THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242472. May 10, 2021.]
THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,vs. CESAR ALMONIA, JR. y GUTAY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMay 10, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242472 (The People of the Philippines v. Cesar Almonia, Jr. y Gutay). — This resolves the Appeal 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated March 23, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09286, which affirmed the conviction of Cesar Almonia Jr. y Gutay (Almonia Jr.) for illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. Almonia Jr. was found to have sold 0.22 gram and possessed an additional 1.48 grams of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu."
The Antecedents
On January 29, 2015, two (2) separate Informations for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 were filed against Almonia Jr. before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pedro, Laguna, Branch 31. 3 Docketed as Criminal Case No. 15-10262-SPL, Almonia Jr. was charged for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, in an Information, the accusatory portions of which state:
That on or about January 23, 2015, in the City of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell, deliver and distribute Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug weighing zero point twenty-two (0.22) gram, in violation of the above-mentioned provision of the law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
On the other hand, Almonia Jr. was indicated for illegal possession of dangerous drugs in Criminal Case No. 15-10263-SPL, in an Information, the accusatory portions of which read:
That on or about January 23, 2015, in the City of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above[-]named accused, without authority of law, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in [his] possession, control and custody eleven (11) heat[-]sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride commonly known as "shabu'', a dangerous drug weighing one point forty-eight (1.48) grams, in violation of the above-mentioned law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
During the arraignment, Almonia Jr. pleaded not guilty to both charges. 6 Thereafter, the pre-trial of the case proceeded where the parties stipulated on the existence of the following documents, among others: (1) Request for Laboratory Examination; (2) Chain of Custody Form, (3) Receipt of Physical Inventory, photographs of the Inventory, Receipt of the Object Evidence. 7 Following the termination of the pre-trial, trial on the merits then ensued. 8
Version of the Prosecution
Evidence for the prosecution consisted of the testimonies of Police Officer 3 Retchie Ramelo (PO3 Ramelo), Police Officer 2 Aldwin Paulo Tibuc (PO2 Tibuc) and Forensic Chemist Donna Villa Huelgas (FC Huelgas), whose combined testimonies, can be summarized in this manner: 9
On January 23, 2015, at around 10:00 o'clock in the morning, PO3 Ramelo received a tip from one of their confidential agents that a certain person known as "Choi," was involved in the rampant selling of illegal drugs in their area. 10 He immediately relayed the information to his superior police Senior Superintendent Ronaldo R. Mendoza (PSSupt. Mendoza), who directed his team, composed of PO3 Ramelo as the poseur-buyer, PO2 Tibuc as back-up, and other members of the police force as perimeter security, to conduct a casing and surveillance for the possible arrest of the subject. 11
During the briefing, PO3 Ramelo was given a P500.00-bill with Serial No. XF997944 as buy-bust money, which he marked with his initials "RYR" at the lower right portion. 12 He was also instructed to remove his bull cap to signify that the transaction has been consummated. 13 The team, likewise, submitted a Coordination and Pre-Operation Report to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), pursuant to their standard operating procedure. 14
At around 8:00 o'clock in the evening of the same day, the team went to the target area. 15 Thereat, PO3 Ramelo, together with the confidential agent, entered a convenience store while the back-up team stayed inside a tinted car parked in front of the said store and waited for the subject. 16 At about 11:30 o'clock in the evening, a man and a woman in a red motorcycle arrived and parked across the street from the convenience store. 17 The confidential agent went outside and approached the man, and after confirming his identity as the subject, he called PO3 Ramelo and introduced him to the former. 18
PO3 Ramelo told the man that he will buy P500.00 worth of shabu, which the latter fulfilled by taking out a black coin purse with several pieces of small plastic sachets suspected to contain shabu from his right pocket. 19 The man gave one (1) plastic sachet to PO3 Ramelo, who handed him the P500.00 marked money in return. 20 After confirming his suspicion, PO3 Ramelo executed the pre-arranged signal which prompted the other members of the team to rush to the scene and arrested the man, 21 whom they later identified as Almonia Jr., herein appellant. 22
