FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251699. September 29, 2021.]
NICANOR CARAG, JR. y MACABABBAD, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 29, 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251699 (Nicanor Carag, Jr. y Macababbad v. People of the Philippines). — Assailed in this Petition for Review on Certiorari1 is the Court of Appeals' (CA) July 15, 2019 Decision 2 and January 16, 2020 Resolution 3 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10866, which affirmed the conviction of Nicanor Carag, Jr. y Macababbad (Nicanor) for Violation of Section 5, 4 Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. 5
We acquit.
In crimes involving dangerous drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offenses and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. 6 Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 7 Indeed, 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. 8 Here, the records reveal a broken chain of custody.
The first link in the chain of custody is the marking of dangerous drugs, which is indispensable in preserving their integrity and evidentiary value. The marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs from other materials and forestalls switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. The succeeding handlers of the drugs will also use the marking as reference. 9 In this case, the prosecution did not establish that the marking of the seized item was conducted immediately after confiscation and Nicanor's arrest. SPO4 Valerton Solito (SPO4 Solito) testified that the marking was done more than two (2) hours after the buy bust transaction because the team had to wait for the required witnesses to arrive. Notably, the prosecution witnesses failed to account for the time gap, as well as, the custody of the seized item during the interim. The pertinent portion of SPO4 Solito's testimony is quoted as follows:
Q: [F]rom that point in time up to the time you arrived at the place, how many hours [elapsed] after you left the premises?
A: About 3:00 something [like] that, sir.
Q: And you went to the premises at 12:45?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: You mean to say you waited for more than two (2) hours? You stayed thereat for more than 2 hours?
A: After the transaction was already consummated and during the conduct of inventory we first waited for the barangay kagawad, the media representative and DOJ representative to come so it took time for them to come start the inventory, sir.
Q: That was more than two (2) hours?
A: Yes, sir. 10
The second link in the chain of custody requires the prosecution to establish the movement and custody of the seized drug, particularly, its turnover by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer, who shall conduct the proper investigation and shall prepare the necessary documents for the transfer of the evidence to the police crime laboratory for testing. 11 Further, the third link in the chain of custody requires that the movement from the investigating officer to the forensic chemist be established. Here, there are marked irregularities in the second and third links of the chain of custody. Firstly, SPO4 Solito, the poseur-buyer, did not turn over the seized drug to the investigator officer but merely showed it to him, thus: TCAScE
Q: Of course, you must have turn[ed] over to the investigator the alleged items for purposes of recording, is that correct?
A: We did not turn over, sir. We just present[ed] to the investigator on case the confiscated item, sir.
Q: Do you agree with me that in the excerpt of the police blotter no markings were indicated in the alleged items?
A: Because we did not turn over and we just present[ed] to the investigator the confiscated items that we took, sir.
Q: Of course, those items should be reflected in the police blotter.
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Do you confirm that in the same police blotter no marking were indicated because what was inscribed merely would be the plastic sachet, the money and so on and so forth, is that correct?
A: Upon the discretion of the investigator who wrote that if he does that or if he wants to put marking, sir.
Q: Were you the very person who requested that these item[s] be reflected that?
A: Our team leader, sir. I am just part of the briefing team.
Q: But you ascertain that there was no marking indicated in the police blotter?
A: As indicated in the police blotter there is no marking, sir.
Q: And you ascertained that immediately after the recording, is that correct?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: And you did not question the investigator?
A: I am just the poseur buyer and there is a team leader who can assess that, sir. 12 [Emphasis supplied.]
Secondly, the prosecution witnesses failed to show how the seized drug was handled after it was presented to the investigating officer and at what point it was handed to SPO1 Gacias, who delivered it to the crime laboratory. There was also no mention of how SPO1 Gacias handled the confiscated item during his custody, delivery and turnover to the forensic chemist.
Lastly, as to the fourth link pertaining to the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court, the Court, in People v. Pajarin, 13 identified the following matters which are ordinarily covered by the testimony of the forensic chemist who examines the seized items: (1) that he received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial. 14 In this case, the forensic chemist, PCI Taluan, failed to testify as to the circumstances of her receipt of the confiscated items, the safekeeping of the drugs while it was in her custody, and the precautionary steps she took to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. The prosecution failed to establish the custody of the seized drug from the time it was turned over to the laboratory up to its presentation in court.
It must be stressed that while law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of an accused to be presumed innocent and it cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot be regarded as binding truth. 15 Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, the presumption is effectively destroyed. 16
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, Nicanor must be acquitted of the charge against him considering the prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated July 15, 2019 and Resolution dated January 16, 2020 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10866 are REVERSED. Nicanor Carag, Jr. y Macababbad is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 17632 and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately. cTDaEH
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. He is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
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. 3-22.
2.Id. at 24-37. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred by Presiding Justice Romeo F. Barza and Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legazpi.
3.Id. at 39-40. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred by Associate Justices Germano Francisco D. Legazpi and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas.
4. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
5. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
6.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 436-437 (2018); People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 472-473 (2018); People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947, 964-965 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018); People v. Miranda, 824 Phil. 1042, 1055-1054 (2018); People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 741 (2018); and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 891 (2009).
7.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 33 (2017).
8.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
9.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 31-32 (2017), citing People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 130-131 (2013).
10.Rollo, p. 65.
11.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 235 (2015).
12.Rollo, pp. 63-64.
13. 654 Phil. 461 (2011).
14.Id., at 466.
15.Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008); and People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).
16.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259 (2008).