these plantations? A[:] I only heard about the name of Alfredo, your Honor.8 This fact was also corroborated by Atty. Allan D. Ancheta, the team leader, when he testified that he was present during Team Omega's briefing in which two marijuana plantations were identified, and the alleged owners were Allan and Alfredo.9 Based on the foregoing, it is clear that Team Omega's mission was specifically to destroy or uproot the marijuana plantation sites in Sitio Mocgao. Necessarily, prior to embarking on the said mission, the police officers could easily have taken the standard operational procedures by ensuring the presence of the required witnesses pursuant to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. To be sure, even though Allan was caught in flagrante delicto while cleaning and removing weeds from the plant beds,10 the operation of Team Omega in Sitio Mocgao was not an accidental or serendipitous circumstance which would excuse the absence of the mandatory witnesses under the law. Instead of complying, however, with the requirements of the law, the police officers showed no effort—let alone earnest efforts considered in jurisprudence—to secure the attendance of the required witnesses. The records further reveal that Team Omega could have easily complied with the requirement of the law, if only that was their intention, as a "lupon" was within the neighborhood of the accused.11 Despite knowledge of the presence of the said "lupon" within the vicinity, the police officers did not even try to invite or include said barangay officials to come with them when they conducted their operation.12 This clearly shows that the police officers had no intentions whatsoever to comply with the law, and the remoteness of the plantation is but a belated and lame excuse to justify their noncompliance. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 should strictly be applied as the law does not distinguish between small and large amounts of seized dangerous drugs In his dissent, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen pointed out that the dangers associated with noncompliance to the chain of custody, i.e., tampering, substitution, and planting of evidence, are less egregious in cases involving large quantities of marijuana plants compared to miniscule amounts of shabu. While he adheres to the general rule of strict adherence to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, he nevertheless states that deviations from this rule are permissible, especially when the potential risks of noncompliance are effectively addressed and justified by the prosecution.13 Likewise, Associate Justice Amy C.(awÞhi( Lazaro-Javier (Justice Lazaro-Javier) mentions in her Dissent that the very reason for requiring the presence of the insulating witnesses is to forestall the possibility of tampering, switching, planting, or contaminating the evidence.14 This risk, however, is not squarely applicable to the present crime of planting or cultivating dangerous drug plants, which involve more corporeal items, as opposed to the illegal sale or illegal possession of powder-like substances, and the penalties for which depend on the amount involved.15 Similarly, she states that in light of the great volume of marijuana plants and seedlings involved, it cannot be said that the evils that the chain of custody rule seek to avoid were not mitigated by the reasonable measures then available to Team Omega. I respectfully disagree with both opinions. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is and should be strictly applied regardless of the amount involved as the letter of the law does not distinguish. This doctrine was settled in the recent case of People v. Uy16 (Uy), a case involving more or less 240 kilos of shabu, where the Court En Banc held that the application of procedural safeguards in Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 is obligatory regardless of the amount of dangerous drugs involved. According to the Court in Uy, the law makes no distinction between large or small amounts of seized drugs, and as such, the Court cannot also make distinctions.17 Uy is squarely applicable to the case at bar; thus, there is no reason for the Court to rule differently. Apart from the issue being already settled in Uy, it is worth mentioning that making distinctions based on "large" or "small" quantities without textual anchors in the law will create downstream problems for both law enforcement and the courts. Overturning Uy, as the two dissenting opinions suggest, would require not just making distinctions in law where there is none, but it would also require the Court to set thresholds as to what constitutes already a "large" amount of drugs. Further complicating this is what would constitute "large" in light of the nature of the seized drug, as Justice Lazaro-Javier implies in her Dissent that cultivating plants is not the same as selling or possessing "powder-like substances." Making distinctions, therefore, would require the Court to account for the different permutations and scenarios in order to guide law enforcement agents in how strict they need to comply with the law. Finally, it is worth reminding the Court of the reason why strict adherence to the law is necessary to begin with. Recently, investigations involving allegations of evidence planting by police officers during anti-drug operations have surfaced since the declaration of the "war on drugs" made by the Executive Department, especially during the administration of President Rodrigo R. Duterte (Duterte).18 This includes probes made by the DOJ itself in verifying claims made by cops that they acted in self-defense when they shot and killed suspected users, sellers, or pushers of dangerous drugs and having police officers being tagged for "possible criminal liability" over police operations carried out during President Duterte's drug war.19 Moreover, it was also revealed, in the hearings of the House of Representatives Quad Committee investigating President Duterte' s war on drugs and the proliferation of illegal drugs,20 that there was a supposed "quota" and "reward system" implemented for police officers during the anti-drug campaign.21 High ranking police officials like Lieutenant Colonel Jovie Espenido, and former Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office General Manager Royina Garma, a retired police