People vs. Rebuton

The presence of the insulating witnesses required under Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 must be secured "at or near" the place of apprehension, i.e., within the vicinity, at the time of the buy-bust operation; their absence, without any justification from the prosecution, creates a significant gap in the chain of custody that casts reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti and entitles the accused to an acquittal.

The accused, Diosdado Rebuton and Marilou Rebutazo, were charged in three separate Informations with violations of Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, for the illegal sale of shabu, illegal possession of shabu, and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, allegedly committed in conspiracy with one another. The charges arose from a buy-bust operation conducted by the local National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) office in Dumaguete City on August 11, 2010, following receipt of confidential information about Rebuton's illegal drug activities.

Accused Diosdado Rebuton and accused-appellant Marilou Rebutazo were charged with violations of Sections 5, 11, and 12 of R.A. 9165 in three separate Informations filed before the Regional Trial Court of Negros Oriental, Dumaguete City. The charges alleged that on or about August 11, 2010, the accused, conspiring with one another and not being authorized by law, sold to a poseur-buyer one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing 0.03 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, possessed two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing a total net weight of 0.19 gram of the same dangerous drug, and possessed drug paraphernalia consisting of one glass tooter, one folded aluminum foil, and one rolled aluminum foil intended for smoking shabu. Upon arraignment, both accused entered pleas of not guilty, and joint trial of the three criminal cases ensued.

According to the prosecution, the local NBI office received confidential information about Rebuton's illegal drug activities, prompting the conduct of a buy-bust operation. During the operational briefing, the team agreed that a missed call from PO3 Ramon Bernard Pedeglorio, the designated poseur-buyer, to SPO3 Allen June Germodo would serve as the signal for a consummated transaction. SPO3 Germodo marked a PHP 500.00 bill to be used as marked money. On August 11, 2010, PO3 Pedeglorio and the confidential informant went to Rebuton's residence while the backup team positioned themselves nearby. The confidential informant called out to Rebuton and told him that PO3 Pedeglorio wanted to buy shabu. PO3 Pedeglorio gave the marked money to Rebuton, who called for Rebutazo and gave her the marked money. Rebutazo took the bill and told Rebuton, "Tagae na." Rebuton then handed a heat-sealed plastic sachet containing white crystalline granules to PO3 Pedeglorio.

After the sale, Rebuton invited PO3 Pedeglorio inside his house, where they entered a small room containing a small table upon which were two more sachets of suspected shabu, lighters, rolled tin foil, another tin foil with white granule residue, scissors, and an improvised glass tooter. PO3 Pedeglorio surreptitiously called SPO3 Germodo. As Rebutazo started sniffing suspected shabu residue on a tin foil handed to her by Rebuton, the backup team rushed inside the room and arrested both accused, advising them of their constitutional rights. PO3 Pedeglorio handed the sachet of suspected shabu to SPO3 Germodo for marking, and SPO3 Germodo marked the sachet recovered from PO3 Pedeglorio and the items recovered on the table. After approximately 30 minutes, witnesses from the media, the local Department of Justice, the local Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, and the barangay arrived to witness the conduct of the inventory. The team then brought the accused and the seized items to the NBI office for disposition and booking, and thereafter to the Provincial Crime Laboratory, where PCI Josephine S. Llena took custody of the seized items, re-marked them, and conducted a laboratory examination. The weights of the three sachets were 0.03 gram, 0.01 gram, and 0.18 gram, all testing positive for shabu. PCI Llena kept the specimens in the evidence vault until these were submitted to the lower court for trial.

The accused, for their part, interposed the defense of denial and frame-up. They claimed that on August 11, 2010, police officers suddenly barged in and arrested them while they were sniffing shabu inside Rebuton's house. They allegedly saw SPO3 Germodo place two plastic sachets of suspected shabu on the table, a PHP 500.00 bill, and drug paraphernalia. They insisted that there was nothing more to possess when they were arrested, since they had already consumed the shabu they had bought earlier. The RTC rendered a Joint Judgment on July 2, 2013, finding both accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged, and the Court of Appeals affirmed in toto on appeal. The accused then appealed to the Supreme Court, which initially denied the appeal in a Resolution dated December 13, 2017. Rebutazo filed Motions for Reconsideration and a Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration, as well as an Omnibus Motion for Plea Bargaining and to Hold in Abeyance the Resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration, invoking the ruling in Estipona vs. Lobrigo.

