SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252135. September 15, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MERLY ABETO y DEGRACIA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated15 September 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252135 (People of the Philippines v. Merly Abeto y Degracia). — For resolution is an appeal of the Decision 1 dated September 27, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09964 which affirmed the Decision 2 dated April 19, 2017 of Branch 218 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-15-05466-CR and R-QZN-15-05467-CR convicting Merly Abeto y Degracia (Merly) for violations of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
The Antecedent Facts
Merly was charged in two separate Informations for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, respectively, committed as follows:
Crim. Case No. R-QZN-15-05466-CR
That on or about the 5th day of June 2015 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above named accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly have in her possession and control, Zero point fourteen (0.14) gram[s] of white crystalline substance, containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW.
Crim. Case No. R-QZN-15-05467-CR
That on or about the 5th day of June 2015 in Quezon City, Philippines, the above-named accused, without any lawful authority, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute or dispatch in transit, act as broker in the said transaction a dangerous drug, to wit: Zero point twelve (0.12) gram[s] of white crystalline substance, containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. IDSEAH
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Merly pleaded not guilty to both charges during her arraignment. Trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented as its witnesses Police Chief Inspector Anamelisa S. Bacani (PCI Bacani), Police Officer (PO) 3 Harold Polistico (PO3 Polistico), PO3 Richie Gaerlan (PO3 Gaerlan), and Senior Police Officer 1 Jesster Dela Cueva (SPO1 Dela Cueva).
On June 5, 2015, at around 8:00 p.m., a regular confidential informant (CI) arrived at the Quezon City Police District (QCPD) Cubao Police Station 7 who divulged that a certain Merly alias "Gladys" was selling illegal drugs on Aurora Boulevard corner Stanford Street, Brgy. E. Rodriguez, Cubao, Quezon City.
The police officers immediately acted on the information and organized a buy-bust operation to be executed that same night. During the briefing, SPO1 Dela Cueva was assigned as the poseur-buyer and given three One-Hundred-Peso (P100.00) bills as the marked money. PO3 Gaerlan was designated as the back-up officer.
SPO1 Dela Cueva and the CI proceeded to the target area on a motorcycle at 10:00 p.m. The back-up team followed on board a private vehicle. Upon arrival, they approached Merly after the CI singled her out. The CI told Merly "pakuha kaming tres," to which she replied, "akin na." The CI then instructed SPO1 Dela Cueva, "abot mo na yung pera."
SPO1 Dela Cueva handed Merly the marked money who received it and put it in her right pocket. She then took out two small heat-sealed plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance and told SPO1 Dela Cueva, "pili ka." SPO1 Dela Cueva picked one of the sachets and after completing the exchange, removed his cap signaling to the team that the sale had been consummated. PO3 Gaerlan rushed to apprehend Merly and informed her of the nature of her arrest and her constitutional rights.
After the arrest, SPO1 Dela Cueva ordered Merly to empty her pockets and right hand which yielded the buy-bust money and another heat-sealed plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. SPO1 Dela Cueva then marked the plastic sachets at the place of seizure. The sachet subject of the illegal sale was marked "JDC/MA1 6-5-15" and the second sachet retrieved was marked "JDC/MA2 6-5-15."
The marking and inventory of the seized drugs were conducted immediately at the crime scene in the presence of Merly and Barangay Kagawad Edwin Brandon Gener (Kag. Gener). Both SPO1 Dela Cueva and Kag. Gener signed the Inventory of Seized Evidence dated June 5, 2015.
The arresting officers thereafter took Merly and the seized drugs to the police station where the inventory of the seized drugs was continued. A representative from the media, Clyte Ocampo (Ocampo) of People's Balita, was present this time and was also made to sign the Inventory of Seized Evidence.
PO3 Polistico prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination for the seized drugs, the Request for Drug Test, and the Request for Physical Examination of Merly. SPO1 Dela Cueva personally submitted the request letters and the seized drugs to the QCPD Crime Laboratory. These were received by PCI Bacani as evidenced by the Chain of Custody Form dated June 6, 2015.
The tests conducted on the seized drugs confirmed it to be methamphetamine hydrochloride as indicated in the Initial Laboratory Report D-488-15 and Final Laboratory Report. aCIHcD
Version of the Defense
The defense presented Merly as its sole witness who denied all the allegations against her.
