G.R. No. 240431 - People vs. Sanico

Case Summary (G.R. No. 240431)

Factual Background

On September 30, 2009, IO2 Janem Free Reyes of the PDEA Region XI received information from a confidential informant that a person named Marlon Bob was selling marijuana in Barangay Tibungco, Davao City. Acting on the information, IO2 Reyes organized a buy-bust operation team. IO1 Rommel Adrian dela Pena was designated as the poseur-buyer, while IO1 Julius Magdadaro served as the immediate back-up. Eight other PDEA members were included to complete the team. During briefing, the officers agreed that IO1 dela Pena would remove his bull cap as a sign that the sale had been consummated.

IO2 Reyes also prepared the necessary Authority to Operate and the operation was recorded in the PDEA blotter book by Desk Officer Agent Fe Fuentes. Around twelve noon, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area at Purok 12, Tibungco, where the confidential informant and IO1 dela Pena entered first, crossing a narrow footbridge over sea water. The appellant’s house was situated above the water. When the team reached the area, the appellant was outside his house.

The confidential informant introduced IO1 dela Pena to the appellant, stating, in substance, that IO1 dela Pena was a friend and intended to buy marijuana leaves. The poseur-buyer asked the appellant what he wanted to buy, and the appellant inquired how much he wanted to purchase. IO1 dela Pena replied that he wanted P150.00 worth of marijuana. The appellant demanded payment, and IO1 dela Pena handed over marked money consisting of one P100.00 bill and one P50.00 bill. Upon receiving the money, the appellant reached into his pocket, took out three (3) small items rolled in newspaper, and told the poseur-buyer that they were marijuana leaves.

After the transaction, IO1 dela Pena removed his bull cap as the signal that the sale was consummated. Sensing the buy-bust, the appellant jumped into the body of water and fled, prompting the buy-bust team to pursue him unsuccessfully. After the attempted arrest, IO2 Reyes instructed IO1 dela Pena and IO1 Magdadaro to place their initials—“RAQPD” and “JAM”, respectively—on the confiscated items. IO1 dela Pena placed the items in an evidence pouch, sealed it with masking tape, and the officers placed their initials on the masking tape as well.

The team then went to the barangay hall of Tibungco to report the buy-bust and the appellant’s escape. Back at the PDEA office, IO1 dela Pena showed the confiscated items to Agent Fuentes, and Fuentes recorded the matter in the blotter book. IO1 dela Pena retained custody of the items. At about one o’clock in the afternoon of the following day, an inventory was conducted in the presence of witnesses: Noel Polito from the Department of Justice (DOJ), Mariz Robilla from the media, and Divinagracia Morales, an elected barangay official. A request for laboratory examination was prepared and IO1 dela Pena brought the request and specimens to the PNP Crime Laboratory in Ecoland, Davao City. The items were received by SPO2 Arnel Betita, who weighed them and turned them over to PSI April dela Rosa Fabian, who conducted the qualitative and quantitative laboratory examination yielding a positive result for marijuana.

The case was initially archived because the appellant remained at large, but it was later revived after approximately two years when the appellant was arrested in another buy-bust operation.

Information, Arraignment, and Submission for Decision

The appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 under an Information alleging that on or about September 30, 2009, in Davao City, he willfully, unlawfully, and consciously sold, delivered, and transferred to the poseur-buyer, IO1 Rommel Adrian Q. dela Pena, three rolled newspapers marked as A-1 to A-3, each containing dried marijuana fruiting tops weighing a total of 2.9 grams, without authorization by law.

The appellant was arraigned on June 2, 2012 and pleaded not guilty. On February 13, 2015, the prosecution filed a motion for leave to amend the criminal information, because the name of the poseur-buyer in the Information had mistakenly stated IO1 Julius Magdadaro instead of IO1 Rommel Adrian dela Pena. The RTC granted the amendment after the prosecution rested its case. After the prosecution presented its evidence, the appellant’s counsel manifested that the appellant was waiving his right to present evidence, and the case was submitted for decision.

