SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242292. November 17, 2021.]
CHRISTIAN ACHONDO y MANALANG, petitionervs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated17 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242292 (Christian Achondo y Manalang v. People of the Philippines). — This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the Decision 2 dated May 30, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated September 17, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39879 which affirmed with modification the Decision dated April 24, 2017 of Branch 28, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Manila finding Christian Achondo y Manalang (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 4
The Antecedents
Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 in the following Information: 5
That on May 28, 2016, the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with recorded net weight and marking as follows:
'CAM' containing ZERO POINT ZERO SIX EIGHT (0.068) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as 'shabu,' a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 6 (Emphasis omitted).
When arraigned, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. After pre-trial, trial ensued. 7
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution established that at around 8:00 p.m. of May 28, 2016, police officers of Jose Abad Santos Police Station No. 7 (Jose Abad Santos PS-7) were conducting their routine anti-criminality patrol along Tayag Street, Tondo, Manila. During the patrol, Police Officer II Paolo Samonte (PO2 Samonte) saw two male persons conversing with each other. One of the male persons took out two plastic sachets from his pocket and handed one sachet to the other male person, the petitioner. PO2 Samonte, who saw the exchange from a distance of only four to five meters from petitioner, suspected that the plastic sachets contained illegal drugs. Thus, he and the other police officers approached petitioner and the other male person; they identified themselves as police officers. Petitioner and the other male person immediately ran to escape. PO2 Samonte was able to grab and apprehend petitioner. PO2 Samonte ordered petitioner to open his right hand; he recovered from the latter's possession one plastic sachet with suspected shabu. 8
Petitioner then became hysterical. The police officers decided to bring him to Jose Abad Santos PS-7. Thereat, PO2 Samonte marked the seized plastic sachet. The police officers conducted the marking and inventory of the seized item in the presence of petitioner, the police officers, and media representative Danny Garrendola. One of the police officers took photographs of the seized plastic sachet. Thereafter, PO2 Samonte personally delivered the seized item to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for qualitative examination. The laboratory examination yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 9
Version of the Defense
In his defense, petitioner denied the charge and asserted that the evidence against him was planted. He alleged that on the night of May 28, 2016, he was walking along Hermosa Street when he was accosted by five men. The men identified themselves as police officers and brought him to Jose Abad Santos PS-7. There, they forced him to admit possession of a plastic sachet with shabu. 10
The RTC Ruling
On April 24, 2016, the RTC rendered a Decision finding petitioner guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165.
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, with the foregoing, the court finds the accused Christian Achondo y Manalang GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. He is hereby SENTENCED to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum penalty, to 15 years as maximum penalty, with credit to the period of his preventive imprisonment. He is also ORDERED to pay a fine of P300,000.00, subject to the prevailing rate of interest per annum from the finality of this decision until its full satisfaction, and subject further to subsidiary imprisonment in the event of insolvency.
SO ORDERED. 11
Petitioner appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In the assailed Decision 12 dated May 30, 2018, the CA denied petitioner's appeal and affirmed with modification the RTC Decision. It held that: first, there was a justifiable ground for the non-compliance with the requirements under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165; second, the marking was not made at the place of arrest but at the police station because petitioner had to be brought there when he became hysterical; and third, the presence of petitioner, the police officers, and a media representative during the conduct of inventory and photography was sufficient to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. 13
The fallo of the CA Decision 14 reads:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED and the appealed April 24, 2017 Decision of Branch 28 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that appellant's payment of the fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) shall be without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
SO ORDERED. 15 (Emphasis omitted).
