Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53035:gr-180508-2009&catid=1522&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 12:22:08+00:00

Document:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. ANTONIO RAMOS Y VIRAY, Appellant.
Assailed by way of appeal is the August 7, 2007 Decision1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR.-H.C. No. 02241 which affirmed the March 24, 2006 Decision of Branch 135 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City in Criminal Case Nos. 05-1712 to 05-1713 convicting Antonio Ramos y Viray alias Dinol (appellant) for violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) - selling 0.01 gram and possessing 0.05 gram of shabu, respectively.
On September 10, 2005, Pulido, together with other operatives of the MADAC, conducted a surveillance operation on the activities of appellant whose name appeared in the Drug Watch List of Barangay Pitogo, Makati City where he was observed to be selling shabu to tricycle drivers at the tricycle terminal along Pitogo St., Guadalupe Nuevo, Makati City.
The positive result of surveillance operation led the Makati City Police SAID-SOTF to form a buy-bust team which PO3 Esterio Ruiz (PO3 Ruiz) headed, with Pulido and PO2 Aseboque as members. PO2 Aseboque, who was designated as the poseur-buyer, was given a one hundred peso bill bearing Serial No. EF951982, and two fifty peso bills bearing Serial Nos. GT851008 and FQ688087. The bills were pre-marked with PO2 Aseboque's initials "REA" on the lower left hand corner thereof. It was agreed that PO2 Aseboque's removal of a towel which was to be draped over his shoulder would signal that the buy-bust transaction was consummated.
At around 6:35 p.m. of September 13, 2005, the buy-bust team, together with its "asset," repaired to a billiard hall along Camino de la Fe St., Barangay Guadalupe Nuevo where Pulido positioned himself across the street as the other members of the team positioned themselves nearby.
As the "asset" spotted appellant who was standing in front of the billiard hall, he, together with PO2 Aseboque, approached him and introduced PO2 Aseboque as a buyer. Appellant thereupon asked how much to which he (PO2 Aseboque) replied "Dalawang daan lang pare."
Appellant at once brought out a small yellow-colored tin case from which he took out one small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance which he handed to PO2 Aseboque who in turn handed him the marked one hundred and two fifty peso bills. At that instant, PO2 Aseboque executed the pre-arranged signal, drawing the other team members to rush to the scene.
PO2 Aseboque then handcuffed appellant as he introduced himself as a police officer, and recovered from his right front pocket8 the yellow tin case which yielded two other plastic sachets also containing white crystalline substances. In the presence of appellant, he marked his initials "REA" on the plastic sachet subject of the sale, "REA 1" and "REA 2" on the two sachets retrieved from the tin case, and "REA 3" on the small yellow tin case.
With the seized items, appellant was brought for investigation to the Makati City Police SAID-SOTF where P/Supt. Marietto Valerio prepared a memorandum dated September 13, 20059 addressed to the Chief of the Chemistry Section of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory in Makati City requesting for a laboratory examination of the substances contained in the three plastic sachets to determine the presence of shabu. Pulido and PO2 Aseboque later executed a Joint Affidavit of Arrest10 dated September 14, 2005 recounting the details of the buy-bust operation leading to appellant's arrest.
At around 6:45 p.m. of September 13, 2005, while he was walking along Camino Dela Fe Street, Guadalupe Nuevo heading towards his mother's house, he was suddenly grabbed from behind by five unidentified persons who poked a gun at him. Upon inquiring what his violation was, he was told that they were looking for someone named "Danny." He denied knowing any such individual, however. He was then handcuffed, forced into a Revo vehicle parked nearby, and brought to the police station.
At the police station, someone took out a small plastic sachet and a yellow tin can from a drawer, as another said "Sige tuluyan niyo na siya, ito na ebidensiya natin."
In fine, appellant denied the accusation and claimed that the evidence against him was "planted."
Cherry Clasara,13 a friend of appellant's sister, corroborated appellant's account of the circumstances under which he was accosted.
Let the zero point zero one [0.01] gram, and the total of zero point zero five [0.05] gram of Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride be turned over to the PDEA for proper disposition.
In brushing aside his defense of frame-up, the appellate court noted that appellant failed to adduce evidence on the possible motive of the police officers to falsely charge him.
On the issue of whether the law enforcement officers had observed the procedure laid down in Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 - a requirement essential to preserving the integrity of the corpus delicti in these cases, the Court rules in the negative. On that score alone, appellant's acquittal is in order.
A: I put markings on those items on top of the hood of the Revo, sir.
A: Our team leader made the inventory of the items that were recovered sir.
A: I do not know if he was able to make an inventory report.
A: We have the camera but I do not know if they were able to comply with that, sir.
Parenthetically, the prosecution did not present team leader PO3 Ruiz to enlighten whether he accomplished an inventory report of the seized items. And it bears noting that PO2 Aseboque did not even know if a photograph of the items allegedly seized was taken.
As earlier discussed, however, the prosecution had not substantiated PO2 Aseboque's claim that team leader PO3 Ruiz had made an inventory of the seized items, as he in fact, confessed not knowing whether said team leader had made an investigation report.
In fine, the failure of the police officers to comply with the procedure in the custody of seized drugs puts to doubt their origins,22 and negates any presumption of regularity accorded to acts undertaken by police officers in the pursuit of their official duties.23 Appellant's acquittal is thus in order.
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, appellant, Antonio Ramos y Viray, is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged.
Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City who is ORDERED to cause the immediate release of appellant, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform this Court of action taken thereon within ten (10) days from notice.
* Additional member vice Justice Mariano C. Del Castillo, who took no part due to prior participation in the Court of Appeals.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Romeo F. Barza, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Mariano C. Del Castillo (now an Associate Justice of this Court) and Arcangelita M. Romilla-Lontok; CA rollo, pp. 66-76.
4 Vide Pre-Trial Order, id. at 36.
5 TSN. November 7, 2005, pp. 3-16.
6 TSN, February 1, 2006, pp. 2-21.
7 Vide Certificate of Coordination, Exhibit "E," records, p. 76.
8 The records do not specify whether the pocket was a shirt or pant pocket.
9 Exhibits "B," records, p. 71.
10 Exhibits "A" to "A-1," id. at 69-70.
11 Exhibit "C," id. at 73.
12 TSN, February 3, 2006, pp. 6-19.
13 TSN, March 1, 2006, pp. 2-11.
14 Rendered by Judge Francisco B. Ibay; records, pp. 89-93.
17 Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 631.
18 People v. Sanchez, G.R. No. 175832, October 15, 2008, 569 SCRA 194, 208.
19 401 Phil. 259, 273 (2000), citing People v. Gireng, 311 Phil. 12 (1995) and People v. Pagaura, 334 Phil. 683 (1997).
20 TSN, February 1, 2006, pp. 21-22.
21 G.R. No. 175928, August 31, 2007, 531 SCRA 828, 842-843 citing People v. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. 171019, February 23, 2007, 516 SCRA 621.
22 Vide People v. Orteza, G.R. No. 173051, July 31, 2007, 528 SCRA 750, 758.
23 Vide People v. Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 175593, October 17, 2007, 536 SCRA 489, 505.

References: v. 
In fine
In fine
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.