THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234047. March 9, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.CRISANTO ASILO y MARTILLANA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 9, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 234047 (People of the Philippines v. Crisanto Asilo y Martillana). — This is an appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated February 7, 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 08126, which affirmed with modification the Judgment 3 dated November 11, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 12, Ligao City in Criminal Case Nos. 5796 and 5797. The RTC found accused-appellant Crisanto Asilo y Martillana (Asilo) guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
Asilo was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 in two separate Informations, which respectively read, as follows:
Criminal Case No. 5796
That on or about October 12, 2008 at around 3:30 o'clock in the afternoon at Purok 6, Barangay Paulog, Ligao City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, having in his possession, custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of dried marijuana leaves, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver those two (2) transparent plastic sachets containing 0.70 gram and 1.24 grams[,] respectively[,] of dried marijuana leaves to PDEA IO1 Judith J. Rigo, a poseur-buyer in consideration of ONE HUNDRED PESOS ([P]100.00), without any legal authority to sell the same, to the damage and prejudice of the public interest.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.4
Criminal Case No. 5797
That on or about October 12, 2008 at around 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon at Barangay Paulog, Ligao City, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being lawfully authorized to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession and under his custody and control two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets of dried marijuana leaves weighing 0.62 gram and 0.59 gram[,] respectively, to the damage and prejudice of the public interest.
ACTS CONTRARY TO LAW.5
The prosecution presented the following witnesses: (1) Police Senior Inspector Josephine Macura Clemen (PSI Clemen); (2) Police Officer 1 J. Rock Paris Lomatao (PO1 Lomatao); (3) Intelligence Officer 1 Elsa C. Panagsagan (IO1 Panagsagan); (4) Intelligence Officer 1 Juancho L. Esteban (IO1 Esteban); (5) Intelligence Officer 1 Judith J. Rigo (IO1 Rigo); (6) Barangay Captain Cenon Perseveranda (Brgy. Capt. Perseveranda); (7) Intelligence Officer 1 Fructuoso O. Perlas (IO1 Perlas); and (8) Intelligence Officer 2 Joyiann Ivy H. Cedo (IO2 Cedo).
According to the prosecution witnesses, on October 12, 2008, around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon, a confidential informant brought to the knowledge of IO1 Perlas that Asilo, who is included in the watch list of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), was selling marijuana to students in the vicinity of Paulog, Ligao City. IO1 Perlas, as team leader, briefed the buy-bust team which included IO1 Panagsagan as the arresting officer and evidence custodian, IO1 Esteban as co-arresting officer, IO1 Rigo as the designated poseur-buyer, and IO2 Cedo and PO2 Aldea as back-up. 6
On the same day, at 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon, IO1 Rigo and the confidential informant alighted from the vehicle and proceeded to their target area, a house in Barangay Paulog where Asilo was. IO1 Panagsagan and IO1 Esteban stayed at a sari-sari store approximately 10 meters away from IO1 Rigo and the confidential informant. IO1 Rigo and the confidential informant gave a P100.00 marked money in exchange for two plastic sachets of purported marijuana. When IO1 Rigo removed his cap, indicating that the sale was consummated, IO1 Panagsagan and IO1 Esteban ran towards them and apprehended Asilo. They brought Asilo to the barangay hall that was approximately 50 meters away from the place of apprehension for the marking and inventory of the seized items. The confidential informant gave the two plastic sachets of purported marijuana to IO1 Rigo, who then gave them to IO1 Panagsagan. These were later on marked as "10-12-08 ECP" representing the date of apprehension and the initials of IO1 Panagsagan. 7
At the barangay hall, the buy-bust team conducted the inventory and marked the seized items in the presence of Brgy. Capt. Perseveranda and Brgy. Kagawad Francisco Buenafe. IO1 Esteban frisked Asilo and found the P100.00 marked money, two additional plastic sachets, and two pieces of one hundred peso bills. These were also turned over to IO1 Panagsagan and marked with the date and her initials. 8
After the inventory, the buy-bust team and Asilo went to the police station while IO1 Panagsagan held on to the four pieces of plastic sachets. Only IO1 Perlas went out to have the incident reported in the blotter. Thereafter, they proceeded to the PDEA office in Legaspi City. The alleged drug items recovered were turned over to PO1 Lomatao with a letter request for laboratory examination. 9 PO1 Lomatao then turned over the items received to PSI Clemen for examination. Chemistry Report No. D-126-08 confirmed that the dried leaves inside the four plastic sachets were marijuana. 10
Asilo denied the allegations against him and maintained that at the time of his apprehension, he was merely having a drinking spree with Wang Yu, Brgy. Tanod Tito Torres, and several others. He narrated that after they had almost consumed half of the bottle of gin they were drinking, Wang Yu left for 10 minutes. When he came back, he handed Asilo P100.00 and told him to buy another bottle of gin. After Asilo had placed the money inside his pocket, he heard someone shout "wag kang tatakbo, dapa!" It was at this moment when he laid down and was handcuffed by the PDEA agents. He insisted that it was only at the PDEA office in Legaspi City where he first saw the items allegedly confiscated from him.
