J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 16, 2019 and the Resolution dated August 24, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 41782 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Joel David y Mangio is ACQUITTED of the crime charged. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of petitioner, unless heis being lawfully held in custody for any other reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Decision.

 Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IN CASE THERE IS NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY PROCEDURE THE PROSECUTOR MUST PROVE THAT THE APPREHENDING OFFICERS EXERTED GENUINE AND SUFFICIENT EFFORTS TO SECURE THE PRESENCE OF THE REQUIRED WITNESSES.

As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded “not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law.”28 Nonetheless, anent the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given· circumstances.29 Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non[1]compliance. 30 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 fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. 31

……………………………

IN THIS CASE PO3 FLORES DID NOT OFFER ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE EVENTUAL ABSENCE OF A DOJ REPRESENTATIVE.

However, as earlier stated, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to account for these witnesses’ absence by presenting a justifiable reason therefor or, at the very least, by showing thaf genuine and sufficient efforts were exerted by the apprehending officers to secure their presence. Here, while PO3 Flores did attempt to secure all three witnesses, he did not offer any justification for the eventual absence of the DOJ representative, much less any explanation or detail as to the exact efforts exerted to secure their presence. In view of this unjustified deviatio1:1 from the chain of custody rule, the Court is therefore constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the item purportedly seized from David were compromised, which consequently warrants his acquittal.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The March 22, 2017 Decision and the August 16, 201 7 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-CR No. 02397, which affirmed the July 23, 2012 Joint-Decision of the Regional Trial Court, are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Virgilio Evardo y Lopena is ACQUITTED of the charges of violating Section 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act.

For their information, copies of this Decision shall be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency.

The Regional Trial Court is directed to tum over the seized sachets of shabu to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.

Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.

So Ordered.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IN THIS CASE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS’ SEARCH AND SUBSEQUENT SEIZURE WERE HELD INVALID. THUS, THE CONFISCATED DRUGS CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE. WITHOUT EVIDENCE THE CASE HAS TO BE DISMISSED.

In cases involving drugs, the confiscated article constitutes the corpus delicti of the crime charged. Under Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165, the essence of the crime is the sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution, and transportation of prohibited drugs, and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals. The act of transporting the drugs, as in this case, must be duly proven by the prosecution, along with how a particular person is the perpetrator of that act. The seized drug, then, becomes the corpus delicti of the crime charged. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around that material.

In drugs cases where the allegedly confiscated drug is excluded from admissible evidence – as when it was acquired through an invalid warrantless search – the prosecution is left without proof of corpus delicti. Any discussion on whether a crime has been committed becomes an exercise in futility. Acquittal is then inexorable.

Thus, here, the arresting officers’ search and subsequent seizure are invalid. As such, the two (2) sacks of marijuana supposedly being transported in the pickup cannot be admitted in evidence.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

DISPOSITIVE:

WHEREFORE, the pet1t10n is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 27, 2018 and the Resolution dated January 14, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CEB-SP No. 09323 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The charge against Noel T. Jaspe, Ma. Negenia V. Araneta and Sanny Apuang for Grave Misconduct in OMB-V-A-13-0170 is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

HOW WILL COLLUSION BE PROVEN?

BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. 

On this score, Desierto v. Ocampo28 pronounced that the complainant charging collusion must prove it by clear-and convincing evidence, thus:

Collusion implies 2 secret understanding whereby one party plays into another’s hands for fraudulent purposes. It may take place between anci every contractor resulting in no competition, in which case, the government may declare a failure of bidding. Collusion may also ensue between contractors and the chairman and members of the PBAC to simulate or rig the bid.ding process, thus insuring the award to a favored bidder, to the-prejudice of the government agency anc! public ser•;ice. for such acts of the chairman and the members of the PBAC, they may be held administratively liable for conduct grossly prejudicial to the best interest of the government service. Collusion by and among the members of the PBAC and/or contractors submitting their bids may be determined from their collective acts or omissions before, during and after the bidding process. The complainants are burdened to prove such coll us-ion by clear and convincing evidence because if so proved, the responsible officials may be dismissed from the government service or meted severe administrative sanctions for dishonesty and conduct prejudicial to the government service.29 (Emphasis ours)

………………………………….

WHAT IS GRAVE MISCONDUCT?

Grave misconduct is defined as the “wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premedi.tated, obstinate or intentional purpose.” It is not mere failure to comply with the law. Failure to comply must be deliberate and must be done in order to secure benefits for the offender •-r for some other person. 31

…………………………….

WHAT EVIDENCE IS NEEDED TO PROVE MISCONDUCT?

COMPETENT EVIDENCE DERIVED FROM DIRECT KNOWLEDGE. NOT MERE ALLEGATIONS.

For a ~harge of grave _miscpnduct or any grave offense to prosper, therefore, the evidence against the respondent should be competent and must be derived from direct knowledge. Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions, as in this case, vvarrants the dismissal of the charge.32 So must it be.

…………………………..

SOME ACCUSED DID NOT APPEAL. WILL RESULT OF APPEAL EXONERATE THEM ALSO?

YES.

Notably, only petitioners Jaspe and Araneta actively · sought the reversal of the finding of grave misconduct in connection with the discharge of their function as BAC members. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charge against petitioners should benefit Apuang, another BAC member, even if he did not join Jaspe and Araneta here, nor appealed on his own.

In Tropical Homes, Inc. v. Fortun,33 the Court held that the reversal of the judgment on appeal is binding only on the paiiies to the appealed case and does not affect or inure to the benefit of those who did not join or were not parties to the appeal except when there is a communality of interests where the rights and liabilities of the parties appealing are so interwoven and dependent on each other as to be inseparable, in which case 3. reversal as to one operates as a reversal to all. To be sure, there is communality of interests among J aspe, et al. as their alleged liabilities arose out of their collegial decision in the same proceeding of which they serve as BAC members. Hence, the reversal of petitioners’ liability also operates as a reversal.of Apuang’s liability although he did not appeal therefrom.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.