On December 29, 2016, the RTC convicted the appellant. It sentenced him to life imprisonment and ordered payment of a fine of P500,000.00, with credit for preventive imprisonment under Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10592.

CA Proceedings and Issues Raised on Appeal

The appellant appealed to the CA, which dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC decision on March 23, 2018. The CA held that the prosecution established a sufficient chain of custody, and it also rejected the defense claim of frame-up and the allegation of ill motive.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165. He specifically contended that: first, the required procedure under Section 21 was not followed; second, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were not preserved; and third, the non-compliance could not be excused under the saving clause under the IRR.

Parties’ Contentions on Compliance with Section 21

The Supreme Court addressed the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, emphasizing that for conviction under Article II, Section 5 of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish: (1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. The Court also stressed that the illegal drugs confiscated from the accused constitute the corpus delicti, and the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is the same substance presented in court.

The appellant attacked the custody procedure on the ground that the PDEA officers did not conduct the required inventory and take photographs immediately after seizure and confiscation. He further claimed that the physical inventory and photographing were not done in the presence of the accused or his representative/counsel, the required media representative, the DOJ representative, and an elected public official.

In response, the prosecution relied on the officer’s explanation that the inventory and related procedures were postponed to the next day because the team could not secure the necessary witnesses. The Court found that explanation material to the question whether the prosecution could invoke justifiable grounds under the saving clause.

The Court’s Evaluation of the Inventory and Witnesses Requirement

The Supreme Court examined the governing law. It noted that Section 21(1) of RA 9165 requires that immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team must physically inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or person from whom the items were confiscated (or the accused’s representative/counsel), together with a media representative, a DOJ representative, and any elected public official, all of whom must sign the inventory and receive copies.

It also considered Section 21(a) of the IRR, which supplies additional procedural details on where inventory and photographing may be conducted in warrantless seizures, and it contains a saving clause allowing non-compliance only if there are justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved.

While the Court recognized that compliance may be difficult in field conditions, it held that the prosecution’s showing in this case did not reach the standard needed to qualify as justifiable grounds under the statute and jurisprudence. The Court found that IO1 dela Pena testified that the inventory could not be conducted on the same day because the officers failed to secure the necessary witnesses who were required to be present; he stated they could not contact the witnesses in time and therefore conducted the inventory the following day.

The Supreme Court ruled that merely stating the arresting officers could not contact the required witnesses and therefore postponed the inventory does not constitute the kind of justifiable ground contemplated by law. It reiterated that the prosecution bears the burden of proof to show valid cause for deviation and must initiate during trial in acknowledging and justifying deviations. The Court further stated that the explanation must be evidenced by sworn statements and supported by steps showing preservation of the integrity of the seized item, particularly where quantities are small and susceptible to tampering.

The Court invoked jurisprudence, including People v. Vicente Sipin y De Castro (G.R. No. 224290, June 11, 2018), stressing that the prosecution must allege and prove recognized situations that can justify relaxation of Section 21, such as remoteness, safety threats, involvement of officials in the punishable acts, futility of efforts to obtain DOJ or media representatives and elected officials, or time constraints and urgency making procurement of witnesses impracticable before the offenders escape. In the present case, the prosecution failed to show such circumstances with the level of proof required.

Accordingly, the Court held that the failure to comply with the immediate inventory and photographing requirement impaired the integrity of the corpus delicti and created reasonable doubt as to the identity and evidentiary value of the seized marijuana.

Disposition and Result

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the CA decision dated March 23, 2018, which had dismissed the appellant’s appeal and affirmed the RTC conviction dated December 29, 2016. It ruled that the prosecution failed to prove guil

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 240431)

The case arose from an appeal by Marlon Bob Caraniagan Sanico, who was convicted of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002) by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 13, Davao City.
The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which dismissed the appellant’s appeal and upheld the trial court’s findings on guilt.
The Supreme Court resolved the appeal by reviewing both the conduct of the buy-bust operation and, particularly, the statutory compliance required for the chain of custody and the preservation of the corpus delicti.