PO3 Ramelo frisked Almonia Jr., and recovered from his right pocket a black coin purse with eleven (11) plastic sachets suspected to contain shabu, which he marked with "RYR-P1" to "RYR-P11", in his presence and at the place of arrest. 23 Subsequently, they brought Almonia Jr., as well as the items recovered from him, to the police station for further investigation and documentation. 24 Thereat, the police made an inventory and took photographs of the items seized in the presence of Almonia Jr., and a media representative. 25
After preparing the Request for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test. PO3 Ramelo and PO2 Tibuc brought Almonia Jr., together with the subject specimens, to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory for testing. 26 PO3 Diokno received the specimens and the letter-request, 27 and handed them over to FC Huelgas, who after examining the contents thereof, concluded in her Chemistry Report No. D-113-15, 28 that the subject specimens contained Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Version of the Defense
Meanwhile, the defense presented Almonia Jr., as its lone witness, who testified as to the following version of events:
On January 22, 2015, at around 11:30 o'clock in the evening, he and his live-in partner were on their way home when several men onboard two (2) cars blocked their path, which made their motorcycle tumble. 29 To their surprise, a man with a long firearm emerged and arrested them. 30 A man, whom they later identified as Police Officer (PO) Delos Santos, told them, "dapa dapa" to which he asked, "bakit po, sino po kayo?" 31 PO Delos Santos uttered, "Huwag na kayong mag maang maangan, dapa, dapa" and poked a gun at them. 32
Almonia Jr. was handcuffed and his pockets were both searched. 33 Thereafter, he was brought to Camp Vicente Lim, where he found out that he was being charged for violation of dangerous drugs. 34 He asserted that the pieces of evidence against him were planted, which he saw only on January 24, 2015, at the office in Camp Vicente Lim, when PO2 Tibuc ordered him to stand beside the table where the contraband were placed. 35
Ruling of the RTC
After trial, the RTC rendered a Consolidated Judgment 36 dated March 29, 2017, finding Almonia Jr., guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. 37 The RTC held that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses who were police officers, undoubtedly established the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs, as well as the chain of custody of the pieces of evidence recovered from Almonia Jr. 38 Despite the inconsistency as to where the marking of the said pieces of evidence took place, the RTC dismissed the same as merely trivial, since it does not relate to the elements of the crime. 39 Consequently, the RTC convicted Almonia Jr. in its Consolidated Judgment, the dispositive portion of which states:
WHEREFORE, a consolidated judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 15-10262-SPL, accused Cesar Almonia Jr. y Gulay is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The period of his preventive imprisonment should be giver full credit.
2. In Criminal Case No. 15-10263-SPL, accused Cesar Almonia Jr. y Gulay is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act 9165 and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Twelve (12) years and One (1) day, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) years and Eight (8) months, as maximum[,] and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00) pesos without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. The period of his preventive imprisonment shall be given full credit.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 40
Undaunted, Almonia Jr. appealed before the CA. 41
Ruling of the CA
As earlier mentioned, the CA affirmed the conviction of Almonia Jr. after it found that the police officers substantially complied with the requirements of Section 21 (1), Article II of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640. 42 The CA held that the presence of only one (1) witness, who was a member of the media, satisfied the objective of the law of having an impartial witness during the inventory of the seized items. 43 Thus, the CA denied the appeal in its assailed Decision, the dispositive portion of which is quoted hereunder:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Consolidated Judgment dated March 29, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Branch 31, City of San Pedro, Laguna in Criminal Case No. 15-10262-SPT and Criminal Case No. 15-10263-SPL is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.44
Unperturbed, Almonia Jr. filed a Notice of Appeal, which the CA granted in its Minute Resolution 45 dated May 10, 2018, and, consequently, ordered the elevation of the records of the instant case to this Court.
