FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254151. November 23, 2021.]
JERRY FERNANDEZ y FOLLOSO, petitioner,vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 23, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254151 — Jerry Fernandez y Folloso v. People of the Philippines
We acquit.
Preliminarily, we stress that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure must, as a general rule, only raise questions of law. 1 This Court is not a trier of facts. It is not the Court's function to analyze or weigh evidence all over again in view of the corollary legal precept that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on this Court. 2
Even then, the Court is not precluded from reviewing the factual findings of the courts below when said findings do not conform with the evidence on record. Too, the trial court's factual findings will not bind this Court if facts which could affect the result of the case were overlooked and disregarded, as here. 3
To be clear, the Court shall refrain from resolving whether petitioner Jerry Fernandez y Folloso (Jerry) was validly arrested sans judicial warrant for uttering "Mga putang inang mga pulis. Ticket nang Ticket. Abala!" in front of police officers. To recall, petitioner argues that such utterance does not constitute a crime for which he could be arrested in flagrante delicto.
But as petitioner himself admitted, he already got convicted of oral defamation for his utterance by the Municipal Trial Court of Paracale, Camarines Norte. 4 Thus, the Court may no longer declare whether petitioner got validly arrested in flagrante delicto lest we render a prejudgment of any appeal petitioner may take from the verdict of conviction in the oral defamation case.
In any event, any discussion on the validity of petitioner's arrest would be a mere obiter dictum. For the Court need not invalidate his arrest to render a verdict of acquittal.
The arresting officers failed to
Petitioner Jerry was charged with illegal possession of dangerous drugs allegedly committed on October 22, 2014. Thus, Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 5 as amended by RA 10640 6 on August 7, 2014 governs this case.
In illegal drugs cases, it is essential that the identity of the seized drug be established with moral certainty; it must be proven with exactitude that the substance seized from the accused is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. 7
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking 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 turn over and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 8
Relative to the first link, Section 21 of RA 9165 as amended prescribes:
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 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 persons 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;
This is the chain of custody rule. 9 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 either by accident or otherwise. 10 Failure to comply with the chain of custody rule is ground for acquittal in drugs cases.
Here, the chain of custody was incipiently broken. The first link was breached two times over.
First. The drug item was not marked at the place of seizure.
Crucial in proving the chain of custody is the marking of the seized drugs immediately after they are seized from the accused. "Marking" means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. 11People v. Sabdula12 elucidates:
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be 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 the criminal proceedings, thus preventing switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. (Emphasis added)
In Jocson v. People, 13 petitioner Jocson got arrested along Daang Bakal Street, Barangay Old Zaniga, Mandaluyong City following a supposed buy-bust operation. The arresting officers then boarded him into a van and brought him to their office where the marking of the seized item was done. But during the trip, the seized item, while still unmarked, was exposed to switching, planting, and contamination. Thus, there was uncertainty as to whether the drug item allegedly seized from Jocson was the same item marked at the office of the arresting officers and thereafter offered in evidence during the trial. Since reasonable doubt was cast on the identity and integrity of the seized item, a verdict of acquittal was warranted therein.
Similarly, petitioner here got arrested at a checkpoint in Purok 6, Sitio Landing, Bagumbayan, Paracale, Camarines Norte but the seized item was marked "ARV-1" only at the Paracale Municipal Police Station. The rulings below do not bear how far the station was from where petitioner got arrested, and the means by which they got from point A to point B. Worse, there was no mention of how Police Officer 2 (PO2) Alvin Villares preserved the integrity and evidentiary value of the unmarked seized item while it was in his custody during transit. Hence, there is no guarantee that the item marked at the police station was the same item purportedly seized from petitioner. In other words, there is reasonable doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti.
Respondent nevertheless asserts that the arresting officers were justified in marking the seized item at the Paracale Municipal Police Station instead of the place of arrest in view of the growing number of bystanders who were starting to cause a commotion.
We are not convinced.
In Cha y Azores v. People, 14 both the trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled that that the belated marking at the barangay hall was justified since there was a commotion at the place of arrest, drawing spectators to the area and rendering immediate marking impractical. The Court ruled otherwise; it found the justification flimsy and hollow. For the six (6) armed police officers comprising the arresting team could have easily contained the commotion and controlled the crowd.
Here, the arresting team was composed of Police Inspector Herson Manegdeg, PO2 Alvin Villares, Senior Police Officer 3 Nomer Elaga, PO3 Jepte Cribe, Jr., and PO3 Ferdinand Edora. As in Cha, we see no reason how mere bystanders could have prevented all five (5) able policemen from immediately marking the seized item at the place of arrest.
Second. Only petitioner and Kagawad Isabelo Espiritu witnessed the inventory of the seized item.
It bears stress that RA 9165 as amended requires said inventory to be done in the presence of the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. The presence of the required insulating witnesses during inventory is mandatory. It is a high prerogative requirement, the non-fulfillment of which casts serious doubts upon the integrity of the corpus delicti itself and imperils the prosecution's case. 15
The absence of the insulating witnesses may nonetheless be excused so long as the prosecution is able to show that (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 16 Yet no explanation at all was offered for the omission here. Neither was it shown that the arresting officers exerted earnest effort to contact the other required witnesses. Consequently, the saving clause does not come into play.
In People v. Labini, the Court acquitted appellant for failure of the arresting officers to explain why only a barangay official was present during the inventory — a clear breach of the witness requirement. So, too, did the Court acquit appellant in People v. Canton17 in view of the obvious deviation from the witness requirement under RA 9165.
In fine, the breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21, RA 9165 as amended militate against a finding of guilt. As the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti itself were not duly preserved, the charge against petitioner ought to be dismissed.
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 20, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 43512 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner JERRY FERNANDEZ y FOLLOSO is ACQUITTED. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ordered to a) immediately release petitioner from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause, and b) submit his report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019.
2.Caampued v. Next Wave Maritime Management, Inc., G.R. No. 253756, May 12, 2021.
3.Supra, note 1.
4.Rollo, p. 50, citing TSN dated January 17, 2018, p. 6.
5. 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.
6. 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."
7.People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 544 (2017).
8.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 221, 231 (2015).
9.People v. Ramos y Mosca, G.R. No. 243944, March 15, 2021.
10.Jocson y Cristobal v. People, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019.
11.People v. Sabdula y Amanda, 733 Phil. 85-102 (2014).
12.Id.
13.Supra, note 10.
14.Cha y Azores v. People, G.R. No. 246550, September 16, 2020.
15.People v. Crisostomo y Tangonan, G.R. No. 252488, May 12, 2021.
16.Ibid.
17. G.R. No. 241328, September 16, 2020.