On June 5, 2015, at around 7:00 p.m., Merly was with her five-year-old daughter and working as a jeepney "barker" somewhere between Stanford and Yale Streets, Quezon City. A car and motorcycle suddenly stopped in front of her and she recognized its passengers as police officers who used to ask her to clean their police station. The police officers told her to get in the car ("Halika muna Gladys, sumakay ka muna"), leaving her daughter on the street. 4
The police officers brought Merly to the police station where she was made to sign a piece of paper. They then brought her to the Barangay Hall of E. Rodriguez but there were no barangay tanods present. They proceeded to the Cubao Barangay Hall and saw a Sangguniang Kabataan (SK) Officer. Merly and the SK Officer were brought to Stanford Street where they were photographed together. 5 Merly was thereafter returned to the police station and was subjected to a drug test where she yielded negative results for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride.
During trial, Merly testified that SPO1 Dela Cueva was not a member of the group of police officers who arrested her and that she was arrested along with three other persons who were later on released. She was told by one of the men typing in the police station that "wala kang maitutulong sa sarili mo, magtiis ka." She interpreted this to mean that she was detained because she had no money to pay off the arresting police officers to secure her release. She was allegedly arrested because of "palit ulo" so that the police officers could tell their superior that they arrested somebody. 6
RTC Decision
The RTC rendered its Decision 7 convicting Merly for both Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs:
WHEREFORE, the prosecution having established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the Court finds MERLY ABETO y DEGRACIA GUILTY of the offenses charged. For violation of Sec. 11, Art. II, R.A. 9165, she is sentenced to suffer the indeterminate prison term of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fifteen (15) years and a FINE of Php400,000.00. For Violation of Sec. 5 of the same law, she shall suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and a FINE of Php500,000.00. The accused shall be credited with the period of her preventive imprisonment.
The Branch Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the subject specimens to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition and final disposal.
SO ORDERED. 8
The RTC held that SPO1 Dela Cueva's testimony, corroborated by PO3 Gaerlan, sufficiently established that Merly was caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu. The subsequent search of her person which yielded the additional sachet of shabu was likewise valid as an incident to a lawful arrest. Merly's bare denial cannot prevail over the prosecution witnesses' positive assertions. 9
Aggrieved, Merly appealed the RTC Decision to the CA.
Merly filed an Appellant's Brief 10 alleging the following assignment of errors on the part of the RTC:
I.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED WHEN IT RELIED ON THE INCREDIBLE AND INCONSISTENT TESTIMONY OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES SPO1 JESSTER DELA CUEVA AND PO2 RICHIE GAERLAN DESPITE THE PATENT IRREGULARITIES OF THE ALLEGED BUY-BUST OPERATION.
II.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED.
III.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF DENIAL.
IV.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THF ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE ILLEGALITY OF HER ARREST. DACcIH
V.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED ON THE BASIS OF PLANTED EVIDENCE.
VI.
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED NOTWITHSTANDING THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THE INTEGRITY AND EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE ALLEGEDLY SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS. 11
Merly argued that the RTC gravely erred in giving credence to the prosecution witnesses' testimonies since these were substantially inconsistent and contradictory. In totality, all these inconsistencies eroded the prosecution witnesses' credibility and raised doubts on the veracity of their theory of what transpired. 12
It was highlighted that the Pre-Operational Report of the police indicated eight targets, contrary to PO3 Gaerlan's testimony that their pre-operation briefing focused solely on Merly as the target. Further, SPO1 Dela Cueva and PO3 Gaerlan gave contradicting testimonies on whether Merly asked for a lawyer during custodial investigation. SPO1 Dela Cueva testified that she did not ask for a lawyer, while PO3 Gaerlan testified that she asked for a lawyer and they tried to get her one from the Public Attorney's Office (PAO). 13
It was also asserted that the police officers' claim that Merly resisted her arrest was incredible and negated by the fact that they did not file a complaint for direct assault against her. It is likewise unbelievable that Merly would have the temerity to sell dangerous drugs in the middle of such a busy street to a total stranger like SPO1 Dela Cueva. The defense emphasized that "[t]he nefarious nature of drug dealing necessitates the need to conduct them secretly and not in the open, unlike the version of the prosecution that [Merly] readily sold shabu as if [s]he was selling an everyday household item." 14
