Dizon vs. People

Non-compliance with the Section 21 witness requirement for inventory and photograph of seized drugs requires acquittal where the prosecution fails to show both justifiable grounds for the deviation and preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Applied to a search-warrant seizure witnessed only by two barangay officials, without media and Department of Justice representatives and without any explanation for their absence, the saving clause was not triggered and guilt beyond reasonable doubt was not established.

On November 26, 2003, at around 3:00 in the afternoon, SI Noel Cruz together with team leader SI Arthur Oliveros, SI Sindatuk Ulama, SI Erum and SI Otec implemented a search warrant issued by the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City authorizing the immediate search of the residence of Rolando P. Dizon for undetermined quantities of methamphetamine hydrochloride, records and proceeds of sale, weighing scales, plastic sachets, sealers, tooters, water pipes, burners and other paraphernalia. When the team arrived at Dizon's house, the house was open but nobody answered their call, so they fetched two barangay officials who informed them that Dizon could be found a few blocks from his house. SI Cruz, accompanied by some residents, met Dizon outside near a parked tricycle about fifteen to twenty meters away, informed him of the search warrant, and asked him to witness its execution. SI Cruz, his team, Dizon, and Barangay Kagawad Nelson C. Alcantara and Elisa S. Lim then went inside the house.

When the search began, SI Cruz recovered plastic sachets containing crystalline substance from the nearest bedroom, found inside the pocket of a white ladies jacket placed on top of the bed. Aware of the absence of Dizon's counsel, SI Cruz did not inquire about the owner of the jacket. Thereafter, SI Cruz prepared an inventory, placed markings on the sachets, and took photographs in the presence of Dizon and the two kagawad. Based on the inventory, the items seized included a plastic sachet containing seven smaller heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets marked NC-1 to NC-7 and another plastic sachet containing two smaller unsealed Ajinomoto packets marked NC-8. The team brought Dizon and the confiscated articles to the NBI main office in Taft Avenue for booking, where SI Cruz submitted the evidence to Forensic Chemist Filipina V. Ilagan. Quantitative and qualitative examinations showed NC-1 to NC-6 positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, while NC-7 and NC-8 were negative for methamphetamine hydrochloride but positive for potassium aluminium sulfate and monosodium glutamate, respectively. SI Cruz identified Dizon in open court as well as the plastic sachets through the markings and testified that he executed a joint affidavit of arrest.

According to Dizon, at around 1:00 in the afternoon of the same day he was at the tricycle terminal in Pugong Ginto, Barangay Sta. Monica, Novaliches, Quezon City when told that people were in his house. While on his way home, NBI agents approached, arrested him, and announced they had a search warrant, then brought him to his house, asked him to take a seat, and summoned barangay officials. Upon Kagawad Lim's arrival, the agents allegedly searched without showing him the warrant or stating its subject, then brought him to NBI headquarters in Taft Avenue for drug testing and to Quezon City Hall for inquest, without informing him of his violations. He vehemently denied the accusation, claimed he first saw the sachets at the Fiscal's office, and disclaimed ownership of a white jacket. Defense witnesses Simbillo, Soriano, Borero and Salvador testified they knew Dizon and saw NBI agents approach and bring him to his house, but admitted they did not witness the events or search inside the house.

The prosecution's factual account credited by the lower courts was that eight sachets were recovered from the jacket, marked and inventoried before the two kagawad, transmitted to the NBI forensic chemist, tested positive in part for shabu, and identified in court as the same marked sachets. The RTC treated the chain of custody as unbroken notwithstanding the lack of media and DOJ representatives, a view sustained by the CA in affirming the conviction.

• Section 21 Witness Requirement and Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Whether Dizon is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 despite non-compliance with the inventory, photograph and witness requirements under Section 21.

• Section 21 Witness Requirement and Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: No. Acquittal was required because only two barangay officials witnessed the inventory without media and DOJ representatives, and the prosecution offered no justifiable ground, so the saving clause could not apply.

