Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lindongan Vs People
Lindongan Vs People
$,Upreme (!Court
;iffilanila
SECOND DIVISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J,
- versus -
Chairperson,
GESMUNDO,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
PEOPLE OF THE
LOPEZ, and
PHILIPPINES,
ROSARIO,JJ
Respondent.
Promulgated:
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
1
See Lindongan ' s letter treaied as a petition for review on certiorari; rollo, pp. 4-5.
2
CA ro/lo, pp. 129- 138. Penned by Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza with Associate Justices Stephen
C. Cruz and Carmelita Salandanan Manahan, concurring.
3
Id. at 166-168.
4
Id. at 45-53. P::nned by Presiding Judge Tita S. Obinario.
Entitled '"AN Ac ;- l1'STl":'UTING rHE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEA LING
REPUBLIC ACT No . 6425. OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS Acr OF 1972, AS AMENDED,
PROVIDING F UNDS THCIF,FOf{, AND FOR OTHER PL!RPOSES," approved on June 7, 2002.
Decision 2 UDK-16615
The Facts
The present case stemmed from an Infonnation 7 filed before the RTC
charging Lindongan with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and
penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the accusatory portion of
which reads:
6
CA rollo. pp. 200-20:">.. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz with Associate Justices Celia C.
Librea-Leagogo and Ra fael A ntonio M. Santos. concurring.
7
Records, p. I .
Id.
9
See CA ro/lo, pp. 48 and l 30-13 1.
Decision 3 UDK-166 15
(PO3 Ventura) marked the plastic sachet with their respective initials,
"MEC" and ''DAV" in the presence of Lindongan. Likewise, after preparing
°
the Joint Affidavit of Arrest, 1 Confiscation Receipt, 11 Coordination Form, 12
and Request for Laboratory Examination, 13 they conducted the inventory 14
and photography 15 in the presence of Lindongan. 16 PO3 Ventura then
brought the seized items and the Confiscation Receipt to the barangay hall
for the signature of Barangay Captain Gerola, but the latter refused to sign. 17
Subsequently, PO2 Dela Cruz brought the seized items to the Philippine
National Police Crime Laboratory for qualitative examination, which was
received by Police Officer 3 Marie June Milo, who then turned over the
confiscated item to Police Chief Inspector Emelda B. Roderos (PCI
Roderos), the forensic chemist. 18 After qualitative examination, 19 the
contents tested positive for 0.054 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or shabu, a dangerous drug. PCI Roderos placed her markings on the
specimen before turning it over to NUP Merceditas C. Velasco, who had
custody thereof before PCI Roderos retrieved the same for presentation in
court. 20
10
Dated December 2 i, 2009. Records, pp. 5-6.
11
Dated December 2 1, 2009. ld. at 9.
12
Dated December 2 1, 2009. IJ. at 2 1.
13
Dated December 2 1, 20 09. ld. at 7.
1
~ See Confiscation Receipt dated December 2 1, 2009; id. at 9 .
15
Id. at 10-19.
16
See CA rol/o, pp. 48-49 and 13 I .
7
i See id . at 50.
18
See id. at 49 a nd 13 i.
19
See C hem istry Report No. D-1 03-2009-U dated December 2 1, 2000; reco rds. p. 8.
20
See CA rollo, pp. 50 and 13 1- 132.
21
See id. at 50-51 ar.d 112.
2
~ Id. at 45-53 .
23
Id. a t 53.
24
See id. at:> !-'.::3.
Decision 4 UDK-16615
25
Id.at 129-138.
M See id. at 134-137.
27 Dated March 27, 2018. ld . at 145-152.
2
~ Id. at 166- 168 .
29 Id at 18 1.
,o Dated February 16, 20 19 . Id. at 182-183 .
31
See id.
32
Id. at 200-202.
" See id. at 201-202.
Decision 5 UDK-16615
At the outset, 1t bears stressing that, as a rule, "a final and executory
judgment can no longer be attacked by any of the parties or be modified,
directly or indirectly, even by the highest court of the land." 34 However,
"[the] Court has · relaxed this rule in order to serve substantial justice
considering (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property, (b) the existence
of special or compelling circumstances, (c) the merits of the case, (d) a
cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party
favored by the suspension of the rules, [and] (e) a lack of any showing that
the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory."35
delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and hence, warrants an acquittal. 41
The law further requires that the inventory and photography be done
in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were
seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses,
namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 43 "a
representative from the media and the Department of Justice [DOJ], and any
elected public official" ;44 or ( b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA
10640, "an elected public official and a representative of the National
Prosecution Service45 or the media."46 The law requires the presence of these
witnesses primarily to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and
remove any suspicion of switching, p lanting, or contamination of evidence. 47
41
See People v. Gamboa, 867 Phil. 548, 570 (2018), citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phi l. 1024, 1039-
1040 (20 12).
