SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250436. November 10, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs. RUEL ARTATES y PANUGA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated10 November 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250436 (People of the Philippines v. Ruel Artates y Panuga). — On appeal 1 is the February 14, 2018 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07412, affirming the December 1, 2014 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales, Branch 70, in Criminal Case Nos. RTC-7256-I, RTC-7257-I, and RTC-7258-I which found accused-appellant Ruel Artates y Panuga (Artates) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5, 11, and 15, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 4 or the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002."
The Antecedents:
Three separate Informations 5 were filed against Artates for violation of Sections 5, 11, and 15, Article II of RA 9165. The accusatory portions thereof read:
For Criminal Case No. RTC-7256-I:
That on or about [the] 22nd day of January 2013 at about 3:00 p.m., in Purok 6, Brgy. Amungan, Municipality of Iba, Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, without any lawful authority, sell Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, placed in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet, which was subsequently marked as "RDA", weighing 0.069 gram[s], without any authority, permit nor prescription to sell the same from the appropriate agency.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 6
For Criminal Case No. RTC-7257-I:
That on or about [the] 22nd day of January 2013 at about 3:00 p.m., in Purok 6, Brgy. Amungan, Municipality of Iba, Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, subsequently marked as "MAF", weighing 0.054 gram[s], without any authority, permit nor prescription to possess the same from the appropriate agency.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
For Criminal Case No. RTC-7258-I:
That on or about [the] 22nd day of January 2013 at about 3:00 p.m., in Purok 6, Brgy. Amungan, Municipality of Iba, Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, when apprehended by the police authorities was found to have willfully, unlawfully and feloniously use or introduce into his body Methylamphetamine, a dangerous drug, without being lawfully allowed to use said substance.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 8
During arraignment, Artates entered a plea of "not guilty" to all charges. 9 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution:
On January 22, 2013, at about 1:00 p.m., the Iba Municipal Police station received information from a confidential informant (CI) that a certain Ruel Artates alias "Wawie" was selling dangerous drugs in Barangay Amungan, Iba, Zambales. 10 Thus, a surveillance operation was conducted. After confirming the information, a buy-bust team was organized with Police Officer (PO) 1 Rudico D. Angulo (PO1 Angulo) as the poseur-buyer and PO2 Mark Anthony D. Fajardo (PO2 Fajardo) as back-up. 11 PO1 Angulo was also provided with a P500.00 bill pre-dusted with ultraviolet powder and marked with the initials "MAF." 12 After the briefing, a Coordination Form 13 was prepared and sent to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). 14
Before dispatch, the CI arranged a meeting with Artates in Balinbokbok Bridge, Amungan, Iba and told him that his "new friend" was interested in buying shabu worth P500.00. 15 Upon arrival at the target area, the CI introduced PO1 Angulo to Artates as his new friend. 16 PO1 Angulo handed over the P500.00 bill to Artates and the latter gave him a plastic sachet containing what appeared to be shabu. 17 After the exchange, PO1 Angulo immediately removed his baseball cap to signal that the sale had been consummated. 18
Immediately, PO2 Fajardo, with another member of the team, approached the group and arrested Artates. 19 He also conducted a body search on accused-appellant and recovered the buy-bust money, two P20 bills, two lighters, two scissors, one unused plastic sachet, and one plastic sachet of what appeared to be shabu, which he marked with the initials "MAF." 20 On the other hand, PO1 Angulo marked the sachet sold to him by Artates with the initials "RDA." 21
After marking the seized items, the apprehending officers took Artates to their office where the inventory 22 and photographing 23 of the same were conducted, in the presence of PO2 Angulo, PO2 Fajardo, Barangay Kagawad Helen Soriano and media representative Cezar Villa. 24 The Request for Drug Test Examination 25 of accused-appellant, Request for Presence of Dusting Powder, 26 and Request for Laboratory Examination 27 of the seized drugs were also prepared. Thereafter, the seized items were turned over to the Philippine National Police Regional Crime Laboratory Office 3, Zambales Provincial Crime Laboratory (PNP Crime Laboratory). 28 After qualitative examination by forensic chemist Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Vernon Rey Santiago (PCI Santiago), he found that the seized drugs 29 and accused-appellant's urine sample 30 tested positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. Accused-appellant likewise tested positive for the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder. 31
Version of the Defense:
