FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253174. July 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.STEPHANY ARBUIS y CAMBA A.K.A. PEN-PEN, AND REYNALDO FRANCISCO y RADORES, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated July 28, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253174 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Stephany Arbuis y Camba a.k.a. Pen-pen, and Reynaldo Francisco y Radores, accused-appellants).
This is an appeal from the January 29, 2020 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08975 which affirmed the November 8, 2016 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Branch 56 (RTC), finding accused-appellants Stephany Arbuis y Camba a.k.a. Pen-pen (Arbuis) and Reynaldo Francisco y Radores (Francisco) guilty of violating Section 5, 3 Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by R.A. No. 10640. 4
Antecedents
Accused-appellants, together with Henry Alcantara (Alcantara) and Anacleto Mallari (Mallari) were charged with violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 in an information which reads:
That on about the (sic) 1:15 in the morning of 13th day of June 2012 at Bagacay, Libmanan, Camarines Sur and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring, confederating and helping one another, did and there knowingly, wilfully and unlawfully, sell to a PDEA poseur-buyer one (1) medium heat-sealed plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride locally known as "shabu," a dangerous drug, weighing 8.262 grams, without authority from law.
Acts Contrary to Law. 5 CAIHTE
During arraignment, accused-appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge. Meanwhile, Alcantara and Mallari were released from detention after the prosecution resolved the motion for reinvestigation in their favor, and upon the RTC's issuance of the March 15, 2013 Order. 6 Trial against accused-appellants ensued thereafter.
Version of the Prosecution
At around 12:00 p.m. on June 12, 2012, a confidential informant (CI) of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) arrived at the PDEA satellite office in Pacol, Naga City, and informed Intelligence Officer I Vidal Bacolod (IO1 Bacolod) that Arbuis (who was on the PDEA watch list) and Francisco were engaged in the proliferation of illegal drugs. 7
IO1 Bacolod, as the team leader, immediately conducted a briefing at around 1:00 p.m. of the same day, to set up a buy-bust operation. IO1 Michael Consulta (IO1 Consulta) was designated as the poseur-buyer with IO1 Mailene Laynesa (IO1 Laynesa) posing as his wife. At around 9:00 p.m., the team proceeded to the gasoline station beside the Cherry Lyn bus station in Bagacay, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, where the CI and Arbuis had agreed to meet.
At 1:00 a.m. on June 13, 2012, the CI advised the team that Arbuis would arrive on board a Nissan Urvan. Upon the arrival of the said van, IO1 Consulta together with IO1 Laynesa approached the vehicle. They were then introduced by the CI to Arbuis as buyers of "dalawang bulto," or a total of ten (10) grams of shabu, for which they were asked to pay P50,000.00. Arbuis handed over the drug to IO1 Consulta who then handed to Francisco the marked P500.00-bill as payment. To signal the consummation of the drug transaction, IO1 Consulta removed his cap as the pre-arranged signal and the rest of the team approached the scene. 8
Accused-appellants were arrested inside the van. While they were inside the vehicle, IO1 Consulta placed his initials "MC" on the seized item. Thereafter, the PDEA team proceeded to the police substation in San Isidro, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, and conducted an inventory in the presence of accused-appellants, radio station DWLV reporter Eduardo Saliva, Barangay Captain Danilo Floresca, and Barangay Kagawad Hermel Volante. IO1 Bacolod tried to contact a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative, but to no avail. After the inventory, the PDEA agents brought accused-appellants to the PDEA satellite office in Pacol, Naga City, where IO1 Consulta prepared a request for laboratory examination of the seized item. Said request, together with the seized item, was received by PO3 Cavite who turned it over to Police Senior Inspector Jun Malong (PSI Malong) for examination. The examination yielded positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. After the laboratory examination, the seized drug was turned over to SPO1 Canet, 9 the Evidence Custodian, for safekeeping until the same was presented at the trial.
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellants riposted that on June 12, 2012, Francisco was in Muntinlupa City to visit his brother who was detained at the National Bilibid Prison. Francisco was with his cousin's wife, Arbuis and her two children, and two drivers (co-accused Alcantara and Mallari). At around 2:00 p.m. of the same day, they left Muntinlupa City on board a maroon van to return to Bicol. At around 1:15 a.m. of the following day, while sleeping inside the parked van on the side of the road in Libmanan, Camarines Sur, they were awakened by armed men who pointed long guns at them. Francisco and the two drivers were forced out of the van and asked to board a white van belonging to the armed men. Inside the white van, one of the armed men asked Francisco to take out the contents of his pocket, but it was empty. The armed men then searched his bag, which he left in the maroon van, but could not find anything.
