SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 249986. June 15, 2022.]
BENITO MALINAO ALDAYA, JR., petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 15, 2022which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 249986(Benito Malinao Aldaya, Jr., petitioner, v.People of the Philippines, respondent). — Before us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision 2 dated October 25, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated August 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 03035. The CA affirmed the Decision 4 dated April 27, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, of Cebu City (RTC) which found Benito Malinao Aldaya, Jr. (Aldaya, Jr.) guilty of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of Article II, Section 11 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," in Criminal Case No. CBU-108831.
Aldaya, Jr. was charged with violation of Article II, Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, viz.:
That on or about the 14th day of May 2015, at about 11:30 in the evening more or less, in Barangay Valencia, City of Carcar, Province of Cebu, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, with deliberate intent and without authority of law did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control the following — Two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with attached markings BMA 5/14/15-1 and BMA 5/14/15-2, respectively marked as A-1 and A-2 each containing 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance, which when subjected to laboratory examination gave positive results for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as shabu, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.5
On arraignment, Aldaya, Jr. pleaded not guilty. Thereafter, trial ensued.
For the prosecution, Police Officer 1 Christopher Balmores (PO1 Balmores) testified that at around 11:00 p.m., he and the team composed of Police Officer 1 Ralph Daniel Borbon (PO1 Borbon), Police Officer 1 Dennis Amodia (PO1 Amodia), Police Officer 1 Rodel Hawid (PO1 Hawid), Police Officer 1 Joseph Batlag (PO1 Batlag) and Police Inspector Jay R. Soto Falcon (PI Falcon), set up a checkpoint at Barangay Valencia, Carcar City, Cebu. 6 PO1 Balmores was assigned as the verifier. 7 After 30 minutes, Aldaya, Jr. who was riding a motorcycle, arrived at the checkpoint, and was flagged down. PO1 Balmores asked Aldaya, Jr. to produce his driver's license and motorcycle registration, which he failed to do. Aldaya, Jr. also looked uneasy and nervous. He then disembarked from his motorcycle and started walking away from PO1 Balmores and PO1 Borbon.
PO1 Balmores asked Aldaya, Jr. where he was going, but the latter did not respond. 8 Instead, he pulled out items from his polo pocket and held these in his hand. 9 PO1 Balmores asked Aldaya, Jr. about these items, and told him not to leave. Subsequently, Aldaya, Jr. stopped walking and opened his right hand. 10 PO1 Balmores used his flashlight to look at Aldaya, Jr.'s hand, and he saw that Aldaya, Jr. was holding two heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance. 11 PO1 Balmores arrested Aldaya, Jr., apprised the latter of his rights, and marked the sachets with "BMA 5/14/15-1" and "BMA 5/14/15-2." 12 The checkpoint team inventoried the seized items in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Judith E. Bacus (Brgy. Kagawad Bacus), while investigator PO1 Carreon took photographs of the inventory. 13 Afterwards, PO1 Balmores, PO1 Borbon and Aldaya, Jr. went to Camp Ceperino Genovia of the Regional Public Safety Battalion 7 at Barangay Bahay, Sibonga, Cebu where Aldaya, Jr. was eventually detained. 14
PO1 Balmores was in custody of the subject contraband, and he later turned over the seized items to their investigator before these items were placed in a plastic. 15 A letter-request for chemical analysis was also made. 16 PO1 Balmores and PO1 Borbon submitted the sachets for identification of their contents at the PNP Crime Laboratory. Police Senior Inspector Jezrhell Pepito Cruda (PSI Cruda), a forensic chemist and officer, conducted the chemical analysis on the contraband. 17 Based on Chemistry Report No. D-1254-15, 18 the sachets were found to contain methamphetamine hydrocholoride or shabu. 19 On June 4, 2015, PSI Cruda submitted the seized sachets of shabu to the RTC.
