FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 227706. November 11, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ALLAN ALMAYDA y SELFIDES and HOMERO QUIOGUE y ADORNADO, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 11, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 227706 — People of the Philippines v. Allan Almayda y Selfides and Homero Quiogue y Adornado
Appellants are guilty of
In a prosecution for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, such as shabu, the following elements must be duly established: 1) the identity of the buyer and seller, the object, and the consideration; and 2) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Simply stated, the prosecution must prove that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation of the seized dangerous drugs as evidence in court. 1
Here, prosecution witness Agent Daniel Tan (Agent Tan) testified:
Q: So, what happened next?
A: Upon waiting for several minutes, the two (2) subjects Allan Almayda and Homero Quiogue arrived and greeted us.
Q: When you say "us[,"] Mr. Witness, [to] whom are you referring x x x?
A: Me and the confidential informant.
Q: Only?
A: Yes, sir.
Q: Now, what happened next?
A: After several conversations, Allan Almayda showed and gave to me two (2) pieces (of) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance suspected as shabu which later on yielded positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride according to the PNP RO V, Crime Laboratory.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: You stated, Mr. Witness, that Allan Almayda showed to you two (2) pieces heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance, now, aside from showing to you, what else did he do, if any, to the two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets?
A: He gave it to me, sir.
Q: What did you do upon receipt of these two (2) heat-sealed sachets?
A: After I physically examined the two (2) heat-sealed plastic sachets, I gave him the buy-bust money which [were] the x x x P500.00 peso-bill x x x I pre-marked and two (2) P1,000.00 peso-bill boodle money and four (4) pieces P500.00 boodle money.
Q: You said that you physically examined the two (2) pieces heat-sealed transparent sachets, what was the result of your physical examination?
A: After confirming that there's (sic) white crystalline substance inside the plastic sachet, I gave to Allan Almayda the buy-bust money which he passed to Homero Quiogue and then I took off my hat as the pre-arranged signal that the transaction was consummated. 2
Agent Tan, thus, gave a detailed narration of the transaction and positively identified appellants Allan Almayda y Selfides and Homero Quiogue y Adornado (appellants) as the persons who sold him the seized drugs. Verily, the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs was consummated when appellants delivered the corpus delicti to Agent Tan in consideration of P4,500.00 which they received from the latter.
The chain of custody was
In drug related cases, the State bears the burden not only of proving the elements of the offense, but also the corpus delicti itself. The dangerous drugs seized from appellants constitute such corpus delicti. To sustain a verdict of conviction, it is, thus, imperative for the prosecution to establish that the identity and integrity of these dangerous drugs were duly preserved. 3
Here, appellants were charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs on April 20, 2012. 4 The governing law, therefore, is Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165) prior to its amendment on August 7, 2014.
Section 21 of RA 9165 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; x x x
Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, implementing the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, defines "chain of custody," as follows:
"Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of the seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. The prosecution is, therefore, tasked to establish that the substance illegally sold or possessed by the accused is the same substance presented in court. 5 This is the chain of custody rule. The rule 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. 6
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: 7 (1) the seizure and marking of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 8
The first link refers to the seizure and marking which must be done immediately at the place of the arrest. Too, it includes the physical inventory and taking of photograph of the seized drug which should be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, together with an elected public official, and a representative of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media.
Here, poseur-buyer Agent Tan immediately marked the plastic sachets with "DMT A 4-19-12" and "DMT B 4-19-12" at the place of arrest. The team then returned to their office where the requisite inventory and photographing were conducted in the presence of Barangay Chairwoman Ma. Jane Azotillo, Barangay Kagawad Rolando Belbes, media representative Romeo Romero, DOJ representative Jesus Arsenio Aragon, and appellants. 9
The fact that the inventory was conducted in the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office and not at the place of arrest is of no moment. In previous cases, the Court had sustained convictions although the inventory was conducted at the police station in the presence of insulating witnesses.