Merly alleged that in truth, no buy-bust operation took place and the police officers' testimonies on such alleged operation were fabricated. Merly was merely working as a jeepney "barker" with her five-year-old daughter and was not committing any crime when she was arrested. Her warrantless arrest and the incidental warrantless search and seizure of drugs were unlawful and rendered all evidence obtained inadmissible in evidence. 15 It was additionally stressed that the police officers had sufficient time to obtain a judicial warrant to search Merly. There was no urgent or extreme necessity shown to conduct a warrantless search which made their operation illegal and void ab initio. 16
Lastly, it was argued that the police officers failed to comply with the required procedure for the seizure and chain of custody of the seized drugs pursuant to Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. 17 It was noted that SPO1 Dela Cueva was in sole possession of the seized drugs from the place of arrest, to the police station, and until its turnover to the crime laboratory. This is identical to the facts in People v. Dela Cruz18 where the Supreme Court viewed with suspicion the exclusive and sole possession of seized drugs by a police officer. Further, there was no evidence to show the proper turnover of the seized drugs (1) from SPO1 Dela Cueva to PO3 Polistico as the investigating officer, and (2) from PO3 Polistico to PCI Bacani as the forensic chemist. 19
On the contrary, the State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), filed its Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee (Appellee's Brief). 20 It maintained that Merly was apprehended through a valid warrantless arrest after being caught in flagrante delicto selling shabu to SPO1 Dela Cueva as a poseur-buyer. Regardless, Merly is estopped from assailing the legality of her arrest since she failed to timely raise this as an issue to quash the Informations against her before arraignment. 21
Anent the argument that the police officers should have obtained a search warrant against Merly, the OSG contended that the Supreme Court in People v. Balaquit22 has ruled that a prior search warrant is irrelevant in a buy-bust operation since "[t]he decision whether to apply for a search warrant or to conduct instead a buy-bust operation on any given case is a matter rightfully addressed to the sound discretion of the police officers." HSCATc
The OSG alleged that the evidence on record clearly proves that all the elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs were sufficiently established. SPO1 Dela Cueva and PO3 Gaerlan's testimonies could be relied upon to prove the conduct of the buy-bust operation and the subsequent incidental warrantless search and seizure which yielded the additional sachet of shabu. 23
It was further asserted that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were also preserved in compliance with the chain of custody rule. Evidence was presented on the marking and inventory of the seized drugs at the crime scene, their transportation and turnover to PO3 Polistico in the police station, and subsequent delivery to PCI Bacani for forensic examination. SPO1 Dela Cueva likewise testified in open court that the two sachets of shabu presented as evidence were the same sachets recovered from Merly during the buy-bust operation. Nevertheless, any alleged issues in the chain of custody will not affect the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs on account of the exception in Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165. 24
Merly filed a Reply Brief 25 stressing that the required witnesses under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were absent during the time of her apprehension and the seizure of the alleged drugs. Hence, contrary to the intent of the law, there was ample time for police officers to plant incriminating evidence. This serious irregularity was a violation of the Chain of Custody Rule. 26
CA Decision
The CA rendered its Decision 27 affirming the RTC and sustaining Merly's convictions for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs:
The appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The appealed Decision dated 19 April 2017 rendered by Branch 218 of the Regional Trial Court, National Capital Judicial Region, Quezon City, finding accused-appellant MERLY ABETO y DEGRACIA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 11 and 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 in Criminal Cases No. R-QZN-15-05466-CR and No. R-QZN-15-05467-CR is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION, in that, in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-15-05467-CR, appellant shall not be eligible for parole.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 28
The CA gave credence to SPO1 Dela Cueva and PO3 Gaerlan's testimonies that Merly engaged in the illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The corpus delicti of the crime was established through SPO1 Dela Cueva's confirmation that the marked sachets of shabu presented in evidence were the same sachets retrieved from Merly during the buy-bust operation. 29
The CA noted that Ocampo's signing of the Inventory of Seized Evidence only at the police station and not at the place of seizure of the drugs was only a minor lapse. Considering all the evidence presented, such lapse did not affect the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. 30
Dissatisfied, Merly filed a Notice of Appeal. 31
This Court issued its Resolution 32 dated July 27, 2020 giving due course to the appeal and notifying the parties to file their respective supplemental briefs.
Merly, represented by the PAO, filed a Manifestation 33 that she will no longer file a supplemental brief and will adopt the defenses alleged in her Appellant's Brief and Reply Brief filed before the CA.
The State similarly filed a Manifestation 34 stating that it will no longer file a supplemental brief and adopt all the arguments raised in its Appellee's Brief at the CA.
The appeal was thereafter deemed submitted for resolution.
