THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253076. August 31, 2022.]
JOMAR CASTILLEJO y ALMODAL, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 31, 2022, which reads as follows: HEITAD
"G.R. No. 253076 (Jomar Castillejo y Almodal v. People of the Philippines). — The Court resolves to:
(1) GRANT the Office of the Solicitor General's (OSG) motion for an extension of sixty (60) days from January 15, 2022 or until March 16, 2022 within which to file comment on the petition for review on certiorari, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period; and
(2) NOTE:
(a) said Comment dated March 4, 2022; and
(b) the OSG's Manifestation dated February 3, 2022, stating that the motion for extension of time to file comment on the petition was electronically filed on January 12, 2022.
This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, assailing the Decision 2 dated October 25, 2019 and Resolution 3 dated July 17, 2020 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 42398. The said issuances affirmed in toto the February 15, 2018 Decision 4 of Branch 76 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Mateo, Rizal in Criminal Case No. 16641 which, in turn, found petitioner Jomar Castillejo y Almodal (petitioner) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9164, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Antecedents
Petitioner was indicted of the crime charged by virtue of an Information, the accusatory portion of which reading as follows:
That, on or about the 19th day of June 2015, in the Municipality of San Mateo, Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drugs, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession, custody and control 0.15 gram and 0.15 gram of while crystalline substance, contained in two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, which substance[,] after examination conducted by Eastern Police District Crime Laboratory Office[,] were found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or "shabu," a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
Upon arraignment, petitioner, assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty. Thus, pre-trial ensued, followed by trial on the merits. 6
The evidence for the prosecution, as summarized in the People's Brief 7 and quoted by the CA, are as follows:
9. On June 19, 2015, around 2:30 p.m., JO3 Clarence Dacayo was on duty at the San Mateo Municipal Jail. While JO3 Dacayo was performing his duties as jail officer, he came across one visitor who was bringing food. Said person was identified as herein [petitioner] Jomar Castillejo. As a standard procedure, [petitioner] was subjected to routine check. JO3 Dacayo frisked [petitioner] and the items he was bringing were inspected. JO3 Dacayo saw that [petitioner] was bringing in rice and tinola topped with fresh green chili. He took a closer look at it and noticed that the upper part of the chili has a hole.
10. JO3 Dacayo found the green chili with a hole suspicious, thus, he touched it. Upon touching it, JO3 Dacayo felt that it was hard, so he decided to open it. When the green chili was opened, JO3 Dacayo saw a plastic sachet inside. He inspected the green chili further and found two plastic sachets tucked inside it.
11. JO3 Dacayo called the police station to inform them of what happened. Thereafter, they brought [petitioner] to the PNP San Mateo Police Station. As soon as they reached the police station, the seized plastic sachets were marked with "JCA" and "JCA-1", [petitioner's] initials. The seized items were likewise inventoried and photographed. SPO3 Santos witnessed said inventory. The inventory receipt was signed by JO3 Dacayo and elected official Jomer Cruz.
12. After the standard procedure was conducted in the police station, letter requests for laboratory examination and drug test were prepared. SPO3 Santos and JO3 Dacayo personally delivered the letter requests and specimens to the PNP crime laboratory.
