SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251232. June 23, 2021.]
JEFFREY AGBAYANI y DACONES, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 June 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251232 (Jeffrey Agbayani y Dacones v. People of the Philippines) — The Court NOTES the Office of the Solicitor General's comment dated 4 March 2021 on the petition for review on certiorari in compliance with the Resolution dated 27 August 2020.
We grant the petition.
Petitioner raises questions of fact;
In assailing the dispositions of the lower courts, petitioner Jeffrey Agbayani y Dacones maintains that nothing was found in his possession; the police officers had no warrant of arrest; even assuming they did, they did not implement it properly; the seizing officer did not mark the items allegedly confiscated from him; and they failed to make an inventory of what they purportedly seized.
As aptly noted by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), these are purely factual issues requiring recalibration of evidence, which is generally beyond the purview of the Court. This rule, however, admits of certain exceptions 1 which obtain here. To be sure, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals here was based on misapprehension of facts; the supposed factual findings did not point to any specific evidence on which they were based; and certain facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs were not disputed by the respondents.
In any event, in criminal cases, an appeal throws the entire case wide open for review. 2 Thus, even with the failure of petitioner to object to the admissibility of the seized shabu or to challenge the attending circumstances, the Court is not barred from reviewing the irregularities petitioner raises on appeal.
The validity of the Information and the
Petitioner continues to assert that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the case because Section 4, Rule 112 was not complied with, viz.:
Section 4. Resolution of investigating prosecutor and its review. —
xxx xxx xxx
No complaint or information may be filed or dismissed by an investigating prosecutor without the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city prosecutor or chief state prosecutor or the Ombudsman or his deputy. (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Petitioner points out that the Information in Criminal Case No. L-9965 bears only the signatures of Assistant Provincial Prosecutor Jeffrey T. Catungal and Senior Provincial Prosecutor Raul B. Campos — without the signature of the Provincial Prosecutor of Pangasinan. 3 Too, he assails his arrest since the existence of the warrant which supposedly authorized the police officers to arrest him was neither established nor produced in court. 4
But the OSG correctly argues that the timing of these arguments works against petitioner. Lapi v. People, 5 citing People v. Alunday6 is instructive:
The Court has consistently ruled that any objection involving a warrant of arrest or the procedure for the acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be madebefore he enters his plea; otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. We have also ruled that an accused may be estopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest if he fails to move for the quashing of the information against him before his arraignment. And since the legality of an arrest affects only the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused, any defect in the arrest of the accused may be deemed cured when he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the trial court. x x x
Herein, accused-appellant went into arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty. Thereafter, he actively participated in his trial. He raised the additional issue of irregularity of his arrest only during his appeal to this Court. He is, therefore, deemed to have waived such alleged defect by submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the court by his counsel-assisted plea during his arraignment; by his actively participating in the trial and by not raising the objection before his arraignment. (Emphases and underscoring supplied)
Here, petitioner neither filed a motion to quash the information nor assailed the validity of his arrest before he entered his plea as he even actively participated during the trial. Pursuant to Lapi, he is therefore deemed to have waived his objections to the validity of his arrest.
Petitioner is nonetheless acquitted of
In drug related cases, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the offense but also the corpus delicti itself. 7 The dangerous drug seized from petitioner constitutes such corpus delicti. It is thus imperative for the prosecution to establish that the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug were duly preserved in order to sustain a verdict of conviction. 8 It must prove that the dangerous drug seized from petitioner is indeed the substance offered in court with the same unshakeable accuracy as that required to sustain a finding of guilt.
Here, petitioner was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drug allegedly committed on January 29, 2014. The governing law, therefore, is still Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 9 before its amendment — for RA 10640 10 was enacted only on July 22, 2014.
Section 21 of RA 9165 prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.:
Section 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, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment 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 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;
xxx xxx xxx
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 further commands:
Section 21. (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.
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpusdelicti of the offense. The prosecution is tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 11
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: 12first, 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. 13
Here, the Court observes separate breaches of the chain of custody rule, specifically in the first and last links.
First. Although the arresting team, consisting of Chief of Police, Police Senior Inspector Leo Llamas (PSI Llamas), Police Officer 1 Raquel Doquenia (PO1 Doquenia), Police Officer 1 Rio Bonzo (PO1 Bonzo) and Team Patrollers led by PO3 Joel Ramirez, accomplished a Confiscation Receipt 14 in lieu of an Inventory form, they nonetheless failed to indicate the markings PSI Llamas purportedly made on the items he supposedly seized from petitioner.
Interestingly, the OSG does not deny petitioner's contention that such markings were glaringly absent from the Confiscation Receipt, the photographs offered in evidence, or even the laboratory reports submitted by Police Chief Investigator Myrna Malojo-Todeño (PCI Malojo-Todeño). The OSG, both in the People's Brief before the Court of Appeals and its present Comment, merely insists that all the requirements under the chain of custody rule had been sufficiently complied with and that PSI Llamas duly marked the seized items without actually and directly referring to such documents to prove the existence of such markings.
In People v. Victoria15 the Court in acquitting appellant therein, noted the vital step of marking of the seized item immediately after to ensure its integrity and veracity by preventing switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 16 Here, the prosecution insisted on having marked the items allegedly seized from petitioner and his companion. Such markings, however, were not proven to a moral certainty, thereby failing to satisfy its important role in ascertaining the identity of the seized items as they traverse the chain of custody.