On November 11, 2015, the RTC rendered its Judgment, 11 the dispositive portion of which states:
Wherefore, viewed from the foregoing disquisition, the Court finds accused Crisanto Asilo guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Sections 5 and 11, Art. II of R.A. 9165.
Foregoing premises considered[,] judgment is hereby rendered finding accused Crisanto Asilo guilty beyond reasonable doubt in both cases, thereby sentencing him as follows, to wit:
Under Criminal Case No. 5796
Accused is hereby sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from Twelve (12) years and one (1) day to Twenty (20) years and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00).
Under Criminal Case No. 5797
Accused is sentenced to suffer the penalty of Life Imprisonment or Reclusion Perpetua and a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).
Accused is entitled to the preventive imprisonment credited in his favor.
SO ORDERED[.] 12
In convicting Asilo, the RTC held that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana. The RTC gave credence to the documentary evidence supporting the sworn statements of the PDEA agents who conducted the buy-bust operation. Further, the RTC found no ulterior motive on the part of the PDEA agents to falsely accuse Asilo. 13
Subsequently, Asilo filed an appeal to the CA. Then on February 7, 2017, the CA rendered its Decision, 14 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, the present appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated November 11, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 12 of Ligao City in Criminal Cases Nos. 5796 and 5797 is hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION as to the imposition of the penalty as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 5796 for Violation of Section 5 of Article II of R.A. 9165 (Illegal Sale of Dangerous Drugs), appellant is sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of P500,000.00 without eligibility for parole.
In Criminal Case No. 5797 for Violation of Section 11 of Article II of R.A. 9165 (Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs), appellant is sentenced to suffer imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) day as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum and a fine of P300,000.00.
SO ORDERED.15
In affirming Asilo's conviction, the CA found that the prosecution successfully established all the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 16 and illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11 17 of R.A. No. 9165. The CA primarily relied on the testimony of IO1 Rigo who acted as poseur-buyer and the examination conducted by PSI Clemen confirming that the seized items were positive for marijuana. 18 Though the CA acknowledged that the requirements in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not faithfully observed, it ruled that the absence of photographs of the seized items and the fact that no representatives from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) signed the inventory, did not render Asilo's arrest illegal nor the items seized inadmissible. 19 The CA was convinced that the prosecution was able to demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody over the confiscated items and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. 20
Aggrieved, Asilo filed a Notice of Appeal. 21 Thereafter, this Court notified the parties to file their supplemental briefs. 22 However, Asilo opted not to file his supplemental brief since he believed that he already exhaustively argued all matters pertinent to his defense in his brief. 23 For its part, the Office of the Solicitor General manifested that it will no longer file a supplemental brief. 24
Issue
The issue to be resolved in this case is whether the evidence of the prosecution was sufficient to convict Asilo of illegal sale and illegal possession of marijuana, in violation of Sections 5 and 11, respectively, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Our Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
The integrity and evidentiary value of
Accused-appellant essentially assails that the evidence presented by the prosecution did not comply with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were not properly preserved. These matters are evidently factual because they require careful examination of the evidence on record. As a rule, the trial court's findings of fact are entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal. However, this rule does not apply where facts of weight and substance have been overlooked, misapprehended or misapplied in a case under appeal. 25 After a judicious examination of the records, the Court found material facts and circumstances that the lower courts had overlooked or misappreciated which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion.
In cases involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs under R.A. No. 9165, the identity of the dangerous drug must be established with moral certainty as the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 26 Failure to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the drugs seized insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, thus, warranting an acquittal.
Notably, the alleged buy-bust operation transpired before R.A. No. 10640 27 amended R.A. No. 9165. Thus, the original provisions governing chain of custody in drugs cases found in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) shall apply. Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 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. — The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:
(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof; 28 (Emphases and underscoring supplied; italics in the original)
Section 21 (a), Article II of the IRR of R.A. No. 9165 provides:
(a) The apprehending team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. (Emphases and italics supplied)
Based on the foregoing, the presence of the following insulating witnesses is required during the conduct of physical inventory and photograph: (1) a representative from the media; (2) a representative from the DOJ; and (3) any elected public official. The presence of these witnesses during the marking of the seized items is critical in drugs cases and the unjustified absence of any of these witnesses cast serious doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items.
