G.R. No. 190043 - Santos-Yllana Realty Corp. vs. Spouses Deang

Case Summary (G.R. No. 190043)

Charges and Procedural History

The prosecution filed an Information dated April 3, 2009 charging both accused with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 for an illegal sale on April 1, 2009, alleging that the accused, acting in conspiracy, had sold and delivered one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (“shabu”) weighing 0.19 gram to a poseur-buyer of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for P500.00 marked money with serial number AA541660. In a separate Information filed on even date, Baculio was further charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for illegal possession of one heat-sealed sachet containing shabu weighing 0.22 gram, which was stated to have tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride and ephedrine. Both Orias and Baculio pleaded not guilty on July 21, 2009, and Baculio entered not guilty on October 23, 2009 for the possession charge.

Prosecution Version: The Buy-Bust and Handling of the Seized Drugs

The prosecution narrated that a PDEA team from Regional Office 10 was formed based on a tip about the drug peddling activities of Orias and Baculio. During the operational briefing, Investigating Officer I Elvis Taghoy, Jr. (IO1 Taghoy) was designated as the poseur-buyer, while IO1 Paul G. Avila (IO1 Avila) served as the arresting officer, with the rest acting as back-up. The team prepared and marked a P500.00 bill as buy-bust money. On the evening of April 1, 2009, after coordinating with Cagayan de Oro City Police Office Precinct 85, the team proceeded to the target area accompanied by a confidential informant.

The confidential informant knocked and was answered by Orias, who invited the informant and IO1 Taghoy inside. Inside the house, IO1 Taghoy saw three men later identified as Norberto Baslon, Ronie Montederamos, and Gerry Villarmino sniffing shabu, while Baculio was seated on the sofa. The confidential informant asked if they could purchase shabu, and Orias agreed, demanding P500.00. IO1 Taghoy handed the marked bill to Orias, who then passed the money to Baculio. Baculio then retrieved two heat-sealed plastic sachets from her right pocket, handed one sachet to Orias, and Orias delivered it to IO1 Taghoy.

After IO1 Taghoy examined the sachet, he executed the pre-arranged signal by placing his hand in his pocket to make a missed call to IO1 Avila. The PDEA agents arrived, introduced themselves, and ordered the occupants to lie face down. IO1 Nestle Carin frisked Baculio and recovered the marked money and a sachet of shabu. These were turned over to IO1 Avila, who proceeded to physical inventory and marking. IO1 Avila marked the sachet bought by IO1 Taghoy as “PGA-BB”, and the sachet recovered from Baculio as “PGA-1,” and marked six sachets containing residue recovered during the buy-bust operation as “PGA-2” to “PGA-7.”

The prosecution stated that the physical inventory and marking were witnessed by Nelson Jumilla (barangay kagawad), Luz Boro (barangay tanod), and Richard de la Cruz (a member of the media), in the presence of Orias and Baculio in Orias’ house. Jumilla allegedly saw the seized sachets and the marked P500.00 bill placed on a table, with Orias and Baculio handcuffed. Photographs were taken during the operation and later at the PDEA office. At the PDEA office, IO1 Avila prepared a letter-request, and he and IO1 Taghoy brought the arrested persons and the seized sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory for examination. The forensic chemist, PSI Charity Peralta Caceres, allegedly confirmed that the seized sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. The prosecution further alleged that Orias and Baculio tested positive for the presence of dangerous drugs.

Defense Version: Denial and Claims of Invasiveness and Coercion

Orias denied the charges and gave a different account. He testified that he worked as a bodybuilding instructor at a gym in front of Del Monte Philippines, Bugo, Cagayan de Oro City, from Monday to Saturday, from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. On April 1, 2009, he arrived home at around 9:00 p.m. and saw Baculio and the other persons in his house, with Baculio allegedly there to get her bicycle. According to Orias, he intended to rest and drink beer when he heard banging at the door and then a group of six to seven men entered through both the front and back doors, claiming they were arresting them. He described being handcuffed and having his back stomped to prevent him from looking at the agents’ faces, and Baculio being handcuffed and punched in the stomach. He also claimed Montederamos was hit on the head with a firearm.

Orias asserted that, after being ordered to stand, the agents accused them of possession of dangerous drugs allegedly placed on a table, and they questioned them about the money. Baculio likewise denied any dangerous drugs being taken from her. She testified that she went to Orias’ house to get her bicycle, heard noises from someone kicking the gate, and then a group of armed men entered and ordered them to lie face down. She claimed one man struck a person with an armalite on the face due to defiance, and she was frisked and assaulted when she pushed away an agent who touched her chest. Baculio stated that the men searched the house, placed items on a table, took photographs, and that after some time a barangay kagawad arrived and took photos with the items. She also claimed that at the PDEA office, she was told she could be released immediately if she produced P100,000.00, and she refused because she believed she did not commit any crime.

