FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 206104. January 12, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. AMALIA AGBUGGO y AMORATO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 12, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 206104 (PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee v. AMALIA AGBUGGO y AMORATO, accused-appellant). — This refers to an ordinary appeal by Amalia Agbuggo y Amorato (accused-appellant) questioning the Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated March 8, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 04366 which affirmed the Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 78, dated January 27, 2010 in Criminal Case No. Q-06-142443 convicting accused-appellant of violation of Section 5, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
In an Information, 3 accused-appellant, was charged with a violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, as follows:
That on or about 11th day of August, 2006 in Quezon City, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to sell, dispense, deliver[,] transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there, wil[l]fully and unlawfully sell, dispense, deliver, transport, distribute or act as broker in the said transaction, 0.03 gram of white crystalline substance containing METHYLAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE known as "SHABU" a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
Upon her arraignment on September 11, 2006, accused-appellant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. 5
The prosecution presented PO2 Napoleon Zamora (PO2 Zamora), the designated poseur-buyer to testify on the buy-bust operation. 6 The proposed testimonies of Police Inspector Shirleen M. Ballete, the forensic chemist, and PO2 Morell Caranza, the police investigator on case, were stipulated upon and admitted among the counsels in order to abbreviate the proceedings. 7
According to the prosecution, based on an information from a confidential informant (CI), Police Senior Inspector Benjamin Elenzano Jr. (P/Sr. Insp. Elenzano) of Anonas Police Station, Quezon City conducted a briefing for the conduct of a buy-bust operation against a certain Ningning. In the formation of the team, PO2 Zamora was designated as the poseur-buyer and four other police officers were told to serve as back-up. 8
During the said briefing, P/Sr. Insp. Elenzano, provided three pieces of P100.00 bills to serve as the buy-bust money. PO2 Zamora marked the said bills with his initials on the upper left portion thereof. The team likewise coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for the said conduct of a buy-bust operation. 9
The team was dispatched to the target area at J.P. Rizal corner P. Tuazon Street. Thereat, the CI together with PO2 Zamora met the accused-appellant. The CI talked to the accused-appellant and introduced PO2 Zamora as a customer. Thereafter, accused-appellant asked PO2 Zamora how much shabu will he buy. In reply, PO2 Zamora said that he will buy P300.00 worth of shabu. Accused-appellant asked PO2 Zamora for the payment and upon receipt thereof, she placed the money in her righthand pocket and withdrew one plastic sachet which she handed to PO2 Zamora. Accused-appellant was arrested. 10
Later, accused-appellant was brought to the Anonas Police Station. Upon their arrival, PO2 Zamora marked the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance with "NZ-AA-08-11-06." 11
Photographs of the seized item, marked money, and accused-appellant were taken. The seized item was turned over to the investigator, PO2 Caranza 12 who prepared the investigation report, joint affidavit of arrest of PO2 Zamora and PO2 Gollem Bellen, request for drug dependency examination, request for laboratory examination, and inventory receipt. 13
The seized specimen was brought to the Quezon City Crime Laboratory by PO2 Zamora which was received and examined by Insp. Ballete. The examination on the specimen yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. The findings were all noted in Chemistry Report No. D-283-06. 14
On the other hand, the defense presented its lone witness, accused-appellant. She denied the charge and interposed the defense of denial. She claimed that she was at a bingohan in front of the Labor Hospital at J.P. Rizal playing bingo when a certain Bong, a friend she met at the bingohan, approached her and told her that his sister was calling for her. 15 As Bong was very insistent that accused-appellant must come with him, she acceded. Outside, Bong's sister was not there but Bong prodded accused-appellant to wait for about 15 minutes. However, a male person instead arrived. He put his arms around her shoulder and told her that he is a police officer. 16
Accused-appellant asked the police what was the problem and that if she committed an infraction, but the police did not say anything. Accused-appellant asked the police if she could go back inside the bingohan but the police never allowed her to go back, and instead she was boarded in a car and proceeded to the police station. 17 Inside the car, the police officers showed her a piece of a folded paper, inside of which was a plastic sachet, and told her that the same contained shabu and that it belonged to her, which she denied. 18
In its Decision 19 dated January 27, 2010, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty as charged and rendered judgment as follows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds accused AMALIA AGBUGGO y AMORATO GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act [No.] 9165. She is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and is ordered to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The dangerous drug and drug paraphernalia submitted as evidence in this case are hereby ordered to be transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA).
SO ORDERED. 20
Accused-appellant elevated his case before the CA. The appellate court in its assailed Decision 21 ruled:
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 78, dated 27 [sic] January 21, 2010 in Criminal Cases [sic] No. Q-06-142443, is AFFIRMED. Costs against the appellant.
SO ORDERED. 22
Hence, the accused-appellant filed her Notice of Appeal.
Issue
For this Court's resolution is the issue on whether the prosecution established accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for violating Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165.
