l\.

epublic of tbe t)bilippinet,

$,Upreme QCourt
;fManila

FIRST DIVISION

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 231839

Plaintiff-Appellee,
Present:

BERSAMIN, C.J.,
DEL CASTILLO,
- versus - JARDELEZA,
GESMUNDO, and
CARANDANG, JJ.,

MICHAEL RYAN ARELLANO y Promulgated:

NAVARRO,
Accused-Appellant. °JUL 10 2019
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------·~
DECISION

BERSAMIN, C.J.:

The version and evidence of the State must be free of reasonable

doubt to warrant the conviction of the accused for the crime charged against
him. Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the accused in view of the
presumption of his innocence.

The Case

Through this appeal, the accused-appellant assails the affirmance of

his conviction for violations of Section 5, Section 11 and Section 12, all of
Republic Act No. 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Acts Law of 2002)
under the decision promulgated on November 9, 2016 by the Court of
Appeals (CA). 1 He . had been found and pronounced guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of said crimes by the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch
13, in Laoag City, !locos Norte through the judgment rendered on September

1
Rollo, pp. 2-20; penned by Associate Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with the concurrence of Associate
Justice Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.

-b
Decision 2 G.R. No. 231839

11, 2015 in Criminal Case No. 15491, Criminal Case No. 15492, and
Criminal Case No. 15493. 2

Antecedents

The informations charged the accused-appellant thusly:

Criminal Case No. 15491

That on or about the 18 th day of April 2013, in the City of Laoag,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had in his
possession, custody and control, THREE (3) heat sealed transparent
plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known
as "Shabu" with an aggregate weight of 0.2143 gram[s], FOUR (4) open
transparent plastic sachets containing white residues, beli[ e]ve[d] to be
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, without any license or authority, in
violation of the aforecited law.

CONTRARY TO LA W. 3

Criminal Case No. 15492

That on or about the 18 th day of April 2013, in the City of Laoag,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and
deliver to a poseur buyer One (1) piece plastic sachet containing
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as "Shabu" with an
aggregate weight of 0.1780 gram, a dangerous drug, without any license or
authority, in violation of the aforecited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

Criminal Case No. 15493

That on or about the 18 th day of April 2013, in the City of Laoag,

Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said
accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously had in his
possession, custody and control, TWO (2) folded aluminum foils, a drug
paraphernalia, without any license or authority, in violation of the
aforecited law.

CONTRARY TO LA W. 5

CA rollo, pp. 40-54; penned by Presiding Judge Philip G. Salvador.

Records, p. I.
Id.
Id.

-.!.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 231839

Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. Trial on

the merits then ensued.

The factual and procedural antecedents was rendered by the CA in its

assailed decision as follows:

On April 18, 2013, a confidential informant went to the Provincial

Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (PAIDSOTG) office
and gave a tip regarding the illegal drug activities of appellant. At around
9:30 a.m. of the same day, Action Officer Police Inspector Jeffrey Taccad
summoned PO3 Dalere and PO2 Agtang, PO3 John Dacauang, PO 1
Salacup, and PO 1 Sarandi for a briefing on the conduct of a buy-bust
operation against appellant. During the briefing, the confidential
informant made arrangement with appellant for the sale of shabu worth
Pl,000. Appellant agreed and told the confidential informant to meet at
Brgy. Buyon, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte. PO3 Dalere was designated as a
poseur-buyer upon which he was given a Pl,000 bill with the initials
"JMBD" to be used as the buy-bust money. A pre-operation Police
Blotter was entered by PO3 Dalere.

The team proceeded to Brgy. Buyon, Bacarra, Ilocos Norte. Upon

arrival thereat, appellant called the confidential informant's cellphone
instructing the latter to proceed to Room 11 of Farmside Hotel located at
49-B, Raraburan, Laoag City. Unknown to appellant, the call was
received by PO3 Dalere who then informed Action Officer Taccad about
the change of venue.