42 See People v. APio, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (20 18); People v. Crispo, supra note 39; Peoplr! v. Sanche=,
supra note 39; People v. Magsano, supra note 39, at 959; People v. Manansala, supra note 39; People
v. Miranda, supra note 39, at I 051; and People v. Mamangon. supra note 39, at 736. See also People v.
Viterbo, supra note 40.
43
Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTI IEN THE A NTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT,
AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 2 1 OF R.El'UBI.IC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
'COMPREHENSIVE D ANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002.'" As the Cout1 noted in People v. Gutierre::. (see
G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018), R.A 10640 was approved on July 15, 2014. Under Section 5
thereof, it shall " take effect fifteen ( 15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2)
newspapers of general circulation." RA I 0640 was pubiished on July 23. 20 14 in The Philippine Star
(Vol. XXVIII. No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 2 1) and Manila Bulletin (Vol. 499, No. 23;
World News section, p. 6). Thus, R.A 10640 appear s to have become effective on August 7, 2014.
4
~ Section 2 I (I) and (2), Article II of R.A 9165 ; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
45
Which falls under the DOJ. (See Section I of Presidential Decree No. 1275, entitled '·REORGANIZING
THE PROSECUTION ST.A.Ff' or THE D EPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE OFFICES OF THE PROV!NCIAL AND
CITY FISCALS, REGIONALIZING Tl!E PR0SECUTION SERVICE, AND CREATING THE NATIONAL
PROSECUTION SERVICE" [April 11 , 1978] and Section 3 of RA I 0071 , entitled " A N ACT
STRENGrHENING AND RATIONALIZING TH[ NATIONAL PROSECUTION SE~VICE"' other w ise known as the
" PROSECUTION SEP.V:CE ACT OF 20 I 0'' [lapsed into law on April 8, 20 1OJ.)
46
Section 2 1 (1), Article II of RA 9 165, as amended by RA 10640; emphasis and underscoring supplied.
47
See People v. Bangulan, G.R. No. 232249. September 3, 2018. See also People v. /11/iranda. supra note
39; and People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 761 (2014).
18
· See People v. Miranda, id. at I 059. See also People v. Macapundag, 807 Phil. 234, 244(2017). citing
People i . Umipang, supra note 4 1, at I 038.
Decision 7 UDK-166 15
police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life
imprisorunent. "'49
In this case, records reveal that the inventory and photography of the
seized items were conducted only in Lindongan's presence and absent the
presence of the required witnesses as stated above. Considering the date of
the buy-bust operation on December 21 , 2009, the applicable law58 at the
time requires the presence of the following witnesses: (a ) a representative
49 See People v. Segundo. 8 14 Phil. 697. 722(2017), citing People v. Um ipang, id.
50
See People v Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214. 234 (2008).
51
See People v. Almmfe, 63 1 Phil. 5 1, 60 (20 I0).
52 Section I of RA I 0640 pe11inently states: "Provided. finally, That noncompliance of these
requirements under j ustifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value 0f the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures and custody over said items."
53
People"· Almo,fe, supra note 5 I.
54
People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637, 649 (20 I 0).
55
See People v. Manc;!1sala, supra note 39, at 591.
56
See People v. Gamboa, supra note 41 , at 569, citing People v. Umipang, supra note 4 I, at I 053.
57
See People v. Crispo. supra note 39, at 436.
58
See Section 2 I ( I) 2nd (2), A1t icle 11 of RA 9 165.
Decision 8 UDK- 16615
from the media; (b) a representative from the DOJ; and (c) an elected public
official. Here, there is dea1ih of evidence to show that any one of the said
witnesses was present at the photography and inventory, or that the arresting
officers attempted, at the very least, to secure the presence of any one of
them. PO3 Ventura's testimony that he brought the seized items, as well as
the Confiscation Receipt, for the signature of Barangay Captain Gerola
miserably fails to satisfy the chain of custody requirements, as the mere
signature of the required witnesses therein does not suffice - the law
requires the actual and physical presence of said witnesses. 59 Finally, even
assuming arguendo that Barangay Captain Gerola was present during the
photography and inventory, this still falls short of the mandate of RA 9165
which requires the presence of all the aforesaid witnesses. As it stands, there
was complete and unjustified non-compliance with the chain of custody rule,
which therefore constrains the Court to rule that the integrity and evidentiary
value of the items purportedly seized from Lindongan have been
compromised.
l) The Entry of Judgment dated January 17, 2019 issued by the Court
of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08782 is RECALLED;
and
Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this
Decision.
SO ORDERED.
ESTELA g~S-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
AL
RIC R. ROSARIO
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court's Division.
MQ~w
ESTELA M~-PERLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associa~e Justice
Ch::iirperson, Second Division
Decision 10 UDK-16615
CERTIFICATION