FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240556. July 14, 2021.]
JAIME BACON y DELA CRUZ A.K.A. "JIMBOY", petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240556 — JAIME BACON y DELA CRUZ a.k.a. "Jimboy", petitioner, versusPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
After a careful review of the available records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court finds that the Court of Appeals erred in promulgating the Decision 1 dated March 23, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated June 29, 2018 in CA-G.R. CR No. 39647, affirming the conviction of petitioner Jaime Bacon y Dela Cruz a.k.a. "Jimboy" (Bacon) for violation of Sections 11 (3) and 12 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165. 3
In cases involving dangerous drugs or drug paraphernalia, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti — the dangerous drug or drug paraphernalia itself — by establishing an unbroken chain of custody and strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. Any lapses or deviations therefrom must be acknowledged and explained by the prosecution; otherwise, the integrity of the corpus delicti will not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
In this case, the apprehending officers committed serious lapses in procedure when they failed to immediately mark, inventory, and photograph the seized items at the place of seizure. Bacon was first brought to the medical center, then to the barangay hall, where the marking, inventory, and photographing were finally done, in violation of the sequence and procedure under the Revised Philippine National Police Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operations and Investigation. 4 Notably, the barangay hall was not an authorized site for conducting inventory under R.A. No. 9165. 5 Bacon was arrested at his mother's market stall after his mother and sister informed the police that he was using drugs. There did not seem to be any exigent circumstances at the site of arrest and seizure which would have rendered immediate marking, inventory, and photographing dangerous, impossible, or impractical.
Furthermore, the inventory and photographing were not done in the presence of either a member of the National Prosecution Service or the media. While Bacon's arrest was not a planned buy-bust, the absence of the necessary witnesses takes great significance in this case, considering that the requirement of immediately marking, taking inventory of, and photographing of the seized items was not complied with, casting significant doubt on the integrity of the said items at the very first link in the chain of custody.
The prosecution was not able to offer any explanation for these lapses in procedure. In a long line of cases, 6 the Court recognized that these lapses warranted a reversal of the conviction of the accused due to reasonable doubt in the integrity of the corpus delicti.
The rule on chain of custody and compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 are not mere guidelines to be taken lightly. True, Section 21 acknowledges that perfect compliance is not always possible; as in fact, proof beyond reasonable doubt demands moral and not absolute certainty. The law will not fault the prosecution and apprehending officers if, despite earnest efforts to adhere to the law, extraneous factors still prevented perfect compliance therewith. But this is the exception, not the rule. No matter how probable a picture of guilt the prosecution may paint with the evidence at its disposal, if compliance with the law — or, in the alternative, the existence of circumstances pressing enough to have thwarted strict compliance with the law — is NOT proven, neither is it proven that the same evidence was validly, legally, and conscientiously obtained; then, the accused must be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated March 23, 2018 and Resolution dated June 29, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39647 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioner Jaime Bacon y Dela Cruz a.k.a. "Jimboy" is ACQUITTED of the crimes charged on the ground of reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Said Director General is ordered to report to this Court within five (5) working days from receipt of this Resolution the action he has taken. ITAaHc
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 33-46. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring.
2.Id. at 48-49.
3. COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, approved on June 7, 2002.
4. PNPM-D-O-2-14, September 2014. Section 3.7 of the PNP Manual states:
3.7 Inflagrante(sic)Delicto Cases. Are acts committed in violation of RA 9165 subject for warrantless arrest, search, and seizure and classified in this Manual as an unplanned operation with the exception of cases enumerated under planned operation.
xxx xxx xxx
b. The following procedures shall be observed by PNP members or Anti-Illegal Drugs Units, in the enforcement of warrantless arrest under Section 5, Rule 113 and Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court:
1) The apprehending Team shall immediately arrest the person found to be violating inflagrante, (sic) provisions of RA 9165[;]
2) Illegal drugs, CPECs, paraphernalia and equipment, shall be immediately seized and taken into custody by the apprehending Team[;]
3) The Seizing Officer shall thereafter conduct the physical inventory and photograph the evidence in accordance with the provision of Sec. 21 of RA 9165 as amended by RA 10640. (Refer to the Rule on Chain of Custody)[;]
4) The Seizing Officer shall submit the seized or confiscated items to the nearest PDEA Laboratory Service or PNP Crime Laboratory for examination and analysis;
5) The arresting Officer shall bring the arrested suspects to their Office for proper custody, documentation and proper disposition[;]
6) The arrested suspect/s shall be presented to the PNP CL for drug testing and any Government-accredited Hospital for physical/medical examination[; and]
7) The assigned Investigator-on-Case shall collate the results of the examinations, prepare appropriate charges and refer the case to the Prosecutor's Office for inquest proceedings. x x x
5.People of the Philippines v. Jeffrey Fayo y Rubio, G.R. No. 239887, October 2, 2019, pp. 11-12.
6.Rowena Padas y Garcia v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 244327, October 14, 2019; Joseph Villasana y Cabahug v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 209078, September 4, 2019; Limbo v. People, G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019, 907 SCRA 129; Fuentes v. People, G.R. No. 228718, January 7, 2019, 890 SCRA 75; Santos v. People, G.R. No. 232950, August 13, 2018, 877 SCRA 160; Mariñas v. People, G.R. No. 232891, July 23, 2018, 873 SCRA 472.