In the meantime, Arbuis and her two children were brought to the police substation at San Isidro, Libmanan, Camarines Sur. Francisco and the two drivers were brought there minutes later. At about 3:00 a.m., barangay officials arrived and signed certain documents. Accused-appellants later discovered that the documents signed by the barangay officials pertained to the marked money and a plastic sachet of drugs which were placed on top of the table. Accused-appellants were likewise asked to sign said documents. 10 DETACa
Accused-appellants were then transferred to the Police Provincial Headquarters at Concepcion, Naga City at about 6:00 a.m. or 7:00 a.m., before they were brought to the PDEA office at Pacol, Naga City at around 10:00 a.m. where the armed men introduced themselves as PDEA agents. They remained at the PDEA office until June 15, 2012, and were subsequently transferred to the Provincial Prosecutor's Office of Naga City to sign a document before they were released. 11
The RTC Ruling
In its November 8, 2016 Decision, 12 the RTC found accused-appellants guilty as charged. The RTC ruled that the chain of custody was fully observed. It recapitulated that the inventory of the seized item prepared by IO1 Consulta was conducted in the presence of accused-appellants, DWLV radio reporter Eduardo Saliva, Barangay Captain Danilo Floresca, and Barangay Kagawad Hermel Volante. The RTC held that the seized item was delivered by IO1 Consulta to the police crime laboratory for examination; and the contents tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. The RTC concluded that the seized shabu presented in court was the same drug confiscated from accused-appellants. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
Wherefore, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered finding StephanyArbuis y Camba a.k.a. Pen-Pen and Reynaldo Francisco y Radoles GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense charged in the Information. They are hereby sentenced to Life Imprisonment and a Fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) each.
Let the confiscated drug item be turned-over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for its appropriate disposition. 13
Aggrieved, accused-appellants appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its January 29, 2020 Decision, 14 the CA affirmed the RTC ruling and held that although the inventory was not witnessed by a representative from the DOJ, there was substantial compliance with Sec. 21 since it was witnessed by barangay officials and a media representative. 15 It also ruled that the PDEA agents were justified in proceeding with the inventory of the seized item at the police substation without the presence of a DOJ representative. 16 The CA likewise found that IO1 Consulta was the poseur-buyer and thus, a principal actor in the sale, with the evidence proving that he personally transacted with accused-appellants to consummate the drug deal for which they were convicted. 17 The CA disposed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court filed by accused-appellants Stephany Arbuis y Camba and Reynaldo Francisco y Radores is DENIED. The Decision dated November 8, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, Branch 56, Fifth Judicial Region in Criminal Case No. L-5149 (For: Violation of Section 5, Article II, R.A. 9165) is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 18
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issues
In support of their appeal, accused-appellants argue that:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE ARRESTING OFFICERS' FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 21 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9165 AND ITS IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS[;] aDSIHc
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE UNPROVEN CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED ITEM AND THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO ESTABLISH ITS IDENTITY AND INTEGRITY[;]
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED ENTRAPMENT OPERATION WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT CONSIDERING THE NON-PRESENTATION OF THE CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANT WHO WAS THE ACTUAL POSEUR-BUYER[;]
IV
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANTS OF THE CRIME CHARGED, IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE DEFENSE THAT THEY PROVIDED. 19
On November 18, 2020, this Court issued a Resolution, 20 which notified the parties that they may file their respective supplemental briefs, if they so desired. In its February 26, 2021 Manifestation and Motion, 21 the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) manifested that it would no longer file a supplemental brief considering that the guilt of accused-appellants was exhaustively discussed in its appellee's brief and no new issue was raised. In its January 27, 2021 Manifestation in Lieu of Supplemental Brief, 22 accused-appellants averred that they would no longer file a supplemental brief since they had sufficiently refuted all the arguments raised in the appellee's brief.
In the said Appellants' Brief 23 filed before the CA, accused-appellants argue that the prosecution failed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the purported seized drug. 24 Accused-appellants maintain that the buy-bust team failed to complete the witnesses required by Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 25 The prosecution's failure to provide a clear account of how and when exactly the seized illegal drug was marked could be considered an irregularity surrounding the identity of the evidence actually seized and that which was presented in court. 26 Also, there was no DOJ representative present at the time of the inventory. 27
Accused-appellants aver that there was likewise a gap in the third link in the chain of custody, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination. Prosecution witnesses have conflicting accounts as to the said transfer to the forensic chemist. 28 Lastly, accused-appellants note that the poseur-buyer IO1 Consulta was not the one who actually made the transaction. The CI's report to the PDEA agents revealed that he had already arranged the transaction with accused-appellants beforehand. Consequently, the prosecution could not consider that the PDEA's poseur-buyer truly entrapped accused-appellants. 29
On the other hand, the OSG submits that the conviction of accused-appellants should be affirmed considering that the prosecution duly established the elements of the offense as charged. Moreover, the prosecution was able to prove that there was an unbroken chain of custody from the time IO1 Consulta confiscated the drug from accused-appellants; when he placed the markings thereon after accused-appellants' arrest; and, the request and turnover of the same for laboratory examination which yielded said drug positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Consequently, the prosecution was able to prove that the integrity and identity of the seized drug had been sufficiently preserved.
