THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244759. May 5, 2021.]
RAYMOND BAETIONG y SANTOS @ BOTCHOK and IAN JAMES CUNANAN y GAMOL @ RJ, petitioners,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated May 5, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244759 (Raymond Baetiong y Santos @ Botchok and Ian James Cunanan y Gamol @ RJ v. People of the Philippines). — The Court resolves to NOTE the transmittal letter dated October 29, 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA), Manila, elevating to this Court the CA rollo and original records of this case.
This appeal by Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assails the Decision 2 dated August 16, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated January 31, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 39564 affirming the conviction of Raymond Baetiong y Santos @ Botchok (Baetiong) and Ian James Cunanan y Gamol @ RJ (Cunanan; collectively, petitioners) for violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 involving the alleged possession of methamphetamine hydrochloride, also known as "shabu," a dangerous drug.
The Proceedings Before the Trial Court
The Charges
Petitioners were separately charged with violation of RA 9165. 4
The Information filed against Baetiong reads:
Crim. Case No. 497-V-16
That on or about April 19, 2016 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, respectively marked as RSB-1 and RSB-2 containing 0.10 gram and 0.07 gram of white crystalline substance, all found to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), knowing it to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
On the other hand, the Information filed against Cunanan reads:
That on or about April 19, 2016 in Valenzuela City and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the abovenamed accused, without any authority of law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in his possession and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets. respectively marked as IJC-1 and IJC-2 containing 0.08 gram and 0.04 gram of white crystalline substance, all found to be Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu), knowing it to be a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
On arraignment, petitioners pleaded not guilty to the offense charged. Joint trial on the merits ensued. 7
During the trial, Police Officer 1 Michael B. Luna (PO1 Luna), Police Officer I Victor P. Ilustrisimo (PO1 Ilustrisimo), Police Officer III Fortunato Candido (PO3 Candido), and Police Chief Inspector Sandra Go (PCI Go) testified for the prosecution. On the other hand, petitioners testified for the defense.
Version of the Prosecution
The version of the prosecution, as summarized by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) and adopted by the CA, is as follows:
5. At 8:20 P.M. of April 19, 2016, Police Officer 1 (PO1) Michael Luna and PO1 Victor Ilustrisimo were conducting a patrol along Road 2, San Miguel Heights, Marulas, Valenzuela City on board their patrol car.
6. Suddenly, they saw two (2) men running towards an alley, with people chasing them shouting: "holdaper! holdaper!" They asked a woman and confirmed that the men were involved in a robbery. They proceeded to the alley and caught the men. PO1 Luna and Ilustrisimo introduced themselves as police officers and instructed the men to lie down and put their hands on their heads.
7. After handcuffing and while frisking one of the suspects, later identified as appellant Baetiong, PO1 Ilustrisimo recovered from him a .38 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver without a serial number. He also recovered two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from a sling pouch hanging from appellant Baetiong's neck.
8. On the other hand, PO1 Luna proceeded to handcuff and frisk appellant Baetiong's companion, later identified as appellant Cunanan. From him, PO1 Luna recovered one (1) ice pick tucked in his waist, and two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from the pocket of his pants.
9. While on the scene, a certain Elmer Padios approached the policemen and pointed to appellants as the persons who robbed him of his cellphone. Elmer stated that they were able to chase appellants after they fell off the motorcycle they used for the robbery.
10. After the appellants were arrested, they were brought to the precinct in Barangay Marulas, where the items were then turned over to the investigator, Police Officer 3 (PO3) Fortunato Candido. They conducted an inventory and took photographs of the items and appellants, witnessed by Barangay Ex-O Wilfredo Silverio The plastic sachets seized from the appellant Cunanan were marked as "IJC-1" and IJC2," while those recovered from appellant Baetiong were marked as "RSB-1" and "RSB-2," both bearing dates and signatures of the arresting officers. PO3 Candido then prepared the Chain of Custody Form and the Requests for Laboratory Examination and Drug Tests.
11. PO3 Candido brought the marked plastic sachets recovered from the appellants to the Crime Laboratory in Camp Crame for examination, where they were turned over to and received by PCI Sandra Go. Later, the sachets yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride, or shabu, a dangerous drug. 8
Version of the Defense
Petitioners interposed denial. They claimed that on April 19, 2016 at 8:00 in the evening, they were on Road-2 San Miguel, Valenzuela City. 9 They snatched an item from a certain victim triggering the latter to grab Cunanan causing their motorcycle to fall. They tried to run away but police officers chased them and they were consequently arrested. 10
They likewise denied having in their possession any weapon and drug paraphernalia at the time they were arrested. 11
The Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
By Joint Decision 12 dated January 30, 2017, the trial court rendered a verdict of conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding accused RAYMOND BAETIONG y SANTOS @ BOTCHOK AND IAN JAMES CUNANAN y GAMOL @ RJ GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of [RA] 9165 and, this Court sentences them to suffer imprisonment of 12 years and [One (1)] day to [twenty (20)] years, (sic) imprisonment, (sic) each and a FINE of P300,000.00 (sic) each.
Pursuant to Article 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, their preventive imprisonment shall be credited in full to their favor.
The subject sachets of shabu are hereby ordered confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government to be dealt with in accordance with law.
SO ORDERED. 13
The trial court gave more credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses over petitioners' mere denial and claim of frame up or planting of evidence. It found the evidence of the prosecution overwhelming enough to overcome any doubt as to petitioners' criminal culpability. 14
The Proceedings Before the CA
Petitioners argued that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs. The apprehending officers failed to advance valid justifications for their several deviations from the requirements of RA 9165, as amended. The apprehending officers failed to mark, inventory, and photograph the alleged seized items immediately at the place of arrest. None of the two required witnesses were present during the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items at the police station. Moreover, the apprehending officers likewise failed to establish the safeguards they took while in possession of the seized items. There was no showing that the seized items were placed in a suitable evidence bag, or an appropriate container. Lastly, it took five (5) hours before the seized items were officially turned over to PO3 Candido by PO1 Luna and PO1 Ilustrisimo. 15
On the other hand, the OSG defended the verdict of conviction. It countered that all the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs were present. Too, while the police officers were unable to strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), it did not necessarily render the seized items inadmissible as evidence of petitioners' guilt. The OSG claimed substantial compliance with the requirements of the law. 16
The Ruling of the CA
By Decision 17 dated August 16, 2018, the CA affirmed petitioners' conviction, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Joint Decision dated 30 January 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela City, Branch 270 in Criminal Cases (sic) Nos. 497-V-16 and 498-V-16 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 18
The CA found that there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule. It gave credence to the apprehending officers' testimonies and evidence over petitioners' uncorroborated denial. It ruled that strict compliance with the witness requirement is not mandated since the law itself provides for a saving clause. The absence of a representative from the media or from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) during the conduct of the inventory was not fatal to the prosecution's case since the investigating officer was shown to have exerted some effort to secure the presence of a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ) by calling the Prosecution's Office, albeit, no one answered. 19
It likewise found the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items at the police precinct acceptable, noting that under the law, the apprehending officers have the option to mark, inventory, and photograph the seized items immediately at the place where the drugs were seized, or at the nearest police station, or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer, whichever is the most practical or suitable for the purpose. 20
Lastly, it held that inconsistencies between the sworn statement and direct testimony given in open court do not necessarily discredit a witness. 21
Petitioners moved for reconsideration but the same was denied by the CA through its Resolution 22 dated January 31, 2019.
The Present Petition
Petitioners now come before this Court via Petition for Review under Rule 45 and pray anew for their acquittal.
Issue
Did the CA err in affirming the trial court's verdict of conviction despite the attendant procedural deficiencies in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs?
Our Ruling
The Petition is meritorious.
Basic in this jurisdiction is the doctrine that in criminal cases, an appeal throws the whole case wide open for review. Issues, whether raised or not by the parties, may be resolved by the appellate court. The Court is duly-bound to look into the validity of the factual and legal basis relied upon by the two (2) courts below in convicting petitioners in this case. 23
Petitioners are charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs allegedly committed on April 19, 2016. The governing law, therefore, is RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640 24 in 2014.
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 25
Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.: 26
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 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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification.
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: 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. 27
This is the chain of custody rule which guards against tampering, alteration, or substitution of the seized illegal drugs. 28
A judicious review of the records of the case reveals several breaches in the chain of custody of the seized illegal drugs.
First link
No substantial compliance with thetwo-witness rule.
The marking, inventory and photography of the seized illegal drug are required by law to be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, a representative from the media AND the DOJ, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the NPS OR the media. 29 Otherwise stated, prior to the amendment of RA 9165, three witnesses are required and after its amendment by RA 10640, the required number of witnesses was reduced from three to only two.
The illegal possession of dangerous drugs separately charged against petitioners was allegedly committed on April 19, 2016, or after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 in 2014. Thus, the two-witness rule applies in this case.
The presence of the witnesses required by Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended, is precisely to protect and guard against the pernicious practice of policemen in planting evidence. 30
Here, the absence of the required witnesses during the arrest was justified by the circumstance that the apprehending officers effected a warrantless arrest against petitioners, and not a result of a buy-bust operation. Petitioners had just committed a crime that did not involve illegal drugs. Thus, the apprehending officers did not have any opportunity at all to secure the presence of the required witnesses during the arrest.
However, while the absence of the required witnesses during the arrest and seizure was justified by the circumstance, the continuous or subsequent absence of the witnesses during the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items was unjustified.
Apprehending officer PO1 Ilustrisimo testified:
Atty. Pangilinan:
xxx xxx xxx
Q And (sic) you apprehended both accused and you brought them to the precinct?
A Yes, Sir.
Q And then who were present inside the police station?
A Our Desk Officer, Sir.
Q Is that PO3 Candido?
A No, Sir, our Supervisor, SPO3 Barnedo.
Q Was there a representative from the Department of Justice when you conducted the inventory of the seized article?
A None, Sir.
Q Do you know of the reason why you did not invite any representative from the DOJ?
A I don't know, Sir that is the usual practice of the investigator.
xxx xxx xxx
Court:
Q Who is the investigator?
A PO3 Candido, Your Honor.
Q So normally, PO3 Candido would not call any representative from DOJ, is that what you're trying to tell us?
A Not only PO3 Candido, Your Honor, whoever is the investigator on (sic) case, they would just call for the representative of the Barangay, no one else.
Q So in this particular case, you are attesting that the investigator, (sic) not even lift a finger to invite or to call any DOJ representative?
A Yes, Your Honor.
Atty. Pangilinan (sic):
May I proceed, Your Honor.
The Court:
Proceed
Atty. Pangilinan:
xxx xxx xxx
Q How about any representative from the media, was there any representative from the media at that (sic) time the confiscated shabu was inventoried physically?
A None, Sir.
Court:
Q Why, Police Officer Candido did not also exert effort?
A Yes, Your Honor.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And you witnessed him not exerting any effort to contract these DOJ representative, (sic) Barangay representative?
A The Barangay representative was there.
Q Yun lang tinawag niya?
A Yun lang po yung Nakita ko? (sic)
Q DOJ, he did not?
A Hindi na po kami sinabihan.
Q Media, he did not?
A We were not instructed, Your Honor. 31 (Emphasis supplied)
On the other hand, investigating officer PO3 Candido testified:
Pros. Fajardo:
Q On April 19, 2016, where were you? Did you report for work on that day?
A I was at home at that time when I received a phone call from Major Ruba, Sir.
Q Can you tell us why did Major Ruba call you at that time while you were in your house?
A He designated me to conduct an investigation regarding the arrest effected by the Police Officers of PCP-3 involving illegal drugs, Sir.
Q Who are these persons who arrested the suspects?
A They are PO1 Luna and PO1 Illustrisimo (sic) Sir.
Q What time did you arrive in the office to conduct the said investigation?
A Around 11:30 o'clock in the evening, Sir.
Q So you arrived at the PCP-3 at around 11:00 p.m.?
A No Sir, they were at the Investigation Unit because the persons that they arrested were also involved in Robbery/Holdup, Sir.
Q So where is that Investigation Unit?
A At the Valenzuela Police Station, Sir.
Q At the main Police Station in Valenzuela?
A Yes, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q Upon arriving at PCP-3, can you tell what did you do?
A Upon arriving there, we called for an elected (sic) official to witness the conduct of the inventory, Sir.
Q How about media man or DOJ personnel?
A We no longer call (sic) any media representative and when we tried to call here at the Prosecutor's Office, no one was taking the call, Sir.32 (Emphases supplied)
The respective testimonies of PO1 Ilustrisimo and PO3 Candido appears to be conflicting with respect to PO3 Candido's effort to secure the presence of a DOJ or NPS representative to witness the marking, inventory and photography of the seized items. PO1 Ilustrisimo testified that PO3 Candido did not exert any effort to secure the presence of any representative from either the DOJ or the media. On the contrary, PO3 Candido claimed that they tried to call for a representative from the Prosecutor's Office but no one took the call.
The conflicting testimonies of the two police officers already rendered doubtful the claim that efforts were made to call a representative from the DOJ or NPS. Moreover, even if the Court is to presume that the police officers did try to call for a representative from the DOJ or NPS, albeit no one answered, the circumstances still negate substantial compliance with the two-witness rule, given that the police officers failed to call for a representative from the media after the unsuccessful attempt to contact a DOJ or NPS representative.
The two-witness rule requires the presence of an elected public official and a representative from the NPS or the media. After the failed attempt to contact a representative from the DOJ or NPS, the police officers did not try to contact any media representative, as an alternative to the DOJ or NPS representative, without any excuse or justification for such failure.
In People v. Crispo, 33 the Court emphasized that police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their non-compliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable.
Here, the apprehending officers and the investigating officer did not only fail to exert effort to faithfully comply with the two-witness rule, they likewise failed to offer any valid justification for such failure, inevitably casting serious doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items in this early stage of the chain of custody.
Apprehending/seizing officers deviated.
RA 9165, as amended, and its IRR require that marking, physical inventory and photography of the seized items be made immediately after seizure and confiscation, thus, at the place of arrest, or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. 31 However, it has been clarified that while the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized illegal drugs are allowed by law to be done at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team other than the place of arrest, the apprehending officers are not at liberty to pick just any of said places as they please. Otherwise stated, the enumerated places are not given by law as equal options for the police officers. The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place or apprehension. It is only when the same is not practicable that the IRR of RA 9165, as amended, allows the marking, inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. 35
Here, PO1 Ilustrisimo, PO1 Luna, and PO3 Candido all admitted that the marking, inventory, and photography of the seized items were made at the police precinct instead of the place of arrest, but offered no justification for such deviation. More, they did not even acknowledge this deviation.
In fine, the first link here has been breached, thus, inherently weak.
SecondLink
No sufficient safeguards werewill be made on the seized items as itremained on top of a table while.
The prosecution has established that it was 8:20 in the evening of April 19, 2016 when PO1 Luna and PO1 Ilustrisimo saw petitioners running towards an alley while people around were shouting "Holdaper! Holdaper!" They gave chase and eventually caught and arrested petitioners. They frisked and recovered from them a firearm, an ice pick and a total of four (4) plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance.
PO1 Luna testified that after the arrest and seizure, they brought the petitioners and the seized items to the police precinct in Barangay Marulas. It only took them five (5) minutes of travel time from the place of arrest to reach the police precinct. There, PO1 Luna and PO1 Ilustrisimo simultaneously placed the items they had respectively seized from petitioners on top of the desk officer's table who was present at that time. Thereafter, they waited for the police investigator, PO3 Candido, to arrive.