Issue
The issue in this case is whether or not Merly is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
Ruling of the Court
The appeal is granted. Merly is acquitted.
It is well-settled that a conviction for either illegal sale or illegal possession of dangerous drugs requires the prosecution to prove the corpus delicti of the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 35 The corpus delicti of the crime consists of the drugs seized and it must be shown that the drugs presented in court as evidence are the same drugs illegally sold or possessed by the accused. It is the unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs which removes all doubts on the identity of the evidence in order to sustain a guilty verdict. 36 IDTSEH
In this regard, police officers are mandated to comply with the requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, to establish the proper chain of custody of the seized drugs. Section 21 pertinently provides:
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 which 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.
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued immediately upon completion of the said examination and certification[.]
It is clearly required that the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized drugs must he witnessed by: (1) the accused or the person/s from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative; (2) an elected public official; and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or media.
This Court in People v. Abueva37 emphasized that all the insulating witnesses must be present during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs to comply with the mandatory requirements under the law. This is necessary to avoid the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of the drugs obtained as evidence. It was thus held:
Applying the foregoing discussion to the case at bench, the Court finds that the apprehending authorities failed to comply with the requirements laid down under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 when they conducted the supposed buy-bust operation. It is without question that the burden of (1) proving strict compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165; and (2) providing a sufficient explanation in case of any deviation from the said rule rests upon the prosecution, and such burden of proof never shifts.
First, SPO2 Españo testified that he "marked the drug evidence at the place of arrest in the presence of the accused and other operatives." Needless to say, none of the required witnesses was present at the time of arrest of Abueva and the seizure of the drugs. The Court emphasizes that without the insulating presence of the required witnesses during the seizure and marking of the dangerous drug, the evils of switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence rear their ugly heads as to negate the integrity and credibility of such seizure and of the corpus delicti.
Second, it is beyond dispute that there was no elected public official who witnessed the marking, the inventory, and the photographing of the alleged seized evidence. The RTC itself acknowledged "the failure of the arresting officer to strictly comply with the mandate of [Section] 21[,] [Article] II of R.A. No. 9165, in that no witness from the DOJ and an elected public official were present during the inventory." To recapitulate, under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, aside from the accused or his/her representative or counsel, an elected public official, and a representative of the NPS or the media should be there to witness the physical inventory of the alleged seized items and photographing of the same.
Here, although there was a media representative in attendance during the inventory at the SAID-SOTG, an elected public official was not present. This is a clear and utter failure to comply with the mandatory requirement of the law. And, the mere fact that the buy-bust team's leader tried to contact a representative from the DOJ and the Barangay Chairman while the barangay tanods tried to locate an elected public official when they were at the barangay hall is not the earnest effort that is contemplated by the law. While it is true that the buy-bust operatives "contacted [a] representative from the DOJ and the Barangay Chairman while the barangay tanods tried to locate an elected public official, but both efforts proved to be futile," such cannot be considered compliance with the abovementioned rule that non-observance of rules under Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the apprehending/seizing officers. Suffice to say that the said statement does not proffer any explanation as to why the effort to locate a barangay official "proved to be fertile." Such hollow excuse that is not even supported by even a semblance of elucidation cannot be accepted by the Court. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
It was similarly held in People v. Padua38 that the presence of the required insulating witnesses during the physical inventory and photographing stage ensures the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The failure to ensure their presence is a serious irregularity which casts significant doubt on the integrity of the chain of custody of the seized drugs: TAacHE
Later, this Court emphasized the importance of the presence of the insulating witnesses during the physical inventory and the photograph of the seized items. Indeed, the presence of these witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. In People v. Caray, we ruled that the corpus delicti cannot be deemed preserved absent any acceptable explanation for the deviation from the procedural requirements of the chain of custody rule. Similarly, in Matabilas v. People, sheer statements of unavailability of the insulating witnesses, without actual serious attempt to contact them, cannot justify non-compliance.
In this case, the absence of a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media as an insulating witness to the inventory and photograph of the seized item puts serious doubt as to the integrity of the chain of custody. To be sure, only an elected public official signed the inventory of evidence at the place of arrest. Worse, the items were photographed at the police station without the presence of any insulating witness. However, the operatives failed to provide any justification for non-compliance showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved. They did not describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. The utter disregard of the required procedures created a huge gap in the chain of custody.
