SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 244711. June 23, 2021.]
MARIANO CHINTOCO y OSANO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 23 June 2021 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 244711 (Mariano Chintoco y Osano v. People of the Philippines). — The conviction of Mariano Chintoco y Osano (Mariano) for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs is the subject of review in this petition for review on certiorari1 assailing the Court of Appeals' Decision 2 dated June 21, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated February 7, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR No. 40125, which affirmed the findings of the Regional Trial Court.
We acquit.
Notably, the alleged crime happened before Republic Act (R.A.) No. 10640 4 amended R.A. No. 9165. 5 Thus, the original provisions of Section 21 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) shall apply, to wit:
[Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of R.A. No. 9165]
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. (Emphases supplied.)
[Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165]
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official 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, further, that non-compliance with 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 of and custody over said items. (Emphases supplied.)
To be sure, both this Court and the Legislature 6 are not unaware of the varying field conditions that render strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure impractical or impossible. Section 21 of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides that deviation from the procedure would not ipsofacto render the seizure and custody over the items void and invalid, provided that the prosecution satisfactorily proves that: (a) there is a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. For this saving clause to apply, however, the prosecution must satisfactorily explain the reasons behind the procedural lapses, and prove the justifiable ground for non-compliance as a fact. 7
Accordingly, the following links must be established in the chain of custody: first, the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and fourth, the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 8 Here, there exist several irregularities in the custody and handling of the confiscated drug.
Foremost, there was a failure to immediately mark the drug at the place of arrest. Police Officer 1 Lino Maramag, Jr. (PO1 Maramag) testified that he marked the seized drug with "MRC May 17, 2011" at Lumban Municipal Police Station. The marijuana brick remained unmarked from the moment it was recovered from Mariano until its transit to the police station, thus resulting in a significant gap in the first link of the chain of custody. In People v. Ismael, 9 the Court highlighted the importance of marking the seized drug immediately upon arrest, viz.:
The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation of recovery of dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value. 10 (Emphases Supplied.)
The apprehending team reasoned that the drug was belatedly marked because the accused was resisting arrest. This explanation is untenable. There was no allegation, much less proof, that the policemen could not subdue Mariano who was refusing to surrender. In contrast, the prosecution proved that, after handing the marijuana brick to PO1 Maramag, Mariano tried to flee, but was apprehended by Police Officer 2 Dante Anabieza (PO2 Anabieza), and Police Officer 1 Pedro Gumaru, Jr. (PO1 Gumaru). Indeed, the apprehending team, which was composed of four trained policemen, effectively restrained Mariano before they proceeded to the police station. Neither was there any showing of danger that necessitated the team's immediate departure from the place of apprehension. We have invariably ruled that failure to mark the drug immediately after it was seized from the accused, absent any explanation or reasonable justification, casts doubt on the prosecution's evidence. 11 As in this case, we find no justifiable explanation for the apprehending officers' failure to mark a single brick of marijuana immediately upon its confiscation and before transport.
Also, there is no inventory of the seized item. Jurisprudence is replete with cases finding that the absence of an inventory, without justifiable ground to excuse the procedural lapse, puts into question the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug. 12 Here, the prosecution stipulated that no inventory was prepared, 13 but no grounds were given at all by the arresting officers on their non-compliance with the mandated requisite of Section 21. Furthermore, none of the three insulating witnesses, i.e., an elected public official, a representative from the media, and a representative from the Department of Justice was present at the police station. We emphasize that the presence of the required witnesses is an indispensable requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. 14 In People v. Bauran and Sulda, 15 we clarified that the inventory and photography of the drugs, which were confiscated from the accused during a routine checkpoint, should be conducted in the presence of no less than the three mandatory witnesses. The presence of the witnesses is necessary to insulate the incrimination proceedings from any taint of irregularity. 16 The utter disregard of the required procedure created another gap in an already broken chain of custody.
Moreover, the manner of handling and custody of the drug at the crime laboratory leaves a lot to be desired. The turnover of the drug from the receiving personnel in the crime laboratory to the forensic chemist lacked material details. PO1 Maramag testified that he accompanied PO2 Anabieza, who then had custody of the drug, to the crime laboratory where the specimen was received by a certain SPO1 Jorbed. 17 However, the prosecution did not explain how the drug passed from the custody of receiving personnel SPO1 Jorbed to forensic chemist Police Senior Inspector Grace Plantilla Bombasi (PSI Bombasi). Neither was there any evidence presented to show who submitted the specimen to PSI Bombasi for qualitative examination. In addition, the records do not reflect the manner of handling the drug after PSI Bombasi completed her examination and before it was presented in court. While there was a stipulation of facts on the testimony of PSI Bombasi, it is silent on this particular link. 18 The prosecution failed to establish the identities of (1) the person who turned over the drug to PSI Bombasi for qualitative examination; (2) the person who had custody of the specimen after it was examined by PSI Bombasi; and (3) the person who received the drug for safekeeping pending its presentation in court. 19
We stress, 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 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. 20 Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. 21 The accused must be acquitted.
