G.R. No. 263341 - Dissenting 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. DISSENT LAZARO-JAVIER, J.: The ponencia acquitted accused-appellant Allan Acdang y Balangen (Allan) of violation of Article II, Section 161 of Republic Act No. 91652 as amended. Although the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the offense charged, Allan was nonetheless acquitted due to the absence of the insulating witnesses during the conduct of inventory and taking of the photographs of the cultivated plants, i.e., marijuana, classified as dangerous drugs, which were planted in a 5,000 square meter area. I dissent. First, to my mind, the deviations by the law enforcement authorities from Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended, were justified by the factual circumstances of the case. Second, notwithstanding such deviations, the apprehending team exerted considerable efforts to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized marijuana plants. I expound. In drug-related cases, it is well-settled that compliance with the chain of custody is vital to secure a conviction. It is a mechanism specifically designed in view of the fungible nature of dangerous drugs and to prevent the tampering, substitution, and planting of evidence. It seeks to guarantee that the item seized from the accused would be the very same item presented in court. Thus, strict adherence to the rule is necessary, especially when the amount involved is miniscule,3 viz.: This Court has recognized that buy-bust operations could be initiated based on dubious claims of shady persons, or that small amounts of illicit drugs could be planted as evidence on innocent individuals, in view of the secrecy surrounding drug deals in general. Thus: "[B]y the very nature of anti-narcotics operations, the need for entrapment procedures, the use of shady characters as informants, the ease with which sticks of marijuana or grams of heroin can be planted in pockets or hands of unsuspecting provincial hicks, and the secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, the possibility of abuse is great." Thus, the courts have been exhorted to be extra vigilant in trying drug cases lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses[.]4 (Emphasis in the original) Evidently, there exists an inverse proportional relationship between the quantity of illegal drugs involved and the possibility of tampering or switching—the smaller the amount of narcotics seized, the higher the probability of tampering and switching.5 Stated otherwise, there is less probability of tampering, switching, or planting of evidence when a larger amount of dangerous drugs is involved. This was echoed in People v. Vastine,6 viz.: It is also notable that the seized drugs in this case consist of 2,000.71 grams or more than two kilos of cocaine. The sheer amount of dangerous drugs lessens the possibility of tampering and planting of evidence. As held in People v. Lung Wai Tang, the large quantity of drugs seized reduces, if not eradicates, the possibility of planting or tampering with evidence, thus: Strict adherence to the procedural safeguards is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is small, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering, or alteration of evidence. On the other hand, large amounts of seized drugs are not as easily planted, tampered, or manipulated. Here, the considerable quantity of shabu consisting of almost eight (8) kilograms provides strong probative value favoring the prosecution's version of events.7 (Emphasis supplied) The chain of custody rule requires the presentation of the following links as proof that the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved: First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating office of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and, fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.8 This rule is encapsulated in paragraph 1 of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as amended by Republic Act No. 10640, which provides: 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items 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, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items. I focus on the final phrase of Section 21(1). While strict adherence to the chain of custody rule stands as the general rule, it is not without exception. This final phrase is referred to as the "Saving Clause." This clause provides a saving mechanism when there exist justifiable grounds so as not to render void and invalidate the seizure and custody of seized items for noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 for as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are duly preserved. The Court has long deferred to the wisdom of the Legislature behind this amendment of Section 21. People v. Jodan9 ordained that the Saving Clause is the means of the law to touch base with the fact that perfect compliance with the chain of custody rule is an ideal that does not always translate to reality due to varying circumstances, some of which may be perfectly justifiable: In her Sponsorship Speech on Senate Bill No. 2273, which eventually became R.A. No. 10640, Senator Grace Poe conceded that "while Section 21 was enshrined in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act to safeguard