In a Resolution 46 dated November 28, 2018, this Court noted the records of the case forwarded by the CA. Likewise, the parties were ordered to file their respective supplemental briefs, should they so desire, within 30 days from notice.
On February 20, 2019, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation 47 on behalf of the People stating that it would no longer file a Supplemental Brief because all of its contentions have been amplified in full in the Appellee's Brief that it submitted to the CA. On March 6, 2019, Almonia Jr., through the Public Attorney's Office, filed a similar Manifestation. 48
The Court now resolves the instant case.
In essence, the issue before this Court is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of Almonia Jr. beyond reasonable doubt, which begs the question: did the arresting officers comply with the chain of custody rule?
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
The cornerstone of all criminal prosecutions is the right of the accused to be presumed innocent. 49 No less than the Constitution mandates that every accused shall be presumed innocent unless his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt charges the prosecution with the immense responsibility of establishing moral certainty. 50
In a case involving dangerous drugs, the substance itself constitutes the very corpus delicti the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to sustain a judgment of conviction. 51 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. 52
The requirement of an unbroken chain of custody is to ensure that unnecessary doubts on the identity of the evidence — the dangerous drugs — are removed. 53 Given the unique characteristics of dangerous drugs which render them indistinct, not readily identifiable and easily susceptible to tampering, alteration or substitution, it is essential to show that the identity and integrity of the seized drugs have been preserved. 54
As a matter of fact, this Court, in the recent case of People v. Serabo, 55 declared that, "it is a matter of judicial notice that entrapment operations, which are the usual means of apprehending violators of the dangerous drugs law, are susceptible to police abuse. Such abuse is easier to carry out due to the imposed secrecy that inevitably shrouds all drug deals, and add to that the unique characteristic of the dangerous drug that renders it indistinct, not readily identifiable, and easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution either by accident or otherwise."
Due to this gruesome reality, this Court, in People v. Angeles, 56 stressed that, "[i]n deciding cases involving minuscule amounts of illegal drugs, courts are reminded to exercise a higher level of scrutiny. This Court mandated that there should be stricter compliance with the rules when the amount of the dangerous drug is minute due to the possibility that the seized item could be tampered. This Court is aware that, in some instances, law enforcers resort to the practice or planting evidence to extract information from or even to harass civilians. 57 This Court has repeatedly been issuing warnings to trial courts to exercise extra vigilance in trying drug cases, lest an innocent person is made to suffer the unusually severe penalties for drug offenses. 58
Here, appellant was found to have sold 0.22 gram and possessed an additional 1.48 grams of shabu, or a total net weight of 1.7 grams; thus, this Court has every reason to carefully scrutinize whether the law enforcers complied with the procedures outlined by the law.
To establish the chain of custody of the dangerous drugs, four (4) critical links must be shown, to wit: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, 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 from the forensic chemist to the court. 59
Lamentably, this Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody, since there were gaps in the first,second and fourth links of the chain.
I. The absence of the witnesses
Marking is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items after they have been seized. 60 It is the starting point in the custodial link. 61 The marking of the evidence serves to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the time they are seized from the accused until they are disposed of at the end of the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 62
Relevant to the instant case is the procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of the seized dangerous drugs as outlined in Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165, the pertinent provision of which 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 Laboratory Equipment. —
(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[.]
On July 15, 2014, R.A. 10640 63 amended R.A. 9165 as follows:
The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media 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, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over the said items.
