PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. JOSEPH ESPERA Y BANÑANO @ JOJO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

People versus Espera

The Case

This is the case of People versus Espera, a criminal prosecution for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The People of the Philippines charged Joseph Espera, known as Jojo, with selling a small sachet of shabu to a police poseur buyer in a buy-bust operation. The case matters because it is a study in the chain of custody rule: the Supreme Court, on a motion for reconsideration, withdrew its earlier affirmance of conviction and acquitted the accused, holding that the police failed to conduct the inventory and photographing of the seized item at the place of arrest and failed to have the required insulating witnesses present at or near that place, without any justifiable reason. It is a reminder that the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 are substantive law, not mere technicalities.

Procedural History

Espera was arraigned on the charge and pleaded not guilty, after which trial ensued before the Regional Trial Court of Tuguegarao City. In its Judgment of December 13, 2013, the trial court convicted him as charged, finding that the prosecution proved the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of 500,000 pesos. The trial court also upheld the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties and found substantial compliance with Section 21.

Espera appealed. In its Decision of September 15, 2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, with the modification that he would not be eligible for parole. The Court of Appeals likewise found that all the links in the chain of custody had been established.

The case then reached the Supreme Court on appeal. In its Decision of November 21, 2018, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized shabu had been preserved and that an unbroken chain of custody was shown. Espera filed a Motion for Reconsideration on January 22, 2019. The Court required the Office of the Solicitor General to comment, which it did, and the Court then resolved the motion, reversing itself and acquitting the accused.

Facts

On September 2, 2010, at about ten in the morning, an agent of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency received information from a confidential informant that Espera was distributing shabu in Atulayan Norte, Tuguegarao City, and was looking for a buyer. A buy-bust team was formed, with the agent as team leader and Investigating Officer 1 Johnny Sumalag as poseur buyer.

Upon reaching the target area, the confidential informant introduced the poseur buyer to Espera. Espera took out a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance and handed it to the poseur buyer, who in exchange gave him the marked money consisting of two genuine 500-peso bills and 2,000 pesos in boodle money. The poseur buyer then removed his bull cap as the pre-arranged signal. The other team members rushed in, arrested Espera, and recovered the buy-bust money. At the crime scene, the poseur buyer marked the confiscated sachet with his initials.

The team then returned to the PDEA Regional Office, where the inventory of the seized items and the photographing were done in the presence of Espera, media representatives, a barangay captain, and a representative of the Department of Justice. The seized sachet was later brought to the crime laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. For his part, Espera denied the charge and claimed that he had merely gone to the house of a former employer to confirm a job when armed men suddenly entered and handcuffed him.

Issues

• Whether or not the guilt of the accused for illegal sale of dangerous drugs was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
• Whether or not the deviations from the chain of custody rule under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 were justified.

Applicable Provisions

Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as it stood in 2010, 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 provision fixes the place and the timing of the inventory and photographing, and requires the presence of three insulating witnesses.

The Implementing Rules and Regulations then in effect provide:

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: (a) The apprehending officer/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: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; 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 provision allows noncompliance only on justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the guilt of the accused was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the inventory and photographing should be done at the place of arrest or, if not practicable, at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team. Here, it was undisputed that the inventory and photographing were conducted at the PDEA Regional Office and not at the place of arrest. The barangay captain who witnessed the inventory testified that Espera was presented to him during the inventory, showing that he was not present at or near the place of apprehension.

On the second issue, the Court held that the deviations were not justified. The prosecution invoked substantial compliance and the presumption of regularity, but the Court rejected both. The presumption of regularity applies only when nothing in the record suggests that the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty. Here, the prosecution's own submissions showed the deviation, and the prosecution failed to allege, identify, and prove any justifiable ground. The Court stressed that the requirements of Section 21 are a matter of substantive law and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality, and that even with the amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 10640, the inventory and photographing must be conducted at the place of arrest, with the insulating witnesses present at or near that place. Failure to comply, absent justifiable grounds, warrants acquittal.

Doctrine

The general rule is that the inventory and photographing of seized items after a buy-bust operation must be done at the place of apprehension, and the insulating witnesses must be physically present at or near the place of arrest. Any deviation requires a justifiable and practicable reason, which must be duly alleged in the affidavits executed by the police officers involved. The saving clause of the Implementing Rules and Regulations allows noncompliance only on justifiable grounds, provided the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved. Substantial compliance and the presumption of regularity cannot excuse the absence of the insulating witnesses at or near the place of arrest. The requirements of Section 21 are substantive law, and failure to comply, absent justifiable grounds, results in the acquittal of the accused.

Disposition

The Motion for Reconsideration was granted; the earlier Decision was reversed and set aside, and Joseph Espera was acquitted of violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 and ordered immediately released from detention unless confined for some other lawful cause.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that the inventory and photographing must be done at the place of arrest, with the insulating witnesses present at or near that place, and any deviation must be justified in the police affidavits. Examiners like to use this case to test the chain of custody rule under Section 21, the limits of substantial compliance and the presumption of regularity, and the effect of unjustified deviations on the presumption of innocence.