Upon arrival at the Farmside Hotel, PO3 Dalere and the

confidential informant went to Room 11. Appellant was already standing
in front of the room. The confidential informant introduced PO3 Dalere as
a friend who was going to buy shabu. Appellant asked PO3 Dalere how
much he was going to buy. PO3 Dalere replied ".P.1,000.00 only, pare".
Appellant invited them to enter the room. PO3 Dalere gave to appellant
the PlO00 bill which the latter put in his right pocket. Appellant then
picked one (1) plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance on top
of the bed and handed it to PO3 Dalere. PO3 Dalere made a missed call to
PO2 Salacup, which was the pre-arranged signal to the buy-bust team that
the sale had already been consummated. The team entered the room. PO2
Salacup then arrested and conducted a body search on appellant. The
Pl000 buy-bust money was recovered from appellant's right pocket. All
the other pieces of evidence found on top of the bed were gathered. When
the barangay officials arrived, PO3 Dalere placed his initials "JMBD" on
the plastic sachet of shabu bought from appellant including the other
plastic sachets of shabu, aluminum foil and a lighter found on top of the
bed. In the presence of the barangay officials, the police officers also took
photographs and made a Certificate of Inventory of the seized items.

Appellant was then brought to PAIDSOTG office. A letter-request

for laboratory examination addressed to the Ilocos Norte Police Provincial
Crime Laboratory was prepared to determine the presence of any form of
dangerous drugs in the items seized from appellant. PO3 Dalere
personally delivered the letter-request and the seized items to the PNP
Crime Laboratory which was received by PO3 Padayao. The specimens
were then handed to Forensic Chemist Amiely Ann Navarro.

~
Decision 4 G.R. No. 231839

In Chemistry Report No. D-031-2013-IN dated April 18, 2013,

Forensic Chemist Navarro found that that plastic sachet appellant sold to
PO3 Dalere Hacutina, with the markings "JMBD-1" weighing 0.0876
gram, as well as the three (3) plastic sachets recovered from appellant
which were marked as "JMBD-2 to JMBD-4", were likewise positive for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. Two (2) opened transparent
plastic sachets containing white residue marked as "JMBD-5" and
"JMBD-7" were also found positive for shabu.

For the defense, appellant was presented as the lone witness.

Appellant testified that at around 9:00 a.m. on April 18, 2013, he

and a female acquaintance were at Room 11 of the Farmside Hotel located
at Brgy. Raraburan, Laoag City. When they were about to check out at
12:00 noon, someone knocked at the room. He peeped and saw a man at
the door. He asked the man "Why boss? " but there was no answer. The
man tried to forcibly enter the room but he could not do so because there
was a door stopper. The man's companion pointed a gun at him saying
"Buksan mo, putang ina mo". Another man entered through the window
and unlocked the door. When the men were inside the room, they
immediately grabbed him. He asked them "Why boss, why bossing?" but
there was no answer. They handcuffed him and searched his pocket from
which they were able to get his cellphone and money. They pulled him
outside and they kept hitting his stomach telling him to bring it out. They
brought him back inside the room and was told "These are the things that
we have taken from you, it's plenty". He answered "Ana nga ibagbagam
a naala yo kanyak? " (What are you saying that you got some things from
me?). When the barangay officials arrived, he begged for their help but to
no avail. He was then brought to the PAIDSOTG office. While in
detention, he asked P/Insp. Taccad the reason for his arrest and detention
but there was no response. When he kept crying and pleading, P/Insp.
Taccad told him "Pasensya kan, biktima ka fang." On cross-examination,
he was asked whether he has filed any criminal nor administrative
complaint against the police officers, he answered in the negative. 6

On September 11, 2015, the R TC rendered judgment finding the

accused-appellant guilty as charged, disposing:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused

Michael Ryan Arellano y Navarro GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt on
all the charges and is therefore sentenced as follows:

1. for illegal possession of shabu with an aggregate weight of

0.2143 gram as charged in Criminal Case No 15491, to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of TWELVE (12) YEARS and
ONE (1) DAY to FOURTEEN (14) YEARS and to pay a fine of
Php300,000.00;

2. for illegal sale of shabu as charged in Criminal Case No.

15492, to suffer the penalty of LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a fine
of Php500,000.00.

Rollo, pp. 7-8.