Artates denied the charges against him and averred that on January 22, 2013, between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m., he went fishing in Balinbokbok bridge. 32 Suddenly, a white car parked near the bridge and four individuals alighted and told him not to run. 33 They frisked Artates but failed to recover anything. 34 Afterwards, he was brought to the police station where he was asked if he was Gerald Artates (Gerald), to which he replied in the negative and explained that he is the younger brother of Gerald. 35 He also told them that Gerald has not come home in three days. 36 However, the officers still insisted that Artates was Gerald. 37
At around 2:00 p .m. to 3:00 p.m., he was taken to the PNP Crime Laboratory where he was given a plastic bag and instructed to give the same to the officer-in-charge. 38 They also flashed blue light on his hands. 39 After which, he was brought back to the police station. 40 At around 10:00 p.m., he was taken to the office where he was photographed with the items allegedly recovered from him. 41
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its December 1, 2014 Decision, 42 the RTC found Artates guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. However, in view of his conviction under Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the trial court no longer ruled on the charge for violation of Section 15 of RA 9165. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. RTC-7256-I, the Court finds the accused Ruel P. Artates GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charged for violation of Section 5 of Article II of R.A. 9165, (selling of dangerous drugs) and he is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand (Php500,000.00) pesos.
2. In Criminal Case No. RTC-7257-I, the Court finds the accused Ruel P. Artates GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt as charge[d] for violation of Sec. 11 of Art. II, R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of Twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to Twenty (20) years as maximum and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand (P300,000.00);
3. In view of the above, the Court found no need to rule on the charge of use of dangerous drugs as Sec. 15 of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2008 specifically provides that the said section shall not be applicable where the person tested is also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of any dangerous drug provided for under Section 11 of the Act, in which case the provision stated therein shall apply.
The confiscated illegal drugs subject matter of these cases are forfeited in favor of the State and shall be disposed of accordingly.
Since the accused has been in detention since January 23, 2013 at the Zambales Provincial Jail, his detention shall be credited in full.
SO ORDERED. 43
Aggrieved, Artates filed an appeal 44 before the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its assailed February 14, 2018 Decision, 45 the CA affirmed the trial court's findings. The fallo of its Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the APPEAL is hereby DENIED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.46
Hence, the present appeal. 47 Both parties opted not to file supplemental briefs with this Court and instead adopted their discussions in their briefs filed with the CA. 48
Artates contends that: (1) the trial court [and the CA] erred in convicting accused-appellant despite the incredible testimonies of the prosecution witnesses; (2) the trial court [and the CA] erred in convicting accused-appellant despite the prosecution's failure to establish every link in the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs; and (3) the trial court [and the CA] erred in disregarding accused-appellant's defenses of denial and frame up. 49
To support his claims, Artates points out that the tip relayed by the CI was invalid since the surveillance done by the police officers was unreliable. He also claims that there was no proper coordination with PDEA. Moreover, he questions the credibility of PO1 Angulo's testimony for being inconsistent. 50
Additionally, accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to secure the presence of a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative to witness the conduct of the inventory. Although PO1 Angulo and PO2 Fajardo offered a letter saying they exerted diligent efforts to secure the presence of the DOJ representative, he stresses that PO2 Fajardo later on admitted that it was actually the investigator who looked for the said representative. 51
With regard to the chain of custody, Artates contends that there is a possibility of switching/planting of evidence in light of the prosecution witnesses' failure to explain how the seized evidence were handled during transit from the crime scene to the police station. He also argues that there was no proof on how the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized evidence were preserved when the arresting officers transmitted the same to the investigating officer. Furthermore, he claims that the prosecution failed to establish how the seized items were handled before and after the qualitative examination by the forensic chemist. He points out that as admitted by PCI Santiago, it was PO2 Gabby Raboy (PO2 Raboy) who received the seized drugs from the police officers. Thus, PCI Santiago's testimony is bereft of any explanation on how the integrity and identity of the seized drugs were preserved before he came into possession thereof. 52
Conversely, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintains that: (1) accused-appellant's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt; (2) the chain of custody of the shabu was sufficiently proven; and (3) accused-appellant failed to show any improper motive on the part of the police officers and his defense of denial and frame-up are unavailing.
