FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253526. November 11, 2021.]
DELFIN EUGENIO y ALBERTO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253526 — Delfin Eugenio y Alberto v. People of the Philippines
We acquit.
Petitioner Delfin Eugenio y Alberto was charged with Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, which he committed on January 27, 2016. Thus, Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (RA 10640) 1 that took effect on August 7, 2014, governs the disposition of the present case.
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. On this score, the prosecution is tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. The chain of custody requirement performs this function by ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. It came to fore due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs which render them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution, by accident or otherwise. 2 SDHTEC
Pertinent to this case is the chain of custody, which refers to 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 the seized items shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody thereof, 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. 3 The prosecution, therefore, must establish the following links in the chain of custody:
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. 4
We focus on the second link in the chain of custody.
Here, no testimony was offered by the prosecution as to the turnover of the illegal drugs seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer.
In the second link, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. This is a necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for developing the criminal case. Certainly, the investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs for the preparation of the required documents. 5
In this case, the parties merely stipulated on the testimony of Police Officer 3 Rex G. Baygar (PO3 Baygar), thus:
1. That he is a member of the Philippine National Police;
2. That he was the investigator of the case;
3. That as the investigator, he prepared the Chain of Custody Form, Request for Laboratory Examination and Request for Drug Test;
4. That the witness has no personal knowledge as to the source and origin of the specimens subject of these cases; and
5. That he has no personal knowledge as to the causes and circumstances leading to the arrest of the accused.
Clearly, while Police Officer 2 Marvin A. Santos (PO2 Santos) testified that, although PO3 Baygar acted as the investigator in this case, the seized drugs never left the custody of PO2 Santos, thus:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And after that, what happened next, after the inventory was made?
A: Our investigator Rex Baygar prepared the documents, chain of custody, request for laboratory examination, and the request for drug test.
Q: While PO3 Baygar was preparing the request for laboratory examination, where are the nine pieces of plastic sachet, the specimen that you were able to confiscate and the one that you were able to buy from accused Delfin Eugenio?
A: It [was] in my custody.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And after that, what happened next, Mr. Witness?
A: After preparing the documents, chain of custody form[,] and the request for laboratory examination[,] we proceeded to the Crime Laboratory. HESIcT
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And who [was] in possession of the specimens subject of the request for laboratory examination from your office at SA[I]DSOTG to the EPD Crime Laboratory in Mandaluyong City?
A: It [was] in my custody, ma'am.
Q: How were you able to keep that in your possession?
A: I put it in my bag. 6
Curiously, though, nothing in the chain of custody form, 7 request for laboratory examination and drug test 8 showed that PO3 Baygar signed them. Neither was his name indicated therein. In fact, records show that the documents were signed by Police Chief Inspector Renato B. Castillo, not PO3 Baygar. 9
In fact, PO2 Santos himself admitted that the seized drugs remained in his custody until the time they were submitted to Police Chief Inspector Rhea Fe D.C. Alviar (PCI Alviar) at the EPD Crime Laboratory Office. Records, too, are devoid of any showing that PO3 Baygar ever saw the markings on the seized items. In fine, how could PO3 Baygar have properly performed his investigation without having acquired custody or even possession of the corpus delicti at any given time?
Indeed, the miniscule quantity of confiscated illicit drugs here heightens the importance of a more stringent conformity with the procedures laid down by the law, which the police officers in this case miserably failed to comply. This significant gap, as well as the police officers' failure to explain their deviation from the prescribed procedure impeaches the integrity of the corpus delicti. 10
In People v. Dahil, 11 the Court overturned the conviction of the accused because of the gaps in the chain of custody, specifically on the second link. The Court elucidated:
Second Link: Turnover of the Seized Drugs by the Apprehending Officer to the Investigating Officer
The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. This is a necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required documents.
The investigator in this case was a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin. Surprisingly, there was no testimony from the witnesses as to the turnover of the seized items to SPO4 Jamisolamin. It is highly improbable for an investigator in a drug-related case to effectively perform his work without having custody of the seized items. Again, the case of the prosecution is forcing this Court to resort to guesswork as to whether PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Lieu gave the seized drugs to SPO4 Jamisolamin as the investigating officer or they had custody of the marijuana all night while SPO4 Jamisolamin was conducting his investigation on the same items. x x x (emphasis supplied)
Similarly in People v. Remigio, 12 the arresting officer/poseur-buyer admitted that he alone had custody of the five (5) plastic sachets of shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic chemist. The prosecution failed to account for the second link in the chain of custody where the seized illegal drugs should have been turned over by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Further, the prosecution failed to offer any testimony or document to clarify the participation in the chain of custody of the police officer who signed the request for laboratory examination. There, the Court ruled that mere stipulations cannot remedy a break in the chain of custody, hence, accused Remigio was acquitted. caITAC
More, in People v. Bangcola, 13 the Court ruled that it cannot be correctly determined whether there is an actual turnover of the seized items to the investigating officer when the chain of custody form does not reflect the investigating officer's name and signature. There, the Court stressed that it is improbable for an investigator in a drug-related case to effectively and properly perform his work, let alone, accomplish the necessary documents for the transfer of evidence, without taking custody of the seized items. Thus, the arresting officer's act of keeping the seized evidence until its submission to the forensic chemist and the failure to tum them over to the investigating officer are considered breaks in the chain of custody.
Here, the stipulations on the testimony of PO3 Baygar failed to convince the Court that the second link had been established. A mere stipulation that the investigating officer prepared the Chain of Custody Form, Request for Laboratory Examination and Request for Drug Test, will not suffice. More so, when these documents had been signed not by the investigating officer but by another person whose participation in the chain of custody had not been duly established, as in here.
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. Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. 14
All told, the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody in this case. Consequently, the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti was deemed not established at all. Petitioner's acquittal, therefore, is in order.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated November 25, 2019 and Resolution dated August 24, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 39413 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
DELFIN EUGENIO y ALBERTO is ACQUITTED of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Let an entry of judgment immediately issue.
The Office of the Solicitor General's comment on the petition for review on certiorari; and the letter dated February 15, 2021 of Ms. Jane G. Sabido, Chief, Archives Section, Judicial Records Division, Court of Appeals, Manila, in compliance with the Resolution dated January 18, 2021, transmitting the rollo of CA-G.R. CR No. 39413 with 204 pages, one (1) folder of original records and one (1) bundle of transcript of stenographic notes, and one (1) envelope of Abstract, are both NOTED. ICHDca
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. 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.'"
2.De Guzman v. People, G.R. No. 246327 (Notice), January 13, 2021.
3. See Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.
4. See People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 31 (2017).
5.People v. Amorin, G.R. No. 224884 (Notice), December 10, 2019, citing People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 235 (2015).
6.Rollo, pp. 105-106.
7. See Exhibit "H"; record, p. 80.
8. See Exhibits "I" and "J", id. at 25-26; and Exhibit "K", id. at 27.
9. See Exhibits "H", "I" and "J".
10.People v. Amorin, G.R. No. 224884 (Notice), December 10, 2019.
11. 750 Phil. 212, 234-235 (2015) (citations omitted).
12. 700 Phil. 452, 469 (2012).
13.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019.
14.Buasan v. People, G.R. No. 232476, November 9, 2020.