SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 230718. September 16, 2020.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. CRISANTO

HAYA y DELOS SANTOS, accused-appellant.

RESOLUTION

INTING, J : p

In a Resolution 1 dated August 1, 2018, the Court affirmed the Decision

2 dated August 17, 2016 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No.
06277 which upheld the conviction of Crisanto Haya y Delos Santos
(accused-appellant) for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic
Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Accused-appellant moved for reconsideration 3 of the Resolution
arguing that the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove his guilt. He pointed
that only a field reporter was present as a witness during the inventory and
there were no representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and
elected public official. There was also no indication that the police officers
even attempted to comply with the requirements of the law. 4
As will be discussed, there is a need to reconsider and set aside the
Resolution dated August 1, 2018 and enter a new one acquitting accused-
appellant.
Accused-appellant was charged with the offenses of Illegal Sale and
Possession of Dangerous Drugs committed in 2010 or prior to the
amendment of RA 9165. Hence, the applicable law is the original provision of
Section 21 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations. Accordingly, in the
conduct of buy-bust operations, (1) the seized items must be marked,
inventoried, and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation;
and (2) the marking, physical inventory, and photographing must be done in
the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an
elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a
representative from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies
of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 5
In a number of cases, the Court held that the presence of witnesses
from the DOJ, media, and any elected public officer is necessary to protect
against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drug.
Without the insulating presence of the representative from the media or the
DOJ and any elected public official during the seizure and marking of the
drug, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence that
had tainted previous buy-bust operations would not be averted, negating the
integrity and credibility of the seizure and confiscation of the subject drug
specimen that was evidence of the corpus delicti, and thus adversely
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 affecting the trustworthiness of the incrimination of the accused. 6

In the case at bar, noticeably, the seized items were not marked
immediately at the place of arrest. Although the physical inventory and
taking of photographs may be conducted at the nearest police station, or
office of the apprehending team in case of warrantless seizures, nothing
prevents the police officers from immediately conducting these steps at the
place where the items were seized. Considering that the seized items were
to be used against accused-appellant, it was imperative for the police
officers to mark them at once without delay. This is material since the
penalty to be imposed for illegal possession of drugs depends upon the
quantity or weight thereof.
Additionally, the rest of the inventory process was undertaken without
the presence of a representative from the DOJ and an elected public official
as mandatorily required under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. As indicated
in the Inventory of Drug Seized/Items, 7 only a representative from the
media, one Maeng Santos, a field reporter, witnessed the marking of the
purportedly retrieved drug specimens. In People v. Sipin , 8 the Court
discussed:
The prosecution bears the burden of proving a valid cause for
non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165, as amended. It has the positive duty to demonstrate
observance thereto in such a way that during the trial proceedings, it
must initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived
deviations from the requirements of law. Its failure to follow the
mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be
proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. It should
take note that the rules require that the apprehending officers do not
simply mention a justifiable ground, but also clearly state this ground
in their sworn affidavit, coupled with a statement on the steps they
took to preserve the integrity of the seized items. Strict adherence to
Section 21 is required where the quantity of illegal drugs seized is
miniscule, since it is highly susceptible to planting, tampering or
alteration of evidence. (Italics supplied.)
While there are instances wherein departure from the procedures is
allowed, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to (1) recognize any lapse on
the part of the police officers and (2) be able to justify the same. 9
Specifically, it must be alleged and proved that the presence of these
insulating witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the seized
illegal drugs was not obtained because:
x x x (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of
arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and
photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate
retaliatory action of the accused or any persons acting for and in
his/her behalf; (3) the elected officials themselves were involved in
the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to
secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected
public official within the period required under Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting
officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug
operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented
the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required
witnesses even before the offenders could escape. 10
What is more, earnest effort to secure the attendance of the witnesses
must be properly proven; thus:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses
does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However,
a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and
sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of
RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang , the Court held that
the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in
contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer
statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as
an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look
for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded
as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent
actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are
unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These
considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily
given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have
received the information about the activities of the accused until the
time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and
consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand
knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set
procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police
officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-
compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they
exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and
that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 11
(Italics supplied; underscoring omitted.)
Here, the prosecution failed to recognize and explain the serious
procedural lapses in the marking, physical inventory, and photography of the
seized items. It failed to explain why the police officers did not secure the
presence of an elected public official and a representative from the DOJ. The
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses likewise failed to establish that
there was an earnest effort to coordinate with and secure the presence of
the witnesses at the onset of the operation.
In this light, prosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the
positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in the law.
They must have the initiative to not only acknowledge, but moreso justify
any perceived deviations from the procedure during the proceedings before
the trial court. Since compliance with this procedure is determinative of the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate
of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same was
not raised, or even threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude the
appellate court, including the Court, from fully examining the records of the
case if only to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely
complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 deviation. If no such reasons exist, then it is the appellate court's bounden
duty to acquit the accused, and perforce, overturn a conviction. 12
Under the circumstances, the breaches committed by the police
officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against
a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against accused-appellant as the
integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti, the 10 plastic sachets of
marijuana, have been compromised. 13
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to: (a) SET ASIDE the Court's
Resolution dated August 1, 2018; and (b) GRANTS the appeal of accused-
appellant Crisanto Haya y Delos Santos. The Decision dated August 17, 2016
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 06277 is hereby REVERSED
a n d SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Crisanto Haya y Delos Santos is
ACQUITTED of the offenses charged on the ground of reasonable doubt.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED
to: (a) cause the immediate release of accused-appellant Crisanto Haya y
Delos Santos unless he is being held in custody for any other lawful reason;
and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt
of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED.
Perlas-Bernabe, Hernando and Delos Santos, JJ., concur.
Baltazar-Padilla, * J., is on leave.

Footnotes

* On leave.
1. Rollo , pp. 36-37.

2. Id. at 2-13. Penned by Associate Justice Melchor Q.C. Sadang, with Associate
Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Amy C. Lazaro-Javier (now a Member of
the Court), concurring.
3. Id. at 38-42.
4. Rollo , pp. 38 and 39.

5. People v. Enoval , G.R. No. 245973 (Notice), February 5, 2020.

6. Id., citing People v. Tomawis , G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018, 862 SCRA 131
and People v. Mendoza , 736 Phil. 749, 761 (2014).
7. Records, p. 122.

8. G.R. No. 224290, April 23, 2018.

9. People v. Enoval , supra note 5, citing People v. Alagarme , 754 Phil. 449, 461
(2015).

10. People v. Sipin, supra note 8.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 11. People v. Ramos , 826 Phil. 881, 996 (2018).
12. People v. Ramos , supra note 11.
13. People v. Enoval , supra note 5, citing People v. Sumili, 753 Phil. 342, 352
(2015).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com