SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234822. February 16, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ASNAWI ALAWI y BAZAR, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 16 February 2022 which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 234822 (People of the Philippines v. Asnawi Alawi y Bazar). — This instant appeal 1 seeks the reversal of the February 21, 2017 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07633, which affirmed the June 22, 2015 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2, Manila, finding accused-appellant Asnawi Alawi y Bazar (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs as defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents:
Two separate Informations 5 were filed against accused-appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165. The accusatory portions read:
For Criminal Case No. 13-294935
That on or about February 11, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, knowingly and (sic) sell or offer for sale to a police officer/poseur buyer one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet marked as "AAB" containing ZERO POINT ZERO THREE NINE (0.039) gram of white crystalline substance containing methamphetamine hydrochloride known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 6
For Criminal Case No. 13-294936
That on or about January 03, 2013, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, without being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully, and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings and recorded net weights:
AAB-1 containing ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR ONE (0.041) gram
AAB-2 containing ZERO POINT ZERO FOUR SEVEN (0.047) gram
or with a total net weight of ZERO POINT ZERO EIGHT EIGHT (0.088) gram of white crystalline substance known as "shabu" containing methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges when arraigned on March 1, 2013. 8 During the pre-trial conference, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the jurisdiction of the court and on accused-appellant's identity as the one who was arraigned and as the person charged in these cases. 9 Consequently, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Reynaldo Robles (SPO1 Robles) recounted that at around 6:30 p.m. of February 11, 2013, a confidential informant (CI) went to Police Station 10, Pandacan, Manila, and reported that he was able to communicate with accused-appellant from whom he would purchase shabu. The CI told SPO1 Robles that accused-appellant is a distributor of dangerous drugs in Carlos Palanca St., Quiapo, Manila and in Otis St., Paco, Manila. A team headed by SPO1 Robles validated such information. 10
Thereafter, a buy-bust team was organized with SPO1 Robles designated as the poseur buyer. Three pieces of P100.00-bill were prepared as the marked money, and coordination with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency was likewise made. 11
At Around 9:30 p.m. of the same day, the buy-bust team, together with the CI, proceeded to Otis St., Paco, Manila and strategically positioned themselves. At the tricycle line in front of a mall, the CI noticed an incoming tricycle and spotted accused-appellant alighting from said tricycle. SPO1 Robles and the CI approached the accused-appellant. The CI introduced SPO1 Robles as the buyer of dangerous drugs. 12 Accused-appellant asked SPO1 Robles how much would he buy, to which the latter replied, "P300.00 only." Accused-appellant demanded the payment of P300.00. SPO1 Robles got the marked money from his pocket and handed the payment to accused-appellant who received the amount. Thereafter, accused-appellant brought out three plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from the right front pocket of his pants. SPO1 Robles chose one from the three plastic sachets, then scratched his head as the pre-arranged signal that the sale had already been consummated. The members of the perimeter back-up team rushed to the scene and arrested accused-appellant. 13
While holding one plastic sachet in his right hand, SPO1 Robles then held accused-appellant, and recovered from his left hand the marked money, and another two plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance from his right hand. After SPO1 Robles confiscated the dangerous drugs, he informed accused-appellant of his violations and constitutional rights. Then, they proceeded to the police station which is about five to seven minutes away. 14
At the police station, SPO1 Robles marked the seized plastic sachets (correspondingly, "AAB" for the one he bought from accused-appellant and "AAB-1" and "AAB-2" for the other two he recovered), in the presence of accused-appellant and Andy Prilla (Prilla), a media representative. SPO3 Marcelino Morales, Sr. (SPO3 Morales) took photographs of accused-appellant and the seized items, and prepared a request for crime laboratory examination. 15 SPO1 Robles brought the seized items to Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Abraham Verde Tecson (PCI Tecson) for laboratory examination. 16
The prosecution and the defense entered into a stipulation with regard to the testimony of PCI Tecson. The parties stipulated and admitted the following matters: the nature of PCI Tecson's testimony, his competence, qualification and field of expertise as a chemical officer; that he was assigned at the Manila Police District Crime Laboratory; that he received a letter request for examination on February 11, 2013; and that he prepared Chemistry Report No. D-109-13. 17
After examination, the seized items turned out to be positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride based on Chemistry Report No. D-109-13 18 as signed by PCI Tecson.