In People v. Magpantay and Tobias, 10 the Court upheld the conviction of appellants for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. The Court found that the prosecution was able to show an unbroken chain of custody. Anent the first link, the Court noted:
The irrefutable pieces of evidence that the prosecution presented show that immediately after PO1 Aguiron seized the items and arrested Sharon and Dennis, he marked the confiscated items at the place of seizure and arrest in the presence of the suspects and the rest of the assisting police officers. The required taking of photograph was also done. Notably, the marked and photographed seized items remained in PO1 Aguiron's custody during transit to the police station, where the physical inventory, which was done in the presence of Sharon and Dennis, a local official, and a DOJ representative, in conformity with the amended witness requirement under RA No. 10640.
Too, in People v. Bernal, 11 the Court found that the prosecution was able to establish with moral certainty that there was an unbroken chain of custody over the confiscated drugs and drug paraphernalia. In this case, too, the confiscated items were marked at the place of arrest and then brought to the police station for the conduct of the inventory in the presence of Bernal, a DOJ representative, and the media.
The second link is the transfer of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. The investigating officer shall conduct the investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the proper transfer of the evidence to the police crime laboratory for testing. Thus, the investigating officer's possession of the seized drug must be documented and established. 12
The rule on chain of custody includes 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. It is from the testimony of every witness, who handled the evidence from which a reliable assurance can be derived, that the evidence presented in court is one and the same as that seized from the accused. 13
Here, Agent Tan remained in the custody of the drugs from the place of arrest up to the police station where the inventory and photographing took place until the same were turned over to the crime laboratory for examination. There was no investigating officer who came into the picture insofar as the custody of the drugs was concerned. As it was, Agent Tan was able to account for the condition of these drugs all through these timelines. In other words, the absence of the investigating officer per se does not affect the integrity and identity of the corpus delicti so long as the transfer of custody is accounted for, as in here.
The third link is the delivery by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist. Once the seized drug arrives at the forensic laboratory, it will be the laboratory technician who will test and verify the nature of the substance. Additionally, the fourth link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court when presented as evidence in the criminal case. 14
Both links were duly established in this case. Agent Tan testified that he turned over the subject drugs to the crime laboratory. The same were duly received by Flora Bumalay, who, in turn, gave them to Forensic Chemist Wilfredo Idian Pabustan, Jr. (Forensic Chemist Pabustan).
Per Chemistry Report No. D-53-2012 dated April 19, 2012, Forensic Chemist Pabustan, Jr. found the specimens positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. Thereafter, Forensic Chemist Pabustan then personally turned over the specimens to the trial court and identified the same in open court. 15
In sum, the prosecution was able to establish all the links in the chain of custody and accounted for the specimens' proper handling and preservation at every stage. Thus, the Court of Appeals did not err when it affirmed the verdict of conviction for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165.
Lastly, pursuant to Section 5, Article II of RA 9165, appellants were correctly sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine in the amount of P1,000,000.00 each. 16
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated August 11, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06350 is AFFIRMED.
Appellants Allan Almayda y Selfides and Homero Quiogue y Adornado are found GUILTY of ILLEGAL SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 and sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and a FINE of P1,000,000.00 each.
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.People v. Goyena, G.R. No. 229680, June 06, 2019.
2. TSN dated June 20, 2012, pp. 18-23.
3.People v. Valdez, G.R. No. 233321, December 5, 2019.
4.Rollo, pp. 2-3.
5.People v. Galisim, G.R. No. 231305, September 11, 2019.
6.Jocson v. People, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019.
7. As defined in Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002: x x x
b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.] x x x
8.Jocson v. People, supra.
9. Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer, record, pp. 11-12.
10. G.R. No. 252329, July 14, 2021.
11. G.R. No. 242946, June 14, 2021.
12.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, June 22, 2020.
13.People v. Martin, G.R. No. 233750, June 10, 2019.
14.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019.
15.Rollo, p. 5; CA rollo, p. 50.
16. SEC. 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions.