THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253298. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.SERAFIN AÑIS y TIANGCO, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253298 (People of the Philippines v. Serafin Añis y Tiangco). — Subject of this appeal is the Decision 1 dated August 19, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09741, which affirmed the Decision dated August 6, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 69, finding accused-appellant Serafin Añis y Tiangco (Añis) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
Facts of the Case
The Information 2 dated November 13, 2015 charging Añis for illegal sale of 0.09 gram of shabu, in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, reads as follows:
That on or about the 10th day of November 2015, in the Municipality of Agono, n Province of Rizal, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without being authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and knowingly sell, deliver and give away to poseur-buyer PO1 Jezrell M. Cerda 0.09 gram of white crystalline substance contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, for and in consideration of the amount of PHP200.00, which substance after examination conducted by the PNP Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office was found positive to the test for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug, in violation of the above-cited law.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3 (Emphasis supplied)
Añis, duly assisted by counsel, entered a plea of not guilty during the arraignment. 4 Trial on the merits ensued.
The prosecution presented two witnesses: (1) Police Officer 1 Jezrell Cerda (PO1 Cerda), was the police poseur-buyer; and (2) Police Senior Inspector Joanne DC Rosales (PSI Rosales), who was the forensic chemist.
The joint testimonies of the two witnesses presented by the prosecution revealed the following:
At around 10:40 p.m. of November 9, 2015, the Angono Police Station received a report that a certain "Adjong," later identified as Añis, was engaged in the illegal sale of shabu in Barangay San Vicente, Angono, Rizal. 5 Police Superintendent Lucilo Reales Laguna, Jr. (PSupt. Laguna) immediately formed a buy-bust team and planned an entrapment operation against Añis. PO1 Cerda was designated as the poseur-buyer and PO2 Jeffrey Mejala (PO2 Mejala) as the back-up security. 6 CAIHTE
The Angono Police Station coordinated with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), evidenced by the Pre-Operation Report 7 and Authority to Operate. 8 PO1 Cerda prepared the buy-bust money by placing his initials "JMC" on two pieces of P100.00 bills with serial numbers QE518620 and QS046815. 9
On the same date, November 9, 2015, at around 11:05 p.m., the buy-bust team, together with the confidential informant, proceeded to Ibañez Street, in Barangay San Vicente, Angono, Rizal. Upon arrival, the confidential informant pointed to Añis. PO1 Cerda approached Añis and said "Adjong, pa dos lang"10 while handing him the buy-bust money. Añis took a plastic sachet from his right pocket and gave it to PO1 Cerda, who in turn gave him the buy-bust money. Añis placed the buy-bust money inside his left pocket. 11
Immediately, PO1 Cerda introduced himself as police officer, held the hands of Añis and placed him in handcuffs. He searched Añis and recovered the buy-bust money from his left pocket. PO1 Cerda informed Añis of his Constitutional rights before the latter was brought to the Angono Police Station. 12
At the Angono Police Station, PO1 Cerda placed the marking "STA" on the plastic sachet containing suspected shabu. Upon arrival of Barangay Kagawad Eugenio D. Mira, inventory 13 of seized/confiscated items was conducted. Photographs of the seized items were also taken. Thereafter, PO1 Cerda brought the plastic sachet with marking "STA" to the Rizal Provincial Crime Laboratory Office for laboratory examination. The specimen was received by PSI Rosales who also conducted the qualitative examination of the specimen. 14 Per Chemistry Report No. D-823-15, 15 the specimen tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 16
After qualitative examination, PSI Rosales sealed and placed her own marking on the plastic sachet before it was turned over to the evidence custodian. Later during trial, PSI Rosales presented in court a half-brown envelope containing a plastic sachet with marking "STA." 17 PSI Rosales testified that she retrieved the sealed half-brown envelope from the evidence custodian. 18
For his part, Añis contended that he was falsely charged. On November 9, 2015, at around 8:30 p.m., he went out of his house to buy cigarettes. Suddenly, four men approached and forced him to board a tricycle. He struggled until his sister Luisa heard him. Luisa confronted the men and asked them, "Nasaan ang ebidensiya ninyo? Ipakita niyo sa akin."19 The men did not show anything. Then, Añis was brought to the police station. 20
According to Añis, he learned at the police station that someone allegedly bought shabu from him. The police officers demanded P20,000.00 from him so that he will be charged for illegal possession of shabu instead of illegal sale. However, he did not have that money. Hence, he was indicted for illegal sale of shabu. 21
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On August 6, 2017, the RTC rendered a judgment convicting Añis for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. The RTC held that the prosecution had proven the guilt of Añis beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that the prosecution established that Añis was apprehended during a buy-bust operation in which he sold a plastic sachet of shabu to PO1 Cerda, who acted as poseur-buyer. The trial court further ruled that the chain of custody of the plastic sachet of shabu remained unbroken, as testified by PO1 Cerda. 22 The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
In light of the above, we find Serafin Añis GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II, RA No. 9165 and sentence him to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of PHP500,000.00.