Version of the Defense:
Accused-appellant testified that he was in San Miguel, Palanca, Manila at around 6:00 p.m. of February 11, 2013. While driving his tricycle, two passengers boarded and asked him to take them to Pandacan. However, these two passengers arrested him when they reached Pandacan, then brought him to the police station. 19
While at the police station, accused-appellant recounted that he heard a police saying, "Hindi 'yan! Hindi 'yan!" He further averred that the police officers demanded P20,000.00 from him as "pang-areglo." But he responded that he did not have any money. Accused-appellant contended that it was a case of mistaken identity, and that he had never met or encountered these police officers prior to his arrest. 20 On cross-examination, accused-appellant testified that he learned that he was charged with violations of Sections 5 and 11 of RA 9165 only when he was brought before the prosecutor for inquest. 21
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its Decision 22 dated June 22, 2015, the RTC convicted accused-appellant of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. 23
The RTC held that poseur buyer SPO1 Robles positively identified accused-appellant as the individual who received the buy-bust money worth P300.00 which was the payment for a sachet containing white crystalline substance. Also, SPO1 Robles recovered two more sachets containing a white crystalline substance during accused-appellant's arrest. Furthermore, the RTC found that accused-appellant failed to show any ill motive on the part of the police officers, and that the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs was preserved from the time that they were put into custody of the arresting officers until their presentation in court by PCI Tecson. The RTC held that the marking of seized dangerous drugs may be made at the nearest police station or office of the apprehending team, as in this case. 24
With regard to accused-appellant's defenses, the RTC held that frame-up and alibi are frowned upon as these can easily be concocted. The RTC observed that accused-appellant failed to substantiate his defenses. As there was a legitimate buy-bust operation and the prosecution's pieces of evidence prevail over accused-appellant's defenses, the latter's guilt for both charges was established. 25
The fallo of the RTC Decision reads in this wise:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows, to wit:
In Crim. Case No. 13-294935, finding accused Asnawi Alawi y Bazar, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of P500,000.00, and
In Crim. Case No. 13-294936, finding accused Asnawi Alawi y Bazar, GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 12 years and 1 day as minimum to 17 years and 4 months as maximum, and to pay a fine of P300,000.00.
The specimens are forfeited in favor of the government and the Branch Clerk of Court, accompanied by the Branch Sheriff, is directed to turn over with dispatch and upon receipt the said specimens to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposal in accordance with the law and rules.
SO ORDERED. 26
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its February 21, 2017 Decision, 27 the CA denied accused-appellant's appeal. The CA found that the prosecution adequately established the elements of both offenses. The Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs was already consummated when SPO1 Robles gave the P300.00 buy-bust money to accused-appellant who, in turn, gave one plastic sachet containing dangerous drug to SPO1 Robles. Likewise, there was Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs since accused-appellant freely and consciously possessed the dangerous drugs and failed to show that he was authorized to do so. 28
With regard to the chain of custody, the CA emphasized that what is significant is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. It ruled that the procedural requirement under the law was substantially complied since the prosecution established the manner by which the seized items were handled from the time of arrest and confiscation until they were presented in court as evidence. 29 The CA also expounded that the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 sanctions the conduct of physical inventory and photograph at the nearest police station, similar to what transpired in this case. Moreover, it is not a fatal misstep even if accused-appellant was not given a copy of the inventory. 30
Finally, the CA did not give credence to accused-appellant's defenses of denial and extortion. The CA held that these were bare allegations since accused-appellant did not proffer any evidence that he was illegally arrested or that the police officers demanded P20,000.00 from him. Hence, the CA affirmed the RTC's judgment of conviction.