On the part of the defense, Aldaya, Jr. testified that at around 11:00 p.m. of May 14, 2015, he was driving his motorcycle and had a passenger with him. They were bound for Valencia, Carcar City, Cebu. While on their way, police officers flagged him down at the checkpoint in Awayan. 20 When a police officer asked for his driver's license, he told the former that he did not have it, but he was able to present his motorcycle certificate of registration. 21 Not long after, his passenger threw something and ran away. 22 One of the police officers chased Aldaya, Jr.'s passenger, but was unable to catch him. The police officers picked something on the ground, approached Aldaya, Jr. and handcuffed him. 23 Aldaya, Jr. protested his arrest and explained that he does not know his passenger. Subsequently, a barangay councilor was summoned to sign a document. Aldaya, Jr. asked the barangay councilor for help and forgiveness, but was only told to keep quiet until they are finished. 24
On April 27, 2017, the RTC rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, finding the accused, BENITO MALINAO ALDAYA, JR. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of 0.08 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (Dangerous Drugs Act), he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of IMPRISONMENT for a period of TWELVE (12) YEARS AND ONE (1) DAY as minimum to FIFTEEN (15) YEARS as maximum, and to pay a FINE in the amount of P300,000.00.
The subject sachets of shabu with markings "BMA 5/14/15-1" and "BMA 5/14/15-2" are declared forfeited in favor of the Government, to be disposed of pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 9165 and related rules and regulations.
The bail bond of the accused is hereby cancelled, and he is ordered committed in the Carcar City Jail.
SO ORDERED.25
The RTC found PO1 Balmores and PO1 Borbon's testimonies to be credible, while ill-motives on their part against Aldaya, Jr. were not proven. It is thus presumed that their testimonies had not been actuated by improper motive. 26
Furthermore, the RTC held that the arresting officers conducted a valid and warrantless search. They had their reason to require Aldaya, Jr. to open his hand and show them the items he was holding. The RTC found that Aldaya, Jr.'s acts of looking uneasy and nervous, and when he walked away and pulled something out of his shirt's pocket, constitute enough probable cause to conduct a warrantless search on his person. 27 The RTC also ruled that the warrantless search is justified under the stop and frisk rule. Under the said rule, a warrantless search is justified in conducting a protective weapons search based upon the officer's reasonable belief that a suspect may be armed and dangerous, such a weapons search would necessarily include the right to search a clenched fist. 28
As regards the chain of custody of the seized drug, the RTC found that there was substantial compliance with the requirements under Article II, Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165. The marked sachets of shabu, presented before the RTC, were the same sachets of shabu recovered from Aldaya, Jr. 29 Upon the seizure of the sachets of shabu, they were immediately marked and inventoried by PO1 Balmores and photographed by PO1 Carreon. The inventory was conducted in the presence of Aldaya, Jr., and an elected barangay official. As to PO1 Balmores' testimony that the investigator to whom the sachets were turned over to, was not presented as a witness, PO1 Balmores and PO1 Borbon explained that the turnover was only so that the investigator can place them in a transparent plastic pack. Based on the request for laboratory examination, it showed that the sachets of shabu were submitted to the PNP Regional Crime Laboratory Office less than 12 hours after seizure on May 15, 2015. As to the Acknowledgment Receipt issued by the RTC's court interpreter, it showed that the subject sachets of shabu were submitted to the Court by PSI Cruda on June 4, 2015, at 4:30 p.m. 30
Unperturbed, Aldaya, Jr. filed an appeal with the CA.
On October 25, 2018, the CA rendered its Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated April 27, 2017, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Cebu City, in Criminal Case No. CBU-108831, finding appellant BENITO MALINAO ALDAYA, JR. guilty beyond reasonable doubt of [v]iolating Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.31
According to the CA, the requisites for a valid in flagrante delicto arrest are present in this case. Firstly, the police officers caught Aldaya, Jr. in possession of two plastic sachets containing shabu while at the checkpoint. Secondly, Aldaya, Jr.'s overt acts of taking the plastic sachets containing shabu from his pocket and holding these in his hands were done in the presence of the police officers. 32
The CA ruled that there was a valid warrantless search on Aldaya, Jr. When Aldaya, Jr. failed to present the necessary documents asked by the police officers at the checkpoint, he started to act suspiciously by moving away from the police officers and getting something from his polo shirt's pocket. These overt and unusual acts prompted the police officers to ask Aldaya, Jr. to show them the items in his hand. Aldaya, Jr.'s unease, nervousness as he walked away and pulled something from the pocket of his shirt constitute sufficient probable cause to conduct a warrantless search on his person. 33
The elements for possession of dangerous drugs were also complied with because: (1) Aldaya, Jr. was in possession of two plastic sachets containing crystalline substance which turned out to be shabu; (2) he was not authorized by law to possess such drug; and (3) he freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 34
Aldaya, Jr. filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which the CA denied in its Resolution dated August 20, 2019.
Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Issue
Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's verdict of conviction of petitioner Benito Aldaya, Jr. for violation of Article II, Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
Petitioner raised the following arguments: Firstly, there was no valid warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest because the arrest did not precede the search. The arrest was made only after the police officers allegedly discovered the two plastic sachets when petitioner was ordered to open his hands. 35Secondly, there was no valid warrantless arrest because none of the grounds enumerated under Section 5, 36 Rule 113 of the 1997 Rules of Criminal Procedure were present. Thirdly, there was no valid warrantless search under the stop-and-frisk rule because there was no reasonable and articulable belief to "stop" petitioner. 37 Petitioner claims that a perusal of the records of the case shows that the allegations of the police officers lacked descriptions of his alleged behavior or demeanor because there was no specific details on how the police officers arrived at a conclusion that his actuations made him suspicious. The frisk was also not done on the ground that there was reasonable belief that petitioner is in possession of a weapon that will pose a danger to the officer and others. 38Fourthly, since there was no valid warrantless search, the evidence obtained are inadmissible for being fruit of poisonous tree. 39Finally, the chain of custody of the drug seized was not preserved because of non-compliance with the two-witness rule under Section 21 (1) 40 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. Under the said rule, the physical inventory of the seized items and photograph of the same must be witnessed by the accused, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. However in this case, only the police officers and the barangay kagawad were present during the inventory of the seized shabu.
Our Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
The waiver of the right to
On the issue of the validity of the arrest, the rule is that the accused must raise any objection, defect or irregularity attending their arrest before they enter their plea. 41 Here, petitioner failed to move to quash the Information filed against him before his arraignment. As a consequence, he is estopped from assailing the illegality of the arrest. While petitioner is considered to have properly and voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the RTC and waived his right to question the validity of his arrest, 42 the said waiver does not constitute a waiver of the illegality of search.
We now determine whether there is a valid warrantless search. A warrantless search is allowed when: (i) a warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in "plain view"; (iii) search for a moving vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless search; (v) customs search; (vi) a "stop and frisk" search; and (vii) exigent and emergency circumstances. 43
Despite petitioner's waiver to question the legality of his arrest, there was no valid warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest because the requirements for a valid arrest were not complied with. It is a settled principle that at the time a person is arrested, it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter of the reason for the arrest and must show that person the warrant of arrest, if any. 44 In this case, these constitutional requirements were complied with by the police officers only after petitioner had been arrested for illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
The drugs seized were also not in plain view because these were inside petitioner's pocket. The evidence was not immediately apparent. 45
Neither was there a consented warrantless search. To determine whether there was a consented warrantless search, the characteristics of the person giving consent, and the environment in which consent is given:
(1) the age of the defendant; (2) whether the defendant was in a public or a secluded location; (3) whether the defendant objected to the search or passively looked on; (4) the education and intelligence of the defendant; (5) the presence of coercive police procedures; (6) the defendant's belief that no incriminating evidence would be found; (7) the nature of the police questioning; (8) the environment in which the questioning took place; and (9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting. It is the State that has the burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony that the necessary consent was obtained, and was freely and voluntarily given. 46
Here, there is no proof of an actual intention to relinquish the right against illegal searches. There is no reason for PO1 Balmores to stop and frisk petitioner, not even for a traffic violation. PO1 Balmores asked for petitioner's driver's license and motorcycle registration. For his failure to produce these documents, petitioner decided to disembark from his motorcycle and to walk away from PO1 Balmores and PO1 Borbon. When PO1 Balmores asked petitioner where he was going, he did not respond but instead pulled out the shabu from his pocket. Taking into consideration petitioner's characteristics when he seemingly consented to the search, and the vulnerable environment in which such was given, it can be gleaned that there was no valid consented search.