Investigating officer PO3 Candido, however, testified that at around 11:30 in the evening of April 19, 2016, he first went to the Station Investigation Unit of the Valenzuela City Police Station where the apprehending officers were then present. He claimed that the apprehending officers brought the petitioners to the Station Investigation Unit because petitioners were likewise involved in another crime — robbery. When he arrived at the Station Investigation Unit, the apprehending officers had already processed the documents needed for the robbery case. Thereafter, they all proceeded to the Police Community Precinct 3 (PCP 3) for the conduct of the inventory of the seized items. Notably, however, in the Chain of Custody Form prepared in relation to the handling of the seized illegal drugs, it appears that the seized illegal drugs were turned over by PO1 Luna and PO1 Ilustrisimo to PO3 Candido only at 1:40 in the morning of the following day, or on April 20, 2016.
The Court found glaring disparities in the testimonies of the arresting officer, PO1 Luna, and the investigating officer, PO3 Candido, that put doubt in the identity of the illegal drug allegedly seized from petitioners. PO1 Luna claimed that after they arrested the petitioners, they brought them and the seized items to the precinct. He claimed that they placed the seized items on top of the table of the desk officer and waited for PO3 Candido to arrive. PO3 Candido, however, claimed that he first went to the Station Investigation Unit of the Valenzuela City Police Station because PO1 Luna and PO1 Ilustrisimo were there, processing the documents in relation to another crime committed by petitioners. When he arrived at the Station Investigation Unit, the documents needed were already processed, thus, they all proceeded to PCP 3.
The Court is unsure when exactly the apprehending officers placed the seized items on top of the desk officer's table. The circumstances surrounding the event of placing the seized items on top of the table was left open to speculations. It could be that the apprehending officers first went to PCP 3, placed the seized plastic sachets on top of the table, and thereafter brought the petitioners to the Station Investigation Unit of the Valenzuela City Police Station and then returned to PCP 3 for the conduct of inventory. Or it could be that the apprehending officers first went to the Station Investigation Unit and subsequently went to PCP 3 and then placed the seized plastic sachets on top of the table of the desk officer and waited for PO3 Candido to arrive.
With the uncertainty of when the apprehending officers actually placed the seized plastic sachets on top of the table, it has also inevitably become uncertain whether the four (4) plastic sachets containing illegal drugs that passed into the custody of PO3 Candido and eventually presented in court are the same items seized from petitioners. Otherwise stated, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs were further put into question in this stage of the chain of custody.
Even assuming that the officers went straight to PCP 3, placed the seized items on top of the table, and waited for PO3 Candido for the conduct of inventory, the officers still failed to account for the safeguards undertaken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs. The arrest was made not long after 8:20 in the evening of April 19, 2016 and it only took the apprehending officers five (5) minutes to reach PCP 3 from the place of arrest. Notably, according to the Chain of Custody Form relevant to this case, the seized illegal drugs were turned over to PO3 Candido at 1:40 in the morning of the following day, or April 20, 2016. The seized illegal drugs seemed to have remained on top of the table for almost five (5) hours before the same were finally turned over to PO3 Candido. The only safeguard accounted for by PO1 Luna was that "I was watching over them at that time when I presented the same to the investigator." There was no mention who were inside the precinct at the time — whether crowded or with civilians. To the Court's mind, the safeguard undertaken by the apprehending officer during the interim was insufficient to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug. During the five (5) hours that the seized illegal drugs remained on top of the table under unexplained circumstances, the seized illegal drugs had been laid open to switching and even tampering. The proper accounting of these circumstances is necessary to dismiss any doubt that switching and tampering of the plastic sachets occurred at this stage. The apprehending officers' failure to account for such circumstances all the more made it uncertain whether the illegal drugs that came into the custody of PO3 is the same illegal drugs that were seized from petitioners.
In fine, the second link here was likewise breached.
Fourth Link
Forensic chemist failed to testify onanalysis of its chemical composition.
