THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 221013. September 16, 2020.]
PAUL RYAN ARCILLA, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 16, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 221013 — (PAUL RYAN ARCILLA, petitioner v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent). — This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 2 dated October 14, 2015 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 05787. The Decision of the CA sustained the conviction of herein Paul Ryan Arcilla (Arcilla) for Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A.) No. 9165.
Facts
On May 15, 2010, at around 5:00 in the afternoon, the Binangonan police received a tip from their confidential informant (CI) that a certain alias Kurkulon was selling drugs at Barangay Calumpang, Binangonan, Rizal. 3
Upon receipt of the information, Police Officer (PO) 2 Arthur Alejo (PO2 Alejo) relayed the same to their Chief, Rodillo De Camora Elfa. Inspector Garcia, a member of their team, instructed PO2 Alejo and PO1 Ely Barcelo to enter the information in the blotter. 4
To verify certify the illegal drug activity of alias Kurkulon, PO2 Alejo together with Inspector Garcia, PO2 Barcelo, and the CI, proceeded to the target area at Barangay Calumpang. 5
Thereat, PO2 Alejo with the CI went in an alley, while PO1 Barcelo and Inspector Garcia stayed behind the street corner as backup. 6
While walking through the alley, PO2 Alejo and the CI saw two persons talking to each other, who were later identified as Antonio Fabian (Fabian) and Arcilla. 7
As PO2 Alejo and the CI were nearing Arcilla and Fabian's location, Fabian called out "Pare saan ka pupunta score kaba? Dito na lang sa akin." Arcilla interjected and said "Oo nga dito na lang kaso lowest five hundred kami."8
In response, the CI answers, "Sige bigyan mo ako ng five hundred." Thereafter, Fabian took out a plastic sachet containing shabu and gave it the CI. 9
When PO2 Alejo saw Fabian handing a plastic sachet to the CI, he immediately identified himself as a police officer and arrested both Arcilla and Fabian. 10
Thereafter, PO2 Alejo then frisked both Arcilla and Fabian for weapons. However, instead of firearms, PO2 Alejo recovered another plastic sachet containing shabu from Fabian, and two plastic sachets of shabu from Arcilla. 11
To avoid confusion, PO2 Alejo handed the said plastic sachets seized from petitioner to Inspector Garcia who was already at the alley at the time of Arcilla's and Fabian's arrest. 12
Inspector Garcia immediately ordered the pullout of the team from the scene to avoid any commotion. Both Arcilla and Fabian, as well as the seized items, were brought to the Binangonan Police Station. 13
At the police station, PO2 Alejo marked the drugs he confiscated from Fabian with the initials "TAL-1," "TAL-2," weighing 0.04 gram and 0.05 gram, respectively; and the plastic sachets of shabu recovered from the Arcilla were marked "TAL-3" and "TAL-4" weighing 0.05 gram and 0.04 gram, respectively. 14
Also, photographs of the seized plastic sachets of shabu from both Arcilla and Fabian were taken at the police station by PO1 Colaccion in the presence of PO2 Alejo. 15
After documentation, PO2 Alejo and PO1 Barcelo personally brought the plastic sachets of shabu with markings "TAL-1," "TAL-2," "TAL-3" and ''TAL-4" to the crime laboratory at the Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office, Taytay, Rizal for forensic examination. 16
At the crime laboratory, PO1 Barcelo personally handed the specimens to Police Senior Inspector Beaune Villarza (PSI Villaraza). 17
The laboratory examination conducted by PSI Villarza on the specimens subject of the buy-bust operation and those recovered from Arcilla and Fabian all tested positive for the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, commonly known as shabu. 18
Regional Trial Court Ruling
The Regional Trial Court rendered its Decision dated August 31, 2012. The dispositive portion of the Decision states:
In light of the above, we find accused Antonio Fabian GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentence him to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine [of] P500,000.00. We likewise find him GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and illegally possessing a total of 0.05 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu and accordingly sentence him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 13 years as maximum and to pay a fine [of] P300,000.00.
With respect to accused Paul Ryan Arcilla, we find him GUILTY beyond reasonable of violating Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and illegally possessing a total amount of 0.09 grams (sic) of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu and accordingly sentence him to suffer an indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 13 years as maximum and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
Let the drug samples in this case be forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition. Furnish PDEA with a copy of this Decision per OCA Circular No. 70-2007.
SO ORDERED. 19
Court of Appeals Ruling
The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court but with modification, to wit:
ACCORDINGLY, the August 31, 2012 Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67 of Binangonan, Rizal, is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATIONS. Accused-appellants Antonio Fabian and Paul Ryan Arcilla are both found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II, of (sic) R.A. No. 9165 in Criminal Case Nos. 10-263 and 10-264, respectively. Anent Criminal Case No. 10-262, accused-appellant Antonio Fabian is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt.
SO ORDERED. 20
Issue
Whether Arcilla is guilty of violation of Section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165.
The Ruling of this Court
The petition is impressed with merit.
Generally, the trial court's findings of fact, especially when affirmed by the appellate court, are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. 21 However, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied in a case under appeal. 22 Additionally, an appeal in a criminal case opens the whole case for review on all questions including those not raised by the parties. 23
The appellate court's affirmance of the trial court's ruling that Arcilla is guilty of the crime penalized under Section 11, 24 Article II of R.A. No. 9165 seems to fly in the face of the principles governing the resolution of cases involving said crimes as enunciated in well-established jurisprudence, to wit: 25
To secure a conviction for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and its consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. What is important is that the sale transaction of drugs actually took place and that the object of the transaction is properly presented as evidence in court and is shown to be the same drugs seized from the accused.