Parties and Procedural Posture

People of the Philippines served as the plaintiff-appellee.
Marlon Bob Caraniagan Sanico a.k.a. "Marlon Bob" served as the accused-appellant.
The RTC convicted the appellant on December 29, 2016 for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165.
The appellant’s subsequent appeal to the CA was denied, and the CA affirmed the RTC on March 23, 2018.
The appellant raised issues centered on non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 and the consequent failure to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
After the prosecution rested, the appellant manifested a waiver of the right to present evidence, and the case was submitted for decision.

Key Factual Allegations

On September 30, 2009, a confidential informant relayed information to PDEA Region XI that a person named Marlon Bob was selling marijuana in Barangay Tibungco, Davao City.
PDEA formed a buy-bust operation team, with IO1 Rommel Adrian dela Pena as the poseur-buyer and IO1 Julius Magdadaro as the immediate back-up.
The team briefing included a plan that IO1 dela Pena would remove his bull cap as a signal that the transaction had been consummated.
Marked money was prepared, consisting of a P100.00 bill and a P50.00 bill, and the operation was recorded in the PDEA blotter book by the desk officer.
Around 12 noon, the team proceeded to the target area at Purok 12, Tibungco, Davao City, where the appellant’s house was described as built above sea water with a narrow footbridge approach.
The informant introduced the poseur-buyer to the appellant, and the appellant agreed to sell P150.00 worth of marijuana.
The appellant demanded and received the marked money, then took out three small items rolled in newspaper, which he told the poseur-buyer were marijuana leaves.
After the marked transaction, the poseur-buyer removed his bull cap, but the appellant allegedly jumped into the body of water and fled, despite the team’s pursuit.
While on the scene, the team placed their initials on the confiscated items, and the poseur-buyer placed the items inside an evidence pouch sealed with masking tape, with initials placed on the tape as well.
The team reported at the barangay hall that the operation occurred and that the appellant evaded arrest.
Upon returning to the office, the desk officer recorded the confiscated items in the blotter book, and the poseur-buyer retained custody of the sealed items.
An inventory was reportedly conducted around 1:00 p.m. of the following day in the presence of witnesses including Noel Polito (DOJ), Mariz Robilla (media), and Divinagracia Morales (elected barangay official).
A request for laboratory examination was prepared, and the poseur-buyer brought the specimens to the PNP Crime Laboratory for qualitative and quantitative examination.
The laboratory examination yielded a positive result for marijuana, and the case was later revived after two years following the appellant’s arrest in another buy-bust operation.

Information and Arraignment Details

The appellant was charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 in an Information alleging a sale, delivery, and transfer of three rolled newspapers marked as A-1 to A-3, each containing dried marijuana fruiting tops, weighing a total of 2.9 grams.
The Information specified the poseur-buyer as IO1 Rommel Adrian dela Pena.
During proceedings, the appellant sought leave to amend the Information because the name stated in the information allegedly differed, and the RTC granted the amendment after the appellant filed a motion for leave to amend dated February 13, 2015.
The appellant was arraigned on June 2, 2012 and pleaded not guilty.

Issues Raised on Appeal

The appellant argued that the procedure under Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was not followed.
The appellant argued that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were not preserved.
The appellant contended that the alleged procedural lapses could not be excused under the saving clause in Section 21 as applied through the IRR.
The appeal thus required the Court to assess whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the identity of the dangerous drug and the preservation of the seized items as required by law.

Statutory Framework

For a conviction under Article II, Section 5 of R.A. 9165 for illegal sale of prohibited drugs, the Court required proof that: the identity of the buyer and seller, the object of the sale and its consideration, and delivery of the thing sold with payment.
The Court treated the illicit drugs confiscated from the accused as the corpus delicti of the offense.
The Supreme Court emphasized that for illegal sale, conviction required that the sale transaction actually happened and that the procured object was the same drugs seized and properly presented in court.
The Court explained that chain of custody served to remove unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence.
The key statutory requirement invoked by the appellant was Section 21(1) of R.A. 9165, which required that, immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team physicall