the integrity of the evidence acquired and prevent planting of evidence, the application of said section resulted in the ineffectiveness of the government's campaign to stop the increasing drug addiction and also, in the conflicting decisions of the courts." Senator Poe stressed the necessity for the amendment of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 based on the public hearing that the Senate Committee on Public Order and Dangerous Drugs had conducted, which revealed that "compliance with the rule on witnesses during the physical inventory is difficult. For one, media representatives are not always available in all corners of the Philippines, especially in the remote areas. For another, there were instances where elected barangay officials themselves were involved in the punishable acts apprehended and thus, it is difficult to get the most grassroot elected public official to be a witness as required by law." In his Co-sponsorship speech, Senator Vicente C. Sotto III said that in view of the substantial number of acquittals in drug-related cases due to the varying interpretations of prosecutors and judges on Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, there is a need for "certain adjustments so that we can plug the loopholes in our existing law [and] ensure [its] standard implementation." Thus, he explained: Numerous drug trafficking activities can be traced to operations of highly organized and powerful local and international syndicates. The presence of such syndicates that have the resources and the capability to mount a counter-assault to apprehending law enforcers makes the requirement of Section 21(a) impracticable for law enforcers to comply with. It makes the place of seizure extremely unsafe for the proper inventory and photograph of the seized illegal drugs. . . . . Section 21(a) of RA 9165 needs to be amended to address the foregoing situation. We did not realize this in 2002 where the safety of the law enforcers and other persons required to be present in the inventory and photography of seized illegal drugs and the preservation of the very existence of seized illegal drugs itself are threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of drug syndicates at the place of seizure. The place where the seized drugs may be inventoried and photographed has to include a location where the seized drugs as well as the persons who are required to be present during the inventory and photograph are safe and secure from extreme danger. It is proposed that the physical inventory and taking of photographs of seized illegal drugs be allowed to be conducted either in the place of seizure or at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending law enforcers. The proposal will provide effective measures to ensure the integrity of seized illegal drugs since a safe location makes it more probable for an inventory and photograph of seized illegal drugs to be properly conducted, thereby reducing the incidents of dismissal of drug cases due to technicalities. . . . . Non-observance of the prescribed procedures should not automatically mean that the seizure or confiscation is invalid or illegal, as long as the law enforcement officers could justify the same and could prove that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are not tainted. This is the effect of the inclusion in the proposal to amend the phrase "justifiable grounds." There are instances wherein there are no media people or representatives from the DOJ available and the absence of these witnesses should not automatically invalidate the drug operation conducted. Even the presence of a public local elected official also is sometimes impossible especially if the elected official is afraid or scared.10 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted) In sum, strict enforcement of the chain of custody rule is the yardstick in cases where: first, the amount of dangerous drugs involved is miniscule, thus, susceptible to planting; second, the dangerous drugs are fungible, thus, can be easily tampered or switched; and third, there is no justifiable ground for the officers' noncompliance with the chain of custody. I now discuss the factual backdrop of this case. One. The amount of dangerous drugs involved here is far from trivial. We are speaking of a 5,000 square meter plantation filled with marijuana plants and seedlings. In comparison, in People v. Yang11 the Court already considered 9.9 kilograms of ketamine hydrochloride as a large volume of dangerous drugs. Meanwhile, in Shi v. People,12 the Court applied the chain of custody leniently in view of the 7,503.41 grams of shabu confiscated from the accused. It is beyond question, therefore, that 5,000 square meters of marijuana plants and seedlings constitutes a huge volume of dangerous drugs. Two. The dangerous drugs here are not crystal-like or powdery substances that are perfectly interchangeable or fungible. They are fully grown plants and seedlings of marijuana. Logically, the decreased possibility of tampering in cases involving larger quantities of drugs applies even more when the seized items consist not just of crystal-like or powdery substances, but of fully grown plants and seedlings of marijuana, such as in this case. Indeed, it can hardly be argued that the police officers themselves planted marijuana