SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242172. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ELMER ADORA y CASTILLO AND WILSON REARTE y LORENZO, accused; WILSON REARTE y LORENZO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 June 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242172 (People of the Philippines v. Elmer Adora y Castillo and Wilson Rearte y Lorenzo, accused; Wilson Rearte y Lorenzo, accused-appellant). — This is an appeal from the Decision 1 dated March 15, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07710, affirming the conviction of accused-appellant Wilson Rearte y Lorenzo (Wilson) for violation of Sections 5 2 and 11, 3 Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. 4
Wilson, through counsel, and the People of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed their respective manifestations 5 that in lieu of the supplemental brief, they are adopting the allegations in the briefs they respectively filed before the CA.
At the outset, we stress that an appeal in a criminal case opens the entire case for review and it is the duty of the reviewing tribunal to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 6 "The appeal confers the appellate court full jurisdiction over the case and renders such court competent to examine records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law." 7 Accordingly, errors in an appealed judgment in a criminal case, even if not specifically assigned, may be corrected motu proprio by the court. 8 The rationale behind this rule stems from the recognition that an accused waives the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy once he appeals from the sentence of the trial court. It becomes incumbent upon the appellate court to render judgment as law and justice dictate, whether it be favorable or unfavorable to the accused. 9 Applying these jurisprudential principles, this Court is not precluded from passing upon Wilson's objections against the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. The CA erred in ruling that the issue of non-compliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.
After a careful review of the case, we reverse and set aside the March 15, 2018 Decision of the CA, and acquit Wilson for failure of the prosecution to prove that the apprehending team complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 21 of RA No. 9165. We find that the identity of the corpus delicti in this case was compromised.
In offenses involving dangerous drugs, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense, and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. 10 It is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 11 The prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officers turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 12 The records in this case reveal a broken chain of custody.
Foremost, there was failure to immediately mark the six (6) sachets found in Wilsons possession after the sale transaction. The arresting team only inspected the belt bag seized from Wilson at the police station and discovered the unmarked plastic sachets. During transit from the place of arrest to the police station, the sachets of shabu remained unmarked causing a significant gap in the chain of custody that may have compromised the evidence. In People v. Ismael, 13 the Court highlighted the importance of marking the seized drugs immediately upon arrest, viz.:
The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value. 14 [Emphases supplied.]
Moreover, the inventory and photograph of the seized items were made without the required insulating witnesses. Notably, the alleged crime happened before RA No. 10640 15 amended RA No. 9165. Thus, the original provisions of Section 21 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) shall apply, to wit:
Section 21, paragraph 1, Article II of RA No. 9165 —
(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 copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. (Emphases and underscoring supplied.)
Section 21(a), Article II of the IRR of RA No. 9165 —
(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 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 of and custody over said items[.] [Emphases and underscoring supplied.]
Time and again, we have ruled that deviation from the standard procedure in Section 21 dismally compromises the evidence, unless: (1) such non-compliance was under justifiable grounds; and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. 16 The presence of the insulating witnesses is a vital requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. 17 In case the presence of any, or all the insulating witnesses cannot be obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons for their absence, but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance. 18
Here, the absence of the required insulating witnesses puts serious doubt on the integrity of the chain of custody. There was no representative from the DOJ, and an elected public official during the inventory and photograph of the seized items. Admittedly, only a media representative witnessed the inventory. There was no attempt on the part of the buy-bust team to comply with the law and its implementing rules, or any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved. The police officers did not describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the seized items, and no opportunity for someone, not in the chain, to have possession of the items. In People v. Caray, 19 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, 20 sheer statements of unavailability of the insulating witnesses, without actual serious attempt to contact them, cannot justify non-compliance. The presence of the insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drug. 21 The utter disregard of the required procedures created a huge gap in the chain of custody. 22
All told, breaches of the procedure outlined in Section 21 committed by police officers, if left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, militate against a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti had been compromised. 23
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 15, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07710 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Wilson Rearte y Lorenzo is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. 12-8421-SPL for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, and 12-8422-SPL for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, and is hereby ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, J. Y., J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-19. Penned by Associate Justice Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Samuel H. Gaerlan (now a member of the Court). The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby DENIED.
Accordingly, the Consolidated Judgment dated 12 August 2015 rendered by Branch 31, RTC of San Pedro City, Laguna, in Criminal Case Nos. 12-8421-SPL and 12-8422-SPL, convicting accused-appellant Wilson Rearte y Lorenzo of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. (Id. at 18; emphases in the original and citation omitted.)
2. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
3. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
4. Entitled '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,' approved on June 7, 2002.
5.Rollo, pp. 33-36, 'Manifestation (In lieu of a Supplemental Brief)' of Wilson; and id. at 37-45, 'Manifestation (In lieu of Supplemental Brief)' of the People of the Philippines.
6.People v. Mreanda, 824 Phil. 1024, 1050 (2018).
7.Id., citing People v. Comboy, 782 Phil. 187, 196 (2016).
8.Id. at 1057.
9.Id.
10.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 436-437 (2018); People v. Sanchez, 827 Phil. 457, 472-473 (2018); People v. Magsano, 826 Phil. 947, 964-965 (2018); People v. Manansala, 826 Phil. 578, 586 (2018); People v. Miranda, supra note 6; People v. Mamangon, 824 Phil. 728, 741 (2018); and People v. Partoza, 605 Phil. 883, 891 (2009).
11.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 30-31 (2017); and Malillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 593 (2008).
12.People v. Bugtong, 806 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
13.Supra note 11.
14.Supra at 31-32, citing People v. Gonzales, 708 Phil. 121, 130-131 (2013).
15. Entitled '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.'' RA No. 10640 took effect on July 23, 2014, see OCA Circular No. 77-2015 dated April 23, 2015. As amended, it is now mandated that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized items must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof.
16.People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215, 235 (2010); People v. Gutierrez, 614 Phil. 285, 297-298 (2009); People v. Denoman, 612 Phil. 1165, 1176 (2009); People v. Robles, 604 Phil. 536, 545-546 (2009); People v. Garcia, 599 Phil. 416, 428 (2009); Bondad, Jr. v. People, 594 Phil. 158, 168 (2008); People v. De la Cruz, 591 Phil. 259, 269 (2008); and People v. Dela Cruz, 589, 166-267 Phil. 259 (2008).
17.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 246471, June 16, 2020.
18.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
19. G.R. No. 245391, September 11, 2019.
20. G.R. No. 243615, November 11, 2019.
21.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; and People v. Maralit, 838 Phil. 191, 226 (2018).
22.Quiap v. People, G.R. No. 229183, February 17, 2021; People v. Lachica, G.R. No. 245487 (Notice), November 16, 2020; People v. Balbarez, G.R. No. 246999, July 28, 2020; and People v. Padua, G.R. No. 244287, June 15, 2020.
23.People v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 234151, December 5, 2018.