FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232916. November 29, 2022.]
EDILBERTO DIAZ y RAMIREZ AND RICARDO ALMEIDA*y DIAZ @ "RICKY", petitioners, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 29, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232916 (Edilberto Diaz y Ramirez and Ricardo Almeida y Diaz @ "Ricky" v. People of the Philippines). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the February 20, 2017 Decision 2 and the July 12, 2017 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR No. 37800 which affirmed the November 11, 2014 Joint Judgment 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 205, in Criminal Case Nos. 03-513 and 03-514, which found petitioners Edilberto Diaz y Ramirez (Edilberto) and Ricardo Almeida y Diaz @ "Ricky" (Ricardo), guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 5 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
In Criminal Case No. 03-513, petitioner Edilberto was charged as follows:
That on or about 27th day of June 2003, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.04 gram, contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
The Information in Criminal Case No. 03-514 alleged as follows:
That on or about 27th day of June, 2003, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully have in his possession, custody and control Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, weighing 0.04 gram, contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Petitioners pleaded not guilty to the charge during the arraignment. 8
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented two witnesses: Police Officer 1 Joey Tan (PO1 Tan) and Forensic Chemist Police Inspector Hermosila S. Fermindoza (P/Insp. Fermindoza). Their testimonies are summarized as follows:
On June 27, 2003, at about 12:10 a.m., Philippine National Police-Southern Police District (PNP-SPD) Muntinlupa City Police Office City Hall Detachment Station Chief of Police Erasto Sanchez, Jr. instructed a team to conduct a drug operation monitoring and surveillance at Barangay Tunasan, Muntinlupa City. The team arrived at the gate of Camella III Homes at National Road, Barangay Tunasan at around 1:00 a.m. Thereupon, PO1 Tan and PO1 Roderick Gunayon (PO1 Gunayon) alighted from the vehicle while the rest of the team members stayed in the vehicle and alighted at a later time. 9
While patrolling the area, PO1 Tan and PO1 Gunayon noticed a parked tricycle in front of a closed Ho Chai Lai Restaurant with two persons inside, one seated at the driver's seat and the other at the passenger's seat. Finding it suspicious, PO1 Tan and PO1 Gunayon surreptitiously approached the tricycle from behind and saw the person in the driver's seat hand over a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance to the person in the passenger's seat. PO1 Tan immediately grabbed the right hand of the person at the driver's seat and took from the latter's left hand a small plastic sachet. PO1 Tan introduced himself as a police officer. 10
As to the person on the passenger seat, PO1 Gunayon grabbed the former's hand and recovered therefrom a small plastic sachet. PO1 Tan and PO1 Gunayon then informed the arrested individuals of their constitutional rights and brought them to the police vehicle. 11
The arrested individuals were later identified as petitioners Edilberto and Ricardo. 12
Upon arrival at the police station, PO1 Tan marked the item seized from Edilberto with "ED" while PO1 Gunayon marked the item confiscated from Ricardo with "RA." Petitioners and the seized items were brought to the PNP-SPD Crime Laboratory for examination. 13
The confiscated items were examined by P/Insp. Fermindoza, which showed that the substance contained in both seized plastic sachets, each weighing 0.04 gram, were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. 14
Version of the Defense
The defense presented the testimonies of petitioners and Rufino Amador (Rufino).
