FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240658. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MELCHOR AMANTE y BADDAS, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 29, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240658 (People of the Philippines v. Melchor Amante y Baddas). — Before this Court is an appeal filed by Melchor Amante y Baddas (accused-appellant) seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision 1 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09021 dated February 12, 2018, which affirmed the Decision 2 dated November 18, 2015 and the Resolution 3 dated December 21, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 48, Urdaneta City, that found him guilty of the crime of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, as defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165.
The appeal is meritorious.
At the outset, 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 accused-appellant constitutes such corpus delicti. It is thus imperative that the Prosecution establishes that the identity and integrity of the dangerous drugs were duly preserved in order to support a verdict of conviction. It must prove that the substance seized from accused-appellant is truly the substance offered in court as corpus delicti with the same unshakeable accuracy as that required to sustain a finding of guilt. 4
Since the sale of illegal drugs was alleged in the Information to have occurred on March 3, 2013, the procedure laid out in R.A. No. 9165 before its amendment in 2014 governs the instant case. The standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases has been well-defined under Section 21 thereof as follows: CAIHTE
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized, and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Consistent with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of the said law provides the following:
Section 21. (a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphasis supplied)
The foregoing provision embodies the chain of custody rule, which has been defined as 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 and presentation in court for identification and destruction. The record of movements and custody includes the identity and signature of those persons who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when the transfer of custody was made in the course of the item's safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and its final disposition. 5 DETACa
Simply put, to ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must establish each link in the chain of custody, namely: 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. 6
The requirements found in paragraph (1), Section 21 are designed to make the first and second links in the chain of custody, foolproof. Conducting the inventory and taking a photograph on the seized items immediately after seizure and exactly where the seizure was done, or at a location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not eliminates, room for adulteration or the planting of evidence. The presence of the accused or a representative, and of third-party witnesses, together with their attestations on the written inventory, ensures that the items delivered to the investigating officer are the items which have actually been inventoried. 7
Relevantly, the failure to comply with paragraph (1), Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 implies a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti and produces doubts as to the origins of the seized drugs. 8
A perusal of the evidence on record convinces this Court to agree with the accused-appellant that the chain of custody was broken, with the Prosecution failing to establish the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti in the instant case.
To recall, there are two heat-sealed sachets of white crystalline substance later confirmed positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride that were supposedly marked and delivered by Police Officer 2 Albert Dela Cruz (PO2 Dela Cruz) for laboratory examination after the purported buy-bust operation, 9 namely: (1) a substance with marking "ADC-1" weighing 0.005 gram which came from accused-appellant's Double Mint tin case in his belt bag in connection with the alleged sale of dangerous drugs to PO2 Dela Cruz, 10 and (2) a substance with marking "ADC-2" weighing 0.012 gram which was found in accused-appellant's possession during the search that was conducted immediately after the said sale. 11 Considering that the RTC's dismissal of the case for illegal possession of dangerous drugs against accused-appellant 12 was not appealed by the prosecution, the issue on the chain of custody of the corpus delicti subject of the illegal possession is no longer in issue. To establish the corpus delicti in the instant case for illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution has the burden of establishing the identity and integrity of the 0.005 gram heat-sealed sachet of white crystalline substance marked as "ADC-1."
Non-compliance with
Contrary to the averments of the prosecution and the findings of the RTC and the CA, the plastic sachet containing the Methamphetamine Hydrochloride that was allegedly sold to PO2 Dela Cruz as poseur-buyer and marked as "ADC-1" 13 is not part of the inventory of items seized from accused-appellant, as enumerated in the Receipt of Evidence Confiscated issued by the Pozorrubio Police Station. 14 What only appeared in the inventory is the plastic sachet confiscated from accused-appellant was the heat-sealed plastic sachet marked as "ADC-2," 15 or that which was recovered from accused-appellant after he was frisked and searched by the police officers. aDSIHc
The absence of the heat-sealed sachet which was marked as "ADC-1" in the inventory is also supported by the testimony of Kagawad Conrado Tabajonda (Kagawad Tabajonda), who, as a signatory to the inventory, testified that he saw only one plastic sachet to have been confiscated by the police officers, which was found when accused-appellant was frisked. In his narration events, Kagawad Tabajonda recounted that upon arriving at the scene, he saw accused-appellant already lying on the wooden bed, being searched by a police officer, thus only witnessing the confiscation of the plastic sachet found in the wallet of accused-appellant, and not of the sachet that was allegedly taken out of the Double Mint tin can by accused-appellant in the alleged sale of illegal drugs with poseur-buyer PO2 Dela Cruz. 16
Additionally, it does not escape this Court's attention that the prosecution's witness PO2 Dela Cruz, the one who prepared the inventory, categorically stated under oath that everything he confiscated was entered in one receipt. 17 As such, absent evidence to the contrary, the item allegedly marked with "ADC-1," which did not appear in the said receipt submitted by the police officers, cannot be deemed by this Court to have been confiscated from the accused-appellant.