In People v. Lim, 29 it was stressed 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. 30
It is undisputed that the apprehending officers failed to comply with the witness requirement in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and the IRR. During her cross-examination, IO1 Panagsagan admitted that she did not conduct an inventory of the seized items at the area of the apprehension and in the presence of all the insulating witnesses. No representatives from the DOJ and media were present, as revealed in the following exchange:
ATTY. SADIA:
xxx xxx xxx
Q: Is it not that in buy-bust operation you usually coordinate with a media representative?
A: During that time the witness are (sic) the barangay officials.
Q: Just answer my question if during the buy-bust operation you usually coordinate with media representative?
A: Yes, Sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And in the case of Asilo the subject matter of this case when you conducted the inventory only the elected [official] was present, correct?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: And there was no media representative?
A: Yes, Sir.
Q: No DOJ representative?
A: Yes, Sir. 31
The absence of the two other insulating witnesses is also supported by the Certificate of Inventory 32 where it was shown that no media representative and DOJ representative signed the inventory. The reason why the presence of the media and DOJ representatives could not be secured was conspicuously not explained by the members of the buy-bust team. The only explanation that the buy-bust team could provide was their uniformly worded statement in their respective affidavits: 33
That due to the commotion going on we brought the subject to the Barangay Hall of Paulog which was only a stone's throw from the transaction site and where the inventory and documentation of the evidence was done in the presence of witnesses Barangay Chairman Cenon Perseveranda and Barangay Kagawad Francisco Buenafe. 34
The foregoing statement hardly suffices as the earnest and genuine effort contemplated in People v. Lim35 to justify the non-compliance with the stringent requirements under Section 21.
Although strict compliance with the chain of custody procedure may not always be possible, the lapses should be reasonably justified. In Limbo v. People, 36 the Court explained that:
x x x, non-compliance may 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. While the earnestness of these efforts must be examined on a case-to-case basis, the overarching objective is for the Court to be convinced that the failure to comply was reasonable under the given circumstances. Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. These considerations arise from the fact that police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to prepare for a buy-bust operation and consequently, make the necessary arrangements beforehand, knowing fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule. 37 (Citations omitted, emphasis supplied)
No proof was presented to establish that the police officers exerted genuine and sufficient effort to secure the presence of the required witnesses from the moment they received the tip at 1:00 p.m. on October 12, 2008 up to the time when the buy-bust operation transpired at 5:00 p.m. on the same day.
Moreover, the identity of the dangerous drugs allegedly seized from accused-appellant becomes dubitable due to the failure of the buy-bust team to immediately take photos of the seized items in accordance with Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, the IRR, and the 2010 Philippine National Police (PNP) Manual on Anti-Illegal Drugs Operation and Investigation (2010 PNP Manual). This lapse cannot simply be brushed aside. Section 13, Rule II of the 2010 PNP Manual provides:
SECTION 13. Handling, Custody and Disposition of Drug Evidence. —
a. In the handling, custody and disposition of the evidence, the provision of Section 21, RA 9165 and its IRR shall be strictly observed.
b. Photographs of the pieces of evidence must be taken upon discovery without moving or altering its position in the place where it is situated, kept or hidden, including the process of recording the inventory and the weighing of dangerous drugs, and if possible under existing conditions, with the registered weight of the evidence on the scale focused by the camera, in the presence of persons required, as provided under Section 21, Art. II, RA 9165.
xxx xxx xxx
Here, the apprehending officers did not offer any justifiable explanation why they deviated from the clearly delineated procedure in handling dangerous drugs evidence under the 2010 PNP Manual. Though it was admitted that no photographs were taken at the place of apprehension for the safety of the accused-appellant, 38 this justification is self-serving and, by itself, insufficient to excuse the absence of photographs.