The OSG insists that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. It argues that the alleged inconsistency in PO2 Angulo's testimony regarding how they received the tip from the CI is inconsequential as it is not an element of the offenses charged. It stresses that the positive and credible testimonies of the police officers should be accorded full credit in line with the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. 53
As to the chain of custody, the OSG maintains that non-compliance with the requirements under Section 21 of RA 9165 does not render inadmissible the items seized as long as it is proven that the dangerous drugs sold by and in possession of the accused are the same ones offered in court. Thus, it argues that even if it was PO2 Raboy and not PCI Santiago who received the seized specimens from the apprehending officers, such fact did not ipso facto create a missing link in the chain of custody. Besides, the prosecution sufficiently established the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs from their marking until their presentation in court. 54
Furthermore, the OSG reiterates that absent any showing of ill motive on the part of the apprehending officers, the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties stands. It insists that the positive identification of the prosecution witnesses prevails over accused-appellant's defenses of denial and frame-up. 55
Issue
Whether or not Artates is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
At the outset, it must be stressed that an appeal in criminal cases opens the entire case for review and it is the duty of the appellate court to correct, cite, and appreciate errors in the appealed judgment whether they are assigned or unassigned. 56 While findings of fact of the trial court are usually accorded great respect and even finality when affirmed by the CA, 57 if there are certain facts and circumstances of weight or substance that could have affected the result of the case that were overlooked, misunderstood, or misapplied, such factual findings may be reversed. 58 After careful review of the records of the case, this Court holds that that the chain of custody was broken and the prosecution failed to establish the very corpus delicti of the crimes charged.
To sustain a conviction for the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the prosecution must establish with moral certainty the identity of the confiscated drug. 59 It must be shown that the substance illegally possessed and/or sold by the accused is the same substance offered and identified in court 60 since it constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. 61
In People v. Mallillin, 62 this Court explained how the chain of custody or the movement of the seized evidence should be maintained and why this must be shown by evidence, viz.:
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. 63 (Citations omitted.)
In People v. Kamad, 64 this Court enumerated the four links in the chain of custody that the prosecution must establish: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the seized and marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 65 In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establish the second, third, and fourth links.
Second link: Turnover of the
The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized illegal drugs by the arresting officer to the investigating officer, who conducts the proper investigation and prepares the necessary documents for the proper transmittal of the seized items to the crime laboratory. 66 In doing so, the investigator would necessarily be in custody of the seized items in order to perform his duty and to accomplish the request for laboratory examination and other necessary documents. 67
In People v. Dahil, 68 this Court explained the significance of the second link in the chain of custody, to wit:
The second link in the chain of custody is the transfer of the seized drugs by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer. Usually, the police officer who seizes the suspected substance turns it over to a supervising officer, who will then send it by courier to the police crime laboratory for testing. This is a necessary step in the chain of custody because it will be the investigating officer who shall conduct the proper investigation and prepare the necessary documents for the developing criminal case. Certainly, the investigating officer must have possession of the illegal drugs to properly prepare the required documents.
The investigator in this case was a certain SPO4 Jamisolamin. Surprisingly, there was no testimony from the witnesses as to the turnover of the seized items to SPO4 Jamisolamin. It is highly improbable for an investigator in a drug-related case to effectively perform his work without having custody of the seized items. Again, the case of the prosecution is forcing this Court to resort to guesswork as to whether PO2 Corpuz and SPO1 Lieu gave the seized drugs to SPO4 Jamisolamin as the investigating officer or they had custody of the marijuana all night while SPO4 Jamisolamin was conducting his investigation on the same items.