plants and seedlings over a 5,000 square meter field, or got hold of a total of 64 samples of marijuana plants and seedlings just to pin down the accused when a single plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride would have sufficed. For the same reason, why would they take it upon themselves to go on a two-hour drive and trek for seven hours to do so? Three. The officers had a legitimate reason for their deviation from the chain of custody rule. Indeed, I humbly submit that the Saving Clause finds application in light of the existence of justifiable grounds and the necessary measures undertaken by Team Omega. Consider: First, the marijuana plantations were located in Sitio Mocgao, which required a seven-hour hike from Ramot, Santol, La Union. Before this, the team had to go on a two-hour ride to Ramot. Team Omega observed that the marijuana plantations spanned an approximate area of 5,000 square meters. Atty. Allan Ancheta took photos of the vast plantations. Second, it appeared that the plantation was not organic. Rather, it was the product of consistent efforts on the part of an unknown culprit. Thus, Team Omega awaited the arrival of the offender, even going so far as hiking to a higher elevation of around 30 to 50 meters to remain hidden while conducting surveillance.13 At this point, they had no idea who would come at all or if someone would come at all to cultivate the marijuana plants. Third, Team Omega immediately apprehended Allan and his brother, Alfredo Acdang y Balangen (Alfredo), after seeing them clean and remove weeds on a plot of land in the plantation. Fourth, Intelligence Officer I Nickson Acosta uprooted and kept 53 marijuana seedlings and uprooted 11 marijuana plant as samples. He tied the samples, bound them with masking tape, and marked them with his initials. The remaining 120,000 marijuana seedlings and 24,000 marijuana plants were burned. Fifth, the house of Allan and Alfredo was three kilometers from the plantation site. The nearest public road from their house could be reached after a six-hour hike.14 Sixth, en route to their house, Allan managed to escape. Seventh, Team Omega had called for an elected official for another inventory that was conducted at the house of Allan and Alfredo. By his own account, Barangay Captain Pedanio Anatel (Brgy. Capt. Anatel) claimed that he lived four kilometers away. He also saw Allan leaning and hiding behind the wall of the house. Eighth, due to the remoteness of the area, Team Omega was able to depart only by helicopter which brought them back to Camp Bado Dangwa. There, a third inventory was done in the presence of media representative Karen Bernadette Keith, Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency-Cordillera Administrative Region representative, and an elected public official.15 Ninth, five years after he evaded arrest, Allan voluntarily surrendered to the Kibungan Municipal Police Station. Finally, the factual circumstances establishing the guilt of Allan had been passed upon not just in the September 25, 2020 Decision of Branch 63, Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet in this case, but also in the December 11, 2013 Decision of Branch 62, Regional Trial Court, La Trinidad, Benguet. In fact, the Decisions convicting Allan and Alfredo were separately rendered by different judges, yet, they ultimately reached the same conclusion. While the insulating witnesses were not present at or near the place of apprehension, it is undeniable that Sitio Mocgao is a remote area that required arduous effort to reach. It would be highly unreasonable to expect the police officers to bring along insulating witnesses to such a remote area—insulating witnesses who must also attend to their jobs. More important, their safety during such difficult travel cannot be discounted. Indeed, I submit that the discretion of not bringing along these insulating witnesses was the more justifiable call under this circumstances. Still, Team Omega meticulously inventoried the seedlings and plants found and properly took and recorded the samples. There has likewise been no issue raised as to the photographs not being accurate representations of the plantations found. The very reason for requiring the presence of the insulating witnesses is to forestall the possibility of tampering, switching, planting or contaminating the evidence. This risk, however, is not squarely applicable to the offense of planting and cultivation of dangerous drug plants which involves more corporeal items as opposed to the illegal sale or illegal possession of powder-like substances the penalties for which depend on the amount involved. As well, in light of the huge 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 and applied by Team Omega. The Court should likewise not discount the fact of Allan's escape and his subsequent surrender. In People v. Licayan,16 we ordained: Courts go by the biblical truism that "the wicked flee when no man pursueth but the righteous are as bold as a lion." Accused-appellant has not satisfactorily explained why he fled upon being spotted by the posse. In People v. Templo, we held that "the act, declaration or omission of a party as to a relevant fact may be given in evidence against him. One type of act that can be given in evidence against him is flight. In criminal law, flight