Let the drug samples in this case be forwarded to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition. Furnish PDEA with a copy of this Decision per OCA Circular No. 70-2007.
SO ORDERED. 23 (Emphasis Supplied)
Aggrieved, Añis appealed to the CA.
In his Appellant's Brief 24 filed before the CA, Añis sought for his acquittal by arguing that the chain of custody of the seized drug was not sufficiently established by the prosecution. First, PO1 Cerda failed to immediately mark the seized item after its confiscation at the place of arrest. Second, PO1 Cerda did not provide any details as to how he took custody of the seized item from the place of arrest until they reached the police station for marking and inventory. 25 Lastly, the prosecution failed to present the testimony of the evidence custodian. 26
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
On August 19, 2019, the CA issued a Decision 27 affirming the RTC Decision. The CA ruled that the prosecution was able to establish through testimonial, documentary and object evidence the elements of the offense charged. The records established that Añis was caught in flagrante delicto selling methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drugs, to PO1 Cerda on November 9, 2015 in Barangay San Vicente, Angono, Rizal. 28 Anent the contention of Añis that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized drugs, the CA ruled that there is no reason to overturn the findings of the trial court as there was no irregularity that attended the chain of custody. The appellate court found that the identity and integrity of the seized item was preserved and kept intact by the police officers. 29 The CA disposed as follows:
FOR THESE REASONS, the appealed Decision dated 06 August 2017 rendered by Branch 69 of the Fourth Judicial Region of the Regional Trial Court, Binangonan, Rizal in Criminal Case No. 15-620 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED. 30 (Emphasis supplied)
Undaunted, Añis filed an appeal. The parties adopted their respective Appellant's 31 and Appellee's 32 Briefs filed before the CA as their supplemental briefs before the Court.
Issue
The principal issue for resolution is whether Añis is guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Ruling of the Court
The Court resolves to grant the appeal.
In order to be convicted of violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165, which refers to the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must prove the following: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller; (2) the object of the sale, and its consideration; and (3) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor. Apart from showing that these elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs are present, it is also of paramount importance that the identity of the dangerous drug be established beyond reasonable doubt since it constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense. It is essential, therefore, to prove with moral certainty that the substance bought and seized during the buy-bust operation is exactly the same substance offered in evidence before the court. 33
R.A. No. 9165 provides reasonable safeguards to preserve the identity and integrity of narcotic substances and dangerous drugs seized and/or recovered from drug offenders. 34 Section 21, Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165 clearly outlines the post-seizure procedure in taking custody of seized drugs. Proper procedures to account for each specimen by tracking its handling and storage from point of seizure, to presentation of the evidence in court, until its final disposal, must be observed.
Presence of all required
Immediately after seizure and confiscation, the apprehending team is required to conduct a physical inventory and to photograph the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as the number of witnesses required, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640 on July 23, 2014, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice, and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of R.A. No. 9165 by R.A. No. 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. 35
The presence of the required witnesses at the time of seizure and confiscation of the drugs must be secured and complied with at the time of the warrantless arrest; such that they are required to be at or near the intended place of arrest so that they can be ready to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized and confiscated drugs "immediately after the seizure and confiscation." 36 This also means that the required witnesses should already be physically present at the time of the apprehension — a requirement that can be easily complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. 37
Indeed, if the buy-bust operation was legitimately conducted, the presence of the insulating witnesses would controvert the usual defense of frame-up, extortion and civilian harassment. Conversely, without the presence of any of the required witnesses at the time of apprehension or during inventory, then, doubt exists whether there was actually a buy-bust operation as there are no unbiased witnesses to prove the source, identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. 38
The present case is governed by R.A. No. 10640, since Añis was arrested on November 9, 2015. As such, the following are the required insulating witnesses: (1) an elected public official; and (2) a representative of the NPS or the media. However, only elected official Barangay Kagawad Eugenio D. Mira (Kagawad Mira) signed the Receipt/Inventory of Evidence Seized/Photograph of the Drugs in the Presence of the Accused or Person/s from whom Seized Items were Confiscated. 39
In cases where not all required insulating witnesses are present during the buy-bust operation, the prosecution must convince the Court that the police officers exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstance, their actions were reasonable. 40 In People v. Reyes, 41 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. 9165. 42 (Emphasis Ours).