The dispositive portion of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated June 22, 2015, rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Manila, finding accused Asnawi Alawi y Bazar guilty of violating Sections 5 and 11(3), Article II of R.A. 9165 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 31
Unrelenting, accused-appellant filed this instant appeal 32 manifesting that he would adopt the contents of his appellant's brief 33 as his supplemental brief. 34 On the other hand, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed a manifestation stating that its brief for the appellee 35 filed before the CA already discussed the facts, issues, and arguments regarding the controversy. 36
Accused-appellant essentially argues that the prosecution failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and that the saving mechanism of Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 was not applicable. There is no moral certainty with regard to the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs. He emphasized that the marking of the seized items should have been conducted immediately, and that he should have been made to sign the inventory or was given a copy thereof. 37 Accused-appellant elaborated that the unexplained non-compliance with the procedural requirement set forth in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 normally results to an acquittal. 38
Conversely, the People contends that the elements of the offenses charged were sufficiently addressed in the testimony of its witnesses, particularly that of SPO1 Robles who narrated in detail the series of events. 39 Furthermore, the People avers that it is always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain of custody, hence, the operation of the saving clause in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, which requires the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. It asserts that there was substantial compliance with the requirements of handling the seized items, and that their integrity and evidentiary value remained untarnished. The People claims that there is a presumption of regularity in the handling of the corpus delicti unless there is evidence of bad faith, ill motive or that the evidence was tampered with. 40 It insists that the defenses of denial and alibi could not prevail over the clear and positive evidence of the prosecution. 41
Issue
All told, the principal issue before Us is whether or not accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious. Accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
It is well entrenched that the reviewing tribunal accords great weight and respect to the factual findings of the trial court, even more when the appellate court concurred with the latter's factual resolution. Nevertheless, equally recognized is the principle that an appeal opens the entire case for review. In effect, the reviewing tribunal has the prerogative to revisit and reassess the case in its totality, and a reversal of the judgment may transpire as a result. People v. Estonilo42 is instructive of this principle:
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. 43
After a careful perusal of the records of this case, We resolve to acquit accused-appellant of the offenses charged.
In narcotics cases, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the two-pronged requirements in order to secure a conviction. First, every element of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession shall be sufficiently established. Second, the procedure laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165 must likewise be complied with. The prosecution is duty-bound to substantiate its allegations. Otherwise, a tinge of doubt as to the culpability of the individual or as to the preservation of the evidentiary value of the seized dangerous drugs would result into an acquittal.
It may be observed from the records that while the prosecution assiduously proffered evidence to ascertain that every element of the offenses charged is substantiated, it has become evident that the chain of custody rule was not completely fulfilled. There may be no dispute as to the presence of all the elements of said offenses, however, We find that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti may have been compromised.
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, prior to its amendment by RA 10640 44 reads:
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;
As long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have been preserved, a slight deviation from the procedure may be justifiable. Section 21 of the IRR provides:
(a) The apprehending office/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[.] (Emphasis supplied)
We have noticed two missteps in the process. First, the Inventory of Seized/Recovered Evidence 45 lacked the signature of accused-appellant, and that no other witnesses as required by law signed the same document aside from Prilla who was identified as a member of the media. Prior to its amendment, the law is clear that the three witnesses, namely one representative from the Department of Justice, one from the media, and one elective official, should sign the copies of the inventory. In spite of this lapse, no justifiable reason was offered in order that the saving clause may operate.
Second, the testimony of forensic chemist PCI Tecson was dispensed with in view of the stipulation of the parties. However, the prosecution failed to stipulate on significant matters as stated in People v. Pajarin, 46People v. Cabuhay, 47 and in People v. Miranda (Miranda), 48 viz.:
Notably, the parties stipulated that Insp. Richard Mangalip was a qualified forensic chemist and that he had no personal knowledge about the source of the drug items but only conducted laboratory examination thereon. By reason of this stipulation, the parties agreed to dispense with his testimony.
People v. Cabuhay ordained that the parties' stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist should include:
In People v. Pajarin, the Court ruled that in case of a stipulation by the parties to dispense with the attendance and testimony of the forensic chemist, it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he had taken the precautionary steps required to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with pending trial. (Emphasis supplied)
Here, the parties' stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist did not contain the vital pieces of information required in Cabuhay: i.e., Insp. Mangalip received the seized drugs as marked, properly sealed, and intact; Insp. Mangalip resealed the drug items after examination of the content; and, Insp. Mangalip placed his own marking on the drug items — thus leaving a huge gap in the chain of custody of the seized drugs. 49
Similar to Miranda, the parties' stipulation in lieu of PCI Tecson's testimony had fallen short of the conditions set forth. There was no stipulation that PCI Tecson would have testified as to: (1) his receipt of the seized items as marked, sealed and intact; (2) to the fact that he resealed the same after examination of the item; (3) to the fact that he placed his own markings so that the corpus delicti could not be tampered until presentation as evidence in court. Even when PCI Tecson was placed on the witness stand, his testimony still fell short, viz.: aScITE
ACP Macaraeg:
Your Honor, we have the same witness, PCI Abraham Verde Tecson, your Honor. As to the nature of the testimony of this witness, we may offer for stipulation of facts.
COURT:
Proceed.