Lastly, it must be stressed that 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. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations omitted)
Non-compliance with the insulating witness requirement casts serious doubt on the integrity of the corpus delicti of the crime and must result in an acquittal. 39
It is only in exceptional cases that non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 can be excused. These exceptional cases must depend on the prosecution's proof that (1) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 40 This Court in People v. Baptista41 emphasized that it is indispensable for the prosecution to prove the justifiable ground as a fact.
In this case, the police officers failed to secure the presence of all the required insulating witnesses during the physical inventory and photographing of the seized drugs. It is clear from SPO1 Dela Cueva's testimony that only Kag. Gener, a public official, was present during the physical inventory of the drugs conducted at the place of arrest. No insulating witness from the NPS or media was present during such time:
(PO1 Dela Cueva Direct Examination)
FISCAL GONZALES:
So after you recovered the second sachet from the suspect and the buy-bust money, what happened next?
WITNESS:
Nagmarking na po kami sa place of arrest, sir.
FISCAL GONZALES:
You said that you made markings on the first sachet, what markings did you place on the second sachet?
WITNESS:
"JDC/MA2 6-5-15" and my signature, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
FISCAL GONZALES:
So after you made the markings, what did you do next, Mr. Witness?
WITNESS:
Nagpatawag na po kami ng elected official sa barangay, pumunta naman po si Kagawad Edwin Brandon Gener to witness the inventory, sir. HDICSa
FISCAL GONZALES:
I am showing you a one-page document, what relation does this document have to the inventory which you say you made in the presence of a barangay kagawad?
WITNESS:
Same document, this is my signature and this is the signature of Brgy. Kagawad Edwin Brandon Gener. 42
The apprehending officers subsequently brought the seized drugs to the police station to "continue" with the inventory and photographing thereof in the presence of Ocampo as a witness from the media. 43 However, there is nothing in the law which allows the conduct of piece-meal inventory and photographing of seized drugs to justify compliance with the insulating witness requirement. In this case, it remains undeniable that the same were conducted without the presence of all the required insulating witnesses.
Regrettably, the prosecution did not allege or present any proof of justifiable grounds to excuse the police officers' non-compliance with the insulating witness requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165. It is reiterated that justifiable grounds need to be proved as a fact for the exception of substantial compliance to apply. The prosecution's failure to do so has rendered the police officers' non-compliance unjustified. Verily, the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti of the crime beyond reasonable doubt through an unbroken chain of custody. This has tainted the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti and warrants Merly's acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 27, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09964 affirming the Decision dated April 19, 2017 of Branch 218 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Criminal Case Nos. R-QZN-15-05466-CR and R-QZN-15-05467-CR, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-Appellant Merly Abeto y Degracia is hereby ACQUITTED for the failure to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately released from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause. Let entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) working days from receipt of this Resolution the action taken. HcDSaT
SO ORDERED." (Rosario, J., no part due to prior action in the assailed Court of Appeals decision; Lazaro-Javier, J., designated additional Member per Special Order No. 2835-D dated July 30, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 3-32. Penned by Associate Justice Walter S. Ong with Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 49-53. Penned by Presiding Judge Luis Zenon Q. Maceren.
3. Id. at 49.
4. Id. at 51.
5. Id.
6. Id. at 52.
7. Id. at 49-53.
8. Id. at 53.
9. Id. at 52-53.
10. Id. at 32-48.
11. Id. at 32-33.
12. Id. at 38.
13. Id. at 38-39.
14. Id. at 40.
15. Id. at 41-43.
16. Id. at 39.
17. Id. at 44-45.
18. 744 Phil. 816 (2014).
19. CA rollo, pp. 45-46.
20. Id. at 70-103.
21. Id. at 81-84.
22. 741 Phil. 343 (2014).
23. CA rollo, pp. 84-91.
24. Id. at 95-97.
25. Id. at 114-118.
26. Id. at 115-117.
27. Rollo, pp. 3-32.
28. CA rollo, p. 31.
29. Rollo, pp. 14-19.
30. Id. at 19-26.
31. Id. at 33-34.
32. Id. at 38-39.
33. Id. at 43-46.
34. Id. at 47-53.
35. People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 228 (2010).
36. People v. Sebilleno, G.R. No. 221457, January 13, 2020.
37. G.R. No. 243633, July 15, 2020.
38. G.R. No. 244287, June 15, 2020.
39. People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 913 (2018).
40. People v. Fulgado, G.R. No. 246193, February 19, 2020.
41. G.R. No. 225783, August 20, 2018.
42. CA rollo, pp. 93-94.
43. Rollo, p. 24.