Petitioners denied having possessed shabu and alleged frame-up by the police officers. 15
According to the defense, in the early morning of June 27, 2003, Edilberto was on board the tricycle of Ricardo when Rufino, Edilberto's cousin, flagged them down. Rufino had two passengers in his tricycle but since he could not transport them to their destination because of the call of nature, Rufino requested Ricardo to accommodate his two passengers and to drop them off at their destination. 16
En route to Planas, Muntinlupa, the carburetor of Ricardo's tricycle choked up and the engine stopped, prompting them to pull over near Ho Chai Lai Restaurant. While Ricardo was trying to fix his tricycle, a vehicle parked near them and four individuals alighted from the vehicle. They started frisking petitioners as well as the two passengers. Despite the search not yielding anything, petitioners and the two passengers were brought to the Muntinlupa City Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Office (DAPCO). At DAPCO, the police officers searched the bags of the two passengers and found therein two plastic sachets of shabu and a rusty magnum .38 gun. Petitioners were subsequently charged with violation of Republic Act No. 9165 and they never saw the two passengers again. 17
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In a Joint Judgment dated June 15, 2015, the RTC found petitioners guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The RTC gave more credence to the evidence presented by the prosecution and convicted both petitioners of the crime charged. 18 The dispositive part of the Joint Judgment states:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the court hereby renders as follows:
1. A Judgment in Criminal Case No. 03-513 finding accused EDILBERTO DIAZ y Ramirez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Twelve (12) years and one [1] day to Fifteen (15) years, and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00); and
2. A Judgment in Criminal Case No. 03-514 finding accused RICARDO ALMEIDA y Diaz, @ "Ricky", GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of illegal possession of methylamphetamine hydrochloride and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Twelve (12) years and one [1] day to Fifteen (15) years, and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00).
SO ORDERED. 19
Aggrieved by the RTC's Joint Judgment, petitioners appealed to the CA. 20
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On February 20, 2017, the CA affirmed the RTC's Joint Judgment and held that the prosecution sufficiently proved petitioners' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The appellate court ruled that while the requirements of Sec. 21, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 were not strictly complied with, the same was not fatal to the case as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved. 21
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration 22 but it was denied in a Resolution 23 dated July 12, 2017.
Dissatisfied with the CA's Decision, petitioners filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Issues
Petitioners raise the following issues, to wit:
I
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE PETITIONERS' CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF [REPUBLIC ACT NO.] 9165 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE POLICE OFFICERS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 21 OF THE SAME LAW.
II
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE PETITIONERS' CONVICTION FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 11, ARTICLE II OF [REPUBLIC ACT NO.] 9165 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE UNBROKEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE SEIZED ITEMS. 24
Petitioners argue that the CA erroneously affirmed the ruling of the RTC despite noncompliance with the requirements of Sec. 21, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165. They claim that the prosecution failed to sufficiently establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were not compromised. 25
Our Ruling
The petition is meritorious.
The general rule in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is that only questions of law should be raised. However, the Court has recognized exceptions to this general rule, viz.:
(1) when the factual conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculations, surmises and conjectures; (2) when the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) when the CA went beyond the issues of the case in making its findings, which are further contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the CA's findings are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) when the conclusions do not cite the specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and (10) when the CA's findings of fact, supposedly premised on the absence of evidence, are contradicted by the evidence on record. 26
The second, third, and fourth exceptions are applicable in this case since the CA failed to consider the requirements on the conduct of the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs as well as the three-witness rule under Republic Act No. 9165 and as pronounced in jurisprudence.
Petitioners were charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. To secure a conviction under said section, 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. 27
In addition, the prosecution must likewise establish with moral certainty the identity of the prohibited drug, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. The prosecution must show an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drug and account for each link, from the moment the drug is seized up to its presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 28
"The chain of custody requirement ensures the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items such that doubts as to the identity of the evidence are eliminated. To be admissible, the prosecution must show by records or testimony, the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence." 29 It is, therefore, necessary to observe the chain of custody requirement under Sec. 21, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165, and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR), the law applicable when the alleged crime in this case was committed on June 27, 2003.
Sec. 21, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 states:
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 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;
Section 21 of the IRR reiterates the same requirements, the pertinent portion of which reads:
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:
(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;
The foregoing provisions provide that the marking, photographing, and inventory of the seized items must be done immediately after seizure and confiscation in the presence of three witnesses — a representative from the media, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected official. The purpose of this rule is to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs in order to fully remove doubts as to its identity. 30
Thus, the following links should be established in the chain of custody of the confiscated item: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, 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 from the forensic chemist to the court. 31 Stated differently, the prosecution has to account for all the links in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure from the accused until it is presented in court as proof of corpus delicti. 32
After a careful review of the records of the case, We find that the prosecution failed to clearly establish that the requirements of Sec. 21, Art. II of Republic Act No. 9165 have been complied with.
Jurisprudence dictates that "marking" is the placing by the apprehending officer of some distinguishing signs with his/her initials and signature on the items seized. The "chain of custody" rule requires that the marking of the seized items — to truly ensure that they are the same items that enter the chain and are eventually the ones offered in evidence — should be done (1) in the presence of the apprehended violator and (2) immediately upon confiscation. 33 Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link, thus, it is vital that the seized contraband are immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of criminal proceedings, obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. 34 Failure to mark the drugs immediately after they were seized from the accused casts doubt on the prosecution evidence, warranting acquittal on reasonable doubt. 35
In this case, PO1 Tan testified that it was only when they arrived at that police station that the seized items were marked with "ED" and "RA." 36 Further, there is nothing on record that indicates that the marking that was done in the presence of petitioners as mandated by law. It bears stressing that it must be shown that the marking was done in the presence of the petitioners to assure that the identity and integrity of the drugs were properly preserved. Failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to the prosecution's case. 37
We are well aware that there are cases when the chain of custody rule is relaxed such as when the marking of the seized items is allowed to be undertaken at the police station rather than at the place of arrest if justifiable reasons existed why it was done there.
Unfortunately, no valid excuse/explanation was forwarded by the prosecution why the marking was not done at the place where the items were confiscated.
Records further disclose that the police officers failed to physically inventory and photograph the seized drugs after its confiscation in the presence of the three witnesses required by law.
As gleaned from the testimony of PO1 Tan, the seized drugs were merely marked, but were not subjected to physical inventory nor photographed in the police station, as required by the law. 38
The police officers, likewise, failed to observe the three-witness requirement during the photographing and inventory of the seized items — a representative from the media, the DOJ, and any elected official.
In this case, not one of the three required witnesses was present during the conduct of the inventory and photography of the confiscated items.
"This requirement seeks to avoid frame ups or wrongful arrests of persons suspected to be violators of the law. The presence of the three witnesses assures that the officers conducting the operation do not plant evidence on the person or effects of the accused. The prosecution must allege and prove that at the time of the marking, photographing, and inventory of the evidence, the three witnesses were present." 39
The failure to mark the confiscated items immediately after seizure, to conduct photographing and physical inventory of the seized items and secure the presence of the three witnesses adversely affected the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. Consequently, the prosecution utterly failed to prove the corpus delicti of the offense charged.
It bears stressing that the prosecution has the burden of proving compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. In case of deviation from or noncompliance with the said requirements, the prosecution must provide a sufficient explanation for their noncompliance. 40
"The IRR of [Republic Act No. 9165] provides for a saving clause to ensure that not every noncompliance with the procedure for the preservation of the chain of custody will prejudice the prosecution's case against the accused. For the saving clause to apply, however, the following must be present: (1) the existence of justifiable grounds to allow departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team." 41 It should be emphasized that for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must explain the procedural lapses, and the justifiable ground for noncompliance because the Court cannot presume these grounds or if they even exist. 42
In the present case, no justifiable reason for failure to comply with Sec. 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 and its IRR was adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution gave no explanation why the police operatives chose to mark the confiscated items at the police station and why they dispensed with the requirements of conducting a physical inventory and taking photographs of the seized drugs in the presence of the three witnesses.