FOR THESE REASONS, the petition is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated June 21, 2018 and the Resolution dated February 7, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR No. 40125 is hereby REVERSED. Petitioner Mariano Chintoco y Osano is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully detained for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director is likewise ORDERED to REPORT to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J.Y. J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MA. CONSOLACION GAMINDE-CRUZADADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
2.Rollo, pp. 32-39. Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi.
3.Id. at 41-42. Penned by Associate Justice Germano Francisco D. Legaspi (designated Chairperson in view of the appointment of Justice Rosmari D. Carandang to this Court), with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Pedro B. Corales.
4. Entitled "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, which states that it shall ''take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation.'' Verily, a copy of the law was published on July 23, 2013 in the respective issues of "The Philippine Star" (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro Section, p. 21) and the "Manila Bulletin" (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News Section, p. 6); hence, R.A. No. 10640 became effective on August 7, 2014. See OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015.
5. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES,'' approved on June 7, 2002.
6. Senate Journal, Senate Session No. 80, 16th Congress, 1st Regular Session, June 4, 2014, p. 349. See <http://legacy.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/1930616439!.pdf> (last visited June 21, 2021).
7. See People v. Suarez, G.R. No. 249990, July 8, 2020.
8.People v. Bugtong, 806 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
9. G.R. No. 208093, February 20, 2017.
10.Id. citing People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 130-131 (2013).
11.People v. Magayon, G.R. No. 238873, September 16, 2020; People v. Deliña, G.R. No. 243578, June 30, 2020; People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 236455, February 19, 2020; People v. Claudel, G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019; People v. Cadungog, G.R. No. 229926, April 3, 2019; People v. Asjali, G.R. No. 216430, September 3, 2018; People v. Asdali, G.R. No. 219835, August 29, 2018; People v. Madria, G.R. No. 233207, August 20, 2018; People v. Gajo, 824 Phil. 140 (2018); People v. Ramirez, 823 Phil. 1215 (2018); People v. Ameril, 799 Phil. 484 (2016); People v. Coreche, 612 Phil. 1238 (2009); People v. Casimiro, 432 Phil. 966 (2002); People v. Laxa, 414 Phil. 156 (2001).
12.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020; People v. Zapanta, G.R. No. 230227, November 6, 2019; People v. Ordiz, G.R. No. 206767, September 11, 2019; People v. Gabriel, G.R. No. 228002, June 10, 2019; People v. Royol, G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019; People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117 (2017); People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416 (2009).
13.Rollo, p. 121.
14.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; People v. Maralit, G.R. No. 232381, August 1, 2018.
15. G.R. No. 232081, August 27, 2020 (Notice).
16.People v. Cabrellos, G.R. No. 229826, July 30, 2018.
17.Rollo, p. 74.
18.Id. p. 65. The stipulation of facts on the proposed testimony of PSI Bombasi is reproduced as follows:
(1) [S]he is an expert in forensic chemistry and an employee of the Philippine National Police as Forensic Chemist at the Laguna Provincial Police Office, Crime Laboratory, Santa Cruz, Laguna; (2) she received a request for laboratory examination from the Santa Cruz Municipal Police Station (MPS) for laboratory examination of one (1) stapled sealed transparent plastic container containing suspected dried marijuana bricks; (3) she conducted series or examination, the physical, chemical and confirmatory examinations and concluded that the specimen contained marijuana, a dangerous drug; (4) she reduced into writing her findings as embodied in Chemistry Report No. LD-064-11; (5) she has no personal knowledge as to the origin of the specimen; (6) she was not the one who personally received the request from the person requesting the laboratory examination; (7) when the specimen was forwarded to the crime laboratory, there is no photograph or the specimen attached to the request for laboratory examination; and (8) the accused was not furnished the result of the laboratory examination.
xxx xxx xxx
19. See People v. Plaza, G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018; People v. Veedor, Jr., G.R. No. 223525, June 25, 2018; People v. Mola, G.R. No. 226481, April 18, 2018; People v. De Guzman, G.R. No. 219955, February 5, 2018.
20.Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008); and People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).
21.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).