In People v. Remigio, the Court noted the failure of the police officers to establish the chain of custody as the apprehending officer did not transfer the seized items to the investigating officer. The apprehending officer kept the alleged shabu from the time of confiscation until the time he transferred them to the forensic chemist. The deviation from the links in the chain of custody led to the acquittal of the accused in the said case.69 (Underscoring and emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)
According to PO2 Angulo's testimony, the investigator was a certain PO2 Manalo 70 who delivered the seized items to the crime laboratory. 71 However, PO2 Manalo was not presented as a witness. Records also do not show how the seized items were turned over by the arresting officers to PO2 Manalo, or whether they were turned over at all. Notably, the letter requests sent to the PNP Crime Laboratory were issued by one PSI Gilbert C. Diaz, 72 who was also not presented to testify on his participation in the handling of the seized items. The lack of informative details as to how and when the seized items were handed over to PO2 Manalo cast serious doubt on the preservation of the identity and integrity of the seized illegal drugs. Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish the second link.
Third link: Turnover of the
The third link in the chain of custody is the delivery by the investigating officer of the seized drugs to the forensic chemist. Here, PO2 Angulo testified that he was with the investigator when the latter delivered the items to the laboratory:
Q: And who brought the specimen to the crime laboratory?
A: Our investigator was with them, Ma'am.
Q: Who was with the investigator?
A: PO2 Manalo and PO2 Dave, Ma'am.
Q: How about you?
A: I was with them, Ma'am. 73
Based on PO2 Angulo's testimony, there are no other informative details as to who was in possession of the seized items and how it was handled before they were turned over to the crime laboratory. In the Letter Request for Laboratory Examination, 74 the request and the corresponding seized items appear to have been delivered by PO2 Angulo and received by PO2 Raboy. As admitted also by PCI Santiago, their office received the subject specimens 75 but it was PO2 Gabby Raboy who personally received them. 76 Again, this Court is forced to resort to guesswork as to how PO2 Raboy handled the same upon his receipt thereof before transmitting the same to PCI Santiago for forensic examination. Evidently, the third link in the chain of custody is broken.
Fourth link: Turnover and
The fourth link involves the submission of the seized drugs by the forensic chemist to the court. In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to offer details on how PCI Santiago preserved the identity of the seized drugs before and after he conducted the qualitative examination. In People v. Obmiranis,77 We acquitted the accused-appellant due to the failure of the key persons who were in possession of the seized illegal drugs to testify as to the handling and preservation thereof before it was offered as evidence in court. 78 We find that the same conclusion applies in the present case.
The case of People v. Gayoso79 is instructive:
From the foregoing, it appears that no chain of custody was established at all. What we have here are individual links with breaks in-between which could not be seamlessly woven or tied together. The so-called links in the chain of custody show that the seized shabu was not handled properly starting from the actual seizure, to its turnover in the police station and the PDEA, as well as its transfer to the crime laboratory for examination. The Court therefore cannot conclude with moral certainty that the shabu confiscated from appellant was the same as that presented for laboratory examination and then presented in court.
It is indeed desirable that the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken. In reality however, this rarely occurs. The legal standard that must therefore be observed "is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items as they will be used to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused." Here, the Court finds that the apprehending officers failed to properly preserve the integrity ad evidentiary value of the confiscated shabu. There are just too many breaks and gaps to the effect that a chain of custody could not be established at all. Failure of the prosecution to offer testimony to establish a substantially complete chain of custody of the shabu and the inappropriate manner of handling the evidence prior to its offer in court diminishes the government's chance of successfully prosecuting a drug case. 80 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted.)
Verily, this Court could not determine with moral certainty that the shabu seized from accused-appellant is the same one submitted to the crime laboratory, and eventually, presented in court. The lack of details on how the seized item was handled during its transfer from one person to another gives rise to the possibility of tampering, alteration, or substitution of the corpus delicti.