The Court's Ruling
The Court GRANTS the appeal.
The prosecution must prove the presence of the following elements to secure the conviction of a person accused of the crime of sale of prohibited drugs: (a) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment. 30 Furthermore, it is essential for conviction that the drug subject of the sale be presented in court and its identity established with moral certainty through an unbroken chain of custody over the same. 31 ETHIDa
To emphasize, the necessity of preserving and maintaining the integrity and identity of the items recovered from an accused in drug cases is brought about by the very essence and characteristics of illegal narcotics. Illegal drugs by nature are not readily identifiable, and are easily open to tampering, alteration or substitution, either by accident or otherwise. Thus, it is imperative that the prosecution remove all doubts as to the identity and integrity of the drugs; as any aspersions thereto engenders a belief that what may have been presented in court were not the same drugs recovered from the accused; or, worse, if drugs had been really seized from the suspect. 32
Accordingly, the apprehending officers should be able to show an unbroken chain of custody, as well as compliance with Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. To accomplish this, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court as evidence of the corpus delicti.
In the case at bar, the Court finds that there were substantial gaps in the chain of custody of the seized contraband.
The prosecution failed to establish compliance with the first link in the chain of custody. Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 requires that: (1) the seized items be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure or confiscation; and (2) the physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of (a) the accused or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, (c) a representative from the media, and (d) a representative from the DOJ, all of whom shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 33 Here, the police officers failed to comply with the aforementioned requirement.
We scoured the records and failed to discover any evidence establishing that the prosecution had immediately marked the seized item at the place of the arrest or at the police substation. The Court notes that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses were contradicting anent this matter.
Notably, IO1 Consulta narrated that he marked the seized item right after receiving it from accused-appellant Arbuis and at the place of the arrest. 34 On the other hand, the testimony of Barangay Kagawad Volante revealed that he witnessed the marking at the police substation. 35 Even the testimony of media representative Saliva indicated that the marking was done at the police substation. The testimony of IO1 Consulta regarding the marking of the seized item was controverted by the other witnesses. Evidently, the prosecution had not clearly established whether the seized item was indeed marked at the place of the buy-bust based on the lone testimony of IO1 Consulta or at the police substation. Contradicting testimonies of the prosecution witnesses pertained to an important matter that would determine whether the apprehending officers had satisfied the first link in the chain of custody.
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the custodial link. Consequently, it is vital that the seized contraband be immediately marked because succeeding handlers of the specimens will use the markings as reference. 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, thus, preventing switching, planting or contamination of evidence. 36
Since it was not clearly established whether the seized item was immediately marked at the place of arrest or at the police substation, this casts reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti. It should be stressed that even if the Court would accept the testimony of the other witnesses that the marking was done at the police station, the outcome would still be the same. There was no evidence to establish how the PDEA agents were able to secure and preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item. cSEDTC
Moreover, the prosecution failed to comply with the required witnesses during the inventory as provided under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165.
To ensure compliance with the chain of custody rule, Sec. 21 (1) of R.A. No. 9165 requires the apprehending team, after seizure and confiscation, to immediately conduct a physical inventory; and to photograph the same in the presence of: (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media; and (3) the DOJ; and (4) any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. 37
Notably, R.A. No. 10640, 38 which amended Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and became effective on August 7, 2014, requires only three witnesses to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs of the seized evidence, namely: (a) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (b) an elected public official, and (c) a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media. 39
Here, since the offense charged was committed on June 13, 2012, the provisions of R.A. No. 10640 are not applicable. Hence, the four witnesses under Sec. 21, namely: (1) the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) a representative from the media; and (3) the DOJ; and (4) any elected public official, required to be present during the inventory and taking of photographs, must be complied with.
In the present case, it is undisputed that the police officers failed to complete the four-witnesses requirement of Sec. 21. During the inventory, there was no representative from the DOJ despite being required under Sec. 21.
