FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 257857. December 2, 2021.]
ALBERT ABADIEZ y VERANO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2021which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 257857 (Albert Abadiez y Verano v. People of the Philippines). Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 is the Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City (CA) dated February 19, 2021 in CA-G.R. CR No. 03178 which affirmed the conviction of Albert Abadiez y Verano (Albert) for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, 3 Article 11 4 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. 5
We acquit on the ground of the prosecution's failure to prove that the apprehending team complied with the mandatory chain of custody requirements under Section 21 of RA No. 9165 resulting in serious doubts as to the identity of the corpus delicti.
"For prosecutions involving dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Like the other elements of the offense/s charged, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty." 6 "[T]he prosecution must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime." 7
Foremost, there was a failure to immediately mark the drugs. The marking was instead done at the barangay hall. Thus, during the apprehending team's transit to the barangay hall, the sachet of shabu remained unmarked causing a significant gap in the chain of custody that may have compromised the evidence. In People v. Ismael, 8 the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of marking the seized drugs immediately upon arrest, viz.:
The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of dangerous drugs or related items will also use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.9 (Emphases supplied.)
Although the prosecution explained that the area was littered by around 100 persons creating the possibility of harm or danger to the police officers to justify the belated marking conducted at the police station, the apprehending team's observance of the requirements of the law still could not suffice.
Section 21, 10 Article II of RA No. 9165, 11 prior to its amendment by RA No 10640, 12 outlines the post-seizure procedure for the custody and the disposition of seized drugs. 13 The law mandates that the officer taking initial custody of the drug shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct the physical inventory of the same and take a photograph thereof in the presence of the accused, or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. All three insulating witnesses are required under RA No. 9165 before its amendment. 14 RA No. 9165, prior to its amendment, is applicable in this case since the commission of the crime happened on April 18, 2014, before the enactment of the amendatory law.
The prosecution bears the positive duty to initiate in acknowledging and justifying any perceived deviations from the requirements of the law. Its failure to follow the mandated procedure must be adequately explained, and must be proven as a fact in accordance with the rules on evidence. 15 Specifically, it must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained on the ground of just and valid circumstances, 16 and earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. 17
In this case, only elected barangay officials witnessed the inventory of the seized prohibited drugs. The prosecution offered no explanation as to the absence of a representative from the DOJ and the media. Thus, there was an unjustified failure to comply with the procedure laid down by Section 21 of RA No. 9165.
We emphasize that the presence of the persons who should witness the post-operation measures is necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity. 18 The insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody. 19 Moreover, we cannot merely gloss over the glaring lapses committed by the police officers, especially when what had been allegedly seized from Albert was 0.189 gram of shabu, a miniscule amount that can be readily planted, tampered, or altered. 20
In sum, it must be stressed that the prosecution has the burden of proving compliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165 and providing a sufficient explanation in case of non-compliance. Breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21 committed by police officers, if left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. 21
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 19, 2021 of the Court of Appeals-Cebu City in CA-G.R. CR No. 03178 is REVERSED. Accordingly, Albert Abadiez y Verano is ACQUITTED of the crime charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and is ORDEREDIMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to cause the immediate release of Albert Abadiez y Verano and to REPORT to this Court the actions taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
The petitioner's: (1) payment of legal fees in the amount of P4,530.00 for docket and other legal fees, as evidenced by O.R. No. 0297463-SC-EP dated November 24, 2021; and (2) manifestation, submitting the replacement checks in the amount of P4,530.00 for docket and other legal fees, are both NOTED.
The petitioner is hereby required to SUBMIT, within five (5) days from notice hereof, a verified declaration of the signed manifestation pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC.
Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 5-28.
2.Id. at 31-49. Penned by Associate Justice Roberto P. Quiroz, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Bautista G. Corpin, Jr.
3. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
4. Unlawful Acts and Penalties.
5. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved June 7, 2002.
6.People v. De Guzman, 825 Phil. 43, 53 (2018).
7.People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, January 22, 2020.
8. 806 Phil. 21 (2017).
9.Id. at 31-32, citing People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 130-131 (2013).
10. SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, x x x so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs, x x x shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physical inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
11. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved June 7, 2002.
12. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE: COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002," which took effect on August 7, 2014.
13. RA No. 9165, Section 21 is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of its Implementing Rules and Regulations which states:
SEC. 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, x x x so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; 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[.]
14.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, SCC People v. Ocampo, 838 Phil. 157 (2008); People v. Allingag, G.R. No. 233477, July 30, 2018; People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 88-89 (2018); People v. Reyes, 830 Phil. 619, 627 (2018); and People v. Mola, 830 Phil. 364, 373 (2018).
15.People v. Padua, G.R. No. 239781, February 5, 2020, citing People v. [Sipin], supra.
16.Id. The following are the reasons to justify the absence of any of the necessary insulating witnesses: "(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape." People v. Sipin, supra.
17.Id.
18.People v. Macud, 822 Phil. 1016, 1041 (2017).
19.Id.
20. See People v. Adobar, 832 Phil. 731, 769 (2018); People v. Alvarado, 830 Phil. 785, 810 (2018); People v. Abelarde, 824 Phil. 122, 123 (2018); People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 594-595 (2017); People v. Macud, supra note 18, at 1042; and People v. Holgado, 741 Phil. 78, 100 (2014).
21.People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 234151, December 5, 2018.