PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. LEAN NOEL DIZON @ “JINGLE”, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Dizon

The Case

This is a criminal appeal by Lean Noel Dizon, known by the alias Jingle, against his conviction for two drug offenses: the illegal sale of shabu under Section 5 of Article II of Republic Act Number 9165, and the illegal possession of shabu under Section 11 of the same Article. The case matters because the Supreme Court, even while accepting that a buy-bust operation took place, acquitted the accused on a ground the defense itself never squarely raised: the arresting team failed to comply with the chain of custody rule, and in particular failed to have a media representative actually witness the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs. It is a master class on how the High Court treats the corpus delicti in dangerous drugs prosecutions.

Procedural History

Dizon was charged under two separate Informations before the Regional Trial Court. On arraignment he pleaded not guilty to both. After trial, the trial court rendered a Joint Judgment dated August 23, 2013, finding him guilty in both cases. In the sale case it imposed life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos; in the possession case it imposed an indeterminate penalty of twelve years and one day as minimum to fourteen years as maximum, and a fine of 400,000 pesos.

Dizon appealed to the Court of Appeals, faulting the trial court for disregarding the alleged infirmities in the buy-bust operation. The Court of Appeals, by Decision dated June 10, 2015, affirmed the conviction, holding that the elements of both offenses were proved and that the chain of custody was not broken. Dizon then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal. Both parties adopted their earlier briefs, and the Court, treating the appeal as throwing the entire case open for review, resolved the case on the merits.

Facts

In late November 2010, Task Force Kasaligan of Negros Oriental received information that a certain Jingle was peddling illegal drugs in Siaton and was expected to sell during the coming town fiesta. A buy-bust team was formed, and on the morning of December 5, 2010, a poseur-buyer went with the informant to Dizon's residence. Dizon asked for the payment, received the marked 500-peso bill, showed two sachets of suspected shabu, and handed one to the poseur-buyer. Upon the prearranged signal, the backup officers closed in and arrested him. A second sachet was recovered from him, and the marked money was retrieved from his pocket.

The seized items were marked and partially inventoried in a makeshift hut outside Dizon's house, in the presence of Dizon, two barangay officials, and a representative of the Department of Justice. Photographs were taken. The team then brought Dizon to the NBI office in Dumaguete, where the inventory was continued and a media representative, Neil Rio, was asked to sign it. Laboratory examination confirmed that both sachets contained methamphetamine hydrochloride, shabu.

The defense presented a different story: that Dizon was accosted by men who suddenly rushed at him, that the drugs and money were produced by the officers, and that he was pressured to become a police asset. The trial court and the Court of Appeals believed the prosecution.

Issues

• Whether or not Dizon's warrantless arrest, including the incidental search of his person, was valid.
• Whether or not the testimony of the informant is indispensable to a successful prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
• Whether or not the Department of Justice representative who witnessed the inventory was a member of the buy-bust team and therefore a biased witness.
• Whether or not the chain of custody rule was complied with.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense.

This is the provision that validates a warrantless arrest made during a buy-bust operation, and the search incidental to it.

Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165, before its amendment, provides:

Section 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner: 1. The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.

This is the heart of the case: the law requires the physical inventory and photograph to be done in the presence of three witnesses, namely a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and an elected public official.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act Number 9165 add a saving clause:

Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items.

This clause allows leniency only where justifiable grounds exist and the integrity of the evidence is preserved.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the warrantless arrest valid. Dizon was caught in flagrante delicto, in the very act of selling shabu during a buy-bust operation, and a buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment where the idea to commit the crime originates from the offender. The arrest and the incidental search therefore fell squarely under Section 5 of Rule 113.

On the second issue, the Court held that the informant's testimony is not necessary. The informant's identity may be kept in confidence for security reasons, and only when his testimony is absolutely essential to conviction should that protection be disregarded. Here the prosecution did not need to expose him.

On the third issue, the Court held that the bare allegation that the Department of Justice representative was part of the buy-bust team deserves no weight, because a bare allegation is not evidence.

On the fourth issue, the Court ruled that the chain of custody rule was not complied with. The required inventory and photograph were done at the place of arrest in the presence of the accused, two elected officials, and the Department of Justice representative, but no media representative was present. The Court said plainly that the absence of one required witness is already a breach. The media representative signed the inventory later at the NBI office, but that did not cure the breach, because he did not actually witness the inventory and photograph. The saving clause could not apply, since the prosecution offered no explanation for the deviation. Without the required assurance that the drug presented in court was the very drug seized, the corpus delicti was not established beyond reasonable doubt.

Doctrine

First, a warrantless arrest during a buy-bust operation is lawful under Section 5 of Rule 113, because the offender is caught in the act, and the search incidental to that arrest is likewise valid.

Second, the informant's testimony is not indispensable to a drug prosecution; his identity may be withheld for security, unless his testimony is absolutely essential.

Third, compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act Number 9165 requires the physical inventory and photograph to be witnessed by all three required witnesses: a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and an elected public official. The absence of even one is a breach of the chain of custody rule.

Fourth, a witness who merely signs the inventory afterward, without actually witnessing the inventory and photograph, does not satisfy the law.

Fifth, the saving clause applies only where justifiable grounds for the deviation are shown and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Absent such explanation, the saving clause does not operate, and acquittal follows.

Disposition

The Court granted the appeal, reversed the conviction, and acquitted Lean Noel Dizon of both charges on reasonable doubt.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: the absence of even one required witness to the inventory and photograph is already a breach of the chain of custody rule, and a later signature does not cure it. Examiners use this case to test the witness requirement under Section 21 and the strict limits of the saving clause.