As such, the corpus delicti of the illegal sale was not established by the prosecution.
Non-compliance with the requirement
Aside from the lack of inventory of the illegal drugs supposedly sold by accused-appellant, the absence of photographs of the seized items was unjustified. Despite the prosecution's allegations that the items seized were photographed and presented as its Exhibits "K" to "K-3," 18 a scrutiny of Exhibits "K" to "K-3" does not show any sachet of white crystalline substance that was allegedly seized from accused-appellant. At most, all these photographs reveal are the accused-appellant's behavior while he was being frisked and searched by the police officer, the position of the apprehending officers during the said search and during the taking of inventory, and the lighter that was allegedly confiscated from the accused-appellant.
At this juncture, this Court revisits the testimony of witness PO2 Dela Cruz, who for unjustifiable reasons, i.e., that a lot people were around accused-appellant, admitted to having omitted the step of taking a picture of the sachets of dangerous drugs that where recovered from accused-appellant's belt bag and waist:
Q According to you, accused brought out one (1) sachet, [where was] this one (1) sachet taken from?
A From his belt bag, [M]a'am.
Q And also you confiscated this belt bag?
A No, [M]a'am.
Q You did not even take a picture?
A When he elude[d] the arrest the belt bag [was] not found[.] [T]here were a lot of people around, [M]a'am.
Q But is it not a fact that when gave (sic) a pre-arranged signal accused ran inside his room?
A Yes, [M]a'am.
Q And allegedly this sachet came from?
A [From] his waist, [M]a'am.
Q And you did not take pictures and did not inventoried? (sic)
A We did not find in(sic)the belt [M]a'am. 19 (Emphasis supplied)
As will be further discussed below, the fact that there were many people during the arrest or the search is not a justifiable ground to relax the requirements of the law in establishing the chain of custody of illegal drugs. ETHIDa
Non-compliance with
Even assuming arguendo that the plastic sachets containing Methamphetamine Hydrochloride properly appeared in the inventory and photographs submitted by the prosecution, it is still undeniable that the law enforcement officers failed to meet the witness requirement under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
To recall, prior to the amendment introduced by R.A. No. 10640 to Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, all of the following were required to witness the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs: (1) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (2) an elected public official, (3) a representative from the media, and (4) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ). 20
Notably, of the four persons required by Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 to witness the physical inventory and photograph of the seized drugs, only accused-appellant and Kagawad Tabajonda, an elected public official, were present. The records show that the apprehending officers failed to invite any representative from the media and the DOJ to fully establish the chain of custody of the specimen marked as "ADC-1."
Lack of Justification for non-compliance
Anent the prosecution's invocation of the saving clause in the IRR of R.A. No. 9165, 21 this Court is not persuaded.
