THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 243592. November 10, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ANDREW ALINDADA y DESEMBRANA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated November 10, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 243592 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Andrew Alindada y Desembrana, Accused-Appellant) — This Court resolves an appeal 1 which seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 2 promulgated on 10 November 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08540. The CA affirmed the Decision 3 dated 29 July 2016 of Branch 2, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila in Criminal Case Nos. 14-305581 and 14-305582 finding accused-appellant Andrew Alindada y Desembrana (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Sections 5 4 and 11 (3), 5 Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165. 6
Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with violation of Sections 11 (3) and 5, Article II of RA No. 9165, the accusatory portion of the two (2) Informations read, thus:
Criminal Case No. 14-305881
That on or about May 13, 2014, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not 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 the following markings and recorded weights:
"ADD-MV3" containing ZERO POINT SIX FOUR ONE (0.641) gram
"ADD-MV4" containing ZERO POINT FIVE SIX TWO (0.562) gram
"ADD-MV5" containing ZERO POINT FIVE SIX ZERO (0.560)gram
"ADD-MV6" containing ZERO POINT FIVE SIX FOUR (0.564)gram
"ADD-MV7" containing ZERO POINT FIVE THREE FIVE (0.535)gram
"ADD-MV8" containing ZERO POINT FOUR NINE TWO (0.492)gram
"ADD-MV9" containing ZERO POINT SIX SIX ZERO (0.0660) * gram
* Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document. Discrepancy between amount in words and in figures.
"ADD-MV10" containing ZERO POINT FOUR SEVEN ONE (0.471) gram
or with a total net weight of FOUR POINT FOUR EIGHT FIVE (4.485) grams of dried leaves and fruiting tops of MARIJUANA, a dangerous drug[.]
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
Criminal Case No. 14-305882
That on or about May 13, 2014, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being then authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver or give away to another any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell to one PO2 Myrick Velasquez, a poseur buyer, two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, containing ZERO POINT FOUR NINE ZERO (0.490) gram and ZERO POINT FIVE SIX EIGHT (0.568) gram or with a total net weight of ONE POINT ZERO FIVE EIGHT (1.058) grams of dried leaves and fruiting tops of MARIJUANA, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges. After termination of pre-trial, trial on the merits ensued. 9 ASEcHI
Version of the Prosecution
On the morning of 13 May 2014, Police Officer (PO) 2 Myrick Velasquez (PO2 Velasquez) 10 and Senior Police Officer (SPO) 1 Jeffrey Delos Reyes of the Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Group of Police Station 5, Malate, Manila received information from a confidential informant (CI) that one alias Andrew, later identified as accused-appellant, was engaged in illegal drug trade activities at F. Manalo, Malate, Manila. A team was thereafter formed to conduct buy-bust operation and PO2 Velasquez was designated as poseur-buyer. 11
After being informed by the CI through cellphone that accused-appellant was already at the target area, the team proceeded to the area to conduct buy-bust operation. Upon arrival, the CI, together with PO2 Velasquez, approached accused-appellant. The CI introduced PO2 Velasquez as a prospective buyer to accused-appellant. The latter then asked for the money from PO2 Velasquez who immediately gave the P50.00 peso marked bill. In exchange, accused-appellant gave two (2) plastic sachets with suspected marijuana to PO2 Velasquez. Thereafter, PO2 Velasquez removed his cap to signify consummation of the transaction. The rest of the team rushed to the area and arrested accused-appellant. 12
Upon arrest, the team recovered an ice plastic containing eight (8) plastic sachets of marijuana from accused-appellant's possession. PO2 Velasquez marked and conducted inventory of the seized items at the barangay hall in the presence of Punong Barangay Denise Racelis (Punong Barangay Racelis). 13 Thereafter, they proceeded to the police station where PO2 Velasquez turned over the seized items to the investigator, PO2 Eduardo Dolleton (PO2 Dolleton). 14
PO2 Dolleton prepared the Receipt of Property/Evidence Seized and Chain of Custody Form and took photographs of accused-appellant and seized items. PO2 Dolleton then brought the same to the crime laboratory and handed them to forensic chemist, Police Chief Inspector Elisa Reyes-Arturo (PCI Reyes-Arturo). Upon examination, the seized items were found positive for marijuana. 15
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charges and claimed that in the afternoon of 13 May 2014, he was at home sleeping when four (4) strangers suddenly barged into his room and handcuffed him. They were looking for a certain Joel. He was thereafter brought to the police station where a certain Police Officer Miranda demanded P300,000.00 from him and his mother, Theresita Alindada (Theresita), but the latter was not able to produce the money. Theresita corroborated accused-appellant's testimony. 16
Ruling of the RTC
On 29 July 2016, the RTC rendered its Decision, convicting accused-appellant of the offenses charged, thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows, to wit:
1. In Crim. Case No. 14-305582 finding accused Andrew Alindada y Desembrana 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
2. In Crim. Case No. 14-305581 finding accused Andrew Alindada y Desembrana 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 fine of P300,000.00.