Neither does the search fall under the "stop and frisk" rule. The said rule is applicable to a situation where a police officer observes suspicious or unusual conduct, which may lead them to believe that a criminal act may be afoot; wherein the search is merely a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons. 47 The test for the existence of reasonable suspicion that a person is engaged in criminal activity is the totality of the circumstances, viewed through the eyes of a reasonable, prudent police officer. 48
Here, the totality of the circumstances shows that the police officers' allegations lacked descriptions of petitioner's behavior to engender any reasonable suspicion in the police officers' mind. There is no reason for PO1 Balmores to stop and frisk petitioner, not even for a traffic violation. Petitioner's acts of disembarking his motorcycle and walking away from the police officers after he failed to show his driver's license and motorcycle registration to the police officers, do not establish reasonable suspicion that he is in possession of a weapon that will pose a danger to the officers and others. Neither should petitioner's acts and the surrounding circumstances engender any reasonable suspicion on the police officers' part that a criminal activity was afoot. This Court has frequently struck down the arrest of individuals whose overt acts did not transgress the penal laws, or were wholly innocent. 49
The chain of custody was not
To be convicted of the crime of illegal possession of prohibited drugs under Article II, Section 11 of R.A. No. 9165, it must be shown that: (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 50 The corpus delicti is the prohibited drugs seized from the accused. 51 In People v. Sagana, 52 this Court emphasized:
"[I]t is of paramount importance that the existence of the drug, the corpus delicti of the crime, be established beyond doubt." Its identity and integrity must be proven to have been safeguarded. Aside from proving the elements of the charges, "the fact that the substance illegally possessed and sold [was] the same substance offered in court as exhibit must likewise be established with the same degree of certitude as that needed to sustain a guilty verdict." The chain of custody carries out this purpose "as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed." 53
To establish the identity of the dangerous drug, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
[S]econd, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
[T]hird, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
[F]ourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 54
As part of the chain of custody procedure, R.A. No. 9165 requires that the marking, physical inventory, and photograph of the seized items be conducted immediately after the seizure and confiscation. 55 Further, the law requires that the inventory and photograph be done in the presence of the accused, or the person from whom the items were seized, or the accused's representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, whose presence serves to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 56
If the incident happened prior to the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, the presence of three (3) insulating witnesses are required, namely: a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. If the arrest was made after the amendment of R.A. No. 9165, as R.A. No. 10640, which took effect on August 7, 2014, 57 the presence of at least two (2) insulating witnesses are required: an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS)or the media. 58 Since the arrest was made on May 14, 2015, R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640 is the applicable law.
Here, the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody of the seized shabu from the time they were recovered from petitioner, up to the time that these were presented in Court.
Records show that there was neither a representative of the NPS nor a representative from the media present to witness the physical inventory and photography of the seized evidence. It was only petitioner, PO1 Borbon, PO1 Balmores and Barangay Kagawad Bacus, who signed the Inventory Receipt. 59 The testimonies of PO1 Balmores, and PO1 Borbon also revealed that it was only them, another arresting officer, a barangay kagawad, and petitioner who were present during the physical inventory of the seized evidence. PO1 Balmores testified before the RTC:
Q: So after that, after you informed the person, by the way, what information did you inform the person about?
A: I informed him, after he showed it to us, we arrested him.
Q: You arrested him for what?
A: For possessing illegal drugs.
Q: So what was his offense?
A: Section 11.
Q: You also informed him of his constitutional rights?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: So after that, what did you do to this person?
A: After that, Ma'am, we conducted inventory.
Q: Where was the inventory conducted?
A: In the place of the check point, Ma'am, Barangay Valencia.
Q: Who was with you when you conducted this inventory, who were present?
A: Present were the two arresting, and the councilor. (emphases supplied)60
PO1 Borbon also testified:
Q: So during the conduct of inventory, what did you do?
A: I was the one holding the arrested person, Ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Where was the person during the conduct of inventory?
A: We later know him as Benito.
Q: No, where was he at that time when you conducted inventory?
A: Near to us.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So who else were present during the conduct of inventory?
A: Barangay Kagawad, Ma'am, of Barangay Valencia.
Q: So apart from this Barangay Kagawad, who else were present at that time?
A: Our investigator and team leader, Ma'am. (emphases supplied)61
In sum, the persons present during the inventory were petitioner, the barangay councilor, and the police officers. The representative from the media or from the NPS was not present during the inventory of the drug seized, which is a violation of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended.
While non-compliance may be allowed under justifiable circumstances, the prosecution must show that the apprehending officers exerted earnest efforts to comply with the procedure. 62 This Court enumerated instances where the absence of the insulating witnesses may be justified:
(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. 63
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must also be proven. 64 In People v. Umipang, 65 this Court ruled that in the absence of actual serious attempts to contact the insulating witnesses, mere statements of these witnesses' unavailability are not justifiable grounds for non-compliance. Arresting officers are therefore required to state the reasons for their non-compliance with the mandated procedure, convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 66
Here, the prosecution failed to prove that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the procedure. In his Comment 67 filed before this Court, petitioner interposed the defense that it was midnight when the police officers caught him in possession of shabu at a checkpoint, which were the reasons the police officers could not have coordinated with representatives of the media and the NPS. These defenses are not sufficient justification for their non-compliance. This procedural infirmity, in the absence of any valid explanation from the prosecution, militates against a finding of guilt against petitioner as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti would have been compromised. 68
The second link refers to the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Here, there is no showing that the seized illegal drug was turned over to the investigating officer. It can be gleaned from PO1 Balmores's testimony that the seized drug was not transferred from his possession to the investigating officer:
PROS. ANTEPUESTO
Q: So you said that you placed these two (2) sachets in a plastic and you turned them over to the Investigator. So when you made that Letter Request and you delivered it to the crime lab, who was handling the items taken from the accused?
