PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. EDWIN CORDOVA Y MANALASTAS, JAYSON TALADUA Y BARBARRA, MARY ANTONETTE DEL ROSARIO Y TAMONDONG, AND JAIME CORDOVA Y MANALASTAS (ACQUITTED), ACCUSED; EDWIN CORDOVA Y MANALASTAS, AND JAYSON TALADUA Y BARBARRA, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2024/jan2024/gr_267265_2024.html
"Xxx.
The records of the case reveal that Del Rosario was one of Edwin's and Taladua's co-accused in the case before the RTC. However, before the presentation of the prosecution's evidence, Del Rosario filed a Motion to Plea Bargain,68 praying that she be allowed to withdraw her "not guilty" plea of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, and instead enter a plea of guilty to violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in accordance with A.M. No. 18-03-16-SC. Del Rosario's Motion to Plea Bargain was granted by the RTC, in its Order,69 dated March 25, 2019, and convicted her of the lesser offense of violation of Section 12, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
The Court rules that notwithstanding the finality of Del Rosario's conviction, she must benefit from the subsequent acquittal of her co-accused pursuant to Section 11(a), Rule 122 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
Section 11. Effect of appeal by any of several accused. —
(a) 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;
Based on the above provision, a favorable judgment such as an acquittal "shall benefit the co-accused who did not appeal or those who appealed from their judgments of conviction but for one reason or another, the conviction became final and executory."70 This is in line with the principle earlier stated that an appeal of a criminal case throws the entire case open for review by the higher tribunal.
In Fuentes v. People,71 the Court applied the above rule to a similar criminal proceeding involving violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. In the said case, although two (2) Informations were separately filed against petitioner Edwin Fuentes (Fuentes) and his co-accused, the acquittal of Fuentes during appeal was used as basis in acquitting his co-accused who did not appeal his conviction, considering that the criminal case against said co-accused arose from the same set of facts as the case against Fuentes.
The same rule was applied by the Court in People v. Dy.72 In the said case, accused-appellant Loren Dy (Dy) and her co-accused William Cepeda (Cepeda), were jointly charged with violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Additionally, a separate Information was filed against Cepeda for violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Only Dy appealed her conviction to the Court. When the Court acquitted Dy due to the failure of the prosecution to establish the unbroken chain of custody of the dangerous drugs, the Court likewise acquitted Cepeda, including his conviction of violation of Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, notwithstanding his failure to perfect an appeal. According to the Court, Dy's conviction rested on the same set of facts and circumstances as the conviction of Cepeda.
In People v. Fulgado,73 the Court also acquitted the accused-appellant's co-accused who did not appeal her conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, thus:
All told, Fulgado must be and is so acquitted for failure of the prosecution to justify the arresting officers' non-compliance with the three-witness rule under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
In view of this, Tamayo, Fulgado's co-accused in this case, must perforce be acquitted as well considering that (1) under Section 11 (a), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a favorable judgment shall benefit the co-accused who did not appeal; and (2) the evidence against and the conviction of Tamayo and Fulgado are inextricably linked. Hence, the acquittal of Fulgado based on reasonable doubt should likewise apply to her co-accused Tamayo albeit no appeal was filed by the latter.74 (Emphasis supplied)
In the present case, Edwin, Taladua, and Del Rosario were simultaneously arrested by the buy-bust team.
Additionally, the marking and inventory of dangerous drugs allegedly seized from Edwin, Taladua, and Del Rosario were conducted only after the arrival of the insulating witnesses. As such, the acquittal of Edwin and Taladua on the basis of non-observance of the chain of custody rule squarely applies to Del Rosario. The evidence against and the conviction of Edwin, Taladua, and Del Rosario are inextricably linked."