xxx xxx xxx.
SO ORDERED. 17
In convicting accused-appellant, the RTC held that all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana were proven by the prosecution. The RTC also held that while there is noncompliance with Section 21 of RA No. 9165, the issue is not of admissibility but on the weight or probative value to be given to the evidence, which depends on the circumstance obtaining in each case. Likewise, it found that the prosecution was able to establish the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized marijuana. 18 It lend credence to the testimony of the police officers in the absence of any ill motive on their part. 19 The RTC disregarded accused-appellant's defense of denial and frame up as opposed to the positive and credible testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 20
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the CA
In its Decision dated 10 November 2017, the CA affirmed accused-appellant's conviction. The dispositive portion of said decision reads: ITAaHc
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Decision dated July 29, 2016 rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2 of Manila in Criminal Case Nos. 14-305581 and 14-305582, finding accused-appellant ANDREW ALINDADA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violations of Sections 5 and 11 (3) of Republic Act No. 9165, is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 21
In affirming accused-appellant's conviction, the CA held that accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto selling marijuana during the buy-bust operation, which led to his arrest. Likewise, eight (8) more sachets of marijuana were seized from accused-appellant's possession after his arrest. The CA also held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the marijuana seized from accused-appellant were not shown to have been compromised notwithstanding the alleged lapses in the procedures provided by Section 21 of RA No. 9165. It also concurred with the RTC's finding that the testimonial evidence of accused-appellant cannot prevail over the documentary and physical evidence arrayed against accused-appellant. 22
Hence, this appeal.
Issue
Whether the CA correctly affirmed accused-appellant's conviction for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sections 5 and 11 (3), Article II of RA No. 9165, respectively.
Ruling of the Court
We grant the appeal.
In actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must first be established: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. 23 On the other hand, the elements of illegal possession of dangerous drugs are: (a) the accused was in possession of an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (b) such possession was not authorized by law; and (c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. 24
The corpus delicti is the seized drug itself. It is therefore incumbent upon the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the drug confiscated from the accused is the same drug presented in court as evidence. 25 Corollary thereto, Section 21 of RA No. 9165, the applicable law at the time of the commission of the alleged offenses, 26 outlines the procedure which the police officers must strictly follow to preserve the integrity of the confiscated drugs and/or paraphernalia used as evidence, thus: (1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or their representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ), all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy of the same; and (3) the seized drugs must be turned over to a forensic laboratory within twenty-four (24) hours from confiscation for examination. 27
In the same vein, the prosecution must establish the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs to ensure its integrity, i.e., 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. 28 Any break or disruption in the links would cast doubt in the identity and integrity of the seized item. Hence, it is essential for the prosecution to establish with moral certainty that the identity of the drug presented in court is the very same drug sold by the accused. 29
The prosecution failed to show the police officers' strict compliance with the established safeguards in Section 21, creating substantial gaps in the chain of custody.
The seized drugs were not
According to PO2 Velasquez, he marked the seized drugs at the Barangay hall and not immediately upon seizure. 30 Immediate marking is indispensable as it ensures that the items seized from the accused are the same ones subjected to inventory and photographing and later on presented in court as evidence of the corpus delicti. 31 While marking is not found in RA No. 9165 and is different from the inventory-taking and photography under Section 21 thereof, the Court has ruled, long before the passage of RA No. 9165, that failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti, 32 as in this case.