Neither can the presumption of regularity in the performance of duties can save the prosecution's case. "While the police officers are presumed to have regularly performed their duty, the presumption only applies when there is nothing to suggest that the police officers deviated from the standard conduct of official duty required by law." 43 Where there was noncompliance with the requirements set forth in Sec. 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, as in this case, there can be no presumption that the official duties have been regularly performed by the police officers. The presumption of regularity cannot prevail over the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 44
The first link already having compromised the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, it goes without saying that doubt already exists when the items were sent for examination and presentation in court. Considering that the saving clause was not complied with, any and all evidence tending to establish the chain of custody of the seized drugs becomes immaterial. "Even the identification of the seized evidence in court during the trial became ambiguous and unreliable, rendering the proof of the links in the chain of custody of the corpus delicti unworthy of belief." 45
It is a well-settled rule that in criminal cases, the accused's guilt must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. This burden lies with the prosecution. In this case, the prosecution was not able to prove petitioners' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The failure of the police officers to observe Sec. 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 seriously compromised the integrity of the seized items and ultimately casted reasonable doubt on petitioners' guilt. 46
Given that the present case involves a minuscule amount of 0.04 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, the more reason for the Court to strictly apply the rules on chain of custody, markings, and inventory due to the possibility that the subject illegal drugs are products of planting or substitution and that they can easily be contaminated or tampered while being passed upon from one hand to another. 47
In deciding drugs cases involving minuscule amounts, courts exercise a higher level of scrutiny. Stricter compliance with the rules is mandated when the amount of the dangerous drug is minute due to the possibility that the seized item was tampered with. The Court is mindful that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information from or even to harass civilians. The Court has been issuing warnings to courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. 48
The Court reiterates that in a prosecution for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, the State carries the heavy burden of proving not only the elements of the offense, but also to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti, failing in which renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. "When moral certainty as to culpability hangs in the balance, acquittal on reasonable doubt becomes a matter of right, irrespective of the reputation of the accused who enjoys the right to be presumed innocent until the contrary is shown." 49
In light of the foregoing considerations, a verdict of acquittal is in order.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The February 20, 2017 Decision and the July 12, 2017 Resolution rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 37800 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioners Edilberto Diaz y Ramirez and Ricardo Almeida y Diaz @ "Ricky" are ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is DIRECTED to release petitioners from confinement unless they are detained for another lawful cause. The Director General is further directed to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M.V. J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated November 2, 2022 vice Rosario, J., who recused due to prior participation in the Court of Appeals; Marquez, J., on official business.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Spelled as Almeda in some parts of the records.
1. Rollo, pp. 11-27.
2. Id. at 33-54. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) and Edwin D. Sorongon.
3. Id. at 56-57.
4. Id. at 93-102. Penned by Assisting Judge Jaime E. Contreras.
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: June 7, 2002.
6. Records, p. 1.
7. Id. at 2.
8. Rollo, p. 94.
9. Id. at 34-35.
10. Id. at 35.
11. Id.
12. Id.
13. Id. at 35-36.
14. Id. at 36.
15. Id.
16. Id. at 36-37.
17. Id. at 37.
18. Id. at 98-101.
19. Id. at 93-102.
20. Id. at 33.
21. Id. at 33-54.
22. Id. at 58-64.
23. Id. at 56-57.
24. Id. at 18-19.
25. Id. at 19-24.
26. Republic v. Heirs of Santiago, 808 Phil. 1, 9-10 (2017).
27. People v. Buesa, G.R. No. 237850, September 16, 2020.
28. Id.
29. People v. Tripoli, 810 Phil. 788, 796 (2017).
30. People v. Baluyot, G.R. No. 243390, October 5, 2020.
31. People v. Omamos, supra.
32. People v. Ali, G.R. No. 224207 (Notice), January 29, 2020.
33. Supra note 15.
34. People v. Goyenoche, G.R. No. 243985, September 3, 2020.
35. People v. Esarol, G.R. No. 212524 (Notice), December 10, 2019.
36. TSN, January 25, 2006, pp. 16-18.
37. Supra note 20.
38. TSN, January 25, 2006, pp. 16-22.
39. People v. Baluyot, supra note 30.
40. People v. Arellaga, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020.
41. Id.
42. People v. Almorfe, 631 Phil. 51, 60 (2010).
43. People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 228825, July 28, 2020.
44. Largo v. People, G.R. No. 201293, June 19, 2019.
45. People v. Divinagracia, Jr., G.R. No. 240230, November 28, 2019.
46. Id.
47. People v. Asaytuno, Jr., G.R. No. 245972, December 2, 2019.
48. People v. Caiz, 790 Phil. 183, 209 (2016); People v. Daria, Jr., 615 Phil. 744, 767 (2009); Sales v. People, 602 Phil. 1047, 1053 (2009).
49. People v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 228893, November 26, 2018.