FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253771. October 13, 2021.]
REILYN OCAMPO, petitioner, vs.PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated October 13, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253771 — Reilyn Ocampo v. People of the Philippines
At the outset, the Court notes that Reilyn Ocampo (Ocampo) elevated the present case via a Petition for Review 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. True, appeals in criminal cases, as a rule, shall be brought to the Court by filing a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. 2 As an exception though, in cases where the Court of Appeals imposed reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the mode of appeal should be through a notice of appeal filed before the Court of Appeals. 3
Here, Ocampo availed of the wrong mode of appeal via Rule 45, instead of an ordinary notice of appeal under Rule 124 of the Rules of Court. But in the interest of substantial justice and in view of the gravity of the offense and the severity of the penalty involved, the Court resolves to relax the procedural rules and treat the petition as an ordinary appeal. After all, procedural rules are intended to aid, not to defeat, the dispensation of justice. So must it be.
Ocampo is charged with and convicted of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs purportedly committed on October 21, 2016. Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), 4 as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (RA 10640), 5 therefore, governs the disposition of this case. 6
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. Indubitably, the prosecution is tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 7 The chain of custody requirement performs this function by ensuring that unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence are removed. 8 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. 9
Chain of custody refers to the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs from the time of their seizure or confiscation, to their chemical examination at the forensic laboratory, to safekeeping thereafter, until they are presented in court as evidence. 10
In People v. Galisim11 the Court emphasized that the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody to ensure the integrity of the seized items, viz.: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the dangerous drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the dangerous drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the dangerous drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked dangerous drug seized from the forensic chemist to the court.
We focus on the first and fourth links.
The first link decrees compliance with physical inventory and photographing of the seized dangerous drugs. This is done before the seized drugs are sent to the crime laboratory for testing. 12
Here, Police Officer 1 King Hervie Ata L.P. Timbreza (PO1 Timbreza) and Senior Police Officer 2 Christopher O. Ortega (SPO2 Ortega) both testified that they did the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items. Curiously though, the prosecution failed to present in evidence the Inventory Receipt itself as well as the photographs that were supposedly taken during the said inventory. The prosecution did not even explain why it failed to submit the foregoing documents during the trial.
Consequently, we cannot verify if the presence of the required witnesses under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640 was truly complied with. It requires that (1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, or (d) a representative from the Department of Justice, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
The presentation of the inventory receipt and photographs are essential to establish compliance with the chain of custody rule because the law requires the presence of the insulating witnesses in order to remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 13
In People v. Alagarme14 and People v. Arposeple, 15 the Court ruled that the failure of the arresting officers to present any certificate of inventory and to produce the photographs taken of the dangerous drugs following their seizure militated against the guilt of an accused. For then, the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti cannot be deemed to have been preserved.
The first link, therefore, had been breached early on.
We now go to the fourth link. It refers to the turnover and submission of the dangerous drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 16
Here, the parties stipulated on the proposed testimony of Police Chief Inspector Gina M. Camposano (PCI Camposano). The stipulation, however, was limited to the expertise and qualifications of PCI Camposano as forensic chemist; PO1 Timbreza's delivery of two (2) plastic sachets containing suspected shabu marked as "BB-KHT" and "P-KHT," respectively, to PCI Camposano; PCI's Camposano's examination of the contents of the two (2) plastic sachets which yielded positive result for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride; the genuineness and due execution of Chemistry Report No. D-2020-2016; and PCI Camposano's lack of personal knowledge of the circumstances leading to the confiscation of the specimens. 17
People v. Ubungen18 instructs that where the parties stipulate on the testimony of the forensic chemist, such stipulation should include the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) the forensic chemist received the seized item as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) he or she resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) he or she placed his or her own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial.
Essentially, the prosecution and the defense here simply stipulated on PCI Camposano's qualifications and that the items supposedly seized from petitioner tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu. The stipulation lacked material details on whether PCI Camposano resealed the seized items after examination and placed her own markings to prevent tampering. Too, nothing on record shows that she took precautionary measures after examination of the seized items to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. More, even the name of the evidence custodian who received the items from PCI Camposano before their presentation in court was not at all mentioned by the prosecution witnesses, nay, indicated in the records.
Verily, absent any testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs allegedly seized here after their qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the seized items could not be deemed established with moral certainty. 19
In People v. Miranda, 20 the Court acquitted Miranda due to the parties' ineffective stipulation of the forensic chemist's proposed testimony, among others. There, the parties' stipulations did not contain vital information that forensic chemist Inspector Mangalip received the seized drugs intact, marked, and properly sealed; that Inspector Mangalip resealed the drug items after examination of the content; and, that Inspector Mangalip placed his own marking on the drug items leave a huge gap in the chain of custody of the seized drugs.
All told, as the Court has invariably decreed, where the chain of custody had not been complied with, or no justifiable reason exists for its non-compliance, as in this case, it is the Court's duty to overturn the verdict of conviction. 21
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated December 13, 2019 and Resolution dated July 16, 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 11092 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
REILYN OCAMPO is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. 19-M-2017 and 20-M-2017. 22 The Court DIRECTS the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City to cause the immediate release of Reilyn Ocampo from custody unless she is being held for some other lawful cause, and to submit his report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice.
Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
The Office of the Solicitor General's comment (re: petition for review dated September 10, 2020) and manifestation (re: e-filing and sending of copies via accredited courier [LBC]); and the manifestation of Atty. Jose M. Cruz, stating that after the filing of the pleading to this Court, the mother of accused-appellant withdrew for the second time the services of the law office and insisted that her daughter shall be represented by the Public Attorney's Office, are all NOTED. The Office of the Solicitor General and Atty. Jose M. Cruz are required to SUBMIT, within five (5) days from notice hereof, soft copies in compact disc, USB or e-mail containing the PDF file of the signed comment on the petition for review on certiorari and the signed manifestation, respectively, both pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, J., J., took no part; Dimaampao, J.,designated Additional Member per Raffle dated October 6, 2021. 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.Rollo, pp. 3-10.
2. Section 3 (e), Rule 122 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure reads:
Section 3. How appeal taken. —
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Except as provided in the last paragraph of Section 13, Rule 124, all other appeals to the Supreme Court shall be by petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45.
3. Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure reads:
Section 13. Certification or appeal of case to the Supreme Court. —
xxx xxx xxx
(c) In cases where the Court of Appeals imposes reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or a lesser penalty, it shall render and enter judgment imposing such penalty. The judgment may be appealed to the Supreme Court by notice of appeal filed with the Court of Appeals.
4. Otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.
5. RA 10640 took effect on August 7, 2014.
6. See People v. Leaño, G.R. No. 246461, July 28, 2020.
7. See People v. Caray, G.R. No. 245391, September 11, 2019.
8. See People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 30 (2017).
9. See People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019.
10. See Tumabini v. People, G.R. No. 224495, February 19, 2020.
11. G.R. No. 231305, September 11, 2019.
12.Id.
13. See People v. Esguerra, G.R. No. 243986, January 22, 2020.
14. 754 Phil. 449, 461 (2015).
15. 821 Phil. 340, 355 (2017).
16.People v. Hementiza, 807 Phil. 1017, 1030 (2017).
17.Rollo, pp. 13-14.
18. See People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888, 901 (2018).
19.Id. at 902.
20. G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019.
21. See People v. Año, 828 Phil. 439, 453 (2018).
22. The title of the RTC Joint Judgment indicates "Criminal Case No. 19-M-2016" and "Criminal Case No. 20-M-2016" as the docket numbers of these subject criminal cases.