WITNESS
A: I was the one.
Q: So you personally submitted these to the crime lab?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: So was there a point that the two (2) sachets that you confiscated from the accused that it was handled by somebody else aside from you?
A: Only at the time with the Investigator. aScITE
Q: So what was the Investigator doing with the two (2) sachets?
A: After the Inventory we placed those two (2) sachets in a transparent plastic.
Q: So was that plastic sachet sealed or what, was it labelled?
A: Inside the plastic was a paper labelled.
Q: Who labelled them?
A: Our Investigator Ma'am. 69
On cross-examination, PO1 Balmores mentioned that the subject turnover was not documented in paper:
Q: You said earlier that you turned over the recovered items to your Investigator?
A: Yes. For him to place it in a transparent plastic.
Q: But it was your Investigator who placed those items in a plastic?
A: Yes.
Q: For that turnover to your Investigator, was it documented, signed paper?
A: There was none.70
PO1 Borbon also testified that there was no actual turnover of the drugs seized:
Q: So while in transit, who was in possession of those two (2) small heat-sealed sachets?
A: PO1 Balmores, Ma'am.
Q: What about you, where were you at that time?
A: I was the one in custody of the arrested person.
Q: So what happened after you conducted the inventory, what else happened?
A: After, Ma'am, we went to the Crime Lab.
Q: What did you bring to the Crime Lab?
A: The two (2) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet that we confiscated.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You said a while ago that you submitted the two (2) small heat (sic) sachet that you recovered from this accused known as Benito to the Crime Lab?
A: I was with PO1 Balmores, Ma'am, although he was the one who turned over the evidence while I was left outside.71
On cross-examination, PO1 Balmores stated that:
Q: May I know, Sir, during the entire time when you were at your station, did PO1 Balmores ever transferred (sic) custody of the item to another person?
A: When we arrived at the office, the investigator placed them in a bigger plastic.
Q: So meaning to say, from Officer Balmores, he turned it over to your investigator?
A: No, he did not, it was with the investigator when he told to place them in a bigger plastic.72
Based on PO1 Borbon and PO1 Balmores's testimonies, the second link of the chain of custody was not established because the seized drugs were not turned over to the investigating officer.
The third link pertains to the delivery by the investigating officer of the illegal drugs to the forensic chemist. It was not established in this case because it was PO1 Borbon and not the investigating officer who turned over the drug seized to the forensic chemist.
Lastly, the fourth link involves the submission of the seized illegal drugs by the forensic chemist to the court. PSI Cruda testified how the seized illegal drugs were safeguarded after he received the same, and following his qualitative examination thereof:
PROSECUTOR ANTEPUSTO TO WITNESS
Q: You also made mentioned (sic) that specimens were attached to the letter request, Mr. Witness, if the same will be shown to you, would you be able to identify the same?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: Attached to the letter request is a specimen, kindly go over the same if these are the same specimens that you've examined?
A: This is the same specimen that I examined, Ma'am.
Q: How did you know that these are the same specimens that you have examined, Mr. Witness?
A: I sealed each of the specimen, Ma'am, and put my personal markings on each of the specimen after my examination, Ma'am.
Q: What were those markings that you've made, Mr. Witness?
A: For the two (2) specimens, the series A-1 and A-2 for each of the specimen and my initial JPC and the specific weight at the back of each of the specimen and my initial signature, Ma'am, and the container that contains the two (2) Chemistry Report No. D-1254-15, the series name, my initial JPC and my initial signature as sealing, Ma'am.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So after you've examined the specimen, Mr. Witness, what else did you do, Mr. Witness, if any?
A: After sealing each of the specimen and put my personal marking to preserve each integrity and evidentiary value, Ma'am, I turned over the Chemistry Report, the letter request, the attached two (2) specimens, Ma'am, the sealed two (2) specimens, and the Chain of Custody Form to our evidence custodian, PO1 Rolando Casinillo, Ma'am.