means an act of evading the course of justice by voluntarily withdrawing oneself to avoid arrest or detention or the institution or continuance of criminal proceedings. The unexplained flight of the accused person may as a general rule be taken as evidence having tendency to establish his guilt." In short, flight is an indication of guilt.17 (Emphasis in the original, citations omitted) Allan claimed that the police officers only arrested Alfredo and left him behind. Yet somehow, despite his purported lack of knowledge that he was charged with an offense, he supposedly surrendered because a barangay kagawad told him to go to Kibungan. I submit, however, that it would be absurd to accept Allan's argument that he had no knowledge that he was arrested or that there was a case filed against him especially when his co accused was his own kin. Further, Brgy. Capt. Anatel, a defense witness, categorically testified under oath that he saw Allan hiding behind the wall of their house. As a final note, I echo the sentiment aired by the Court in People v. Yang,18 to wit: Faithful observance of the rules provided under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002" is always desirable from our police authorities. Nevertheless, the evils sought to be avoided by these rules are obviated when the dangerous drugs recovered are of large quantities. Thus, while we still strongly encourage our police to strictly follow the rules on chain of custody, we will generally not prevent the arms of our law from reaching large-scale peddlers of dangerous drugs by the simple reason that departures from said rules were committed.19 The chain of custody rule is a mechanism meant to facilitate the effective administration of justice in drugs cases. I do not believe it was meant by our wise lawmakers to hamper, nay, cripple the dispensation of justice against individuals who, taking into consideration all facts and evidence on record, are clearly guilty of the crime charged. Thus, I vote to DISMISS the appeal and AFFIRM the Decision dated June 21, 2022 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 14950 finding accused-appellant Alfredo Acdang y Balangen GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Article II, Section 16 of Republic Act No. 9165, sentencing him to life imprisonment, and ordering him to PAY the fine of PHP 5,000,000.00. Respectfully submitted. Footnotes 1 Section 16. Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Thereof. – The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (₱500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (₱10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who shall plant, cultivate or culture marijuana, opium poppy or any other plant regardless of quantity, which is or may hereafter be classified as a dangerous drug or as a source from which any dangerous drug may be manufactured or derived: Provided, That in the case of medical laboratories and medical research centers which cultivate or culture marijuana, opium poppy and other plants, or materials of such dangerous drugs for medical experiments and research purposes, or for the creation of new types of medicine, the Board shall prescribe the necessary implementing guidelines for the proper cultivation, culture, handling, experimentation and disposal of such plants and materials. The land or portions thereof and/or greenhouses on which any of said plants is cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and escheated in favor of the State, unless the owner thereof can prove lack of knowledge of such cultivation or culture despite the exercise of due diligence on his/her part. If the land involved is part of the public domain, the maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon the offender. The maximum penalty provided for under this Section shall be imposed upon any person, who organizes, manages or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal activities prescribed in this Section. The penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment and a fine ranging from One hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who acts as a "protector/coddler" of any violator of the provisions under this Section. 2 Otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 3 People v. Casa, G.R. No. 254208, August 16, 2022 (Per C.J. Gesmundo, En Banc]. 4 People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 129 (2017) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]. 5 Palencia v. People, 875 Phil. 827, 860 (2020) [Per J. Leonen, Third Division]. Citations omitted. 6 G.R. No. 258328, November 29, 2022 [Per J. Zalameda, First Division]. Citations omitted. 7 People v. Vastine, G.R. No. 258328, November 29, 2022 [Per J. Zalameda, First Division]. 8 People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 31 (2017) [Per J. Del Castillo, First Division]. 9 G.R. No. 234773, June 3, 2019 [Per J. Peralta, Third Division]. 10 Id. 11 913 Phil. 379 (2021) [Per J. Zalameda, Third Division]. 12 G.R. No. 228519, March 16, 2022 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier, Third Division]. 13 CA Decision, p. 4. 14 Id. at 20. 15 Id. at 5. 16 428 Phil. 332 (2002) [Per curiam, En Banc]. 17 Id. at 344-345. 18 913 Phil. 379 (2021) [Per J. Zalameda, Third Division]. 19 Id. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation