FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252440. September 14, 2021.]
WINNIE ROSE CABE y LAPORGA, petitioner,vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252440(Winnie Rose Cabe y Laporga v. People of the Philippines). — The conviction of the accused for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug is the subject of this Petition for Review on Certiorari assailing the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated July 24, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR No. 41153.
ANTECEDENTS
Winnie Rose Cabe y Laporga (Winnie) was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) docketed as Criminal Case No. 16-328770, thus:
That or about September 7, 2016, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in her possession and under her custody and control one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with recorded net weight and marking as follows:
"WCL" 9/7/16 1:00 PM with signature containing ZERO POINT ZERO FIVE THREE (0.053) gram of white crystalline substance containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as 'shabu,' a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
Winnie pleaded not guilty. Trial then ensued. 3 The prosecution presented PO2 Alejandro Hernandez (PO2 Hernandez) who testified that on September 7, 2016 at around 1:00 p.m., he was on mobile patrol with PO1 Nephry Labay (PO1 Labay). They saw a commotion along Kahilum II Street, Pandacan, Manila from about ten (10) meters away. A woman was breaking bottles and shouting "Mga putang ina ninyo! Lumabas kayo diyan! Putang ina ninyo! Wala kayong kwentang kapitbahay!" The woman was later identified as Winnie. Thus, PO2 Hernandez and PO1 Labay alighted from their patrol car and approached Winnie who tried to run away. PO2 Hernandez informed Winnie that she committed a breach of peace in violation of Revised Ordinance No. 844 (RO No. 844). On the other hand, PO1 Labay apprised Winnie of her rights. Thereafter, PO2 Hernandez ordered Winnie to empty her pockets to ascertain she did not have any dangerous weapons. Winnie complied and took out the contents of her pocket. However, PO2 Hernandez noticed that Winnie's right hand was fisted and ordered her to unclench it. Winnie opened her hand and the officers saw one heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance suspected to be "shabu." PO2 Hernandez confiscated the sachet and placed it in his empty right front pocket. PO2 Hernandez handcuffed Winnie and made her board the patrol car. They proceeded to the Police Community Precinct (PCP) Labores which was fifteen (15) meters away. 4
PO2 Hernandez asked PO1 Labay to summon a barangay official. PO2 Hernandez opted not to go to the barangay hall as they would pass by several bystanders and Winnie might get hurt. They were unable to secure the presence of representatives from the media and the Department of Justice because they did not have contacts. In PCP Labores, PO2 Hernandez wrote the markings "WCL" 9/7/16 1:00 p.m. Also, PO2 Hernandez signed on a piece of masking tape he placed on the sachet in the presence of Winnie and Barangay Kagawad Enrique Mangayon (Kagawad Mangayon). PO2 Hernandez marked the sachet in the precinct for convenience and security reasons. PO1 Labay then took photos of the sachet. PO2 Hernandez and Kagawad Mangayon signed the Inventory of Seized Properties/Items. Yet, Winnie refused to sign the inventory. Winnie was brought to the hospital for medical examination and later to Police Station No. 10 for investigation. 5 Afterwards, PO2 Hernandez turned over the sachet to the MPD Crime Laboratory Office (MPDCLO) for examination. The forensic chemist PCI Elisa Reyes Arturo (PCI Arturo) received the specimen. The tests yielded positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride. PCI Arturo turned over the specimen and her report to the evidence custodian of the MPDCLO. 6 PO1 Labay corroborated the testimonies of PO2 Hernandez. 7
Winnie denied the accusation and claimed that she was seated on a bench in front of her neighbor's house when two persons wearing civilian clothes approached her. These persons were later identified as PO2 Hernandez and PO1 Labay. Thereafter, PO2 Hernandez told her "Ilabas mo na yun shabu na itinatago mo." Winnie took out the contents of her pocket, particularly her house keys and mobile phone. Winnie dropped her phone and PO2 Hernandez handed it back to her. PO2 Hernandez placed his arms on Winnie's shoulder and told her to go with them to the precinct. Winnie complied so she could tell them that she did not do anything wrong. 8 At PCP Labores, PO2 Hernandez asked Winnie to place the contents of her pockets in a basin. A plastic sachet fell on the floor when Winnie took her phone out of her pocket. Winnie could not tell if the sachet came from her pocket. Winnie did not inspect her phone when PO2 Hernandez returned it to her at the place of arrest. Winnie surmised that there was an interval of about 30 minutes from the time PO2 Hernandez picked up her phone to the time it was returned to her. 9 Lastly, Winnie narrated that she was informed of the charges for violation of Revised Ordinance (RO) No. 844 and Section 11 of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 during the inquest. Winnie was acquitted of violation of RO No. 844 by the Metropolitan Trial Court. Winnie admitted that she did not file a complaint against the officers who supposedly filed false charges against her. There were no other witnesses for the defense as the only witness of the incident was Kagawad Mangayon who already passed away. 10
On November 24, 2017, the RTC found Winnie guilty and ruled that the prosecution established all the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug, 11 to wit:
WHEREFORE, accused WINNIE ROSE CABE [y] LAPORGA @ "WENNIE" is hereby found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of unlawfully possessing 0.053 gram of shabu in Violation of Section 11 (3), Article II of the [RA] No. 9165 and accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum and to pay a fine of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND ([P]300,000.00) PESOS.
The Branch Clerk of Court of this Court is directed to immediately turn over to the Chief of PDEA Crime Laboratory, the subject drug covered by Chemistry Report No. PDEA-1358-16 to be disposed of in strict conformity with the provisions of [RA] 9165 and its implementing rules and regulations on the matter.
SO ORDERED. 12
Aggrieved, Winnie elevated the case to the CA docketed as CA-G.R. CR No. 41153. Winnie argued that the RTC has no jurisdiction to try the case because only the Chief of the Inquest Division approved the information and not the City Prosecutor. Winnie also claimed that she was unlawfully arrested without a warrant. Moreover, the prosecution failed to prove the integrity and identity of the confiscated drug. 13 On July 24, 2019, the CA denied the appeal and affirmed the RTC's findings. The CA explained that the RTC has jurisdiction over the criminal case and that Winnie was caught in flagrante delicto in possession of the "shabu" during her lawful arrest for violation of RO No. 844. The CA likewise held that the prosecution established that the "shabu" seized from Winnie was accounted for from the time of confiscation until it was presented in court, 14viz.:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing considered, the appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed RTC Decision dated November 24, 2017 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 15
Winnie sought reconsideration but was denied. 16 Hence, this petition. Winnie maintains that she must be acquitted because of the defective information, her unlawful warrantless arrest, and the failure of the prosecution to prove the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drug and the chain of custody of the confiscated item.
RULING
We acquit. DETACa
Prefatorily, it is now settled that the authority of an officer filing the information has no relation to the trial court's power to take cognizance of a criminal case. The Court has abandoned the rule that for information to be valid, it must possess the prior written authority or approval of the provincial or city fiscal or chief state prosecutor, as the case may be. 17 In Gomez v. People, 18 the Court clarified that the prevailing case law which considered the absence of authority on the part of the officer who filed the information to be a jurisdictional defect should be vacated as the lack of authority of the prosecutor to file information does not go into the jurisdiction of the court over the subject matter. The jurisdiction of the court over a specific crime is vested by law. It is determined by allegations in the complaint or information, i.e., the ultimate facts constituting the elements of the crime charged. The authority of the officer in filing information has nothing to do with the ultimate facts which describe the charges against the accused. The law conferring a court with jurisdiction over a particular offense does not cease to operate in cases where there is a lack of authority on the part of the officer or handling prosecutor filing information. Verily, it is undisputed that the RTC has jurisdiction over the charge of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug. Thus, there is no question that the RTC has the power to try the case against Winnie.
Similarly, the warrantless arrest of Winnie was lawful. As a rule, the procurement of a warrant is required for there to be a lawful arrest subject to recognized exceptions. One such instance is when the person to be arrested has executed an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime in the presence of the arresting officer. 19 The records show that Winnie was caught in flagrante delicto breaking bottles and shouting invectives in the direction of her neighbor's house. PO2 Hernandez asked Winnie to empty her pockets after he arrested her for violation of RO No. 844 and among the contents thereof was a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. At any rate, it is already too late for Winnie to question the legality of her arrest in view of her arraignment and active participation at the trial. 20 Any supposed defect in her arrest was deemed waived. 21
Anent the conviction for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drug, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. 22 Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 23 The prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 24 Here, the records reveal a broken chain of custody.