~
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 231839

3. for illegal possession of drug paraphernalia as charged in

Criminal Case No. 15493, to suffer the indeterminate penalty of
imprisonment of SIX (6) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum to
TWO (2) YEARS FOUR (4) MONTHS and ONE (1) DAY as minimum
and to pay a fine of Phpl0,000.00.

xxxx

SO ORDERED. 7

The accused-appellant challenged the finding of guilty by the RTC,

insisting that the apprehending officers had committed irregularities in the
performance of their duties; and that the State had not established the
identity and integrity of the seized items.

As mentioned, the CA affirmed the convictions, decreeing:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is hereby

DENIED. The Decision dated September 11, 2015 of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 13, Laoag City, Ilocos Norte is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 8

The CA observed that the Prosecution had sufficiently proved beyond

reasonable doubt the accused-appellant's guilt for the illegal sale and the
illegal possession of illegal drugs as well as the illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia by showing through its documentary and testimonial evidence
all the elements of the crimes charged; that the testimonies of poseur-buyer
PO3 Dalere and his back-up officer PO2 Salacup were entitled to full
credence considering that the physical evidence on record supported the
same; that there had been no break in the chain of custody of the confiscated
drugs and paraphernalia; that the integrity and evidentiary value of the
corpus delicti had been duly preserved; and that the accused-appellant's
defenses of denial and frame-up did not prevail because there was no
evidence to substantiate them.

Hence, this appeal.

Accused-appellant filed a notice of appeal dated November 25, 2016

with the Court of Appeals. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG),
representing the People of the Philippines, filed a manifestation and motion9
dated October 26, 2017 that the appellee' s brief would be adopted as its
supplemental brief in the case. Meanwhile, accused-appellant, represented

7
CA rollo, pp. 53-54.
8
Rollo,p.19.
9
Id. at 33.

h
 Decision 6 G.R. No. 231839

10
by the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), filed his supplemental brief dated
December 27, 2017.

In his supplemental brief, accused-appellant called out the material

inconsistencies in the testimonies of the police operatives, which lends
credibility to his defense of denial and frame-up. He asserted that there were
significant discrepancies in the testimonies of PO3 Dalere and the other
police operatives regarding the presence of a girl in the hotel room where he
was allegedly apprehended. Moreover, accused-appellant held that the so-
called confiscated drug paraphernalia tested negative for dangerous drugs,
which only proved that such were not intended for smoking or consuming
any illegal drugs.

Ruling of the Court

The appeal is meritorious.

At the outset, the Court reiterates the settled rule that the factual
findings of the trial court, its calibration of the testimonies of the witnesses,
and its assessment of the probative weight thereof, as well as its conclusions
anchored on said findings are accorded respect, if not conclusive effect. This
is truer if such findings were affirmed by the appellate court. When the trial
court's findings have been affirmed by the appellate court, said findings are
generally binding upon the Court" 11 save in settled exceptions such as: (1)
when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (2)
when there is grave abuse of discretion; (3) when the findings are grounded
entirely on speculations, surmises or conjectures; (4) when the judgment of
the CA is based on misapprehension of facts; ( 5) when the CA, in making its
findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee; (6) when the findings of fact are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(7) when the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed
by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion; and (8) when the findings of fact of the CA are premised on the
absence of evidence and are contradicted by the evidence on record. 12

Upon review, the Court has determined that the present case squarely
falls under some of these exceptions.

The idea behind according greater weight to the credibility of the

police officers in most drugs cases rests not only upon the entrapping
10
Id. at 43-57.
11
People v. Prajes, G.R. No. 206770, April 02, 2014, 720 SCRA 594,601, citing People v. Vitera, G.R.
No. 175327, April 3, 2013, 695 SCRA 54, 64-65.
12
Id., citing People v. Omictin, G.R. No. 188130, July 26, 2010, 625 SCRA 611,619.

~
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 231839

officers' positive and straightforward testimonies but more so on the

presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. Nevertheless,
the presumption can be rebutted by contrary evidence. And when the
presumption is discarded and weighed against the requirement of the law for
convicting an accused based no less than on proof beyond reasonable doubt,
the balance should tilt in favor of the accused. The primacy of the
constitutional presumption of innocence must also be upheld over the
presumption of regularity in the performance of public functions,
particularly when irregularities visibly attended the case at hand.