• Chain of Custody / Absence of Insulating Witnesses: Accused-appellant Rebutazo argued that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs because none of the insulating witnesses required under Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 were present at or near the place of apprehension during the buy-bust operation, and the witnesses only arrived approximately 30 minutes after the apprehension and after the evidence had already been marked.
• Plea Bargaining: Rebutazo filed an Omnibus Motion for Plea Bargaining and to Hold in Abeyance the Resolution of her Motion for Reconsideration, invoking the ruling in Estipona vs. Lobrigo with respect to plea bargaining in drugs cases, and praying that she be allowed to plea bargain in her case.

N/A — The decision does not recount the prosecution's arguments in response to the motions for reconsideration.

• Chain of Custody / Presence of Insulating Witnesses: Whether the prosecution's failure to secure the presence of the insulating witnesses at or near the place of apprehension during the buy-bust operation, without any justification, created a gap in the chain of custody that casts reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, entitling the accused-appellant to an acquittal.
• Plea Bargaining: Whether the Omnibus Motion for Plea Bargaining should be granted in light of the ruling in Estipona vs. Lobrigo.
• Effect of Appeal by Co-Accused: Whether the co-accused Rebuton, who did not participate in the motion for reconsideration, should benefit from the acquittal of Rebutazo.

• Chain of Custody / Presence of Insulating Witnesses: Yes. The absence of the insulating witnesses at the time of apprehension and for approximately 30 minutes thereafter constituted a significant gap in the chain of custody, casting reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, and the prosecution provided no explanation for the failure to secure their presence prior to the operation.
• Plea Bargaining: Moot. In view of the acquittal of the accused-appellant, her Omnibus Motion for Plea Bargaining was denied for having been rendered moot.
• Effect of Appeal by Co-Accused: Yes. Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rebuton benefited from the motion for reconsideration filed by Rebutazo despite his non-participation, since the judgment of the appellate court was favorable and applicable to him, the corpus delicti for the offenses charged against both being the same.

• Chain of Custody / Presence of Insulating Witnesses: The Court cited Article III, Section 14(2) of the 1987 Constitution, which presumes every accused innocent until their guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt, a presumption that remains until the judgment of conviction becomes final and executory. An appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review, with the appellate court charged with the duty to cite and appreciate errors whether assigned or unassigned. In dangerous drugs cases, the prosecution must establish four links in the chain of custody: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. Given the fungible nature of drugs, the likelihood of tampering, loss, mistake, or evidence planting is high, making it essential that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti be preserved. Compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 ensures this; conversely, non-compliance and failure to justify it creates reasonable doubt and entitles the accused to acquittal. Citing Nisperos vs. People, the Court held that in warrantless arrests on account of buy-bust operations, the required witnesses must be present "at or near" the place of apprehension, i.e., within the vicinity, to comply with the statutory rule that the inventory should be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. The presence of the insulating witnesses guarantees against planting of evidence and frame-up and belies any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. Here, none of the insulating witnesses were present at the time of apprehension nor at or near the place where the buy-bust operation was conducted; they were only called in after the buy-bust or after the accused were already apprehended, arriving after approximately 30 minutes and after SPO3 Germodo had already marked the evidence. The prosecution offered no explanation for the failure to secure their presence prior to the operation. This significant gap in the chain of custody cast reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, entitling the accused-appellant to acquittal.
• Plea Bargaining: Because the accused-appellant was acquitted, the Omnibus Motion for Plea Bargaining was rendered moot and was denied.
• Effect of Appeal by Co-Accused: Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. Since the corpus delicti for the offenses charged against Rebutazo is the same as that for the offenses charged against Rebuton, the gap in the chain of custody likewise casts reasonable doubt on Rebuton's guilt, and he benefited from the motion for reconsideration despite his non-participation.