colonel close to President Duterte, admitted that a reward system was given to police officers, patterned after the "Davao Model," which included the so-called Davao Death Squad.22 Taking into account the past incidents as well as the realities on the ground, I respectfully submit that now, more than ever, the need for strict adherence to the chain of custody rule is not only necessary, but must also be repeatedly emphasized. Thus, the Court must also apply the same standards in the present case and cannot simply make an exception on the ground that tampering, switching, planting, or contaminating the evidence is less possible in cases involving "large" quantities of confiscated drugs. True to its duty as this democratic state's bastion of justice, it is incumbent upon the Court to uphold the law and an accused's fundamental rights in each and every case. Such duty does not, and should not, depend on extraneous factors such as the amount of dangerous drugs involved. In sum, despite the "large" or substantial amounts of dangerous drugs involved in this case, the Court must acquit Allan due to the failure of the law enforcement agents to comply with the mandatory requirements of the law. ACCORDINGLY, I vote to GRANT the Appeal and REVERSE and SET ASIDE the Decision dated June 21, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 14950 finding accused-appellant Allan Acdang y Balangen guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 16, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165. Accused-appellant Allan Acdang y Balangen is ACQUITTED. Footnotes 1 An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, Otherwise Known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor, and For Other Purposes (2002). The relevant portion of the section reads as follows: 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 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 (OOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof[.] 2 TSN, Nickson Q. Acosta, January 24, 2018, pp. 14-15; During the testimony of Intelligence Officer I Nickson Q. Acosta, it was established: ATTY. ABLOG: Thank you[,] Your Honor. You are alleging that you were the one who made the inventory, correct[,] Sir? A[:] I was assisted Ma'am. Q[:] Yes, and there was a media representative here, a signatory here in this inventory named Karen Bernadette Keith, correct? A[:] Yes Ma'am. Q[:] So this media representative was present in the first plantation? A[:] No Ma'am. Q[:] No, also in the second plantation? A[:] Yes Ma'am. Q[:] Karen Bernadette Keith was not present in the second plantation? A[:] Yes Ma'am. Q[:] Also there is a signatory here, elected public official, I cannot read[,] Your Honor, the name but there appears a name and signature, this elected official, is he present during the inventory at the first plantation? A[:] No ma'am, but he was present on the third inventory. Q[:] My question[,] Sir[,] is, is this elected public official present during the inventory in the first plantation? A[:] No Ma'am. Q[:] No, is this elected public official present during the second inventory in the second plantation Sir? A[:] No Ma'am. 3 TSN, Agent Nickson Q. Acost, January 24, 2018, pp. 19-20. 4 CA rollo, pp. 146-166. 5 Id. at 160-163. 6 See id. at 158. 7 TSN, PO2 Christian R. Boado, November 9, 2011, pp. 12-13. 8 Id. 9 Ponencia, p. 5. 10 See id. at 9-13. 11 TSN, PO2 Christian R. Boado, January 25, 2012, pp. 6-7. During the testimony of PO2 Christian R. Boado, it was established: Atty. Santos: Q[:] Now, Mr. [W]itness, you went or proceeded to the house of Allan Acdang and Alfredo Acdang? A[:] Yes, sir. Q[:] Was there any official at that time when you arrived at their house or did you call for any barangay official at that time? A[:] We did not do that, sir. Q[:] You did not do that? A[:] Yes, sir. Atty. Santos: Q[:] You are saying that no barangay officials went to the house [of] Allan Acdang and Alfredo Acdang after you arrived in that place? Witness: A[:] After we arrived there came the Lupon that they called, sir. Q[:] And how would they know that you were there when you did not call for them, Mr. [W]itness? A[:] They have also neighbors there, sir. 12 Id. 13 J. Leonen, Dissenting Opinion, pp. 12-13. 14 J. Lazaro-Javier Dissenting Opinion, pp. 7-8. 15 Id. at 8. 16 936 Phil. 635 (2023) [Per C.J. Gesrnundo, En Banc]. 17 Id. at 657. 18 Cops 'planting' evidence in Iloilo buy-bust under probe, PHILIPPINE NEWS AGENCY, available at https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1228092 (last accessed on February 3, 2025); DOJ drug war review: Killer cops had it easy, PHILIPPINE DAILY INQUIRER, available at https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/ 1504546/doj-drug-war-review-killer-cops-had-it-easy (last accessed on February 3, 2025); 7 cops charged with murder, arbitrary detention over fake drug bust in Bulacan, THE PHILIPPINE STAR, available at https://www.philstar.com/ headlines/2021/08/31/2123882/7-copscharged-rnurder-arbitrary-detention-over-fake-drug-bust-bulacan (last accessed on February 3, 2025); In Dumaguete, PDEA agents fake a drug buy-bust and face contempt of court, RAPPLER PHILIPPINES, available at https://www.rappler.com/ nation/pdea-agents- fake-drug-buy-bust-face-contempt-courtdumaguete, (last accessed on February 3, 2025). 19 DOJ doubts self-defense claim of cops in EJK cases, MANILA STANDARD, available at https://manilastandard.net/news/ top-stories/367918/doj-doubts-self-defense-claim-of-cops-in-ejk-cases.html (last accessed on February 3, 2025). 20 SecGen Velasco: Innovative Quad Comm Probe Economical, More Efficient, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, available at https://www.congress.gov.ph/media/view/?content=5595&title= SECGEN+VELASCO%3A+ INNOVATIVE+QUAD+COMM+PROBE+ECONOMICAL%2C+MORE+EFFICIENT+ (last accessed on February 5, 2025). 21 Police officer confirms 'quota, reward system' during Duterte drug war, ABS-CBN NEWS, available at https://www.abs-cbn.com/ news/2024/8/28/ police-officer-confirms-quota-reward-system-during-duterte-drug-war-1253 (last accessed on February 3, 2025). 22 See id.; Duterte confirms existence of 'reward system', PHILIPPINE NEWS AGENCY, available at https:// www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1237749 (last accessed on February 5, 2025). The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation