People v. Abarquez y Lopez

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 241781. June 14, 2021.]

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. MANUELITO ABARQUEZ y LOPEZ, accused-appellant.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 14, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 241781 — (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. MANUELITO ABARQUEZ y LOPEZ, accused-appellant). — This Notice of Appeal 1 under Section 13 (c), Rule 124 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended by A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, filed by accused-appellant Manuelito Abarquez y Lopez (Manuelito) seeks to reverse and set aside the December 22, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 08743, affirming the Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 65, dated October 27, 2016, in Criminal Case Nos. R-MKT-16-01635 to 16-01636, which found Manuelito guilty beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as, "The Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."

The Case

Two Informations were filed charging Manuelito with sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, in violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the accusatory portions of which read:

Criminal Case No. R-MKT-16-01635-CR [Sale]

On August 17, 2016, in the City of Makati, x x x Philippines, accused, not being lawfully authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, give away, distribute and deliver zero point zero eight (0.08) gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride, which is a dangerous drug, in consideration of Php500.00, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 4

Criminal Case No. R-MKT-16-01636-CR [Possession]

On [August] 17, 2016, in the City of Makati, x x x Philippines, accused, not being lawfully authorized by law and without the corresponding license or prescription, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, direct custody and control[,] a total weight of zero point twelve (0.12) gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.

CONTRARY TO LAW. 5

When arraigned, Manuelito pleaded "not guilty" to the criminal charges. Pre-trial conference was then conducted whereby the following facts were stipulated upon by the defense and the prosecution:

1) PO3 Voltaire Esquerra, the Police investigator on the case, prepared the investigation report as well as the requests for laboratory examination of the items allegedly purchased and recovered from the accused which he received from the arresting officer and turned over the same to the forensic chemist as appearing in the chain of custody form; and 2) PSI Ofelia Vallejo, the forensic chemist and an expert witness, examined the items purchased and confiscated from the accused and subsequently prepared the corresponding Physical Science Report No. D-1187-2016 pursuant to the request for laboratory examination prepared by PO3 Voltaire Esquerra. However, these prosecution witnesses have no personal knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the sale/recovery/confiscation of the illegal items from the accused. 6

After pre-trial conference, trial on the merits ensued. The prosecution presented two witnesses to prove its case, namely: Police Officer 1 Jojo Valdez (PO1 Valdez), who acted as the poseur-buyer, and PO1 Byron Atilon (PO1 Atilon). For the defense, Manuelito testified on his behalf. 7

The Antecedents

Prosecution's Version of Facts

On August 17, 2016, a confidential informant came to the office of the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOTG) reporting illegal drug activities of a certain "Kaka" at Guatemala St., Brgy. San Isidro, Makati City and its vicinities. A buy-bust team was formed with PO1 Valdez as the poseur-buyer, while PO1 Atilon was designated as his immediate back-up. The P500.00 marked money was prepared. Prior coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) was likewise made before the buy-bust team went to meet the informant at SM Hypermart, San Isidro, Makati City. 8

PO1 Valdez and the confidential informant then went on foot to Guatamela St., to meet the subject of the buy-bust. After a while, the confidential informant and PO1 Valdez saw Kaka standing along the street. They then met with him and the informant introduced PO1 Valdez as a buyer who wished to buy shabu. When Kaka asked PO1 Valdez how much would he be buying, PO1 Valdez remarked that he wanted to buy P500.00 worth of the substance. As he handed the marked money, Kaka then handed three (3) small heat-sealed plastic sachets to PO1 Valdez. 9 It is at this point that PO1 Valdez executed the pre-arranged signal by removing his bull cap before grabbing Kaka, who was later on identified as Manuelito. The backup arresting officer, PO1 Atilon, immediately arrived and aided PO1 Valdez in arresting Manuelito and conducting a body search on Manuelito. After the search, additional two (2) sachets of suspected shabu were found in Manuelito's possession, as well as the buy-bust money. He was then apprised of the cause and nature of his arrest as well as his constitutional rights before taking him and the seized items to Police Community Precinct (PCP) 3, Makati Police Station. 10

In the police station, the seized items were inventoried in his presence and the presence of Barangay Kagawad Ronald Duka Alvarez, Jr. (Kagawad Ronald). Thereafter, Manuelito and the seized items were brought to the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory for drug test and examination, respectively. 11

Defenses Version of Facts

At around 12:30 in the early morning of August 17, 2016, Manuelito was having a drinking session with a sibling and his friends in front of Guatemala St., Barangay San Isidro, Makati City when he saw armed men entering a nearby alley while shouting at everyone not to move. Manuelito, however, moved and run. He was chased by the armed men and was caught inside his house. He was then brought to the SAID-SOTG office where he was detained for having committed the crimes charged in the Informations. 12

The RTC Ruling

The RTC rendered a Decision finding Manuelito guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 (Sale) and 11 (Illegal Possession), Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The trial court affirmed the validity of the buy-bust operation. It gave credence to the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who clearly narrated the incident during the buy-bust operation and upheld the presumption of regularity in the apprehending officers' performance of official duty. 13

Furthermore, the trial court noted that defense of denial raised by Manuelito cannot prevail over the testimonies of the police officers who participated in the buy-bust operation. The trial court likewise concluded that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized drug were duly preserved from the time it was seized from Manuelito until it was presented in court during trial. 14 Accordingly, the trial court disposed of the case in this wise:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:

1. In Criminal Case No. R-MKT-16-01635-CR, the court finds the accused, Manuelito Abarquez y Lopez, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).

2. In Criminal Case No. R-MKT-16-01636-CR, the court finds the same accused, Manuelito Abarquez y Lopez, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of violation of section 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months, as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00).

The period of detention of the accused should be given full credit.

Let the dangerous drugs subject matter of these cases be disposed of in the manner provided for by law.

The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the plastic sachets containing shabu subject matter of these cases to the PDEA for said agency's appropriate disposition.

SO ORDERED. 15

Aggrieved, Manuelito appealed to the CA.

The CA Ruling

In a Decision 16 promulgated on December 22, 2017, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Decision. Similar to the trial court's findings, the CA ruled that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of the crimes charged. 17 It further ratiocinated that the evidentiary value of the seized drug was preserved despite some lapses in the handling thereof. 18 The fallo of the assailed Decision reads:

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is DENIED. The assailed Decision dated October 27, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 65 of Makati City in Criminal Case Nos. R-MKT-16-01635-CR and R-MKT-16-01636-CR which found accused-appellant Manuelito Abarquez y Lopez guilty beyond reasonable doubt of a violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 is AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED. 19

Undaunted, Manuelito filed a Notice of Appeal 20 under Rule 124, Section 13 (c) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Issue

Whether the CA erred in affirming the trial court's decision convicting Manuelito of the crimes charged despite several lapses in the chain of custody.

The Court's Ruling

The instant appeal is meritorious.

In main, Manuelito insists the apprehending officers failed to strictly comply with the requirements outlined in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. He averred that the integrity and evidentiary value of the alleged seized drug were not preserved considering that they were improperly marked, and the inventory was not witnessed by representatives of the media or the National Prosecution Service (NPS). 21 In short, Manuelito contends that there was a broken chain of custody. Thus, he insists that there is reasonable doubt as to his guilt for the crimes charged.

Manuelito's contentions are tenable.