On the other hand, for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following elements must be established: '[1] the accused was in possession of dangerous drugs; [2] such possession was not authorized by law; and [3] the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of dangerous drugs.'
In cases of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the dangerous drug seized from the accused constitutes the corpusdelicti of the offense. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. "The chain of custody rule performs this function as it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed."26 (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted)
Chain of custody is defined under Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drug Board (DDB) Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, to wit:
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 used in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]
Clearly, the apprehending team is required to "document the chain of custody each time a specimen is handled, transferred or presented in court until its disposal, and every individual in the chain of custody shall be identified following the laboratory control and chain of custody form." 27
After a review of the records of this case, this Court finds that the appellate court erred in affirming the ruling of the trial court as it was revealed that the prosecution failed to establish as unbroken chain of custody of the confiscated items. The buy-bust team not only failed in documenting the chain of custody of the seized items from Arcilla and Fabian, they did not comply with the provisions of Section 21, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 which states that:
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 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; (Emphasis Ours)
This is further elucidated in its Implementing Rules and Regulations, which state:
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. — x x x
(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 evidentiary value of the seized items are properly prescribed by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items[.] (Emphasis supplied)
The prosecution's narration of events reveals that the police officers did not to conform with the chain of custody. This is in contravention to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, which is mandatory in nature, as reflected in the presence of the word "shall" in the provision. 28
Records show that the buy-bust team failed to conduct an inventory of the seized items. Also, the markings written on the plastic sachets and the photographs taken of the same were all done without the required presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official.
It has been settled that the presence of the persons who should witness the post-operation procedures is necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity. The insulating presence of such witnesses would have preserved an unbroken chain of custody. We have noted in several cases that a buy-bust operation is susceptible to abuse, and the only way to prevent this is to ensure that the procedural safeguards provided by the law are strictly observed. In the present case, not only have the prescribed procedures not been followed, but also (and more importantly) the lapses not justifiably explained. 29
It was also noted that PO2 Alejo testified that he handed the plastic sachets seized from Arcilla to Inspector Garcia to avoid confusion with those seized from Fabian, as the markings on the said sachets were done at the police station. However, Inspector Garcia was never presented before the trial court to testify as to how he handled the same from the place where it was handed to him until he turned over the same to the person who marked them.
The prosecution has the burden to show "every link in the chain, from the moment the dangerous drug was seized from the accused until the time it is offered in court as evidence." 30 "[E]very person who touched the item must describe has or her receipt thereof, what transpired while the same was in his or her possession, and its condition when delivered to the next link. Evidently, here, there was failure to show every link of the chain of custody." 31 Failure to strictly comply with the rule, however, does not ipso facto invalidate or render void the seizure and custody over the items as long as the prosecution is able to show that "(a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved." 32
Undeniably, however, no justifiable ground could be found in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses that would excuse non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21, Article II, R.A. No. 9165.
Moreover the miniscule quantity of confiscated illicit drugs heightens the importance of a more stringent conformity to Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 33 The inevitable consequences of failure to observe this unflagging strictness and rigor in the law is emphasized in the case of People v. Ismael, 34 thus — "there was already a significant break such that there can be no assurance against switching, planting, or contamination." The Court has previously held that, "failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence warranting an acquittal on reasonable doubt.'' 35
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed October 14, 2015 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 05787, which affirmed the August 31, 2012 Decision of Branch 67 of the Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal in Criminal Case No. 10-264 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Paul Ryan Arcilla is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause. Let a copy of this Resolution be FURNISHED to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court, within five days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be FURNISHED to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency FOR THEIR INFORMATION.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 9-18.
2.Id. at 19-32; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes (now a Retired Member of this Court) and Stephen C. Cruz, concurring.
3.Id. at 52-53.
4.Id. at 53.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 54.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id. at 54-55.
19.Id. at 23-24.
20.Id. at 31.
21. See People v. Villarta, 828 Phil. 259, 275, (2018).
22.Id.
23.Id.
24.Section 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxx xxx xxx
Otherwise, if the quantity involved is less than the foregoing quantities, the penalties shall be graduated as follows:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years and a fine ranging from Three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00) to Four hundred thousand pesos (P400,000.00), if the quantities of dangerous drugs are less than five (5) grams of opium, morphine, heroin, cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride, marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil, methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu," or other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, MDMA or "ecstasy," PMA, TMA, LSD, GHB, and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives, without having any therapeutic value or if the quantity possessed is far beyond therapeutic requirements; or less than three hundred (300) grams of marijuana.
25.People v. Villarta, supra at 276-277.
26.Id. at 277-278.
27.People v. Alvarado, 830 Phil. 785, 799-800 (2018).
28.People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 372 (2017).
29.People v. Alvarado, supra note 27 at 803.
30.People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626, 634 (2016).
31.People v. Tumangong, G.R. No. 227015, November 26, 2018, 887 SCRA 38, 49.
32.People v. Geronimo, 817 Phil. 1163, 1174 (2017).
33.People v. Sagana, supra note 28 at 377-378.
34.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 (2017).
35.Id. at 34-35.