THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 237183. July 8, 2020]
BERNARD ADUCA y CALIBOSO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated July 8, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237183 (Bernard Aduca y Caliboso,Petitioner,v. People of the Philippines, Respondent). — This is an appeal 1 by certiorari seeking to reverse and set aside the 10 August 2017 Decision 2 and 23 January 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 35720, which affirmed in toto the 27 February 2012 Decision 4 of Branch 48, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan in Criminal Case No. U-15581, finding Bernard Aduca y Caliboso (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. 5
Antecedents
Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA No. (RA) 9165 in an Information which reads:
That on or about 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon of June 2, 2008 at Andrada's Compound, Brgy. San Vicente, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, control and custodytwo (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride (SHABU) each weighing 0.02 gram & 0.01 gram, with a total weight of 0.03 gram.
CONTRARY to Art. II, Sec. 11 of Republic Act 9165, otherwise known as "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." 6
Upon arraignment, petitioner pleaded not guilty to the charge. After termination of pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 7
Version of the Prosecution
In the afternoon of 02 June 2008, the Urdaneta police community precint received information about the rampant illegal drug trading inside the Andrada compound (compound). 8 Upon arrival at the area, the police officers noticed a man aboard a tricycle, later identified as the petitioner, enter the compound. They saw him hand money to somebody there in exchange for something he received. 9 The police officers approached petitioner and asked what he was holding in his hands. Petitioner confessed that somebody asked him to buy two (2) sachets of shabu which he immediately surrendered to one of the police officers, PO3 Domingo Domagas (PO3 Domagas). 10
PO3 Domagas immediately arrested petitioner. They proceeded to the police station where PO3 Domagas marked the seized items which were later received by PO2 Jeffrey Tajon (PO2 Tajon) who turned it over to Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector Emelda Roderos (PCI Roderos). 11 Upon examination, the seized items were found positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. 12
Version of the Defense
Petitioner denied the charge alleging that he drove his tricycle on 02 June 2008 along PUNP area. While he was passing by Andrada compound, two (2) police officers flagged him down and invited him to their outpost. PO3 Domagas asked him to leave his motorcycle and get money. He asked what offense he committed but was instead brought to the police station to be incarcerated. 13
Ruling of the RTC
On 27 February 2012, the RTC rendered its Decision, 14 convicting petitioner of the offense charged, thus:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged, the court hereby sentences him to suffer imprisonment of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years and to pay a fine of Php300,000.00.
The illegal drug presented in court as evidence is ordered forfeited in favor of the government and shall be forwarded to the PDEA office for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 15
The RTC held that the prosecution had successfully proven the existence of all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. It held that petitioner's claim of extortion was unsubstantiated and self-serving. Also, petitioner failed to present any ill motive on the part of the police officers to falsely impute to him a serious charge. The RTC accorded the police officers the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. 16
Aggrieved, petitioner appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its 10 August 2017 Decision, 17 the CA affirmed petitioner's conviction. The dispositive portion of said decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated February 27, 2012 rendered by Branch 48, Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan in Criminal Case No. U-15581, convicting herein accused-appellant of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drug Act is AFFIRMEDintoto.
SO ORDERED. 18
The CA held that the prosecution duly established the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. Petitioner was caught in flagrante carrying illegal drugs he bought from an unidentified source. 19 The CA gave credit to the testimonies of the police officers absent any showing that they have been motivated by ill will in imputing a serious charge against petitioner. 20
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed petitioner's conviction for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II, RA 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is granted.
Petitioner primarily assails his warrantless arrest including the incidental search made on his person. 21
Section 5 of Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure states:
Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
xxx xxx xxx
Based on the facts and evidence on hand, We find petitioner's warrantless arrest valid.
For the warrantless arrest under paragraph (a) of Section 5, Rule 113 to operate, two (2) elements must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer. 22
In the instant case, it was duly established by the prosecution that the police officers duly acted on an information pertaining to the rampant illegal drug trading at the compound. They witnessed petitioner buy shabu from unidentified person. 23 These overt acts by petitioner were reasonable grounds to believe that he had just committed an offense. When the police questioned him, he immediately confessed to the offense leading to his arrest.
The foregoing notwithstanding, We find sufficient basis to acquit petitioner on reasonable doubt.
Petitioner was charged with the offense of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165. To convict an accused for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove: (a) that the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified as a dangerous drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 24
It is likewise worthy to mention that the sale or possession of dangerous drugs can never be proven without seizure and identification of the prohibited drug. In prosecutions involving narcotics, the narcotic substance itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. 25 Therefore, it is essential that the identity and integrity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty. 26
To preserve the corpus delicti, Section 21 of RA 9165, the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, 27 outlines the procedure which the police officers must strictly follow to preserve the integrity of the confiscated drugs and/or paraphernalia used as evidence, thus: (1) the seized items must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same; and (3) the seized drugs must be turned over to a forensic laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination. 28
Furthermore, to ensure the integrity of the seized drugs, the prosecution must likewise establish the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs, i.e., first, the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 29
The police officers failed to comply with the foregoing requirements.