To establish the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drug seized with moral certainty, the prosecution must sufficiently establish the following links:
First, the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer;
Second, the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer;
Third, the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and
Fourth, the turnover and submission of the marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 39 (Emphases supplied)
In People v. Arposeple, 40 the Court emphasized the importance of the first link:
The first link in the chain of custody was undoubtedly inherently weak which caused the other links to miserably fail. The first link, it is emphasized, primarily deals on the preservation of the identity and integrity of the confiscated items, the burden of which lies with the prosecution. The marking has a twin purpose: viz.: first, to give the succeeding handlers of the specimen a reference, and second, to separate the marked evidence from the corpus of all other similar or related evidence from the moment of seizure until their disposition at the end of criminal proceedings, thereby obviating switching, "planting," or contamination of evidence. Absent therefore the certainty that items that were marked, subjected to laboratory examination, and presented as evidence in court were exactly those that were allegedly seized from Arposeple, there would be no need to proceed to evaluate the succeeding links or to determine the existence of the other elements of the charges against appellants. Clearly, the cases for the prosecution had been irreversibly lost as a result of the weak first link irretrievably breaking away from the main chain. 41 (Emphases supplied)
In this case, the first link in the chain of custody, the seizure and marking of the illegal drugs recovered from accused-appellant by the PDEA officers, was not sufficiently established due to the absence of the representatives from DOJ and the media and the failure of the buy-bust team to take photographs of the seized items. Since the first link in the chain of custody is unreliable, examining the subsequent links is no longer necessary. Accordingly, the prosecution failed to demonstrate an unbroken chain of custody over the seized items, and the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence against accused-appellant were not preserved.
Though accused-appellant's denial of the charges against him and his claim that he was framed-up were not supported by any convincing evidence, the apparent weakness of his defense does not strengthen the prosecution's case against him. If the prosecution cannot establish accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the need for him to adduce evidence in his behalf never arises. However weak the defense evidence might be, the prosecution's whole case still falls. The evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own weight and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the defense. 42
We are mindful that buy-bust operations are susceptible to abuse and it is for this reason that caution must be exercised in evaluating cases involving dangerous drugs. It has been recognized that "in some instances[,] law enforcers resort to the practice of planting evidence to extract information or even to harass civilians." 43 More importantly, the presumption that the regular duty was performed by the arresting officer cannot outweigh the constitutional presumption of innocence of the accused. 44 Here, the failure of the law enforcers to comply with the chain of custody rule, without sufficient justification cast serious doubt on the integrity and evidentiary value of the marijuana allegedly seized from him during the buy-bust operation, and necessitates his acquittal.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated February 7, 2017 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Crisanto Asilo y Martillana is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. 5796 and 5797 for failure to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED to be IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being held for some other valid or lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections for immediate implementation. The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to REPORT the action he has taken to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution. Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on leave; Lazaro-Javier, J., Acting Chairperson, per S.O. No. 2877, dated March 7, 2021)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 26.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla (retired member of the Court), with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Socorro B. Inting concurring; id. at 2-25.
3. Penned by Judge Alben Casimiro Rabe; CA rollo, pp. 22-34.
4. Records (Crim. Case No. 5796), p. 1.
5. Records (Crim. Case No. 5797), p. 1.
6. Records (Crim. Case No. 5796), pp. 6, 8; rollo, p. 4.
7.Id. at 4-5; TSN, May 20, 2011, p. 9; TSN, January 26, 2011, pp. 23-27.
8.Rollo, p. 5.
9. Records (Crim. Case No. 5796), p. 11.
10.Id. at 15.
11. CA rollo, pp. 22-34.
12.Id. at 34.
13.Id. at 32-33.
14.Rollo, pp. 2-25.
15.Id. at 24.
16.Id. at 13.
17.Id. at 21-22.
18.Id. at 13-16.
19.Id. at 21.
20.Id. at 19-20.
21.Id. at 26.
22.Id. at 31.
23.Id. at 33.
24.Id. at 38-39.
25.People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 233544, March 25, 2019 citing People v. Robles, 604 Phil. 536, 543 (2009).
26.People v. Crispo, 828 Phil. 416, 429 (2018).
27. R.A. No. 10640 took effect on August 7, 2014 as clarified in People v. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 236304, November 5, 2018.
28. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Republic Act No. 9165, June 7, 2002.
29. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, 879 SCRA 31, 62.
30.People v. Flores, G.R. No. 246471 (Resolution), June 16, 2020, citing People v. Lim, supra.
31. TSN, May 20, 2011, pp. 15-16.
32. Records (Crim. Case No. 5796), p. 211.
33.Id. at 6, 8.
34.Id.; See TSN, January 26, 2011, p. 24.
35.People v. Lim, supra note 29.
36. G.R. No. 238299, July 1, 2019, 907 SCRA 129.
37.Id. at 139.
38. TSN, July 8, 2011, p. 53.
39.People v. Siaton, 789 Phil. 87, 98-99 (2016).
40. 821 Phil. 340 (2017).
41.Id. at 368-369.
42.People v. Sanchez, 590 Phil. 214, 244 (2008).
43.People v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 233544, March 25, 2019, 898 SCRA 321, citing People v. Bintaib, 829 Phil. 13, 25-26 (2018).
44.Id. at 26.