At the outset, reasonable doubt is defined as that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. 22 This Court had the opportunity to explain the definition of reasonable doubt in the case of Alcantara v. Court of Appeals, 23viz.:

x x x Reasonable doubt is that doubt engendered by an investigation of the whole proof and an inability, after such investigation, to let the mind rest easy upon the certainty of guilt. Absolute certainty of guilt is not required by the law to convict of any crime charged but moral certainty is required and this certainty is required to every proposition of proof requisite to constitute the offense. The reasonable doubt should necessarily pertain to the facts constituted by the crime charged. Surmises and conjectures have no place in a judicial inquiry and thus are shunned in criminal prosecution. For the accused to be acquitted on reasonable doubt, it must arise from the evidence adduced or from lack of evidence. Reasonable doubt is not such a doubt as any man may start questioning for the sake of a doubt; nor a doubt suggested or surmised without foundation in facts, for it is always possible to question any conclusion derived from the evidence on record. Reasonable doubt is the state of the case which after a calibration and assessment of the totality of the evidence of the prosecution leaves the mind of the judge in that condition that he cannot say that there is a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. 24 (Citations omitted)

In the instant case, this Court holds and so rules that the prosecution's evidence, both documentary and testimonial, contain lapses and weak, raising reasonable doubt on whether or not Manuelito is guilty of the crimes charged.

For the successful prosecution of an offense involving sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 25 Meanwhile, in a case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, the following elements must be proven: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 26

Inasmuch as the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, its identity and integrity must definitely be shown to have been preserved. This means that on top of the elements of sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the fact that the substance possessed or illegally sold was the very substance presented in court must be established with the same exacting degree of certitude as that required sustaining a conviction. 27 In other words, the prosecution must account for each link in the chain of custody of the dangerous drug, from the moment of seizure from the accused until it was presented in court as proof of the corpus delicti. In short, the chain of custody requirement ensures that unnecessary doubts respecting the identity of the evidence are minimized if not altogether removed. 28

Now, the Guidelines on the Custody and Disposition of Seized Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals and Laboratory Equipment 29 defines "chain of custody" as follows:

Section 1 (b). "Chain of Custody" means 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 seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, 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[.]

Furthermore, in the case of People v. Kamad, 30 this Court had the opportunity to enumerate the different links that the prosecution must prove in order to establish the chain of custody in a buy-bust operation, namely:

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

This court finds that the foregoing links establishing the chain of custody are tainted with irregularity resulting in a broken chain of custody.

Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, reads:

SEC. 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 person/s 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. (Emphasis supplied)

In the instant case, records show that after the arrest of Manuelito in Guatemala St., Barangay San Isidro, Makati City, the police officers immediately brought him to their station, PCP 3, Makati police Station, where marking and inventory of seized items, and taking of photographs were conducted. Contrary to what the law prescribes, they failed to do these procedures at the place where Manuelito was arrested and their only excuse in doing so is because of security reasons. 32 No further explanation, however, was made. Worse, records reveal that of the three mandatory witnesses during inventory of the seized items, only one was present therein.

It has been established that during the inventory of the seized items in PCP 3, Makati police Station, only Brgy. Kagawad Ronald, was the lone witness. 33 There were no representatives from the media or the NPS. Worse, the apprehending officers offered no excuse for the absence of these mandatory witnesses. Such omission is fatal to the prosecution's case.

In the case of People v. Feriol, 34 this Court acquitted therein accused Feriol of the crime of sale of dangerous drugs on the ground of the prosecution's failure to comply with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, particularly due to the absence of media and Department of Justice representatives during the inventory of the seized items. Therein, this Court ruled:

In the recent case of People v. Miranda, the Court held that "the procedure in Section 21[, Article II] of RA 9165 is a matter of substantive law, and cannot be brushed aside as a simple procedural technicality; or worse, ignored as an impediment to the conviction of illegal drug suspects. Therefore, as the requirements are clearly set forth in the law, then the State retains the positive duty to account for any lapses in the chain of custody of the drugs/items seized from the accused, regardless of whether or not the defense raises the same in the proceedings a quo; otherwise, it risks the possibility of having a conviction overturned on grounds that go into the evidence's integrity and evidentiary value, albeit the same are raised only for the first time on appeal, or even not raised, become apparent upon further review."

In the same vein, the Court, in recent drug cases, has exhorted:

[P]rosecutors are strongly reminded that they have the positive duty to prove compliance with the procedure set forth in Section 21[, Article II] of RA 9165, as amended. As such, they must have the initiative to not only acknowledge but also justify any perceived deviations from the said procedure during the proceedings before the trial court. Since compliance with this procedure is determinative of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and ultimately, the fate of the liberty of the accused, the fact that any issue regarding the same was not raised, or even threshed out in the court/s below, would not preclude the appellate court, including this Court, from fully examining the records of the case if only to ascertain whether the procedure had been completely complied with, and if not, whether justifiable reasons exist to excuse any deviation. If no such reasons exist, then it is the appellate court's bounden duty to acquit the accused and, perforce, overturn a conviction.

Thus, in view of the prosecution's failure to provide justifiable grounds which would excuse their transgression in this case, the Court is constrained to conclude that the integrity and evidentiary value of the item purportedly seized from Feriol have been compromised, thereby militating against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. As such, Feriol's acquittal is in order. 35 (Citations and underscoring omitted, emphasis supplied)

This was the same pronouncement of this Court in the case of Ramos v. People, 36viz.:

At this point, it is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand knowing full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their noncompliance, but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstance, their actions were reasonable. 37 (Citations and underscoring omitted. Emphasis supplied)

From the above-quoted cases, it may be noted that the absence of these representatives from the media or the NPS does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 must be adduced. 38

Accordingly, this Court holds and so rules that, due to the unexplained absence of the representatives from media or NPS during the inventory of the seized items, the integrity and evidentiary value thereof have been compromised. In other words, there is a broken chain of custody that warrants the acquittal of Manuelito from the crime charged.

From the foregoing ratiocination, this Court needs not to discuss the other issues raised by Manuelito, for to go over with the other issues will be a waste of time for being a mere surplus age.

All told, the quantum of proof required for the conviction of Manuelito for the sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs was not met. Hence, this Court must reckon with a dictum of the law, in dubilis reus est absolvendus, "All doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused." 39 As a consequence, this Court is constrained to acquit Manuelito on the ground of reasonable doubt.

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The December 22, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08743 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Accordingly, Manuelito Abarquez y Lopez is hereby ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt of the crimes charged against him and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.

Let a copy of this Resolution be FURNISHED to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is directed to report to this Court, within five days from receipt of this Resolution, the action he has taken. Copies shall also be FURNISHED to the Police General of the Philippine National police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency FOR THEIR INFORMATION.

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.Rollo, pp. 15-17.

2.Id. at 2-14; penned by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Marlene B. Gonzales-Sison and Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (now a Member of this Court), concurring.

3. CA rollo, pp. 47-53; penned by Presiding Judge Edgardo M. Caldona.

4.Id. at 47.

5.Id. at 47-48.

6.Id. at 48.

7.Id.

8.Rollo, pp. 4-5.

9.Id. at 5.

10.Id.

11.Id.

12.Id. at 5-6.

13.Id. at 50-53.

14.Id. at 52.

15. CA rollo, p. 53.

16.Rollo, pp. 2-14.

17.Id. at 8.

18.Id. at 11-13.

19.Id. at 14.

20.Id. at 15-17.

21.Id. at 36-43.

22.People v. Calica, 471 Phil. 270, 283-284 (2004).

23. 462 Phil. 72 (2003).

24.Id. at 89-90.

25.Buenaventura v. People, 556 Phil. 331, 342 (2007).

26.People v. Punzalan, 773 Phil. 72, 90, (2015).

27.People v. Adrid, 705 Phil. 654, 670 (2013).

28.People v. Enriquez, 718 Phil. 352, 363-364 (2013).

29. Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.

30. 624 Phil. 289 (2010).

31.Id. at 304.

32. CA rollo, p. 75.

33.Id. at 49.

34. G.R. No. 232154, August 20, 2018, 878 SCRA 164.

35.Id. at 177-178.

36. G.R. No. 233572, July 20, 2018, 874 SCRA 595.

37.Id. at 611-612.

38.People v. Gamboa, G.R. No. 233702, June 20, 2018, 867 SCRA 548, 569.

39.People v. Abujan, 467 Phil. 49, 60-61 (2004).