Foremost, the presence of the insulating witnesses during the inventory and photograph of the seized item is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drug. 25 The absence of the required witnesses puts serious doubt as to the integrity of the first link. 26 In People v. Lim, 27 the Court explained that in case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons for their absence but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance, thus:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umpiang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, 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. (Emphases in the original.)
Notably, the offense was allegedly committed on September 7, 2016. Hence, the applicable law is RA No. 9165, as amended by RA No. 10640, which now mandated that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized item must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. In this case, only a barangay official signed the inventory of evidence. Admittedly, the police officers did not secure the presence of a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media because they did not have contacts. Yet, the Court had ruled that the lack of contact numbers of the required insulating witnesses is a flimsy excuse that reflects the arresting officers' nonchalant attitude toward their duty to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. 28 Similarly, the parties stipulated that the forensic chemist PCI Arturo turned over the specimen to the evidence custodian of MPDCLO for safekeeping and that she retrieved the same upon receipt of the subpoena. 29 However, the evidence custodian was not named by PCI Arturo and presented as a witness to testify on how he or she safeguarded the specimen from the time it was handed to him or her until it was eventually presented in court as evidence. Taken together, the operatives failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved. The police officers did not describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the seized item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. aDSIHc
Lastly, it must be stressed that while the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot be regarded as binding truth. 30 Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. 31 We reiterate that the provisions of Section 21 of RA No. 9165 embody the constitutional aim to prevent the imprisonment of an innocent man. The Court cannot tolerate the lax approach of law enforcers in handling the very corpus delicti of the crime. Hence, the accused-appellant must be acquitted of the charge against her given the prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated July 24, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR No. 41153 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Winnie Rose Cabe y Laporga is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 16-328770, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless she is being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City for immediate implementation. The Superintendent is directed to report to the Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
The elevation of the complete records of CA-G.R. CR No. 41153 by the Court of Appeals pursuant to the Resolution dated April 28, 2021 is DISPENSED WITH.
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. 30-52. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin.
2.Id. at 79.
3.Id. at 59.
4.Id. at 34-35; Id. at 82.
5.Id. at 35-36; Id. at 82-83.
6.Id. at 80-81; Id. at 83.
7.Id. at 83.
8.Id. at 84.
9.Id. at 37.
10.Id. at 84-85.
11.Id. at 85-88.
12.Id. at 88.
13.Id. at 62.
14.Id. at 39-51.
15.Id. at 51.
16.Id. at 54-55. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Japar B. Dimaampao and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin.
17.Philippine National Bank v. Oaminal, G.R. No. 219325, February 17, 2021.
18. G.R. No. 216824, November 10, 2020.
19.Dionosio v. People, G.R. No. 249880 (Notice), February 17, 2021.
20.People v. Hernandez, 347 Phil. 56, 74-75 (1997); and People v. Mahusay, 346 Phil. 762, 769 (1997).
21.Dolera v. People, 614 Phil. 655, 655-666 (2009); citing People v. Timon, 346 Phil. 572, 593 (1997) and People v. Nazareno, 329 Phil. 16, 22 (1996).
22.People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 890 (2009).
23.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017); People v. Ordinario, G.R. No. 251436 (Notice), March 1, 2021; and People v. Catipan, G.R. No. 252691 (Notice), June 14, 2021.
24.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628 (2018); and People v. Ferma, Jr., G.R. No. 249259 (Notice), January 13, 2021.
25.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; and People v. Maralit, 838 Phil. 191, 226 (2018).
26.People v. Crisostomo, G.R. No. 252488 (Notice), May 12, 2021; and People v. Escaran, G.R. No. 212170, June 19, 2019.
27. 839 Phil. 598 (2018).
28.People v. Ferma, G.R. No. 249259 (Notice), January 13, 2021.
29.Id. at 80-81.
30.People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002); and Lopez v. People, 576 Phil. 576-593 (2008).
31.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).