ACP Macaraeg:
As to the competence, qualification and field expertise being a Chemical Officer; that he was assigned at the Manila Police District, Crime Laboratory Office Headquarters, UN Avenue, Manila; that while on duty on February 11, 2013, he received a letter request for examination emanating for (sic) District Director, MPD for examination of the specimens submitted for qualitative examination; and the Chemistry Report No. D-109-13 as this witness brought before this Court;
Atty. Galicia:
Admitted, your Honor.
Court Interpreter:
The witness is opening the Container of the specimens that he brought before this Court and inside are three heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets.
ACP Macaraeg:
Which we would like to be marked as Exhibits. . . The letter request as Exhibit A, the stamped received and delivered by as Exhibit A-1, your Honor; the plastic container as Exhibit B, one heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with marking AAB as Exhibit B-1; with marking AAB-1 as Exhibit B-2 and with marking AAB-2 as Exhibit B-3, your Honor. We request that the Chemistry Report No. D-109-13 be marked as Exhibit C, the specimens submitted as Exhibit C-1, the findings as Exhibit C-2 and all the signatures particularly the signature of this witness appearing below of Exhibit C as Exhibit C-3, your Honor. That would be all, your Honor.
COURT:
Mark them. Counter-stipulation?
Atty. Galicia:
The defense offers for counter-stipulation — that the witness has no personal knowledge as to the arrest of the accused and as to the source of the specimens, your Honor.
ACP Macaraeg:
Admitted, your Honor. 50
From the foregoing, it cannot be gainsaid that the stipulations only covered PCI Tecson's competence, qualification, field of expertise as a forensic chemist, and matters involving his receipt of the request for examination. No stipulation as to how PCI Tecson handled the seized items from the time of his actual receipt, to his examination of the contents, and until the seized items were presented in court, as evidence. Since his testimony was dispensed with, stipulations on how he handled and dealt with the corpus delicti should have been made in order to highlight that the corpus delicti was properly safekept to the end that its integrity and evidentiary value were not compromised. The absence of these stipulations engendered doubts as to the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti. As a consequence, a judgment of acquittal is warranted for failure of the prosecution to account for the third and fourth links in the chain of custody — the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination, and the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 51 These requirements are no longer novel. Hence, observance should be in place, and the saving clause will not operate in favor of the ones who failed to comply.
Since there were unexplained gaps brought about by the non-compliance with the procedure laid down in Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, We hold that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti have been compromised. Thus, accused-appellant is hereby acquitted of the charges of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The February 21, 2017 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07633 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Asnawi Alawi y Bazar is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered to be RELEASED from detention immediately, unless he is confined for other lawful cause.
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 DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be made immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 20-22.
2.Id. at 2-19. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo and concurred in by Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
3. CA rollo, pp. 41-47. Penned by Presiding Judge Sarah Alma M. Lim.
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: June 7, 2002.
5. Records, pp. 2-5.
6.Id. at 2.
7.Id. at 4.
8.Id. at 30.
9.Id. at 35.
10. TSN, July 15, 2013, pp. 4-5.
11.Id. at 5-7.
12.Id. at 7-9.
13.Id. at 9-10.
14.Id. at 10-11.
15.Id. at 12-13.
16.Id. at 14-15.
17. TSN, August 7, 2014, pp. 3-4.
18. Records, p. 11.
19. TSN, May 8, 2015, pp. 5-6.
20.Id. at 6-10.
21.Id. at 15.
22. CA rollo, pp. 41-47.
23.Id. at 45.
24.Id.
25.Id. at 46-47.
26.Id. at 47.
27.Rollo, pp. 2-19.
28.Id. at 12-13.
29.Id. at 14-15.
30.Id. at 16.
31.Id. at 18-19.
32.Rollo, pp. 20-22.
33. CA rollo, pp. 24-39.
34.Rollo, p. 34.
35. CA rollo, pp. 58-77.
36.Rollo, pp. 27-29.
37. CA rollo, pp. 32-36.
38.Id. at 37-38.
39.Id. at 67-69.
40.Id. at 70-73.
41.Id. at 74-75.
42. G.R. No. 248694, October 14, 2020.
43.Id., citing People v. Bagamano, 793 Phil. 602, 607 (2016).
44. 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." Approved: July 15, 2014.
45. Records, p. 12.
46.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019, citing People v. Pajarin, 654 Phil. 461, 466 (2011).
47.Id., citing People v. Cabuhay, 836 Phil. 903 (2018).
48. G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019.
49.Id.
50. TSN, August 7, 2014, pp. 2-4.
51.People v. Ordinario, G.R. No. 251436, March 1, 2021.