Q: When you say you "turned over," did you submit any, how did you turn over these documents, the specimen, to the evidence custodian, Mr. Witness?
A: Ma'am, we have a logbook in our office that there's a turn over of the specimen to our evidence custodian.73
For the fourth link, the forensic chemist sealed each of the specimen and made her personal markings after these were examined. She then turned over the Chemistry Report, the letter-request, the two specimen, and the Chain of Custody Form to the evidence custodian. Only the fourth link to the chain of custody was sufficiently established.
Given the procedural lapses and evidentiary gaps in the chain of custody, this Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs seized. Hence, this Court finds it necessary to acquit petitioner for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 25, 2018 and the Resolution dated August 20, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 03035, affirming the conviction of petitioner Benito Malinao Aldaya, Jr. for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Case No. CBU-108831, are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Benito Malinao Aldaya, Jr. is hereby ACQUITTED of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Jail Warden of the Carcar City Jail, Carcar City, Province of Cebu. Copies shall also be furnished to the Chief of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."(J. Lazaro-Javier, on official leave)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 7-37.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Edward B. Contreras, with Associate Justices Gabriel T. Ingles and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap concurring; id. at 80-87.
3.Id. at 94-95.
4. Penned by Presiding Judge Macundas M. Hadjirasul; id. at 56-66.
5. Records, Volume I, p. 1.
6. TSN, June 2, 2016, pp. 5-6.
7.Id. at 6.
8.Id. at 7.
9.Id. at 8.
10.Id. at 9.
11.Id. at 10.
12.Id. at 10-12.
13.Id. at 11-12.
14.Id. at 14.
15.Id. at 16.
16.Id. at 12.
17. TSN, December 1, 2016, p. 8.
18. Exhibit "C".
19. TSN, December 1, 2016, p. 7.
20. TSN, April 20, 2017, p. 4.
21.Id. at 4-5.
22.Id. at 5.
23.Id. at 6.
24.Id. at 7.
25.Rollo, p. 66.
26.Id. at 62.
27.Id. at 63.
28.Id. at 64.
29.Id.
30.Id. at 65.
31.Id. at 86-87.
32.Id. at 85.
33.Id. at 86.
34.Id. at 84.
35.Id. at 16.
36.Section 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;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
37.Rollo, p. 22.
38.Id. at 23.
39.Id. at 27.
40. Amending to R.A. No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," Republic Act No. 10640, July 15, 2014.
"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, 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of 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 and custody over said items.
41.Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019, 892 SCRA 680, 694.
42.Villanueva v. People, 747 Phil. 40, 46 (2014).
43.Luz v. People, 683 Phil. 399, 411 (2012).
44.Id. at 410.
45.Id. at 411.
46.Id. at 412.
47.Id.
48.Esquillo v. People, 643 Phil. 577 (2010).
49.Id.
50.People v. Pis-an, G.R. No. 242692, July 13, 2020.
51.People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019, 912 SCRA 446, 457.
52. 815 Phil. 356 (2017).
53.Id. at 367-368.
54.People v. Castillo, G.R. No. 242520, November 15, 2021.
55.Luna v. People, G.R. No. 231902, June 30, 2021.
56.Id.
57. R.A. No. 10640 states that it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." Verily, a copy of the law was published on July 23, 2014 in the respective issues of "The Philippine Star" (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro Section, p. 21) and the "Manila Bulletin" (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News Section, p. 6). Thus, R.A. No. 10640 appears to have become effective on August 7, 2014.
58.People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 252327, (Minute Resolution), June 28, 2021.
59. Exhibit "D".
60. TSN, June 2, 2016, pp. 11-12.
61. TSN, August 25, 2016, pp. 9-10.
62.Jayectin v. People, G.R. No. 247309 (Minute Resolution), October 7, 2020.
63.People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 93. (2018).
64.People v. Señeres, Jr., G.R. No. 231008, November 5, 2018, 884 SCRA 172, 190.
65.People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024 (2012).
66.Id. at 1053.
67.Rollo, pp. 104-116.
68.People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 252892 (Notice), July 28, 2021.
69. TSN, June 16, 2016, p. 25.
70.Id. at 31.
71. TSN, August 25, 2016, p. 11.
72.Id. at 19.
73. TSN, December 1, 2016, pp. 9-10.