Here, the buy-bust team immediately acted upon the confidential report. The confidential information was received at 10:40 p.m. of November 9, 2015 and at 11:05 p.m. of the same day, the police officers proceeded to the target area to conduct the buy-bust transaction. To the Court, this immediate response of the buy-bust team within 25 minutes from the receipt of the confidential information qualifies as a justifiable ground that excused the buy-bust team's failure to secure the presence of the NPS or media representative. Besides, the buy-bust operation transpired at around 10:40 p.m. to 11:05 p.m., or close to midnight when offices and other establishments are already closed and witnesses cannot be expected to be readily available. ATICcS
However, We note the following lapses in the chain of custody of the illegal drugs allegedly seized from Añis.
Seizure and Marking
Marking means the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items seized. 43 In warrantless seizures, the marking of the seized items in the presence of the violator shall be done immediately at the place where the drugs were seized or at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link; hence, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the markings as reference. It is a significant preparatory act to the inventory and photographing of dangerous drugs, as the succeeding links in the chain of custody are supposed to record the marks placed on the confiscated drug evidence. 44
It should be further emphasized that 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, thus preventing switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 45
The records in the present case do not show that the police marked the seized plastic sachet immediately upon confiscation or at the earliest reasonably available opportunity, to wit:
Testimony of PO1 Cerda
Q And after you recovered the marked money from [Añis], what did you do next?
A We brought him to the police station for further investigation, sir.
Q In going to the police station, in your road to the police station, who was in possession of the shabu that you bought?
A I was the one, sir.
Q Okay, and what happened there at the police station?
A I frisked him and I got his details, sir.
Q And what did you do with that plastic sachet that you bought, if any?
A I marked the plastic sachet, sir.
Q What markings did you place?
A "STA" sir.
Q What does "STA" represent?
A The initials of [Añis], sir. 46 (Emphasis supplied)
Notably, PO1 Cerda did not indicate any reason why the marking was done at the police station, and not immediately after seizure at the place of arrest.
The Court is not unaware that PO1 Cerda took sole custody of the seized plastic sachet from the place of arrest until the buy-bust team and Añis reached the police station where the marking was made. There is an absence, however, of specifics on how and where PO1 Cerda actually took custody of the yet-to-be marked plastic sachet. Where did PO1 Cerda keep the plastic sachet? Did he keep it inside his pocket? Or did he bring an evidence box? Are there other items or plastic sachets kept in his pocket or evidence box? How did PO1 Cerda identify which sachet was seized from Añis? With these questions left unanswered, the Court has no reason to conclude that the plastic sachet seized from Añis is the same plastic sachet marked with the initials "STA" and presented as evidence against him.
Further, it is not enough that the seized drug be simply marked. The seizing officer must mark the evidence with his initials indicating therein the date, time and place where the evidence was found/recovered or seized. 47 Here, PO1 Cerda's marking only contained the initials of Añis. In the absence of the date, time and place where the evidence was seized, there is no way to differentiate the items similarly marked "STA" seized from different offenders with the same initials, casting reasonable doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti.
Inventory and Photograph of seized items
The inventory and photographing of the seized items is tainted with the following unexplained irregularities on the part of the police officers:
First, the phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" in R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR means that the law intended the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs to be made immediately after or at the place of apprehension. The inventory and photographing may be done at the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team only when the same is not practicable. 48 TIADCc
In this case of Añis, the inventory was conducted not at the place of arrest, but at the Angono Police Station. No statement was made that the Angono Police Station was the nearest police station from the situs criminis. PO1 Cerda simply said they decided to conduct the inventory at the police station because the relatives of Añis caused a commotion at the place of arrest. 49 Such bare allegation should be rejected for it hardly qualifies as sufficient justification for not complying with the requirements of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9186.
The police officers are rightly presumed to be aware that they were conducting an operation in a public place, as in this case, and that their actions would rouse people's curiosity. If they were to enjoy the presumption of regularity of performance of official duties, the police officers should have been prepared for and not have been rattled by the foreseeable contingencies.