The seized items were not
According to PO3 Domagas, he marked the seized items with his initials upon arrival at their office. 30 The records, however, are devoid of the presence of any of the three (3) mandatory witnesses to witness the marking and inventory. What is more, there is not even anything to prove that PO3 Domagas and company conducted a physical inventory and taking of photographs of the seized items.
As the Court has often stressed, the mere marking of seized items, unsupported by a proper physical inventory and taking of photographs, and in the absence of the persons whose presence is required by Section 21 will not justify a conviction. 31 To emphasize, the presence of the witnesses required by law and the immediate marking and conduct of physical inventory after seizure and confiscation in full view of the accused and the required witnesses cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality. 32
While non-compliance with this mandatory requirement is allowed under certain circumstances, the same nevertheless ought to be justified. Case law states that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were exerted by the police officers to comply with the mandated procedure as to convince the Court that the attempt to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. 33 PO3 Domagas, however, failed to acknowledge much less proffer any explanation or justification for the said deviations.
There was no turnover of the
If the foregoing glaring omissions are not enough, the Court likewise notes the blatant failure of PO3 Domagas to turn over the custody of seized items to the investigating officer, without any explanation for his failure to do so. As gleaned from his testimony, he took custody of the drugs from the time of petitioner's arrest until his transmittal thereof to the crime laboratory. 34 In People v. Bangcola, 35 it was held that the apprehending officer's act of keeping the seized evidence until its transfer to the forensic chemist and his failure to transfer the seized evidence to the investigating officer are considered breaks in the chain of custody.
The forensic chemist was not
In addition, it did not escape this Court's attention that the forensic chemist was not presented in court. Based on the stipulated testimony of PO2 Tajon, he received the letter request for examination together with the seized items from PO3 Domagas. He thereafter turned over the same to PCI Roderos for examination, 36 but the latter was not presented in court to testify. The non-presentation of the forensic chemist was in clear disregard of the mandate that every link in the chain must testify, describing the condition of the seized item when it was delivered, and the precautions taken to ensure its integrity. 37
All the foregoing deviations by the police officers in the handling and custody of the illicit drug constitute gaps in the chain of custody. While both the RTC and the CA may have found the police officers' actions as substantial or sufficient compliance with the requirements of the law, it bears emphasizing that the seized items involved a minuscule amount of shabu, i.e., .02 and .01 grams of shabu which underscores the need for more exacting compliance with Section 21. 38 And although Section 21 of RA 9165 provides a saving mechanism for any deviation of the provision prescribed therein, the same cannot be applied because the police officers in this case failed to recognize their lapses, as well as justify or explain the same. The police officers' unjustified breach of procedure effectively invalidates their seizure of, and custody over, the seized drugs, compromising the identity and integrity of the same. Consequently, it created reasonable doubt as to the guilt of petitioner, warranting his acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision promulgated on 10 August 2017 by the Court of Appeals, finding petitioner BERNARD ADUCA y CALIBOSO guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. He is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is being confined for some other lawful cause.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
The RTC is directed to turn over the drugs in this case to the Dangerous Drugs Board for destruction in accordance with law.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-26.
2.Id. at 33-46; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan Manahan and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Elihu A. Ybañez of the Fourth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 50 to 50-A.
4.Id. at 69-74; penned by RTC Presiding Judge Gonzalo P. Marata.
5. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
6.Rollo, p. 51.
7.Id. at 69.
8.Id. at 71. The RTC mistakenly wrote "2008" as "2002."
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 35-36.
12.Id. at 14.
13.Id. at 72.
14. Id. at 69-74.
15.Id. at 73-74.
16.Id. at 73.
17.Id. at 33-46.
18.Id. at 46.
19.Id. at 42.
20.Id. at 44.
21.Id. at 19 to 21.
22. See Miclai v. People, G.R. No. 176077, 31 August 2011.
23.Rollo, p. 71.
24.People v. Ching, G.R. No. 223556, 09 October 2017.
25.People v. Nacua, G.R. No. 200165, 30 January 2013.
26.People v. Yagao, G.R. No. 216725, 18 February 2019.
27. The Information alleged that petitioner committed the offense on 02 June 2008, thus, the earlier version of Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations shall apply, i.e., prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 10640, (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 was approved on 15 July 2014 and became effective on 7 August 2014 or 15 days after its publication on 23 July 2014.
28.People v. Espejo, G.R. No. 240914, 13 March 2019.
29.People v. Dahil, G.R. No. 212196, 12 January 2015.
30.Rollo, pp. 35-36.
31.See People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, 31 January 2018.
32.People v. Dela Victoria, G.R. No. 233325, 16 April 2018.
33.Id.
34.Rollo, p. 70.
35. G.R. No. 237802, 18 March 2019.
36.Rollo, pp. 35-36.
37.People v. Havana, G.R. No. 198450, 11 January 2016.
38.See People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, 31 January 2018.