• Section 21 Witness Requirement and Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and Section 21(a), Article II of its Implementing Rules and Regulations, the apprehending team having initial custody must immediately after seizure physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official, with the inventory conducted at the place where the search warrant is served. While strict compliance is mandatory as a rule, deviation is allowed only where two requisites concur: (1) existence of justifiable grounds for departure, and (2) preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items by the apprehending team. Here the records clearly showed only the accused and Kagawad Alcantara and Lim were present when SI Cruz marked the sachets and conducted the inventory, with no indication of any attempt to secure media and DOJ witnesses despite the advantage of planning inherent in a search-warrant operation. Because no justifiable ground was recognized or justified by the prosecution, the first prong failed and proof of preserved integrity became inconsequential, the two requisites being sequential rather than alternative. Unexplained lapses of this kind compromise the corpus delicti and militate against guilt beyond reasonable doubt, rendering acquittal inevitable.

• Mandatory Compliance with Section 21; Saving Clause Requisites — Strict compliance with the seizure, inventory, photograph and witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is mandatory, and deviation is permitted only if (1) justifiable grounds for departure exist and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. The provision was applied to reject the lower courts' reliance on preserved integrity alone where the prosecution neither acknowledged the procedural lapse nor offered any justification for the absence of media and DOJ witnesses.
• Insulating Presence of Section 21 Witnesses — The required witnesses — the accused or his representative, a media representative, a Department of Justice representative, and any elected public official — are presumed disinterested third parties whose presence at seizure and confiscation forecloses planting, switching or contamination of evidence. The principle was applied to emphasize the heightened need for compliance in a planned search-warrant operation and to explain why the presence of only two barangay officials was insufficient.
• Effect of Unacknowledged and Unexplained Lapses — Lapses in Section 21 procedure left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State compromise the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The principle was applied to reverse the conviction in People vs. Dizon where the apprehending officers recognized the error yet offered no explanation.

• "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[.]" — States the textual saving clause in the Implementing Rules that conditions validity of a procedurally defective seizure on both justifiable grounds and preserved integrity.
• "it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would foreclose the pernicious practice of planting of evidence." — Explains through People vs. Luna why the contemporaneous presence of media, DOJ and elected-official witnesses is required to insulate the seizure from abuse.
• "Prescinding from the foregoing, considering that no justifiable grounds for the failure to secure the required witnesses were presented by the prosecution, proving that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved becomes inconsequential." — Articulates the ratio that the saving clause's requisites apply sequentially, so unjustified non-compliance alone defeats the prosecution.

• People vs. Luna, G.R. No. 219164, March 21, 2018 — Followed as authority for the purpose of Section 21 witnesses as disinterested insulators against planting of evidence and for the prosecution's burden to recognize lapses and justify them to trigger the saving mechanism.
• People vs. Cayas, 789 Phil. 70, 79 (2016); People vs. Havana, 116 Phil. 462, 475 (2016) — Cited as authority that strict compliance with Section 21 requirements is mandatory as a general rule.
• People vs. Capuno, 655 Phil. 226, 240-241 (2011); People vs. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 432-433 (2009); People vs. Reyes, 797 Phil. 671, 687 (2016) — Cited for the proposition that to save a defective seizure the prosecution must establish both justifiable grounds for non-compliance and preservation of integrity and evidentiary value.
• People vs. Fatallo, G.R. No. 218805, November 7, 2018 — Followed for the rule that lapses in Section 21 procedure left unacknowledged and unexplained militate against guilt beyond reasonable doubt because the corpus delicti is compromised.

• Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Punishes unauthorized possession of dangerous drugs; applied as the offense charged against Dizon for possession of 3.0191 grams of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, of which he was acquitted for failure of proof.
• Section 21, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 — Requires the apprehending team having initial custody to immediately after seizure physically inventory and photograph the drugs in the presence of the accused or his representative, a media representative, a DOJ representative, and any elected public official; applied to find fatal non-compliance where only two barangay kagawad witnessed the inventory.
• Section 21(a), Article II, Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 — Adds that inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served, and provides the saving clause excusing non-compliance only upon justifiable grounds with preserved integrity; applied to hold the clause inapplicable for lack of any justification.

Carpio, J., Chairperson, Perlas-Bernabe, J., Carandang, J., Lazaro-Javier, J.