13. The letter request for laboratory examination and specimens were endorsed by SPO3 Santos, delivered by JO3 Dacayo and received by PCI Margarita Libres on June 19, 2015 at 6:40 p.m. The request for drug test was likewise delivered on the same day and time. PCI Libres conducted qualitative examination on the specimens submitted. She reduced her findings into writing and prepared Physical Science Report No. MCSO-D-119-15. The report stated that qualitative examination conducted on specimens A and B gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. The result for the drug test likewise yielded positive as stated in PSR No. MCSO-DT-185-15 prepared by PCI Libres. Said report stated that preliminary examination conducted on the above-stated specimen A (urine) gave POSITIVE result to the tests for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 8
On the other hand, the defense's version of the events succinctly states that:
7. At around 1:00 to 2:00 o'clock in the afternoon of June 19, 2015, Maricar Narciso (Narciso) asked [petitioner] to deliver food to her live-in-partner, alias "Tekits" at the San Mateo, Rizal Municipal Jail. Thereat, [petitioner] asked a jail officer to hand the food to Tekits. Meanwhile, a jail officer asked [petitioner] to buy instant cup noodles in the market, to which he obliged. When [petitioner] returned, the jail officer asked him to go inside, frisked him, and asked him if he knew whether the illegal drugs the jail officer found came from him ([petitioner]). Thereafter, the jail officer brought [petitioner] to the Crime Investigation Division (CID) in Marikina City. 9
On February 15, 2018, the RTC rendered a Decision 10 convicting petitioner as charged. Thus:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered, finding accused JOMAR CASTILLEJO y ALMODAL GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS (violation of Section 11, 2nd paragraph, No. 3, Article II, RA 9165) and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of TWELVE (12) YEARS ANDONE (1) DAY to TWENTY (20) YEARS and a FINE of THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND PESOS (P300,000.00). The fine shall be subject to subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency pursuant to Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code (RPC) as amended by R.A. 10159.
The accused is to be credited for the time spent for his preventive detention in accordance with Article 29 of the RPC as amended by R.A. 6127 and E.O. 214.
The two (2) plastic sachets of "shabu" subject matter of the cases are hereby ordered forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court is directed to safely deliver the same to PDEA for proper disposition.
Furnish a copy of this Decision to PDEA.
SO ORDERED. 11
Undaunted, petitioner interposed an appeal to the CA.
In his Appellant's Brief, 12 petitioner asserted, inter alia, the failure of the apprehending officers to follow the rules on chain of custody. He contended that the prosecution was silent as to how the plastic sachets allegedly seized from him were kept safe so as to avoid contamination; that the apprehending officers were likewise silent as to the steps that they undertook to ensure the integrity of the seized items and how the same were stored, preserved, and labeled; that the marking, inventory, and photographing of the seized items was not witnessed by the persons required to do so; that the inventory only contained the signature of one Jomer A. A. Cruz, a purported elected official whose identity and actual position were not proven by the prosecution; that these instances of non-compliance were neither explained nor justified by the prosecution; and that the prosecution had failed to establish an unbroken chain in the custody of the seized items. 13
In contrast, the Office of the Solicitor General argued in its Appellee's Brief 14 that the apprehending officers' failure to strictly comply with the rules on chain of custody did not warrant petitioner's acquittal, the prosecution having established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were not tarnished; that the prosecution was able to prove the presence of all of the elements of the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs; and that petitioner's defense of denial, being inherently weak and unsubstantiated, deserves scant consideration. 15
On October 25, 2019, the CA rendered the herein assailed Decision 16 affirming the judgment of the RTC. The appellate court held that the failure of the apprehending officers to comply with the directive of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 was immaterial as long as the prosecution "can show by record or testimony that the integrity of the evidence has not been compromised by accounting for the continuous whereabouts of the object evidence at least between the time it came into the possession of the police officers until it was tested in the laboratory." 17
Thus:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated 15 February 2018 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 76, San Mateo, Rizal in Criminal Case No. 16641 is hereby AFFIRMEDin TOTO.
SO ORDERED.18
Hence, the present recourse.
Issue
The Court is called upon to determine whether the CA erred in affirming in toto petitioner's conviction for the crime of illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
Ruling of the Court
There is merit in the petition.
Generally, in petitions filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, only questions of law may be raised 19 because the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. 20 It is not the Court's function to examine, review, or evaluate the evidence all over again. 21
Nevertheless, this rule is not ironclad. When the stringent application of the rules will result in manifest injustice, the Court may set aside technicalities and proceed with the substantial merits of the petition. 22 Moreover, when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts, 23 the Court may pass upon the said findings and conclusions of the RTC as affirmed by the CA.
