FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251707. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ANTONIO AÑONUEVO y JUVIDA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJuly 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251707 (People of the Philippines v. Antonio Añonuevo y Juvida). — The conviction of accused-appellant Antonio Añonuevo y Juvida alias Anton (Anton) for Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs under Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165 1 in the Decision 2 dated October 17, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10705 is the subject of the instant appeal before the Court.
We acquit.
In cases of Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs, the drugs seized from the accused constitute the very corpus delicti of the offense. 3 For this reason, it is of utmost importance that the integrity and identity of the seized drugs must be shown to have been duly preserved. The prosecution must satisfactorily establish that the dangerous drugs presented in court as evidence against the accused are the same drugs that were seized from him in the first place. 4 Failure to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence of the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, warrants an acquittal. 5 In this regard, Section 21 6 of R.A. 9165, as amended by R.A. 10640, 7 provides the procedural safeguards to remove any doubt on the integrity and identity of the seized drugs.
To ascertain that the illegal drugs presented in court are the ones seized from the accused, the prosecution must show compliance with the chain of custody rule. Chain of custody means the duly recorded, authorized movements and custody of the seized drugs at each stage, from the moment of confiscation to the receipt in the forensic laboratory for examination until it is presented to the court. 8 In Mallillin v. People, 9 the Court explained the importance of compliance with the chain of custody rule, to wit:
As a method of authenticating evidence, 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 the item 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 of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same. ISHCcT
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody becomes indispensable and essential when the item of real evidence is not distinctive and is not readily identifiable, or when its condition at the time of testing or trial is critical, or when a witness has failed to observe its uniqueness. The same standard likewise obtains in case the evidence is susceptible to alteration, tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. In other words, the exhibit's level of susceptibility to fungibility, alteration or tampering — without regard to whether the same is advertent or otherwise not — dictates the level of strictness in the application of the chain of custody rule. 10 (Emphases supplied)
Accordingly, the movement and custody of the drugs must be shown through the following linkages: first, the confiscation and marking of the drug seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; second, the turnover of the seized drug by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; third, the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and fourth, the submission of the specimen by the forensic chemist to the court. 11 Here, we find that the identity of the corpus delicti had been compromised. The prosecution failed to establish that the drugs seized from Anton were the same drugs presented before the trial court.
Pertinent in this case is the absence of the required insulating witnesses during the inventory and photography of the confiscated drugs. As amended by R.A. 10640, Section 21 requires the physical inventory and photography to be done in the presence of the accused, or his representative or counsel, and certain required witnesses, namely: an elected public official, and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. The witness requirement mandates the presence of the witnesses during the inventory to ensure that the evils of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence will be adequately prevented. 12 Here, it is undisputed that only Barangay Kagawad James Noel Rojo witnessed the conduct of the inventory process. 13 The prosecution failed to explain, much less acknowledge, the absence of a representative of the NPS or the media. To be sure, the buy-bust operation was arranged and scheduled in advance with the police officers forming an apprehending team, coordinating with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency and preparing the boodle money. Records reveal that at 1:30 p.m. of May 24, 2015, a buy-bust team was organized after receiving a report about Anton's drug activities, and the operation was implemented about 10:00 p.m. of the same day. 14 Certainly, the team had enough time and opportunity to secure the presence of the required insulating witnesses. 15 Yet, the buy-bust team failed to ensure that an NPS or media representative would be present during the inventory and photography of the seized drugs.
Non-compliance with the requirements of Section 21 may only be permitted if the prosecution proves that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witnesses, albeit they eventually failed to appear. 16 In People v. Lim, we explained that in case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove, not only the reasons for their absence, but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance. 17 In this case, there was no attempt on the part of the buy-bust team to comply with the law and its implementing rules. The team failed to provide any justification showing that the integrity of the evidence had all along been preserved.
Moreover, there is an irregularity in the turnover of the drugs to the crime laboratory. Police Officer 3 Alexander Delos Reyes (PO3 Delos Reyes) testified that, at the barangay hall, he turned over the seized drugs to investigator Police Officer 3 Joebert Garcia (PO3 Garcia), who photographed the items and prepared the request for laboratory examination. However, it was PO3 Delos Reyes who delivered the drugs to the crime laboratory. 18 Clearly, the narration of facts established by the prosecution lacked material details on how the drugs passed from the custody of PO3 Garcia to PO3 Delos Reyes. The police officers did not describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the seized items, and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the drugs. Evidently, there is no reasonable guaranty as to the integrity of the specimens inasmuch as the prosecution failed to rule out the possibility of substitution of the seized items. 19 The prosecution bears the positive duty to acknowledge and justify any perceived deviations from the requirements of the law. 20 In this case, no explanation was proffered to justify the procedural lapse. Thus, the prosecution failed to establish the continuous custody of the corpus delicti from the time the drugs were confiscated until they were offered in evidence.
We stress, while the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent, and it cannot, by itself, constitute proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot be regarded as binding truth. 21 Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, the presumption is effectively destroyed. 22 Hence, Anton must be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated October 17, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10705 is REVERSED. Accused-appellant Antonio Añonuevo y Juvida alias Anton is ACQUITTED and ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
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 is DIRECTED to REPORT to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. CAacTH
Let an entry of judgment be issued immediately.
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. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES."
2. Penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and Ma. Luisa Quijano Padilla; rollo, pp. 3-24.
3.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017).
4.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
5.People v. Cariño, G.R. No. 233336, January 14, 2019.
6. 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. — x x x
(1) 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 a 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 the 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 said items. x x x
This is implemented by Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 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 and/or Laboratory Equipment. — x x x
(1) 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 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; x x x
7. Entitled "AN ACT TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE ANTI-DRUG CAMPAIGN OF THE GOVERNMENT, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE SECTION 21 OF [RA] NO. 9165, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE 'COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002,'" states that it shall "take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) newspapers of general circulation." Verily, a copy of the law was published on July 23, 2013 in the respective issues of "The Philippine Star" (Vol. XXVIII, No. 359, Philippine Star Metro section, p. 21) and the "Manila Bulletin" (Vol. 499, No. 23; World News section, p. 6); hence, R.A. 10640 became effective on August 7, 2014.
8 Entitled "GUIDELINES ON THE CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF SEIZED DANGEROUS DRUGS, CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS, AND LABORATORY EQUIPMENT"; Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002.
9.Supra note 4.
10.Supra note 4 at 587-588.
11.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
12.See People v. Cariño, supra note 5, citing People v. Jugo, 824 Phil. 73 (2018).
13.Rollo, p. 17.
14. CA rollo, p. 41.
15.See People v. Goyenoche, G.R. No. 243985, September 3, 2020; People v. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981 (2018).
16. See People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019; People v. Flores, G.R. No. 241261, July 29, 2019; People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 233535, July 1, 2019; and People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67 (2018).
17.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018; People v. Ramos, 826 Phil. 981 (2018); People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052-1053 (2012).
18. CA rollo, pp. 40-42.
19.People v. Sagana, 815 Phil. 356 (2017).
20.See People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 238519, June 26, 2019.
21.Supra note 4 at 593; People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002).
22.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).