A common precept that we often downplay is the defense of frame up.

This defense is viewed with disfavor because it has become a common
excuse of an accused that can easily be fabricated and is a regular ploy in
prosecutions for the illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. While
We are aware that in some cases, law enforcers resort to the practice of
planting evidence in order to, inter alia, harass, nevertheless the defense of
frame-up in drug cases requires strong and convincing evidence because of
the presumption that the police officers had performed their duties regularly
and that they acted within the bounds of their authority. 13

The Joint Affidavit 14 of the police officers who took part in the buy-
bust operation and apprehension of accused-appellant, as well as their
testimonies during the trial were found after trial and appellate review as the
true story. On these bases, both court convicted accused-appellant of the
crimes charged. There was little, if at all, significant discussion devoted on
accused-appellant's claim that he was at the Farmside hotel with a female
companion on that fateful day. In the police officers' joint affidavit as well
as during their direct examinations, there was no mention at all of such
female companion. The only instance when such fact came to be
acknowledged by the Prosecution was during the course of the cross
examination of P03 Dalere, the poseur-buyer, as follows:

xxxx

Q: It is not also true Mr. Witness that upon entering Room 11 there
was female person named Jan Ballesteros who was with the
accused?

xxxx

A: I saw a female inside the room, ma' am.

Q: This female fserson you do not know the name?
A: Yes ma'am. 5

xxxx

13
See People v. Mamaril, G.R. No. 171980, October 6, 2010, 632 SCRA 369,377.
14 Record s, pp. 3-5.
15
TSN, May 27, 2014, p. 94.

~
 Decision 8 G.R. No. 231839

Q: Did you ask her name?

A: No, your Honor.
Q: At the INPPO Mr. Witness, do you confirm that you brought this
female who was inside the room of the accused after the arrest of
the accused?
A: I cannot recall, ma' am.
Q: What you only recall was that only the accused was the one whom
you brought to the INPPO after his arrest?
16
A: Yes, ma'am.

xxxx

Q: And present inside the room were yourself, the confidential

informant, one (1) female and the accused, do you confirm that?
A: Yes, ma'am.
Q: Did you notice where exactly the room was the female staying?

xxxx

A: I cannot recall, ma'am. 17

xxxx

Q: On top Mr. Witness, you were to stand inside the room for at least
one hour?
A: Yes, ma'am 18

xxxx

During P03 Dalere's re-direct examination, he was asked what

happened to accused-appellant's female companion. He merely answered
that the female companion remained in the room even after the barangay
officials arrived in the room. He added no other details because he was
supposedly preparing the inventory. On re-cross examination, the following
were established:

Q: You do not recall exactly if that woman whose name you do not
recall was seated in the bed wherein you stated there were items on
the bed?
A: No, ma'am.
Q: What do you mean by "no" you do not recall if she was seated on
the bed?
A: Yes, your Honor.
Q: However, you confirmed Mr. Witness that when the alleged
accused handed you a plastic sachet which you said allegedly
contained shabu, this woman was present and she witnessed the
handling of the shabu to you? 19

16
Id. at 95.
17
Id. at 97.
18
Id. at 99.
19
Id. at 104-105.

~
 Decision 9 G.R. No. 231839

xxxx

Q: Nevertheless, Mr. Witness, this female person, no question was

asked of what was she doing inside the room?
A: None, ma'am.
Q: And no case was filed to this companion of the accused inside the
room, this woman?
A: None, ma' am. 20

During his direct examination, P02 Salacup entirely ignored the

presence of the woman companion of accused-appellant during the buy-bust
operation:

Q: Aside from you, Officer Dalere, Officer Sarandi, who else entered
the room?
A: Inspector Taccad, Inspector David, sir.2 1

xxxx

Q: How about the informant, when you were handcuffing the

accused?
COURT: Already answered.
A: He was inside aside from the informant, sir.
Q: What was he doing at that time?
A: I cannot recall, your Honor.
Q: Aside from the informant, Michael Arellano, you and Dalere, when
you were handcuffing, were there other person[ s] inside?
• 22
A: N one, sir.