We find the exception obtaining in the present case.
For a successful prosecution of an offense for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following elements: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 24 The confiscated drug constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. 25 The illegal drug must be produced before the court as exhibit and that which was exhibited must be the very same substance recovered from the suspect. 26 Thus, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. 27 The chain of custody requirement performs this function in that it ensures that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 28
Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, 29 defines chain of custody in the following manner:
"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 use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]
In People v. Jaafar, 30 the Court explained:
Narcotic substances are not readily identifiable. To determine their composition and nature, they must undergo scientific testing and analysis. Narcotic substances are also highly susceptible to alteration, tampering, or contamination. It is imperative, therefore, that the drugs allegedly seized from the accused are the very same objects tested in the laboratory and offered in court as evidence. The chain of custody, as a method of authentication, ensures that unnecessary doubts involving the identity of seized drugs are removed. 31 (Citations omitted)
It is the obligation of the prosecution to establish the chain of custody for evidence sent to testing laboratories — that is, to establish "the identity and integrity of physical evidence by tracing its continuous whereabouts." 32 Indeed, the trial court requires a more stringent foundation "entailing a 'chain of custody' of the item with sufficient completeness to render it improbable that the original item has either been exchanged with another or been contaminated or tampered with." 33 The prosecution must introduce sufficient proof so that a reasonable juror could find that the items seized are in "substantially the same condition" as when they were seized. 34 The government need only show that "it took reasonable precautions to preserve the original condition of the evidence." 35
Since the Information alleges that the crime was committed by petitioner on June 19, 2015, the rules on chain of custody are governed by R.A. No. 1064036which amended R.A. No. 9165.
Section 1 of R.A. No. 10640 states:
SECTION 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," is hereby amended to read as follows:
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 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 person/s 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.
xxx xxx xxx
(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. (Emphasis Ours)
The foregoing procedural safeguards that are embodied in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, are material because their compliance affects the corpus delicti which is the dangerous drug itself and warrants the identity and integrity of the substances and other evidence that are seized by the apprehending officers. 37
As part of the chain of custody procedure, the apprehending team is mandated, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, 38 namely: an elected public official AND a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) OR the media. 39 These witnesses aim to remove any suspicion of tampering, switching, planting, or contamination of evidence which could considerably affect a case. 40 In other words, they are "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity." 41
In the case at bar, it is beyond dispute that the inventory of the seized plastic sachets was not witnessed by a representative from the NPS or the media. The only persons who witnessed and signed the inventory of the seized items were Jail Officer (JO) 3 Dacayo and an alleged elected official named Jomer Cruz. Obviously, JO3 Dacayo does not fall under any of the categories of the witnesses required by Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. As for Jomer Cruz, his designation as an elected official is highly suspect because his position was never even specified in the course of the trial. In any event, no reason was ever advanced to justify the absence of the representative from the NPS or the media. Neither was there any evidence that earnest efforts were undertaken to secure the presence of such witnesses. Verily, there was an abject failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
As a general rule, compliance with the chain of custody procedure is strictly enjoined as the same has been regarded not merely as a procedural technicality but as a matter of substantive law. 42 The provisions were crafted by Congress as safety precautions to address potential police abuses, especially considering that the penalty imposed may be life imprisonment. 43 It is true that there are cases where the Court had ruled that the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items as void and invalid. However, this is with the caveat that the prosecution still needs to satisfactorily prove that: (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The Court has repeatedly emphasized that the prosecution should explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses. 44 The prosecution bears the burden of proof to show valid cause for non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended. 45
