FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248781. October 13, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiff-appellee,vs. IRVIN ABUEVA y PUSON,accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedOctober 13, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248781 (People of the Philippines v. Irvin Abueva y Puson). — This is an Appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated March 26, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10418, affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Irvin Abueva y Puson for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under Sections 5 and 11, respectively, Article II, of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
In cases of Illegal Sale and/or Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the identity of the prohibited drug must be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 3 Thus, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the dangerous drugs so as to obviate unnecessary doubts on the identity of the dangerous drugs on account of switching, "planting," or contaminating of evidence. 4 This is where the chain of custody requirement in drugs cases comes into play to ensure that doubts concerning the identity of the seized drugs are removed. 5
Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 provides the procedure for the preservation of the integrity and identity of the seized drugs, to wit:
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 drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; 6
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 further provide:
Section 21. x x x
(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory 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, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official 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, further, that noncompliance with 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 of and custody over said items. x x x.7
While R.A. No. 9165 was amended by R.A. No. 10640 8 to modify the number of witnesses required during the conduct of the inventory, the buy-bust operation in this case was conducted on December 14, 2013; thus, the original version of Section 21 (1) and its IRR, as quoted above, apply.
To reiterate, Section 21 (1) requires that the apprehending team, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory and photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as the required witnesses, namely: (1) a representative from the media; (2) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (3) any elected public official.
In the present case, the buy-bust team committed several glaring deviations from the requirements of Section 21, thereby casting doubt as to the identity and integrity of the drugs allegedly seized from the accused-appellant.
First, SPO1 Fernan Acbang (SPO1 Acbang) testified that the inventory, as well as the taking of photographs, were made at the Barangay Hall of Barangay San Isidro, Parañaque City. 9 In People v. Dela Torre, 10 the Court held that "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items should be made at the place of the arrest. If that is not practicable, the IRR allows that the physical inventory and photographing be made at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer or team.
Here, the justification given by the police officers was that it was raining at the time and that their team could no longer control the people around the area who were making a commotion. 11 Such reason, however, hardly qualifies as sufficient to dispense with the conduct of physical inventory and the photographing as required by law. In People v. Ramos, 12 the Court considered as insufficient the police officers' allegation that the physical inventory and photographing were not done in the crime scene because of a commotion, since the prosecution failed to expound how the safety of the operatives and the accused therein were threatened by such.
Similarly in this case, aside from a bare assertion of the existence of a commotion, the prosecution failed to explain how exactly the same could have prevented the buy-bust team from immediately taking a physical inventory and photograph of the seized items upon arrest. In his testimony, SPO1 Acbang stated that his back-up team was composed of six (6) other members. 13 Surely, the members of their team, all presumably armed, could have subdued any supposed commotion and followed the procedure required by law.
In any case, assuming that the commotion made it impracticable for the buy-bust team to immediately conduct the inventory, there was no explanation why it was instead made at the barangay hall. As stated above, the IRR allows as alternative places for the physical inventory and photographing of the seized items (a) the nearest police station; or (b) the nearest office of the apprehending officer or team. Here, there was no evidence whatsoever on the distance of the nearest police station or office of the buy-bust team.
Second, no photographs of the allegedly seized items were taken and duly presented in court during trial. While the prosecution submitted in evidence photographs marked as Annexes "L"-"P," these were not of the seized items. They were photographs of the witnesses signing the inventory, and a mug shot of accused-appellant. In People v. Paz, 14 one of the factors which the Court took into consideration in ruling that there was non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was the failure of the prosecution to present photographs of the conduct of inventory and the evidence itself. The same ruling was reached by the Court in People v. Baer, 15 where no photographs of the drug specimens were offered into evidence.
Third, and more importantly, the buy-bust team failed to comply with the three-witness rule under Section 21 (1). Based on the records and the testimony of SPO1 Acbang, two (2) witnesses signed the inventory, 16 namely, Barangay Executive Officer, Raulito J. Pabauan, and media person, William de Guzman. As to the manner of how they supposedly witnessed the conduct of inventory, SPO1 Acbang testified:
PROS. ROMA
Q: Then afterwards you proceeded to the?
A: Barangay Hall for the conduct of the inventory and preparation of the Inventory of Property Seized.
Q: And who called Brgy. Ex-O Rolito Pabuan?
A: Andun' na po siya.
Q: Pagdating niyo?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: But William De Guzman of REMATE at Bagong Toro was not there?
A: None, Ma' am.
Q: So, basically, in the Barangay Hall of Brgy. San Isidro you basically recorded the recovered items in the inventory Receipt. Correct?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: That's the place where you put the recording of the items seized?
A: Yes, Ma'am, in the Inventory Form.
Q: And then Brgy. EX-O Rolito Pabuan signed the document, correct?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: Afterwards, you proceeded to your office?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: And when you went there this William De Guzman of REMATE already there?
A: Andun' na siya kasi ang nag-inform sa kanya ay si PSI Besoña.
Q: Basically, in the Brgy. Hall, how long did you stay there?
A: About 20 minutes or 25 minutes.
Q: Before proceeding to your office?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: And in your office, since the Inventory Receipt was already prepared, Mr. De Guzman just signed the Inventory Receipt?
A: Yes, Ma'am.17
In People v. Tomawis, 18 the Court clarified the requirement for the three witnesses under Section 21 (1). In that case, the Court emphasized that, in relation to the requirement of immediately conducting physical inventory and taking photographs, the three (3) witnesses should also already be physically present at the time of apprehension. 19 The Court explained:
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest. It is at this point in which the presence of the three witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165. 20
Here, it is clear from the testimony of SPO1 Acbang that the witnesses were not present during the time of arrest. He stated that the inventory was prepared already at the barangay hall in the presence of Barangay Executive Officer, Rolito Pabauan. On the other hand, the media person, William de Guzman, was not only absent during the time of apprehension, he also did not witness the actual conduct of the inventory. SPO1 Acbang admitted that William de Guzman signed the inventory in the buy-bust team's office only after it was already prepared. As discussed above, this is not what the law requires.
The Court, in People v. Tomawis, 21 aptly stated that "[t]he practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the three witnesses, when they could easily do so — and 'calling them in' to the place of the inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs." 22
The Court also notes that the buy-bust team only secured the attendance of two (2) witnesses, a barangay official and a representative from the media. To repeat, Section 21 (1), prior to its amendment, requires the presence of three witnesses, namely: (1) a representative from the media; (2) a representative from the DOJ; and (3) any elected official.
The prevailing rule is that in cases where the presence of the essential witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must establish not only the reasons for their absence, but also that earnest efforts had been exerted to secure their presence. 23 In the present case, not only did the prosecution fail to establish that attempts were made to secure the appearance of a representative from the Department of Justice, worse, it failed to explain why no such attempts were made.
The prosecution instead argues that except for his "harping on the procedures in drug cases," 24 accused-appellant has not offered any evidence that would have raised questions on the integrity of the drugs seized from him. In this regard, the prosecution must be reminded that the procedure enshrined in Section 21 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. 25
It should be noted that the saving clause under Section 21 (a) of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 which provides that deviation from the prescribed procedure shall not invalidate the seizure and custody of the items operates only when, as the rules provide, non-compliance is with justifiable grounds and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team. Here, the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the police officers' deviation from the procedure set out in Section 21. In fact, the prosecution simply did not acknowledge and instead overlooked these transgressions.
Moreover, the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized items were not shown to have been properly preserved considering the evident break in the chain of custody, as borne out by the records of the case. The chain of custody is comprised of the following links: 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 turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 26
Here, there is non-compliance with the second and third link considering that SPO1 Acbang did not turn over the confiscated drug to the investigating officer. In his testimony, SPO1 Acbang stated that he kept the drug specimen from confiscation until he personally turned it over to the PNP Crime Laboratory. 27
There is likewise a gap in the fourth link of the chain of custody. In People v. Omamos, 28 the Court held that it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination, i.e., when and from whom the drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in. 29 Moreover, the forensic chemist should also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen. 30 Here, the parties dispensed with the testimony of Forensic Chemist PSI Rendielyn L. Sahagun upon stipulation of the parties regarding her proposed testimony. It appears from her proposed testimony, as contained in the Order 31 dated April 28, 2014 issued by the trial court, that these material matters were not included. Foremost, the stipulated testimony did not state from whom she received the drug specimen for examination, and the name and method of analysis she used. There was also no stipulation as to whom she turned over the specimen after examination for presentation to the trial court.
All told, the breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 without justifiable reason and the apparent gap in the chain of custody destroyed the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. As such, the Court is constrained to acquit accused-appellant based on reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE,the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 26, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10418 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Irvin P. Abueva is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt, and he is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless being held for some other lawful cause. Let an entry of 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. Said Director is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action 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." 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. 21-22.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Stephen C. Cruz (Chairperson), with Associate Justices Pedro B. Corales and Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas, concurring; id. at 3-19.
3. See People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 228825, July 28, 2020; People v. Alon-Alon, G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019; People v. Zapanta, G.R. No. 230227, November 6, 2019; People v. Vertudes, G.R. No. 220725, October 16, 2019; People v. Advincula, G.R. No. 201576, July 22, 2019; People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019; People v. Espejo, G.R. No. 240914, March 13, 2019; People v. Royol, G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019; People v. Saidamen Olimpain Mama, G.R. No. 237204, October 1, 2018.
4.People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 736 (2018).
5.People v. Baculio, G.R. No. 233802, November 20, 2019, citing Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 587 (2008).
6. Emphasis supplied.
7. Emphasis supplied.
8. Effective July 30, 2014. Section 21 (a), as amended by RA 10640, now reads:
xxx xxx xxx
(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 non-compliance [with] 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. x x x.
9. TSN, September 15, 2015, pp. 13, 15.
10. G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.
11. Records, pp. 126-127; TSN, September 5, 2015, p. 24.
12. G.R. No. 236455, February 19, 2020.
13. TSN, September 15, 2015, p. 22.
14. 824 Phil. 1025, 1041 (2018).
15. G.R. No. 228958, August 14, 2019.
16. Records, p. 130.
17. TSN, September 15, 2015, pp. 24-25. (Emphases ours.)
18. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
19.Id. at 408.
20.Id. (Emphasis omitted)
21.Supra note 16.
22.Id. at 409.
23.People v. Cadiente, G.R. No. 228255, June 10, 2019.
24. CA rollo, p. 64.
25.Gamboa v. People, 799 Phil. 584, 597 (2016).
26. See People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020; People v. Tulod, G.R. No. 227993, September 25, 2019; People v. Victoria, G.R. No. 238613, August 19, 2019; People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019; People v. Cabuhay, 836 Phil. 903 (2018); People v. Ubungen, 836 Phil. 888 (2018).
27. TSN, September 15, 2015.
28. G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
29.Id.
30.Id.
31. Records, p. 38.