FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 248998. December 2, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RONELLY AGOR y MAIGUE ALIAS "RON-RON", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 2, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 248998 — People of the Philippines v. Ronelly Agor y Maigue alias "Ron-Ron"
We DENY the Motion to be Relieved as Counsel 1 filed by the Public Attorney's Office (PAO). Records show that the PAO entered its appearance 2 to represent appellant Ronelly Agor y Maigue before the Court of Appeals on May 6, 2019. The very next day, May 7, 2019, the PAO brought the case on appeal to this Court. 3 It is therefore incorrect to say that the PAO neither represented nor is representing appellant.
At any rate, the motion ought to be denied if only to expedite appellant's release from confinement because the Court is rendering here and now a verdict of acquittal.
Appellant was charged with violation of Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 4 (RA 9165) allegedly committed on October 9, 2012. 5 The governing law, therefore, is RA 9165 prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 10640 6 (RA 10640) on August 7, 2014.
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to prove that the dangerous drug seized from the accused is the same substance eventually offered in court. 7
Section 21 of RA 9165 prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.:
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; (Emphasis added)
xxx xxx xxx
The Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 further commands:
Section 21. (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 added)
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug, the prosecution must also account for each link in its chain of custody: 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. 8
This is the chain of custody rule. It came to fore due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs which render them indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration, or substitution either by accident or otherwise. 9
We focus on the first link.
The first link in the chain of custody includes the marking, physical inventory, and photographing of the seized items.
Section 21 of RA 9165 and its implementing rules require that the inventory and taking of photograph be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel and three (3) insulating witnesses, i.e., a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official, 10 to ensure that they are the same items which entered the chain of custody. 11
Here, only media representative Richard Cabotaje witnessed the inventory — a clear departure from the three-witness rule. Admittedly though, strict compliance with the requirements of law may not always be possible and the failure of the apprehending team to strictly comply with the procedure laid out in Section 21 of RA 9165 does not ipso facto render the seizure and custody over the items void so long as (a) there is justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 12
Verily, a justifiable ground for non-compliance with Section 21 is mandatory before the saving clause can come into play. As it was, however, the arresting officers offered no explanation at all for the absence of an elected official and a representative from the DOJ during the inventory and taking of photograph. Hence, the procedural lapse is inexcusable here.
In People v. Fulgado, 13 only one (1) insulating witness, i.e., a barangay official, was present during the inventory of seized items at the police station. The prosecution failed to justify the arresting officers' non-compliance with the three-witness rule. Thus, the Court rendered a verdict of acquittal.
Similarly, in People v. Nocum, 14 only appellant and a media representative were present during the inventory and photographing of the seized items. The prosecution did not offer any explanation for the absence of the other insulating witnesses, as well, resulting in the acquittal of therein appellant.
Notably, apart from the absence of the required insulating witnesses, the Court notes that PO2 Jeffray B. Mejala (PO2 Mejala) failed to indicate the weight of the illegal drugs during the inventory itself. PO2 Mejala admitted as much when he testified that he was only able to provide the corresponding weight of the three (3) sachets after the crime laboratory had already given him the laboratory results. He even confirmed that they did not have a weighing scale at the police station where the inventory was performed. To our mind, this also casts doubt on the integrity of the seized item. To be sure, the examination results of the crime laboratory are supposed to be confirmatory of the findings of the police officers who seized the contrabands, not the other way around.
In People v. Tolentino, 15 neither the certificate of inventory nor the request for laboratory examination indicated the weights of the seized drugs supposedly confiscated from appellant. The Physical Science Report, however, specified the recorded net weight of the seized specimens. The Court ruled that this was not a mere discrepancy but a total lack of evidence regarding the weight of the drugs allegedly seized from appellant. Hence, the Court ruled that the integrity of the corpus delicti submitted in court was compromised.
Evidently, the first link of the chain of custody here had been breached. Concomitantly, the identity and integrity of the seized drug items were not deemed to have been preserved. Hence, appellant must be acquitted and released from restraint.
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed Decision dated August 28, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09104 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Appellant Ronelly Agor y Maigue alias "Ron-Ron" is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 12-0588. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ordered to: a) immediately release Ronelly Agor y Maigue alias "Ron-Ron" from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause; and b) submit his report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice.
Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
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, p. 38.
2. CA rollo, p. 167.
3.Id. at 171.
4. 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, June 7, 2002.
5. CA rollo, p. 63.
6. 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," approved August 7, 2014.
7. See People v. Barte, 806 Phil. 533, 542 (2017).
8.People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.
9.Jocson v. People, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019.
10. See People v. Rosales, G.R. No. 233656, October 2, 2019.
11. See People v. Ramirez, 823 Phil. 1215, 1225 (2018), citing People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 241 (2008).
12. See People v. Fulgado, G.R. No. 246193, February 19, 2020.
13.Id.
14. G.R. No. 239905, January 20, 2021.
15. G.R. No. 251020, February 3, 2021.