In People v. Barte, 46 the Court so declared:
When there is failure to comply with the requirements for proving the chain of custody in the confiscation of contraband in a drug buy-bust operation, the State has the obligation to credibly explain such noncompliance; otherwise, the proof of the corpus delicti is doubtful, and the accused should be acquitted for failure to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. 47
And in People v. Reyes, 48 We added:
It must be emphasized that the prosecution must be able to prove a justifiable ground in omitting certain requirements provided in Sec. 21 such as, but not limited to the following: (1) media representatives are not available at that time or that the police operatives had no time to alert the media due to the immediacy of the operation they were about to undertake, especially if it is done in more remote areas; (2) the police operatives, with the same reason, failed to find an available representative of the National Prosecution Service; (3) the police officers, due to time constraints brought about by the urgency of the operation to be undertaken and in order to comply with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code in the timely delivery of prisoners, were not able to comply with all the requisites set forth in Section 21 of R.A. 9165. 49 (Citation omitted)
Here, considering that the procedural lapses committed by the arresting officers, which were unfortunately left unjustified, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against petitioner, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised, the Court is constrained to rule that petitioner's acquittal is in order. 50
Indeed, the Constitution declares that the maintenance of peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and the promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of democracy. 51 Those who are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the rights of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. 52
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 25, 2019 and Resolution dated July 17, 2020 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 42398 are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. For failure on the part of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, petitioner Jomar Castillejo y Almodal is ACQUITTED of the crime charged in Criminal Case No. 16641. He is ORDERED immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is being detained for some other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. He is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 13-35.
2. Id. at 41-53. Penned by Associate Justice Danton Q. Bueser with Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin concurring.
3. Id. at 55-56.
4. Id. at 80-84. Rendered by Presiding Judge Josephine Zarate-Fernandez.
5. Id. at 80.
6. Id.
7. Id. at 85-103.
8. Id. at 91-92.
9. Id. at 62.
10. Id. at 80-84.
11. Id. at 84.
12. Id. at 57-79.
13. Id. at 65-74.
14. Id. at 85-103.
15. Id. at 93-101.
16. Id. at 41-53.
17. Id. at 48.
18. Id. at 52-53.
19. Office of the Ombudsman v. Tanco, G.R. No. 233596, September 14, 2020.
20. Heirs of Villanueva v. Heirs of Mendoza, 810 Phil. 172, 178 (2017).
21. Carbonell v. Carbonell-Mendes, 762 Phil. 529, 536 (2015).
22. Philippine Bank of Communications v. Court of Appeals, 805 Phil. 964, 971 (2017).
23. Medina v. Asistio, Jr., 269 Phil. 225, 232 (1990).
24. People v. Quijano, G.R. No. 247558, February 19, 2020.
25. People v. Escaran, G.R. No. 212170, June 19, 2019.
26. People v. Buesa, G.R. No. 237850, September 16, 2020.
27. People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 897 (2018).
28. Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
29. GUIDELINES ON THE CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS, CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, AND LABORATORY EQUIPMENT. See https://www.ddb.gov.ph/images/Board_Regulation/2002/Bd.%20Reg.%201%2002.pdf.
30. 803 Phil. 582 (2017).
31. Id. at 591.
32. Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009).
33. United States v. Cardenas, 864 F.2d 1528 (1989).
34. United States v. Harrington, 923 F.2d 1371 (1991).
35. United States v. Prieto, 549 F.3d 513 (2008).
36. 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" (July 15, 2014).
37. Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020.
38. Plan, Jr. v. People, G.R. No. 247589, August 24, 2020.
39. People v. Gutierrez, 842 Phil. 681 (2018).
40. People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 430 (2018).
41. People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356, 373 (2017).
42. People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019.
43. People v. Ancheta, 687 Phil. 569, 579 (2012).
44. People v. Musor, 842 Phil. 1159 (2018).
45. People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 229352, April 10, 2019.
46. 806 Phil. 533 (2017).
47. Id. at 536.
48. 830 Phil. 619 (2018).
49. Id. at 633.
50. People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 238519, June 26, 2019.
51. People v. Dumanjug, G.R. No. 235468, July 1, 2019.
52. People v. Aminnudin, 296 Phil. 424, 435 (1988).