There were no representatives from
PO2 Velasquez marked and conducted inventory of the seized items in the presence of Punong Barangay Racelis at the barangay hall, while PO2 Dolleton took photographs of the seized items at the police station. 33 Notably, the absence of the representatives from the media and DOJ during the following undertaking was left unacknowledged, much less justified. The prosecution failed to explain the absence of the representatives from the media and DOJ, nor was there any showing that the police officers exerted earnest efforts to secure the presence of the said witnesses, despite the fact that the buy-bust operation was planned. CHTAIc
To emphasize, the presence of the witnesses required by law is essential. The rule requires the insulating presence of a representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected public official to witness the post-operation procedure, for the purpose of removing any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 34
There was no testimony as to how the
PO2 Dolleton brought the seized items to the crime laboratory and it was received by PCI Reyes-Arturo. 35 The parties dispensed with the testimony of PCI Reyes-Arturo after stipulating that the seized items received in court were the same evidence she received from PO2 Dolleton. 36 Unfortunately, the stipulations are general in nature and do not cover the manner how the specimen was handled during and after its examination, as well as the precautions taken to safeguard the same before it was presented in court. In People v. Ubungen, 37 it was held that in the absence of the testimony regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs seized after its qualitative examination, the 4th link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established.
Clearly, the foregoing deviations by the police officers in the seizure, handling, and custody of the seized drug greatly diminished its evidentiary value and cast doubt as to its identity and integrity as well. Thus, for failure of the prosecution to prove the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt, the Court is therefore constrained to acquit accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision promulgated on 10 November 2017 by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08540 finding accused-appellant ANDREW ALINDADA y DESEMBRANA guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11 (3), Article II of RA No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. He is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention unless he is being confined for some other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
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.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Carandang, J., no part, for having penned the assailed Court of Appeals decision; Gaerlan, J., designated additional Member per Raffle dated October 13, 2021.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-12.
2.Id. at 2-10; Penned by Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a member of this Court) with Associate Justices Stephen C. Cruz and Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela of the Second Division Court of Appeals, Manila, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 48-57; Penned by Presiding Judge Sarah Alma M. Lim.
4. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
5. Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
6. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
7.CArollo, p. 48.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 49.
10. Also referred to as PO3 Velasquez in the records.
11.Rollo, p. 4.
12.Id. at 4-5.
13.CA rollo, p. 52.
14.Rollo, p. 5.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 6.
17.CA rollo, p. 57.
18.Id. at 55.
19.Id. at 56.
20.Id. at 57.
21.Rollo, p. 9.
22.Id. at 8-9.
23.People v. Royol, G.R. No. 224297, 13 February 2019 [Per J. Leonen], citing People v. Morales, 630 Phil. 215-236 (2010) [Per J. Del Castillo].
24.People v. Cuevas, G.R. No. 238906, 05 November 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
25.People v. Galisim, G.R. No. 231305, 11 September 2019 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier].
26. The Information alleged that accused-appellant committed the offense on 13 May 2014, thus, the earlier version of Sec. 21 of RA No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations shall apply, i.e., prior to its amendment by RA No. 10640 (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"), which was approved on 15 July 2014 and became effective on 7 August 2014 or 15 days after its publication on 23 July 2014.
27.People v. Espejo, G.R. No. 240914, 18 March 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
28.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212-239 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza], citing People v. Kamad, 624 Phil. 289-312 (2010) [Per J. Brion].
29.People v. De Dios, G.R. No. 243664, 22 January 2020 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
30.CA rollo, p. 52.
31.See People v. Beran, 724 Phil. 788-824 (2014) [Per J. Reyes].
32.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212-239 (2015) [Per J. Mendoza].
33.CA rollo, p. 52.
34.People v. Barrion, G.R. No. 240541, 21 January 2019 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
35.Rollo, p. 5.
36.CA rollo, pp. 49-50.
37. 836 Phil. 888 (2018) [Per J. Martires].