Clearly, the police officers were inconsistent in their testimonies. The

presence of the accused-appellant's female companion inside a small room
was a detail that could simply be overlooked or ignored. Moreover, the
female companion was never bodily searched, or questioned, or invited to
the police station for investigation. The police officers simply dismissed her
presence as inconsequential to the case at hand. They did not offer any
explanation as regards the grave omission and even attempted to conceal
such fact by hiding behind the presumption or regularity. While we submit
that petitioner's allegation of frame-up is evidentiary in nature and are
matters for his defense, which must be presented and heard during the trial,
we cannot simply tum a blind eye to the incongruous testimonies of the
police officers and affirm the findings of the courts below.

While it is true that the accused-appellant could have secured the

affidavit of his female companion to bolster his claim of having been
framed-up, the same explanation can be ascribed as to why accused-
appellant opted not to file' any cases against the police officers who
participated in the so-called buy-bust operation: fear of reprisal. And as the
20
Id. at 106.
21
Id. at 127.
22
Id. at 128.

.
--'v
 Decision 10 G.R. No. 231839

courts find fault that such inaction from accused-appellant was contrary to
human experience, the very same human experience would prompt us to
believe that accused-appellant was impelled by his trepidation considering
that he was under police custody since his arrest. We cannot afford to be so
narve as to afford the police officers all the benefits of our doubt and
condemn an accused whose security is at the mercy of the very same police
officers.

It was not very prudent of the police officers to just release accused-
appellant's female companion without first ascertaining what her
involvement in the whole transaction or trade was. Such inaction by the
police officers was inherently wrong in so many levels. Their indifference to
the presence of the lady was suspicious and their failure to even routinely
ask for the name and personal details of the said female companion was
highly curious.

Accused-appellant's defense of frame up consequently stands on

firmer ground than the inconsistent statements and irregular acts of the
police officers. This Court will not skirt the issue of the police officers'
highly suspicious and ominous demeanor by relying on the presumption of
regularity. This presumption, it must be stressed, is not conclusive. Any taint
of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the
presumption unavailable. The presumption, in other words, obtains only
when nothing in the records suggest that the law enforcers involved deviated
from the standard conduct of official duty as provided for in the law. But
where the official act in question is irregular on its face, as in this case, an
adverse presumption arises as a matter of course. 23 The presumption of
regularity in the performance of official duty cannot by itself overcome the
presumption of innocence nor constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. 24

Granting for the sake of argument that the chain of custody of the
illegal drugs was substantially complied with by the police officers, this does
not excuse the leniency of the lower courts in determining the veracity of
accused-appellant's defense. This irregularity committed by the police
officers militates against the prosecution's case because it not only puts in
question the validity of the buy-bust operation by the very officers who are
supposedly adept both in the requirements of the law and the proper
execution of their operations, but also discredit the identity of the corpus
delicti.

Lastly, it is hombook doctrine that if the inculpatory facts and

circumstances are capable of two or more explanations, one of which is
consistent with the innocence of the accused and the other consistent with

23
People v. Abetong, G.R. No. 209785, June 4, 2014, 725 SCRA 304, 317-318, citing People v. Capuno,
G.R. No. 185715, January 19, 2011, 640 SCRA 233, 251.
24
People v. Tan, G.R. No. 13300 I, December 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 116, 126.

~
 Decision 11 G.R. No. 231839

his guilt, then the evidence does not fulfill the test of moral certainty and is
not sufficient to support a conviction. 25 Based on our review and
consideration of the facts and the records of this case, we are unconvinced as
to the culpability of accused-appellant for the crimes charged. As such, we
are constrained to acquit herein accused-appellant.

WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the

Court of Appeals promulgated on November 9, 2016 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Michael Ryan Arellano y Navarro is
hereby ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.

The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is ordered to immediately

RELEASE accused-appellant from custody, unless he is being held for
some other lawful cause, and to INFORM this Court, within five (5) days
from receipt of this Decision, of the date accused-appellant was actually
released from confinement.

SO ORDERED.

WE CONCUR:

~
~

~~
ARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO
Associate Justice

Associate Justice

25
Id., at 127.
 J

Decision 12 G.R. No. 231839

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's
Division.