The law directs that the inventory and photography be done in the presence of the accused from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of R.A. 9165 by R.A. 10640, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of R.A. 9165 by R.A. 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. 64
In this accord, this Court, in Abilla v. People, 65 clarified that the witnesses should already be physically present at the time of apprehension. The reason is simple: it is at the time of arrest — or at the time of the drugs' "seizure and confiscation" — that the presence of the witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would insulate against the police practice of planting evidence. 66 The same ruling resonated in People v. Claudel, 67 where this Court ruled that the presence of the required witnesses at the time of the apprehension and inventory is mandatory, and that the law imposes the said requirement because their presence serves an essential purpose. In People v. Tomawis,68 this Court explained the purpose of the law in requiring the presence of the witnesses at the time of apprehension, in this manner:
xxx xxx xxx
The presence of the three witnesses must be secured not only during the inventory but more importantly at the time of the warrantless arrest.
It is at this point in which the presence of the x x x witnesses is most needed, as it is their presence at the time of seizure and confiscation that would belie any doubt as tothe source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. If the buy-bust operation is legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would also controvert the usual defense of frame-up as the witnesses would be able to testify that the buy-bust operation and inventory of the seized drugs were done in their presence in accordance with Section 21 of RA 9165.
Simply stated, the law requires that these mandatory witnesses must already be physically present at the time of seizure and apprehension, otherwise their purpose will be rendered nugatory. After all, their presence was intended as a guarantee against planting of evidence and frame up, as they were "necessary to insulate the apprehension and incrimination proceedings from any taint of illegitimacy or irregularity" 69 and would necessarily belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drug. 70
As a consequence of this rule, the practice of police operatives of not bringing to the intended place of arrest the witnesses, when they could easily do so — and "calling them in" to the place of inventory to witness the inventory and photographing of the drugs only after the buy-bust operation has already been finished — does not achieve the purpose of the law in having these witnesses prevent or insulate against the planting of drugs. 71
Unfortunately, the prosecution failed to establish that the witnesses required by law were present at the time appellant was arrested, as discernible from the testimony of PO3 Ramelo:
PROS. IBANA (Q):
You also stated in your sworn statement that after you were able to buy one (1) plastic sachet of methamphetamine hydrochloride from Cesar Almonia, he was arrested. What did you do with the plastic sachet which you bought from him?
A: I marked it with RYRBB, ma'am. 72
Q: What does RYRBB stan[d] for?
A: Retchie Yepez Ramelo Bravo Bravo, the usual initial I placed, ma'am. 73
Q: You also stated that you were able to confiscate eleven (11) more plastic sachets from Cesar Almonia. What did you do with these eleven plastic sachets containing methamphetamine hydrochloride?
A: I marked it with RYR-P1 to RYR P-11, ma'am. 74
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Before submitting the evidence to the crime laboratory office Mr. Witness, what other document did you prepar[e]?
A: We conducted the inventory, ma'am. 75
Q: Who was present during your inventory?
A: The media representative, ma'am. 76
Q: What is your proof that the media representative was present during your inventory?
A: We have pictures, ma'am. 77
The testimony of PO3 Ramelo left much to be desired as the same was equally telling of the fact that: 1) only a media representative was present as a witness; and 2) he was only present at the time of the inventory of the items allegedly seized from appellant. The prosecution is silent whether the media representative was at or near the scene of the crime to witness appellant's arrest. As can be gleaned from the testimony of PO3 Ramelo, the media representative was merely "called in" after the alleged buy-bust operation took place. For this reason, his participation only after appellant's arrest cannot be considered as compliance with the requirement of the law.
It bears stressing that the seizure and apprehension constitute the very first link in the chain of custody. Thus, the fact that only the arresting officers were present during the apprehension of appellant, x x x is enough to sustain lingering doubts in our minds as to the source, identity, and integrity of the prosecution's object evidence. 78 The inevitable consequences of failure to observe this unflagging strictness and rigor in the law is emphasized in the case of People v. Ismael, 79 thus — "there was already a significant break such that there can be no assurance against switching, planting, or contamination." This Court considers the virtual impossibility for any accused to prove his claim that the evidence against him was planted in such apprehension where only he and the police officers were present. 80
Because of this glaring omission, this Court cannot conclude with moral certainty that the transaction actually happened because the source of the dangerous drugs had become highly uncertain. 81 A reasonable hypothesis that the source of the dangerous drugs was from someone else other than the [appellant] is not far-fetched and cannot be ignored. 82 Consequently, this Court in People v. Dela Cruz, 83 acquitted the appellant therein for failure of the arresting officers to secure the presence of the witnesses required by law during his apprehension.
Therefore, the absence of the witnesses required by law during appellant's arrest constitutes a gap in the first link of the chain, which warrants his acquittal.
II. Lack of proof of turnover to
The turnover of the seized shabu from the arresting officers to the investigating officer in the police station constitutes the second link in the chairs of custody. 84
Unfortunately, here, PO3 Ramelo failed to identify the person to whom the items were turned over at the police station. He merely testified that he prepared the letter-requests and chain of custody form. 85
The probability of the integrity and identity of the corpusdelicti being compromised is present at every single time the prohibited item is being handed over from one person to another. 86 It was, therefore, imperative for the prosecution to have presented as witness the investigating officer, and anyone else for that matter who may have handled the drug after him. 87 From the time the specimens were placed under his custody until the time they were brought to court — the threat of tampering, alteration, or substitution of the corpus delicti exists. 88
For this reason, this Court, in People v. Borromeo, 89 held that "without the investigating officer's testimony, there is no guarantee that the corpus delicti had been preserved. This alone, therefore, is sufficient to warrant appellant's acquittal." In a similar vein, this Court in People v. Hementiza,90 held that, "where the apprehending officer was unable to identify the investigating officer to whom he turned over the seized items, such circumstance when taken in light of the several other lapses in the chain of custody that attend the case, raises doubts as to whether the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs had been preserved." Likewise, this Court, in People v. Enad, 91 held that the second link is not established when the arresting officer failed to disclose the identities of the desk officer and the investigator to whom custody of the same drugs was turned over. Moreover, this Court, in People v. Bombasi, 92 construed the failure of the apprehending officers to mention to whom the seized items were turned over, or who stood as the investigating officer, as an intervening gap in the second link of the chain, which warranted the acquittal of the accused.
Verily, this omission on the part of the arresting officers is crucial because the same constitute proof on how the evidence against accused-appellant was handled during the second link. This is why this Court in People v. Gayoso, 93 ruled that, "the absence of proof how the seized drug was handled during the second link constitutes a breach in the chain of custody."
III. Failure to specify how the
The fourth link refers to the turnover and submission of the dangerous drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 94 To establish the fourth (4) link of the chain, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to show the following requisites:
First, how the forensic chemist handled and analyzed the dangerous drug submitted for examination; 95 and
Second, how the dangerous drugs were handled, stored, and safeguarded pending its presentation in court. 96
In drug related cases, it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination, i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical, composition of the subject specimen. 97
While FC Huelgas testified in court, it appears that her testimony is severely limited as she failed to describe the method she utilized in analyzing the chemical composition of the drug samples, and it was simply confined to the results which the said tests yielded. 98 Moreover, she also failed to identify the person to whom she gave the specimens after examination. In fact, any other detail after the turnover of the pieces of evidence to her was sorely missing in the records. Indubitably, this is another breach of the chain of custody rule. 99
In People v. Omamos,100 this Court held that the final link has been breached if the forensic chemist failed to show how she handled the dangerous drug submitted to her for laboratory examination. Similarly, the Court, in People v. Plaza, 101 ruled that there is a gap or break in thefourth link of the chain of custody where there is absence of evidence to show how the seized shabu was handled, stored, and safeguarded pending its presentation in court. In the same way, this Court in People v. Angeles,102 acquitted the accused therein because the stipulation on the testimony of the forensic chemist failed to detail what happened after the examination of the prohibited drug:
x x x Who ultimately transmitted the drugs seized from [accused] to the trial court to be used as evidence against him? The necessary details to prove the preservation of the integrity of the drugs recovered from [accused] remain a mystery. All these are left open to the realm of possibilities such that the evidentiary value of drugs presented in court was unduly prejudiced; considering that it cannot be said with certainty that the drugs were never compromised or tampered with. x x x.
Similarly, this Court in People v. Durado, 103 held that the prosecution failed to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody, when it failed to provide details as to who the evidence custodian was and how the items were handled by the said custodian. Consequently, the Court, in People v. Abelarde, 104 acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution did not proffer any evidence to indicate how the x x x packets of shabu were handled after the laboratory examination and the identity of the person who had custody of these x x x packets of shabu before their presentation in court.
In fine, the final link, just like the first and second one, had also been breached. Surely, these lapses in the chain of custody rule had cast serious doubts on the identity and the integrity of the corpus delicti. The metaphorical chain did not link at all, albeit it unjustly deprived appellant of his right to liberty. 105
The Court is well aware that a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve and so it has previously ruled that minor procedural lapses or deviations from the prescribed chain of custody may be condoned provided that the arresting or apprehending officers are able to justify their failure to comply with the same. 106 It must be alleged that they put in their best effort to ensure compliance but were prevented from doing so by circumstances beyond their control. The justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact. 107 The prosecution cannot simply invoke the saving clause found in Section 21 — that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items have been preserved — without justifying its failure to comply with the requirements stated therein. 108 Even the presumption as to regularity in the performance by police officers of their official duties cannot prevail when there has been a clear and deliberate disregard of procedural safeguards by the police officers themselves. 109
Regrettably, the prosecution neither recognized nor tried to explain the police's deviation from the procedure mandated by law. The prosecution's failure to offer any justifiable reason for its non-compliance with Section 21 of R.A. 9165 resulted in a substantial gap in the chain of custody x x x which placed the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items in question. 110If doubt surfaces on the sufficiency of the evidence to convict, regardless that it does only at the stage of an appeal, our courts of justice should, nonetheless, rule in favor of the accused, lest it betray its duty to protect individual liberties within the bounds of law.111
Judicial reliance on the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty despite the lapses in the procedures undertaken by the agents of the law is fundamentally flawed because the lapses themselves are affirmative proofs of irregularity. 112 The presumption of regularity in the performance of duty cannot overcome the stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a. mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally-enshrined right to be presumed innocent. 113
The Court, on various occasions, has reversed judgments rendered by lower courts and set an accused free on the basis of unexplained gaps and lapses in the chain of custody, primarily those pertaining or related to the handling of the seized drugs. 114 Any indicium of doubt in the evidence of the prosecution that puts into question the fundamental principle of credibility and integrity of the corpus delicti makes an acquittal a matter of course. 115
All told, this Court finds the errors committed by the arresting officers as sufficient to cast serious doubts on the guilt of the accused-appellant. Absent faithful compliance with Section 21, Article II of R.A. 9165 which is primarily intended to, first, preserve the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items in drugs cases, and second, to safeguard accused persons from unfounded and unjust convictions, an acquittal becomes the proper recourse. 116
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated March 23, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09286, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, Cesar Almonia, Jr., y Gutay is hereby ACQUITTED of the crimes charged. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to cause his IMMEDIATE RELEASE, unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to INFORM This Court of the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt hereof. Let entry of judgment be issued inmmediately.
Let copies be likewise FURNISHED to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 19.
2.Id. at 2-18. Penned by Honorable Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando (now Presiding Justice), and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles.
3. Records, p. 93.
4.Rollo, p. 3.
5.Id. at 4.
6.Id.
..7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 55-58.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13.Id.
14.Id.
15.Id.
16.Id. at 57.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19.Id.
20.Id.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 58.
23.Id. at 57.
24.Id.
25.Id.
26.Id.
27.Id. at 56.
28. Records, p. 16.
29. CA rollo, p. 59.
30.Id.
31.Id.