RTC Ruling: Conviction for Sale and Acquittal for Possession

In its Consolidated Judgment dated October 7, 2014, the RTC acquitted Baculio in the possession case for insufficiency of evidence, but convicted both Orias and Baculio for illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. The RTC credited the prosecution’s testimony that the poseur-buyer positively identified the sellers and the sachet subject of the buy-bust operation, and it found that the PDEA agents properly preserved and identified the seized items from confiscation to court presentation. It also held that the defense did not show improper motivation to falsely impute a crime. The RTC further ruled that the chain of custody was adequately shown because the relevant links were presented in court: IO1 Taghoy (buyer), IO1 Avila (marking, inventory, and delivery), and the forensic chemist. The RTC sentenced both accused to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of P500,000.00 each, and ordered forfeiture of the sachets in favor of the government for proper disposal.

CA Ruling: Affirmance Despite Witnessing and DOJ/NPS Contentions

On appeal, the CA denied the challenge and affirmed the conviction. It held that Orias was apprehended in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation, since he was caught selling shabu in the presence of the poseur-buyer. On chain of custody, the CA concluded that the totality of the prosecution evidence established the preservation and integrity of the seized items, which were positively identified as the same items seized from Baculio and Orias.

The CA also reasoned that the absence of the barangay official and other required witnesses during the actual buy-bust operation was not fatal because their presence was only required during the inventory. It further minimized the lack of a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS), relying on the supposed preservation of integrity and evidentiary value.

Issues Raised Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court identified the primordial issue as whether the chain of custody over the seized item was duly observed pursuant to Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. In effect, the accused questioned the lower courts’ appreciation of the corpus delicti, contending that the prosecution failed to show the identity and integrity of the seized shabu in the manner demanded by law and jurisprudence.

Legal Framework on Corpus Delicti and Chain of Custody in Drug Cases

The Court reiterated that conviction for illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 requires proof of the transaction or sale and the presentation in court of the corpus delicti, meaning the illicit drug itself. In this doctrinal setting, the Court emphasized that the corpus delicti in illegal sale and illegal possession cases is the dangerous drugs seized from the accused, and thus the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be established. This requirement is addressed through the chain of custody system under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, which requires that physical inventory and photographing be performed immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of specified witnesses, including the accused or representative or counsel, a media representative, and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official, among others.

The Court acknowledged that RA 10640 amended the witness requirements under Section 21(1) by reducing the required witnesses for physical inventory and photographing to two categories—an elected public official and a representative of the NPS or the media. However, because the incidents occurred prior to RA 10640’s effect, the Court held that the original Section 21(1) requirements applied.

Saving Clause: When Non-Compliance May Still Permit Admissibility

The Court addressed the prosecution’s invocation of the saving clause in the IRR of RA 9165, which allows non-compliance with Section 21 under justifiable grounds, provided integrity and evidentiary value are preserved. The Court ruled that the saving clause is not automatic. It applies only where the prosecution (1) recognized the procedural lapses and explained the cited justifiable grounds and (2) established that integrity and evidentiary value were preserved. The Court stressed that jurisprudence demands more than statements by the apprehending officers; the justifiable ground must be c

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 190043)

The case arose from an appeal by Annabelle Baculio y Oyao (Baculio) from a Decision dated June 22, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) that affirmed the Consolidated Judgment dated October 7, 2014 of Branch 40, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Cagayan de Oro City.
The RTC found Baculio and Floyd Jim Orias y Carvajal (Orias) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs in Criminal Case No. 2009-280 under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
The RTC acquitted Baculio in Criminal Case No. 2009-279 for Violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. 9165 for insufficiency of evidence.
The Supreme Court treated the determinative controversy as whether the chain of custody over the seized drug complied with Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165.
The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the CA and acquitted both accused in the illegal sale case for failure of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Parties and Procedural Posture

The People of the Philippines were the plaintiff-appellee opposing the appeal of Baculio, who was the accused-appellant.
Orias was an accused whose conviction in the RTC and affirmance in the CA were likewise overturned by the Supreme Court because he benefited from the favorable result accorded to Baculio.
The appeal reached the Supreme Court after the CA denied the appeal and affirmed in toto the RTC’s conviction for illegal sale.
The parties manifested they would adopt the issues and arguments raised in their respective CA briefs instead of filing supplemental briefs before the Supreme Court.

Key Factual Allegations

The Information for Criminal Case No. 2009-280 alleged that on April 1, 2009 at about 9:00 p.m., at Lower Bantiles, Bugo, Cagayan de Oro City, Baculio and Orias, conspiring with one another, sold and delivered one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of shabu to a PDEA poseur-buyer for P500.00, with the sachet weighing 0.19 gram.
The Information alleged that the accused knew the substance to be a dangerous drug and charged them with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
Baculio was separately charged in Criminal Case No. 2009-279 with unlawful possession of a sachet of shabu weighing 0.22 gram, with a confirmatory test showing methamphetamine hydrochloride and ephedrine.
Both accused entered pleas of not guilty on July 21, 2009 for the illegal sale charge, and Baculio entered another plea of not guilty on October 23, 2009 for the illegal possession charge.

Prosecution Version: Buy-Bust Operation

The prosecution narrated that a PDEA Regional Office 10 team was formed to conduct a buy-bust operation based on a tip about the drug peddling activities of Orias and Baculio in Bugo, Bantiles, Cagayan de Oro City.
During the briefing, IO1 Elvis Taghoy, Jr. (IO1 Taghoy) was designated as the poseur-buyer, while IO1 Paul G. Avila (IO1 Avila) served as the arresting officer.
The team prepared and marked a P500.00 bill as the buy-bust money.
The team coordinated with the Cagayan de Oro City Police Office Precinct 85, then proceeded to the target area accompanied by a confidential informant.
IO1 Avila remained about 10 meters away while IO1 Taghoy and the confidential informant approached the house of Orias.
The confidential informant knocked, and Orias answered and invited both inside.
Inside the house, IO1 Taghoy claimed to have seen three men later identified as Baslon, Montederamos, and Villarmino sniffing shabu, while Baculio sat on the sofa.
The confidential informant asked Orias if they could purchase shabu, and Orias demanded P500.00.
IO1 Taghoy handed the marked bill to Orias, who gave it to Baculio.
Baculio allegedly took from her right pocket two heat-sealed plastic sachets, handed one to Orias, and Orias then gave it to IO1 Taghoy.
After examining the sachet, IO1 Taghoy executed the signal, prompting PDEA agents to arrive and order those in the house to lie face down.
IO1 Nestle Carin (IO1 Carin) frisked Baculio and recovered the marked money and a sachet of shabu.
The sachets and marked money were turned over to IO1 Avila, who proceeded with physical inventory and marking.
IO1 Avila marked the sachet bought by IO1 Taghoy as “PGA-BB”, the sachet recovered from Baculio as “PGA-1”, and six residue sachets as “PGA-2” to “PGA-7.”
The prosecution asserted that Nelson Jumilla (a barangay kagawad), Luz Boro (a barangay tanod), and Richard de la Cruz (a media member) witnessed the inventory and marking in the presence of Orias and Baculio.
Pictures were taken during the operation and later at the PDEA office where the seized items were brought for laboratory examination.
At the PDEA office, IO1 Avila prepared a letter-request and brought the arrested persons and seized sachets to the PNP Crime Laboratory.
A forensic chemist, PSI Charity Peralta Caceres, examined the sachets and identified them as methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu).
The prosecution also claimed that Orias and Baculio tested positive for dangerous drugs.

Defense Version: Denial and Alleged Abuse

Orias denied possessing any shabu and described his work schedule and his presence at home during the incident.
Orias testified that armed men entered his house through the front and back doors, declared they were arresting them, and ordered them to lie face down.
Orias claimed that the agents stomped him to prevent him from seeing their faces and that they handcuffed Baculio, punched her, and hit Montederamos with a firearm.
Orias stated that the agents then accused them of possession of dangerous drugs and placed alleged drugs on top of a table.
Orias denied any link to the money and the alleged drugs shown to the agents.
Baculio testified that she went to Orias’ house to get her bicycle and heard noises from someone kicking a gate before armed men entered.
Baculio described being frisked and assaulted and being ordered to stand up and then subjected to searches and photography.
Baculio asserted that she was told that if she cooperated and produced P100,000.00, she could be released immediately.
Baculio maintained that she refused because she believed she had not committed any crime.

RTC Ruling on Conviction

The RTC acquitted Baculio of illegal possession (Criminal Case No. 2009-279) for failure of the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The RTC convicted Orias and Baculio for illegal sale under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
The RTC found that the poseur-buyer positively identified Orias and Baculio as the persons from whom he purchased shabu.
The RTC held that the seized items were properly preserved and identified from confiscation to submission in court.
The RTC ruled that the seized prohibited drug allegedly sold by the accused was positively identified by IO1 Taghoy as the subject and consideration for the sale.
The RTC concluded that the defense failed to show evidence that the arresting officers were improperly motivated to falsely impute a crime.
The RTC found the chain of custody was observed because IO1 Taghoy (buy-bust buyer), IO1 Avila (marking, inventory, delivery), and the forensic chemist were presented in court.
The RTC sentenced Orias and Baculio to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00 each, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of