To recapitulate, the exception found in the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 comes into play when strict compliance with the proscribed procedures is not observed. This saving clause, however, applies only (1) where the prosecution recognized the procedural lapses, and thereafter explained the cited justifiable grounds, and (2) when the prosecution established that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence seized had been preserved. 22
In Tolentino v. People, 23 this Court cited the justifiable grounds for non-compliance with the witness requirement as follows:
In People v. Reyes, the Court enumerated certain instances when absence of the required witnesses may be justified, viz.:
It must be emphasized that the prosecution must be able to prove a justifiable ground in omitting certain requirements provided in Sec. 21 such as, but not limited to the following: (1) media representatives are not available at that time or that the police operatives had no time to alert the media due to the immediacy of the operation they were about to undertake, especially if it is done in more remote areas; (2) the police operatives, with the same reason, failed to find an available representative of the National Prosecution Service; (3) the police officers, due to time constraints brought about by the urgency of the operation to be undertaken and in order to comply with the provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code in the timely delivery of prisoners, were not able to comply with all the requisites set forth in Section 21 of R.A. [No.] 9165. x x x
The above-ruling was again reiterated by the Court in People v. Sipin where it provided additional grounds that would serve as valid justification for the relaxation of the rule on mandatory witnesses, viz.:
The prosecution never alleged and proved that the presence of the required witnesses was not obtained for any of the following reasons, such as: (1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape. x x x cSEDTC
xxx xxx xxx
In the recent case of People v. Lim, the Court, speaking through now Chief Justice Diosdado M. Peralta, reiterated that testimonies of the prosecution witnesses must establish in detail that earnest effort to coordinate with and secure the presence of the required witnesses was made. In addition, it pointed out that given the increasing number of poorly built up drug-related cases in the courts' docket, Section 1 (A.1.10) of the Chain of Custody IRR should be enforced as a mandatory policy. The pertinent portions of the decision reads:
To conclude, judicial notice is taken of the fact that arrests and seizures related to illegal drugs are typically made without a warrant; hence, subject to inquest proceedings. Relative thereto, Section 1 (A.1.10) of the Chain of Custody [IRR] directs:
A.1.10. Any justification or explanation in cases of non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units other than the PDEA pursuant to Section 86 (a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 shall be presented.
While the above-quoted provision has been the rule, it appears that it has not been practiced in most cases elevated before Us. Thus, in order to weed out early on from the courts' already congested docket any orchestrated or poorly built-up drug-related cases, the following should henceforth be enforced as a mandatory policy:
1. In the sworn statements/affidavits, the apprehending/seizing officers must state their compliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165, as amended, and its IRR.
2. In case of non-observance of the provision, the apprehending/seizing officers must state the justification or explanation therefor as well as the steps they have taken in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items.
3. If there is no justification or explanation expressly declared in the sworn statements or affidavits, the investigating fiscal must not immediately file the case before the court. Instead, he or she must refer the case for further preliminary investigation in order to determine the (non) existence of probable cause.
4. If the investigating fiscal filed the case despite such absence, the court may exercise its discretion to either refuse to issue a commitment order (or warrant of arrest) or dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause in accordance with Section 5, Rule 112, Rules of Court. x x x 24
Evidently, none of the foregoing justifiable grounds to relax the witness requirement was proffered by the prosecution to excuse the police officers' patent violation of R.A. No. 9165. In fact, the Joint Affidavit of Arrest 25 dated March 3, 2013 executed by the apprehending officers PO1 Ferdinand Parinas, PO2 Jonathan Domingo and PO2 Dela Cruz, did not even mention any attempt to secure the presence of a representative from the DOJ or the media, in an effort to comply with R.A. No. 9165. Thus, the apprehending officers' failure to abide by the stringent requirements of Section 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 is totally inexcusable.
Rather than citing a justifiable ground for the law enforcement officers' non-compliance with the duty to comply with the exactitudes imposed by R.A. No. 9165, the Prosecution instead relies on its liberal application based on the saving clause found in Section 21 to justify the non-observance thereof. 26 SDAaTC
Unfortunately, this Court does not believe that the police officers involved in this case substantially complied with R.A. No. 9165. It should be recalled that there was no inventory of the heat-sealed plastic sachet marked as "ADC-1," the very corpus delicti of the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs subject of the case. Neither was there a photograph of the illegal drugs seized from accused-appellant.