Even granting that there was a valid need to transfer, their failure to mark before departure and unclear precautionary measures taken while the seized item remained un-marked, as already discussed above, means that there was an intervening period during which the sachets remained unaccounted for. 50
Second, the Guidelines on the IRR of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640, also provide for the following safeguards:
Section 1. Implementing Guidelines. — 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:
A. Marking, Inventory and Photograph; Chain of Custody Implementing Paragraph "a" of the IRR
xxx xxx xxx
A.1.5. The physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items shall be done in the presence of the suspect or his/her representative or counsel, with elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory of the seized or confiscated items and be given copy hereof. In case of their refusal to sign, it shall be stated "refused to sign" above their names in the certificate of inventory of the apprehending or seizing officer.
xxx xxx xxx
While PO1 Cerda testified that Añis was present during the conduct of inventory at the police station, the signature of the latter, or his representative or counsel, cannot be found on the Receipt/Inventory of Evidence Seized/Photograph of the Drugs in the Presence of the Accused or Person/s from whom Seized Items were Confiscated. 51 To reiterate, under the IRR Guidelines quoted above, in cases wherein the accused refuses to sign the certificate of inventory, "it shall be stated 'refused to sign' above their names in the certificate of inventory of the apprehending or seizing officer." Strikingly, both the name of Añis and the words "refused to sign" were not inscribed therein.
Testimony of evidence custodian
The chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony about every link in the chain, from the moment it was picked up to the time it is offered into 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 to the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of it. 52
PSI Rosales claimed to have returned the seized item to the evidence custodian and later retrieved it from the latter for presentation in court. Nevertheless, it was not shown how the evidence custodian handled and stored the seized item before the same was retrieved for presentation in court. The evidence custodian was not even named, let alone, presented in court. 53
In sum, the breach in the procedure committed by the police officers and the broken chain of custody of the illegal drug, all left unacknowledged and unexplained by the State, rendered the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti doubtful. Ultimately, the prosecution failed to establish with moral certainty the guilt of Añis.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated August 19, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09741 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Serafin Añis y Tiangco is hereby ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. 15-620 for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Accused-appellant Serafin Añis y Tiangco is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody, unless he is being held for another lawful case.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to submit his report on the action he has taken within five (5) days from notice. AIDSTE
Let an entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-22.
2. Records, p. 1.
3.Id.
4.Id. at 27.
5.Id. at 8.
6.Rollo, p. 5.
7. Records, p. 13.
8.Id. at 14.
9.Rollo, p. 5.
10. Records, p. 9.
11.Id. at 8.
12. CA rollo, p. 57.
13. Records, p. 15.
14.Rollo, p. 5.
15. Records, p. 17.
16.Id.
17. TSN dated April 21, 2016, pp. 4-5.
18.Id. at 5.
19.Rollo, p. 6.
20.Id.
21.Id.
22. Records, p. 58.
23. CA rollo, pp. 57-58.
24.Id. at 36-55.
25.Id. at 45-48.
26.Id. at 52-54.
27.Supra note 1.
28.Rollo, p. 10.
29.Id. at 16-17.
30.Id. at 21.
31.Id. at 31-33.
32.Id. at 36-42.
33.People v. Del Mundo, 818 Phil. 575 (2017).
34.Cariño v. People, 600 Phil. 433, 448 (2009).
35.Dimala v. People, G.R. No. 242315, July 3, 2019.
36.People v. Dumanjug, G.R. No. 235468, July 1, 2019.
37.People v. Malana, G.R. No. 233747, December 5, 2018.
38.People v. Labsan, G.R. No. 227184, February 6, 2019.
39. Records, p. 16.
40.Supra note 41.
41.People v. Reyes, 830 Phil. 619 (2018).
42.Id. at 633.
43.People v. De Leon, G.R. No. 214472, November 28, 2018.
44.People v. Magayon, G.R. No. 238873, September 16, 2020.
45.People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, citing People v. Sabdula, 733 Phil. 85 (2014).
46. TSN dated May 12, 2016, pp. 5-6.
47. Philippine National Police Manual PNPM-D-0-2-14 (DO).
48.People v. Tanes, G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019.
49. TSN dated May 12, 2016, p. 13.
50.People v. Asaytuna, Jr., G.R. No. 245972, December 2, 2019.
51. Records, pp. 15-16.
52.People v. Abetong, 735 Phil. 476 (2014).
53. TSN dated April 21, 2016, p. 5.
n Note from the Publisher: Copied verbatim from the official document.