32.Id.
33.Id.
34.Id.
35.Id.
36. Penned by Honorable Presiding Judge Sonia T. Yu-Casano, records, pp. 93-103.
37.Id. at 102-103.
38.Id. at 99-102.
39.Id. at 100-101.
40.Id. at 102-103.
41.Rollo, p. 2.
42.Id. at 11-14.
43.Id. at 12.
44.Id. at 17. (Emphasis in the original).
45. CA rollo, p. 123.
46.Rollo, p. 24.
47.Id. at 27.
48.Id. at 31.
49.People v. Serabo, G.R. No. 244171, January 6, 2020.
50.Id.
51.People v. Bartolini, 791 Phil. 626, 634 (2016).
52.Id., citing People v. Gatlabayan, 669 Phil. 240, 252 (2011).
53.People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 30 (2017).
54.People v. Balles, G.R. No. 226143, November 21, 2018.
55.Supra note 49. (Emphasis supplied).
56. G.R. No. 224223, November 20, 2019.
57.Id.
58.Id.
59.People v. Catinguel, G.R. No. 229205, March 6, 2019.
60.People v. Abella, et at., 834 Phil. 511, 534 (2018).
61.Id.
62.Id.
63.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.
64.People v. Angeles, G.R. No. 224223, November 20, 2019.
65. G.R. No. 227676, April 3, 2019. (Emphasis supplied).
66.Id.
67. G.R. No. 219852, April 3, 2019. (Emphasis supplied).
68. 830 Phil. 385, 409 (2018). (Emphasis supplied).
69.People v. Serabo,supra note 49.
70.People v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 237776, June 29, 2020.
71.People v. Tomawis,supra note 68. (Emphasis supplied).
72. TSN, January 27, 2016, p. 5.
73.Id.
74.Id.
75.Id. at 6.
76.Id.
77.Id.
78.People v. Serabo, supra note 49. (Emphasis supplied).
79. 806 Phil. 21, 34 (2017), cited in People v. Villarta, 828 Phil. 259, 282 (2018). (Emphasis supplied)
80.People v. Serabo, supra note 48.
81.People v. Abdula, G.R. No. 212192, November 21, 2018.
82.Id.
83. G.R. No. 237776, June 29, 2020.
84.People v. Gayoso, supra note 53, at 32. (Emphasis supplied).
85. TSN, January 27, 2016, p. 6.
86.People v. Borromeo, G.R. No. 245251, December 5, 2019.
87.Id.
88.Id.
89.Supra.
90. 807 Phil. 1017, 1035 (2017), citing People v. Nandi, 639 Phil. 134 (2010) (Emphasis supplied).
91. 780 Phil. 346, 367 (2016). (Emphasis supplied).
92. (G.R. No. 230555, October 9, 2019. (Emphasis supplied).
93.Supra note 53.
94.People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
95.Id.
96.People v. Plaza, G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018.
97.People v. Omamos,supra note 93.
98. TSN, August 25, 2015, pp. 3-5.
99.People v. Martin, G.R. No. 231007, July 1, 2019.
100.Supra note 94. (Emphasis supplied).
101.Supra note 96. (Emphasis supplied).
102. 833 Phil. 822, 836 (2018).
103. G.R. No. 244258, February 19, 2020.
104.People v. Apol, G.R. No. 242016, December 10, 2019, citing 824 Phil. 122 (2018).
105.People v. Omamos, supra note 94.
106.People v. Peña, G.R. No. 233750, June 10, 2019.
107.Id. (Emphasis in the orginal).
108.Id.
109.Id.
110.Edangelino v. People, G.R. No. 235110, January 8, 2020.
111.People v. Jimenez, G.R. No. 230721, October 15, 2018. (Emphasis supplied).
112.Edangelino v. People,supra note 110.
113.Id.
114.People v. Peña, supra note 106.
115.Id.
116.Tolentino v. People, G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020.