At this juncture, this Court is reminded by its pronouncement in the case of People v. Dela Torre, 27 that strict adherence to the chain of custody rule must be observed; the precautionary measures employed in every transfer of the seized drug item, proved to a moral certainty. The sheer ease of planting drug evidence vis-a-vis the severity of the imposable penalties in drugs cases compels strict compliance with the chain of custody rule. 28
In the same vein, the prosecution cannot simply rely on the presumption of regularity in the performance of the apprehending officers' duties. 29
When there is gross disregard of the procedural safeguards prescribed in the substantive law, i.e., R.A. No. 9165, serious uncertainty is generated about the identity of the seized items that the prosecution presented in evidence. This uncertainty cannot be remedied by simply invoking the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties, for a gross, systematic, or deliberate disregard of the procedural safeguards effectively produces an irregularity in the performance of official duties. 30 Thus, the prosecution lost the benefit of invoking the presumption of regularity and still bears the burden of proving with moral certainty that the illegal drug presented in court is the same drug that was confiscated from the accused during his arrest. 31
Since the illegal drugs marked as "ADC-1" constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense charged against accused-appellant, its existence must be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt demands that unwavering exactitude be observed in establishing the corpus delicti. Thus, failing to comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 necessarily implies a concomitant failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the identity of the corpus delicti, and produces doubts as to the origins of the seized illegal drugs. 32
In the face of the law enforcement officers' heedless violation of the inventory, photograph and witness requirements under Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, a substantial gap in the chain of custody arises, which ultimately casts doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the items that were allegedly seized from the accused-appellant. We therefore disagree with the CA that the guilt of the accused-appellant in the illegal sale of dangerous drugs was established beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, this Court sees no need to belabor the discussion on the perceived weakness of the alibi of denial and frame-up by the accused-appellant. In People v. Claro, this Court held:
[T]he Prosecution must rely on the strength of its own evidence, and not anchor its success upon the weakness of the evidence of the accused. The burden of proof placed on the Prosecution arises from the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused that no less than the Constitution has guaranteed. Conversely, as to his innocence, the accused has no burden of proof. He must then be acquitted and set free should the Prosecution not overcome the presumption of innocence in his favor. In other words, the weakness of the defense put up by the accused is inconsequential in the proceedings for as long as the Prosecution has not discharged its burden of proof in establishing the commission of the crime charged and in identifying the accused as the malefactor responsible for it. 33 acEHCD
On a final note, it bears stressing that the standards in establishing the chain of custody of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165 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. 34 As the accused-appellant is being charged with the unauthorized sale of 0.005 gram of dangerous drugs for which the severe penalty of life imprisonment is imposed, it becomes inevitable that safeguards found in R.A. No. 9165 against abuses of power in the conduct of buy-bust operations be strictly implemented to eliminate wrongful arrests and, worse, convictions due to possible switching, planting or contamination of the corpus delicti. 35
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 12, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09021 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Melchor Amante y Baddas is ACQUITTED on reasonable doubt.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY RELEASE accused-appellant from custody unless he is being charged for some other lawful cause, and to submit a report on the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let an entry of judgment be issued.
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. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles concurring; rollo, pp. 2-17.
2. Rendered by Presiding Judge Gonzalo P. Marata; CA rollo, pp. 65-78.
3. Records p. 171.
4.People of the Philippines v. Mike Omamos y Pajo, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019.
5.Supra.
6.People of the Philippines v. Nasser Luminda y Edto, G.R. No. 229661, November 20, 2019.
7.People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 909 (2018).
8.Id.
9. Brief of the Plaintiff-Appellant dated November 7, 2017; CA rollo, pp. 103-104; records, p. 105.
10.Rollo, p. 14; Inquest Resolution dated March 4, 2013, records, pp. 3-4.
11. Brief of the Plaintiff-Appellant dated November 7, 2017; CA rollo, pp. 94-95; Exhibit "B" for the Prosecution, Exhibit "5" of the Defense; records, p. 9; Inquest Resolution dated March 4, 2013, records, pp. 3-4.
12. CA rollo, p. 77.
13.Rollo, p. 14; CA rollo, p. 95.
14. Exhibit "B" for the Prosecution, Exhibit "5" of the Defense, records, p. 9.
15.Id.
16. TSN, October 27, 2014, pp. 4-5.
17. TSN, May 5, 2014, p. 2.
18. Records, pp. 18-19.
19. TSN, May 5, 2014, pp. 5-6.
20.People of the Philippines v. Helenmie P. Abueva, G.R. No. 243633, July 15, 2020.
21. CA rollo, pp. 101-104.
22.People v. Cayas, 789 Phil. 70, 80 (2016).
23. G.R. No. 227217, February 12, 2020.
24.Id.
25. Exhibit "A" for the Prosecution, Exhibit "10," records, pp. 7-8.
26. Brief of the Plaintiff-Appellant dated November 7, 2017; CA rollo, pp. 101-104.
27. G.R. No. 225789, July 29, 2019.
28.Id.
29. CA rollo, p. 105.
30.Tolentino. v. People, supra note 23.
31.People v. Cayas, supra note 22.
32. See People of the Philippines v. Lahmodin Ameril y Abdul @ "Amor/Mhong," G.R. No. 222192, March 13, 2019.
33.People v. Claro, 805 Phil. 455, 469 (2017).
34.People v. Dela Torre, supra note 27.
35.Supra.