This Court's Ruling
In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction of sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 23
The corpus delicti is the body of the crime that would establish that a crime was committed. 24 In dangerous drugs cases, the substance itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. 25 It is of prime importance that the identity of the dangerous drug be established beyond reasonable doubt; and that it must be proven with exactitude that the substance bought during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. 26
Section 21 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act spells out the requirements for the custody and disposition of confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and drug paraphernalia. The pertinent provision of Section 21 states:
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[.]
xxx xxx xxx (Emphasis supplied)
Compliance with the chain of custody requirements protects the identity and integrity of the confiscated, seized, and/or surrendered drugs and/or drug paraphernalia. It forecloses opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any manner. 27 What is critical in drug cases is not the bare conduct of inventory, marking, and photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the items allegedly taken from the accused retain their integrity, even as they make their way from the accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an investigating officer, to a forensic chemist, and ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as evidence. 28
In the present case, it is undoubted that the police officers did not comply with the requirements of Section 21, R.A. No. 9165. The inventory receipt 29 showed that the only witness present during the inventory was PO1 Romel Tayag. Clearly, the police officers did not comply with the requirements that the seized drugs be inventoried and photographed 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, and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. Also, the police officers failed to offer any explanation to justify their non-compliance to the requirements.
Moreover, PO2 Zamora testified that the confiscated sachet of shabu was turned over to the investigator, PO2 Caranza. As observed, however, PO2 Caranza was never presented in court nor his testimony ever offered.
In People v. Hementiza, 30 the Court, in explaining the importance of the chain of custody, quoted Mallillin v. People31 wherein it was held that —
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered in evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then 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.32 (Emphasis supplied)
Although strict compliance with the chain of custody rule may be excused provided that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, a more exacting standard is required of law enforcers when only a miniscule amount of dangerous drugs are alleged to have been seized from the accused. 33 In this case, only 0.03 gram 34shabu was allegedly bought from accused-appellant. Such a miniscule amount of drugs is highly susceptible to tampering and contamination. 35
This Court cannot condone these lapses or be blind to them because the requirements that were not complied with were crucial in the process of successfully incriminating accused-appellant. The deliberate taking of the identifying steps ensured by the requirements was precisely aimed at obviating switching, "planting" or contamination of the evidence. Verily, the arresting officers' failure to plausibly explain their lapses left in grave doubt the very identity of the corpus delicti, an important step in proving the offense charged. For one, the lapses — being irregularities on the part of the arresting lawmen — quickly disauthorized the trial court from presuming the regularity in the performance of their official duties by the arresting officers. 36
Utter disregard or non-compliance with the chain of custody requirements of R.A. No. 9165 inescapably leads to an accused's acquittal. Conviction cannot be sustained by a mere presumption of regularity and the approximation of compliance. 37
Verily, for failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt, she is entitled to acquittal. Her personal liberty could not be validly jeopardized unless the proof marshalled against her satisfied that degree of moral certainty that should produce in the unprejudiced mind of the neutral judge a conviction that the accused-appellant was guilty in doing the act with which she was charged of having committed contrary to law. 38
WHEREFORE, the Court REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the Decision promulgated on March 8, 2012 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 04366; ACQUITS accused-appellant AMALIA AGBUGGO y AMORATO for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt for the violation charged beyond reasonable doubt.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections (Correctional Institution for Women) is DIRECTED to cause the release of accused-appellant, unless she is being lawfully held for another cause, and to inform the Court the date of her release or reason for her continued confinement, within five (5) days from notice.
SO ORDERED." (Carandang, J., no part; Delos Santos, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated March 2, 2020.)
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. 2-11; penned by Associate Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of this Court) with the concurrence of Associate Justices Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court) and Danton Q. Bueser.
2. CA rollo, pp. 10-18; penned by Presiding Judge Fernando T. Sagun Jr.
3.Id. at 22-23.
4.Id. at 22.
5.Rollo, p. 3.
6.Id. at 3-4.
7.Id.
8.Id. at 4.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 4-5.
11.Id. at 5.
12. CA rollo, p. 12.
13.Id. at 12-13.
14. Records, p. 11.
15.Rollo, pp. 5-6.
16.Id. at 6.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19. CA rollo, pp. 10-18.
20.Id. at 18.
21.Rollo, pp. 2-11.
22.Id. at 11.
23.People v. Royol, G.R. No. 224297, February 13, 2019.
24.People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 131 (2017).
25.People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626, 634 (2016).
26.Id.
27.People v. Saunar, 816 Phil. 482, 495 (2017).
28.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 909 (2018).
29. Records, p. 8.
30. 807 Phil. 1017 (2017).
31. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
32.People v. Hementiza, supra at 1027; Mallillin v. People, supra at 587.
33.People v. Saunar, supra note 26 at 493-494.
34. Records, p. 11.
35.People v. Saunar, supra note 26 at 495.
36.People v. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. 216062, September 19, 2018, 880 SCRA 440, 456.
37.People v. Royol, supra note 23.
38.People v. Nepomuceno, supra note 36 at 457.