As a rule, the police chemist who examines a seized substance should ordinarily testify that he received the seized article as marked, properly sealed and intact; that he resealed it after examination of the content; and that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. In case the parties stipulate to dispense with the attendance of the police chemist, they should stipulate that the latter would have testified that he took the precautionary steps mentioned. 36
Here, the parties, in lieu of the testimony of forensic chemist PCI Go, stipulated (1) on the existence of the Chemistry Reports in relation to the examination of the seized illegal drugs; (2) that PCI Go received from PO3 Candido the four (4) marked plastic sachets; and (3) that PCI Go conducted an examination/analysis on the said four (4) plastic sachets of illegal drugs and rendered her Report thereafter. Unfortunately, the parties failed to stipulate on the other precautionary steps undertaken which PCI Go would need to testify on, had she been presented in court.
Moreover, there was likewise no testimony or stipulation on the method used by PCI Go in determining the chemical composition of the seized illegal drugs which the Court has previously held that forensic chemists must identify in illegal drugs cases. 37
We note that the defense did not have any opportunity to cross-examine PCI Go since the latter was never presented in court to testify. Thus, the prosecution cannot fault the defense for not raising the lack of testimony or stipulation on the missing required facts during the trial.
In sum, the fourth link here is just as weak and broken as the first two.
Breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21 committed by the police officers, left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, as in this case, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. 38
The presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties in favor of the police officers will not save the prosecution's case, given the foregoing procedural lapses. The presumption stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance, the presumption of regularity will never be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right of an accused. 39
It is well-settled that an accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The burden lies with the prosecution to overcome this presumption of innocence by presenting proof beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must rest on its own merits and must not rely on the weakness of the defense. If the prosecution fails to meet the required evidence, the defense does not even need to present evidence in its own behalf; the presumption prevails and the accused should be acquitted. 40
Considering that the prosecution failed to prove petitioners' guilt beyond reasonable doubt, their acquittal is thus perforce in order.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 16, 2018 and the Resolution dated January 31, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39564 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, petitioners Raymond Baetiong y Santos @ Botchok and Ian James Cunanan y Gamol @ RJ are ACQUITTED of the offense charged.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) cause the immediate release of Raymond Baetiong y Santos @ Botchok and Ian James Cunanan y Gamol @ RJ, unless they are being held in custody for any other lawful reason; and (b) inform the Court of the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. Copies of this Resolution 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.
Let entry of judgment be issued.
SO ORDERED." (Inting, J., no part; Carandang, J., additional member per Raffle dated January 6, 2020).
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 12-44.
2.Id. at 46-60; penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a Member of the Court), with Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of the Court), concurring.
3.Id. at 62-63.
4.Id. at 47.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 91.
8.Id. at 47-49.
9.TSN, September 26, 2016, p. 3.
10.Rollo, pp. 49-50.
11. TSN, September 26, 2016, p. 4.
12.Rollo, pp. 90-108; penned by Presiding Judge Evangeline M. Francisco.
13.Id. at 108.
14.Id.
15.Id. at 20-39.
16.Id. at 164-171.
17.Id. at 46-60.
18.Id. at 59.
19.Id. at 55.
20.Id. at 56-57.
21.Id. at 58.
22.Id. at 62-63.
23. See Gonzaludo v. People, 517 Phil. 110 (2006).
24. 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," Approved on July 15, 2014.
25.People v. Nazareno, G.R. No. 231875, July 29, 2019.
26.People v. Leaño, G.R. No. 246461, July 28, 2020.
27.Id.
28. See People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.
29. See Matabilas v. People, G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019; see also People v. Tomawis, 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
30. See People v. Sood, 832 Phil. 850 (2018).
31. TSN, July 18, 2016, pp. 18-21.
32. TSN, August 9, 2016, pp. 3-5.
33. 828 Phil. 416 (2018).
34. See People v. Musor, G.R. No. 231843, November 7, 2018.
35.Id.
36.People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).
37.People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
38. See People v. Cabezudo, G.R. No. 232357, November 28, 2018.
39.People v. Diputado, 813 Phil. 160 (2017).
40.Id.