To be sure, noncompliance with the mandatory procedure under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 and its IRR does not in itself render the confiscated drug inadmissible; as the desire for a perfect and unbroken chain of custody rarely occurs, but only triggers the operation of the saving clause enshrined in the IRR of R.A. No. 9165. 40
However, for the saving clause to apply, the prosecution must be able to reasonably explain the procedural lapses. More importantly, the prosecution must establish that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence have been preserved. Stated otherwise, before a deviation from the mandatory procedural requirements under Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No. 9165 may be allowed, the following requisites must be satisfied: (1) justifiable grounds must be shown to exist warranting a departure from the rule on strict compliance; and (2) the apprehending team must prove that the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items have been properly preserved. For such saving mechanism to apply, the prosecution must first recognize the lapse or lapses in the prescribed procedures and then explain such. Also, the justifiable ground for noncompliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 41
In the case at bar, the prosecution claimed that they tried to contact a representative from the DOJ despite the fact that June 12, 2012, was a holiday and they only had a narrow time frame of twelve hours, from the time they received the report from the CI, until the scheduled buy-bust operation. Nonetheless, the same did not prove nor indicate that earnest efforts were made to secure the attendance of the required witnesses. While this Court notes that June 12, 2012 was indeed a national holiday (Independence Day), this will still not justify the lack of a DOJ representative during the inventory. The apprehending officers should be faulted for this procedural lapse since they decided to proceed with the buy-bust operation notwithstanding the lack of confirmation of attendance by the required witnesses under Sec. 21. The records also did not indicate that they exerted serious attempts to look for a DOJ representative given the circumstances.
This Court has consistently held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable — without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances — is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." 42
Moreover, police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time, from the moment they receive the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest, to prepare for a buy-bust operation. They have to convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure and that under the circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 43 SDAaTC
The police officers failed to give justifiable ground for their failure to secure the presence of a representative from the DOJ to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized items. Emphasis must be given on the fact that the buy-bust operation was arranged and scheduled in advance since the police officers have to form an apprehending team and conduct a briefing for the operation. The police officers had sufficient opportunity to secure the attendance of the mandatory witnesses for the inventory and photographing of the seized drug, but still they failed to do so.
The mere marking of the seized drug, as well as the conduct of an inventory, in the absence of the accused, the media, and responsible government functionaries, fails to approximate compliance with the mandatory procedure under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165. 44
Indubitably, establishing every link in the chain of custody is crucial to the preservation of the integrity, identity, and evidentiary value of the illegal drug seized from accused-appellants. Failure to establish compliance with the chain of custody requirement creates reasonable doubt that the substance confiscated from accused-appellants is the same substance offered in evidence. Accordingly, since the prosecution failed to provide justifiable grounds for the police officers' noncompliance with the rule on the chain of custody under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165, it follows that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drug was already compromised, thereby warranting accused-appellants' acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The January 29, 2020 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08975 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE for failure of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused-appellants Stephany Arbuis y Camba a.k.a. Pen-pen and Reynaldo Francisco y Radores. Accused-appellants are hereby ACQUITTED of the crime charged against them and ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from custody, unless they are being held for some other lawful cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is ORDERED to implement this Resolution and to inform this Court of the date of their actual release from confinement within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
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.Rollo, pp. 3-20; penned by Associate Justice Pablito A. Perez with Associate Justices Elihu A. Ybañez and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
2.Id. at 45-63; penned by Acting Presiding Judge Manuel G. Salumbides.
3. SECTION 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall sell, trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to another, distribute, dispatch in transit or transport any dangerous drug, including any and all species of opium poppy regardless of the quantity and purity involved, or shall act as a broker in any of such transactions. x x x
4. 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."
5. CA rollo, p. 45.
6.Id. at 46.
7.Id. at 134.
8.Id.
9. Full name not stated in the records.
10.Id. at 135.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 45-63.
13.Id. at 63.
14.Rollo, pp. 3-20.
15.Id. at 13.
16.Id. at 15.
17.Id. at 19.
18.Id.
19.Id. at 31-32.
20.Rollo, pp. 29-30.
21.Id. at 37-39.
22.Id. at 31-33.
23. CA rollo, pp. 23-43.
24.Id. at 31.
25.Id. at 32-35.
26.Id. at 36.
27.Id. at 37.
28.Id.
29.Id. at 38.
30.People v. Labadan, G.R. No. 237769, March 11, 2019.
31.Id.
32.People v. Malabanan, G.R. No. 241950, April 10, 2019.
33.People v. Dumanjug, G.R. No. 235468, July 1, 2019.
34.See CA Decision citing TSN: IO1 Michael Consulta, June 5, 2013, pp. 9 and 11.
35.See CA Decision citing TSN: Brgy. Kgd. Hermel Volante, April 21, 2015, pp. 12-13.
36.People v. Dela Victoria, 829 Phil. 675, 688 (2018).
37.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 228 (2015).
38. 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."
39.People v. Bangcola, G.R. No. 237802, March 18, 2019.
40.People v. Manansala, G.R. No. 228825, July 28, 2020.
41.Id.
42.People v. Balubal, G.R. No. 234033, July 30, 2018, citing People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1053 (2012).
43.People v. Labadan, supra note 29.
44.People v. Zapanta, G.R. No. 230227, November 6, 2019; Santos v. People, G.R. No. 232950, August 13, 2018, 838 Phil. 568, 580 (2018).