• Chain of Custody in Dangerous Drugs Cases — The prosecution must establish four links: (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. Failure to demonstrate compliance with just one of the links, and failure to provide any justifiable reason for the non-compliance, creates reasonable doubt that the substance confiscated from the accused is the same substance presented in court. The Court applied this doctrine to find that the absence of insulating witnesses at the time of apprehension created a significant gap in the chain of custody.
• Presence of Insulating Witnesses "At or Near" the Place of Apprehension — In warrantless arrests on account of buy-bust operations, the required witnesses under Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 must be present "at or near" the place of apprehension, i.e., within the vicinity, in order to comply with the statutory rule that the inventory should be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation. Their presence guarantees against planting of evidence and frame-up and belies any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. The Court applied this doctrine to find that the insulating witnesses' arrival approximately 30 minutes after apprehension, and after the evidence had already been marked, constituted a significant gap in the chain of custody.
• Effect of Appeal by One of Several Accused — Under Section 11, Rule 122 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. The Court applied this rule to extend the acquittal to the co-accused Rebuton, who did not participate in the motion for reconsideration, because the corpus delicti for the offenses charged against both was the same.

• "Indeed, the absence of the insulating witnesses at the time of apprehension and for approximately 30 minutes thereafter constituted a significant gap in the chain of custody, which casts reasonable doubt as to the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti." — This passage states the core ratio decidendi of the Court's ruling, identifying the gap in the chain of custody as the basis for the acquittal.
• "To reiterate, establishing every link in the chain of custody is crucial to establish the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti or the seized illegal drug and/or drug paraphernalia. Failure to demonstrate compliance with just one of the links and failure to provide any justifiable reason for the non-compliance create reasonable doubt that the substance confiscated from the accused is the same substance presented in court." — This passage articulates the controlling doctrine on the chain of custody in dangerous drugs cases and the consequence of non-compliance.
• "The presence of the insulating witnesses would guarantee against planting of evidence and frame up and would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug." — This passage explains the rationale for the requirement of insulating witnesses under Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, as applied in the context of buy-bust operations.

• Nisperos vs. People, G.R. No. 250927, November 29, 2022 — Controlling precedent establishing that in warrantless arrests on account of buy-bust operations, the required witnesses must be present "at or near" the place of apprehension, i.e., within the vicinity, to comply with the statutory rule that the inventory should be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. The Court relied on this case to find that the insulating witnesses' late arrival constituted a gap in the chain of custody.
• Estipona vs. Lobrigo, 816 Phil. 789 (2017) — Cited by the accused-appellant in her Omnibus Motion for Plea Bargaining; the Court found the motion moot in view of the acquittal.
• Polangcos vs. People, 862 Phil. 764, 777 (2019) — Cited for the proposition that the presumption of innocence remains until the judgment of conviction becomes final and executory.
• People vs. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289, 310 (2010) — Cited for the rule that an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review, with the appellate court charged with the duty to cite and appreciate errors whether assigned or unassigned.
• Jocson vs. People, 854 Phil. 67, 78 (2019) — Cited for the four links in the chain of custody that the prosecution must establish in dangerous drugs cases.
• Mallillin vs. People, 576 Phil. 576, 588 (2008) — Cited for the proposition that given the fungible nature of drugs, the likelihood of tampering, loss, mistake, or evidence planting is high, making it essential that the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti be preserved.
• People vs. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018) — Cited for the proposition that the presence of insulating witnesses belies any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug.
• People vs. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 902 (2018) — Cited for the proposition that failure to demonstrate compliance with just one of the links in the chain of custody, without justifiable reason, creates reasonable doubt.

• Article III, Section 14(2), 1987 Constitution — Provides that every accused is presumed innocent unless their guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court cited this provision as the constitutional foundation for the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
• Section 21, Article II, R.A. 9165 — Requires the presence of insulating witnesses during the inventory of seized drugs and the conduct of the same immediately after seizure and confiscation. The Court found that the prosecution's failure to secure the presence of these witnesses at or near the place of apprehension, without justification, created a gap in the chain of custody.
• Sections 5, 11, and 12, Article II, R.A. 9165 — The provisions under which the accused were charged for illegal sale of shabu, illegal possession of shabu, and illegal possession of drug paraphernalia, respectively. The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt under these provisions due to the gap in the chain of custody.
• Section 11, Rule 122, Rules of Criminal Procedure — Provides that an appeal taken by one or more of several accused shall not affect those who did not appeal, except insofar as the judgment of the appellate court is favorable and applicable to the latter. The Court applied this rule to extend the acquittal to the co-accused Rebuton.

Lazaro-Javier, Inting, Zalameda, and Kho, Jr., JJ., concurred.

N/A — The decision does not mention any dissenting opinion.