Anent the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties of the police officers, such presumption stands only when there is nothing on record to cast doubt thereon. Due to the significant lapses in preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items, the said presumption cannot apply. Besides, the presumption of regularity in the performance of the arresting officers' duties cannot prevail over the constitutionally enshrined presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. 81
Thus, we are constrained to acquit accused-appellant.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed February 14, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07412 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Ruel Artates y Panuga is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Director General is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he/she has taken within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.)TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-13.
2.Id. at 3-10. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Ricardo R. Rosario (now a Member of the Court) and Ronaldo B. Martin.
3. CA rollo, pp. 62-68. Penned by Presiding Judge Marifi P. Chua.
4. An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act or 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, Providing Funds therefor, and for the Purposes. Approved June 7, 2002.
5. Records, Vol. I, pp. 2-3; Records, Vol. II. pp. 2-3; Records, Vol. III, pp. 2-3.
6. Records, Vol. I, pp. 2-3.
7. Records, Vol. II, pp. 2-3.
8. Records, Vol. III, pp. 2-3.
9. Records, Vol. I, p. 19.
10. TSN, September 10, 2013, pp. 7-8.
11.Id.
12. TSN, September 10, 2013, pp. 6-7.
13. Records, Vol. I, p. 13.
14. TSN, September 10, 2013, p. 8.
15. Records, Vol. I, p. 4.
16.Id.
17.Id.
18.Id.
19. TSN, June 17, 2014, p. 14.
20.Id. at 19; Records, Vol. I, p. 4.
21. TSN, September 10, 2013, p. 9.
22. Records, Vol. I, p. 6.
23.Id. at 16.
24. Records, Vol. I, p. 6; TSN, September 10, 2013, pp. 11-15.
25. Records, Vol. I, p. 7.
26.Id. at 9.
27.Id. at 11.
28. TSN, September 10, 2013, pp. 9-10.
29. Records, Vol. I, p. 12.
30.Id. at 8.
31.Id. at 10.
32. TSN, November 1, 2014, p. 4.
33.Id. at 4-5.
34.Id. at 5.
35.Id.
36.Id.
37.Id.
38.Id. at 6.
39.Id.
40.Id. at 7.
41.Id.
42. CA rollo, pp. 62-68.
43.Id. at 67-68.
44.Id. 44-60.
45.Rollo, pp. 3-10.
46.Id. at 10.
47.Id. at 11-13.
48.Id. at 18-19; 23-25.
49. CA rollo, pp. 52-59.
50.Id. at 53-54; 55.
51.Id. at 53-54.
52.Id. at 54-56.
52.Id. at 102.
54.Id. at 103-105.
55.Id. 107-108.
56.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 225 (2015), citing People v. Balagat, 604 Phil. 529, 534 (2009).
57.Artates y Gallardo v. People, G.R. No. 235724, March 11, 2020.
58.People vs. Casilang, G.R. No. 242159, February 5, 2020, citing People v. Maraorao, 688 Phil. 458, 464-465 (2012).
59.People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 403 (2010).
60. See People v. Pagaduan, 641 Phil. 432, 442-443 (2010).
61. See People v. Jaafar, 803 Phil. 582, 591 (2017).
62. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
63.Id. at 587.
64. 624 Phil. 289 (2010).
65.Id. at 304-306, citing People v. Garcia, G.R. No. 173480, February 25, 2009; People v. Gum-Oyen, G.R. No. 182231, April 16, 2009; People v. Denoman, G.R. No. 171732, August 14, 2009; and People v. Coreche, G.R. No. 182528, August 14, 2009.
66.People v. Dahil, supra note 55 at 235.
67. See People v. Villojan, Jr., G.R. No. 239635, July 22, 2019.
68.Supra note 55.
69.Id. at 234-235.
70. TSN, September 10, 2013, p. 7.
71.Id. at 9-10.
72. Records, Vol. I, pp. 7, 9, 11 and 14.
73. TSN, September 10, 2013, pp. 9-10.
74. Records, Vol. I, p. 11.
75. TSN, March 11, 2014, p. 7.
76.Id. at 9.
77. 594 Phil. 561 (2008).
78.Id. at 579.
79. 808 Phil. 19 (2017).
80.Id. at 33-34.
81.People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 769-770 (2014).