Second. The prosecution did not present PO1 Bonzo to testify on his role in the chain of custody of the seized items.
In Mallillin v. People, 17 the Court explained that the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. Ideally, the evidence presented by the prosecution should include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was seized up to the time it was offered into evidence. The prosecution should present evidence establishing the chain of custody in such a way that "every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain." 18 In addition, these witnesses should describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and that there had been no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. 19
Mallillin also emphasized that stricter compliance of the rules should be observed when the items in question are of minute quantity that come in small containers, viz.:
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution andexchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering — without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not — dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule.
Indeed, 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. 20 (Emphases and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
Following Mallillin, PO1 Bonzo's testimony becomes indispensable considering the minute quantities of the drugs involved (i.e., 0.013 gram and 0.717 gram), compounded by the questionable markings on the seized items. Unfortunately, the prosecution witnesses only referred to PO1 Bonzo as the one tasked to bring the seized items to the crime laboratory without presenting him to testify on how he handled them and the precautions taken to ensure that they had not been tampered or replaced.
Finally. It does not escape our attention that PCI Malojo-Todeño reported on the test results of three (3) heat-sealed plastic sachets containing 0.013 gram, 0.0075 gram and 0.0717 gram of white crystalline substance, while PSI Llamas testified to seizing only two (2) heat-sealed plastic sachets which were sent to the crime laboratory. 21 This unquestionably casts doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti.
This blunder speaks volumes and by itself is fatal to the cause of the prosecution. Yet, a full discussion is called for to highlight the importance of marking the items that were seized. Had PSI Llamas properly marked all seized items and noted the same in the corresponding documents, there could have been no doubt that the items which entered the chain of custody were the same items tested by PCI Malojo-Todeño. The chain would have connected from one link to the next. As it was, however, PCI Malojo-Todeño presented a stray sachet before the trial court, the source and identity of which were unaccounted for.
Indeed, the importance of the first and fourth links — both ends of the chain — cannot be overemphasized. For anything can happen in between confiscation and testing. In People v. Omamos, 22 the Court reminded:
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. It is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. Marking though should be done in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon confiscation to truly ensure that they are the same items which enter the chain of custody. (emphases and underscoring supplied)
Here, the absence of the markings was glaring. And true enough, the pair of plastic sachets that were supposedly seized from petitioner for testing commingled with an unwelcome hitchhiker along the path they traversed that is the chain of custody. Obviously, the very purpose of the chain of custody was negated and the evils it seeks to prevent materialized. Instead of preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, the courts have no way of knowing which sachet is which and who owned what.
Indeed, these crucial lapses at the incipience and tail end of the chain of custody cast serious uncertainty on the identity and integrity of the corpusdelicti. The Court is thus convinced that the prosecution here failed to establish petitioner's guilt to a moral certainty. Perforce, petitioner must be acquitted.
Further, it would be the height of injustice to uphold the verdict of conviction against Joenald Sabido y Alonzo despite the lapses of the police officers in handling the item purportedly seized from him. Hence, he too must be acquitted. To be sure, the benefits of this appeal. extends to Joenald though he did not join petitioner as party-appellant, thus:
Rule 122, 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; (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) 23
xxx xxx xxx
So must it be.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 8, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39686, is REVERSEDand SET ASIDE.
JEFFREY AGBAYANI y DACONES is ACQUITTEDinCriminal Case No. L-9965.
JOENALD SABIDO y ALONZO is ACQUITTEDin Criminal Case No. L-9966. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is ordered to a) immediately release him from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause; and b) submit his report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice.
Let entry of judgment immediately issue.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The general rule for petitions filed under Rule 45 admits exceptions, to wit: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals, in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record; See Miano v. Manila Electric Co., 800 Phil. 118, 123 (2016); citing Medina v. Mayor Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225 (1990).
2. "[T]he reviewing tribunal can correct errors, though unassigned in the appealed judgment, or even reverse the trial court's decision based on grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors." Miguel v. People, 814 Phil. 1073, 1081 (2017), citing People v. Alejandro, 807 Phil. 221, 229 (2017), and People v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187, 196 (2016).
3.Rollo, pp. 66-68.
4.Id. at 68-69.
5. G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019.
6. 586 Phil. 120 (2008).
7. See People v. Calates, 829 Phil. 262, 269 (2018).
8.Calahi v. People, 820 Phil. 886, 900 (2017).
9. 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.
10. 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."
11. See People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542 (2017).
12. As defined in Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002:
xxx xxx xxx
b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]
xxx xxx xxx
13.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015), citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 219, 304-306 (2010).
14. NB. The Court seemingly accepted the accomplishment of a confiscation receipt as a fulfillment of the inventory requirement in People v. Jugo, 824 Phil. 743, 751-752 (2018) and People v. Mola, 830 Phil. 364 (2018).
15. See G.R. No. 238613, August 19, 2019, citing People v. Ramirez, 823 Phil. 576 (2018).
16.Id.
17. 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.Id.
21.Rollo, pp. 86, 88-91.
22. G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
23. THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.