Lindongan v. People
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Amroding Lindongan y Ampatua (Lindongan) was charged with Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165. The prosecution alleged that in the early morning of December 21, 2009, operatives of the Urdaneta City Police conducted a buy-bust operation based on information about Lindongan's drug peddling activities. Police Officer 2 Marman E. Dela Cruz (PO2 Dela Cruz), acting as poseur buyer, allegedly purchased one (1) heat-sealed plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) from Lindongan for P300.00. After the transaction, Lindongan was apprehended, and the seized items and buy-bust money were recovered. The marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items were conducted in the presence of Lindongan. However, the barangay captain refused to sign the confiscation receipt. The seized item was later brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory, where it tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City, Branch 45, found Lindongan guilty beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00. The RTC ruled that the prosecution proved all elements of the crime and observed the chain of custody. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision in toto. Lindongan's motion for reconsideration was denied, and the CA's decision attained finality. Lindongan then filed a Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and Notice of Appeal, citing his inability to contact his counsel. The CA denied this motion, stating that Lindongan was barred from availing post-conviction remedies. The Petition: Lindongan filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA's denial of his motion to recall the entry of judgment and its affirmation of his conviction.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly denied Lindongan's Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and Notice of Appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed Lindongan's conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs.
Ruling
The petition is meritorious. The Court GRANTED the petition, RECALLED the Entry of Judgment dated January 17, 2019 issued by the Court of Appeals, and REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision dated February 28, 2018 and the Resolutions dated July 25, 2018 and January 27, 2020 rendered by the CA. Petitioner Amroding Lindongan y Ampatua is ACQUITTED of the crime charged.
Ratio Decidendi
On the denial of the Motion to Recall Entry of Judgment and Notice of Appeal: The Court reiterated that while a final and executory judgment is generally immutable, this rule may be relaxed to serve substantial justice, especially in matters of life, liberty, or property, and when there are compelling circumstances. The Court found that the gross negligence of counsel can deprive a client of due process, and in this case, Lindongan's efforts to contact his counsel and pursue his appeal, even without counsel, justified the relaxation of the rule. The Court found it proper to recall the entry of judgment, consider the notice of appeal, and resolve the case on the merits in the interest of justice. On the conviction for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs: The Court found glaring lapses in the arresting officers' compliance with the chain of custody rule, particularly the witness requirement. For illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the identity of the drug must be established with moral certainty, which requires accounting for each link in the chain of custody. The law mandates that marking, physical inventory, and photography of seized items be done in the presence of the accused or their representative, and crucially, in the presence of a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and an elected public official (under RA 9165 prior to its amendment by RA 10640). In this case, the records showed that the inventory and photography were conducted only in Lindongan's presence, and there was a dearth of evidence showing any attempt to secure the presence of the required witnesses. The testimony that the confiscation receipt was brought for the barangay captain's signature was insufficient, as the law requires actual physical presence. The Court emphasized that the saving clause under RA 10640, which allows non-compliance under justifiable grounds if integrity is preserved, requires the prosecution to prove these grounds and the preservation of evidence, which was not done here. Consequently, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were compromised, warranting acquittal.
Main Doctrine
The failure of the apprehending officers to strictly comply with the chain of custody procedure, particularly the witness requirement during the marking, physical inventory, and photography of seized items, may render the seizure and custody void and invalid, unless the prosecution satisfactorily proves a justifiable ground for non-compliance and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. Mere statements of unavailability of witnesses, absent actual serious attempts to contact them, are unacceptable.