The Issue
The issue to be resolved by the Court is whether petitioner's guilt for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 has been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Our Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
The elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 16
In the prosecution for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, it is imperative to establish: (1) the above elements; and (2) the identity of the dangerous drug, with moral certainty. 17 Thus, the 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. 18
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the law requires, among others, that the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized items be conducted immediately after seizure and confiscation. 19 The law further requires that the inventory and photographing be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 20 a representative from the media, from the Department of Justice, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. 21 The purpose of the presence of these witnesses is to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 22
As a general rule, the procedure on the chain of custody must be strictly complied with. 23 However, in cases where strict compliance therewith is not possible, the seizure and custody of the seized items will not be rendered void if the prosecution satisfactorily proves that there is justifiable ground for the deviation, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 24 With respect to the witness requirement, non-compliance may be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of the required witnesses, albeit the latter failed to appear. 25
In the present case, the two-witness rule under RA 10640 applies as the offense was allegedly committed in 2016.
However, a perusal of the records of the case shows that there was a deviation from the two-witness requirement. Only a media representative was present during the inventory and photographing of the drugs allegedly seized from petitioner. 26 The other required witness under RA 10640, i.e., an elected public official, was not present. Notably, the prosecution left the absence of the elected public official unjustified. The prosecution also failed to show that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of an elected public official in order to comply with the two-witness rule.
In People v. Crisostomo,27 the Court emphasized the importance of witnesses during the inventory of a seized drug:
The Court has repeatedly stressed that the presence of the required insulating witnesses at the time of the inventory is mandatory. Under the law, the presence of the insulating witnesses is a high prerogative requirement, the non-fulfillment of which casts serious doubts upon the integrity of the corpus delicti itself — the very prohibited substance itself — and for that reason imperils the prosecution's case. 28
The Court also notes that the amount of shabu involved in the case is minuscule at only 0.068 grams. It is settled that "x x x the likelihood of tampering, loss or mistake with respect to an exhibit is greatest when the exhibit is small and is one that has physical characteristics fungible in nature and similar in form to substances familiar to people in their daily lives." 29 It is for this very reason that the identity and the integrity of the seized shabu, or the corpus delicti, must be properly established by the prosecution.
Considering the foregoing, the Court finds that the buy-bust team's unjustified non-compliance with the two-witness rule under RA 10640 broke the chain of custody and tainted the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized plastic sachet with suspected shabu. The failure of the prosecution to secure the attendance of the other required witness under RA 10640, without providing any reasonable justification therefor, creates doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. Hence, the Court is constrained to overturn petitioner's conviction on the ground of reasonable doubt. 30
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 30, 2018 and the Resolution dated September 17, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39879 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Christian Achondo y Manalang is ACQUITTED of the offense charged.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Christian Achondo y Manalang, unless he is being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J., on official leave; HERNANDO, J., Acting Chairperson per Special Order No. 2846 dated October 6, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 10-27.
2.Id. at 30-41; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court) with Associate Justices Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin, concurring.
3.Id. at 43.
4. As culled from the CA Decision, id. at 34.
5. As culled from the CA Decision, id. at 30-31.
6. As culled from the CA Decision, id.
7.Id. at 32.
8.Id. at 33.
9.Id. at 33-34.
10.Id. at 34.
11. As culled from the CA Decision; id.
12.Id. at 30-41.
13.Id. at 36-39.
14.Id. at 30-41.
15.Id. at 40.
16.Reyes v. Court of Appeals, 686 Phil. 137, 148 (2012).
17.People v. Santos, G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019.
18. See People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 448 (2018). See also People v. Viterbo, 739 Phil. 593, 601 (2014) and People v. Alagarme, 754 Phil. 449, 459-460 (2015).
19. See People v. Gabunada, G.R. No. 242827, September 9, 2019.
20. 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,' approved on July 15, 2014, and became effective on August 7, 2014.
21.People v. Gabunada, supra note 15.
22.People v. Piñero, G.R. No. 242407, April 1, 2019.
23.People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
24. See People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010), citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 232 (2008).
25.People v. Gabunada, supra note 15.
26.Rollo, p. 33.
27. G.R. No. 252488 (Notice), May 12, 2021.
28.Id.
29.Id.
30. See People v. Echeveria, G.R. No. 247322 (Notice), June 17, 2020.