FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 253592. March 2, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.MARVIN BACALA y DIWA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 2, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 253592 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, versus MARVIN BACALA y DIWA, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case and the issues submitted by the parties, the Court REVERSES the Decision 1 dated September 2, 2019 of the Court of Appeals Sixteenth Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10896, which affirmed the Judgment 2 dated February 23, 2018 of the Regional Trial Court of Bataan, Branch 3, in Criminal Case No. 15609 convicting accused-appellant Marvin Bacala y Diwa (Bacala) for violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as amended.
In the prosecution of crimes involving illegal drugs, aside from proof beyond reasonable doubt that the offenses were committed, there must be proof of the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti — the dangerous drug itself. 3 There must be an accounting of the following links in its chain of custody: first, the seizure and marking 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. 4
A complete chain of custody is satisfied when the prosecution is able to present evidence in each link showing "how and from whom [the confiscated drug] 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." 5 The prosecution's evidence should also establish the precautions taken by every person in the chain 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. 6
In this case, contrary to the findings of the courts a quo, the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of establishing the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti. The prosecution failed to prove compliance with the fourth link in the chain of custody, i.e., the proper turnover of the seized item from the forensic chemist to the court. CAIHTE
In People v. Baltazar, 7 the accused was acquitted of illegal sale of dangerous drugs because the records were bereft of any evidence as to how the illegal drugs were brought to court. There was no showing how the alleged seized item was stored after it was examined by the forensic chemist, who handled the specimen after examination, and where the same was kept until it was retrieved and presented in court.
In this case, the trial court dispensed with the testimony of the forensic chemist, Police Chief Inspector (PCI) Vernon Rey Santiago (PCI Santiago), in view of the stipulation entered into by the prosecution and the defense, thus:
1. The existence, due execution and authenticity of Chemistry Report No. D-131-16 Bataan;
2. The expertise and qualification of [PCI Santiago] as a forensic chemist of the Bataan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office;
3. [PCI Santiago] examined the drug specimen mentioned in Chemistry Report No. D-131-16 Bataan;
4. If called to the witness stand, he would be able to identify the specimen which he examined;
5. The specimen mentioned and described in the request for laboratory examination [is] the same specimen mentioned in Chemistry Report No. D-131-16 Bataan;
6. The specimen [was] delivered by [Police Officer 2 Abelardo DC Tacto] at the Bataan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office and received by PO2 Carbonel/PCI Santiago as shown in the stamp received on the request [for] laboratory examination dated February 26, 2016[;]
7. The same drug specimen [was] delivered to the Court by [PCI] Aylene Perez [(PCI Perez)] of the Bataan Provincial Crime Laboratory Office;
8. [PCI Santiago] has no personal knowledge as to the source of the drug specimen subject of this case; [and]
9. [PCI Santiago] has no personal knowledge as to the circumstances surrounding the alleged buy[-]bust operation. 8
From the foregoing, it would appear that while the parties stipulated as to PCI Santiago's receipt of the drug specimen and as to the results of his examination thereof, there were no such stipulations as to the manner the drug specimen was managed, stored, preserved, or handled at the crime laboratory after it was examined by PCI Santiago and before it was delivered to the trial court for identification. 9
Worse, PCI Perez, the officer who supposedly received the drug specimen from PCI Santiago and thereafter delivered the same to the trial court, did not testify in court, nor did the prosecution propose a stipulation of facts on the substance of her testimony. The records are likewise bereft of any information as to how PCI Perez came into possession of the drug specimen, much less any safeguards she employed in preserving the evidentiary value of the same.
In sum, the prosecution failed to provide the following details in order to establish that the identity and integrity of the seized illegal drug were preserved after examination: (a) how the illegal drug was handled to prevent tampering before being presented to court; (b) where the specimen was stored after its examination; and (c) the precautions taken to prevent other people from having access to the specimen.
In People v. Mola, 10 the Court explained the dilemma caused when the testimony of the forensic chemist lacks details as to the chain of custody:
Moreover, in dispensing with the testimony of the forensic chemist, it is evident that the prosecution failed to show another link in the chain of custody. Since her testimony was limited to the result of the examination she conducted and not on the source of the substance, PS/Insp. Malojo-Todeño failed to certify that the chemical substance presented for laboratory examination and tested positive for shabu was the very same substance recovered from Mola. The turnover and submission of the marked illegal drugs seized from the forensic chemist to the court was also not established. Neither was there any evidence to indicate how the sachet of shabu was handled during and after the laboratory examination and on the identity of the person/s who had custody of the item before it was presented to the court as evidence. Without the testimonies or stipulations stating the details on when and how the seized sachet of shabu was brought from the crime laboratory to the court, as well as the specifics on who actually delivered and received the same from the crime laboratory to the court, it cannot be ascertained whether the seized item presented in evidence was the same one confiscated from Mola upon his arrest. This gap in the chain of custody creates doubt as to whether the corpus delicti of the crime had been properly preserved. 11 (Underscoring supplied)
To be sure, the dearth of evidence on the management, storage, and preservation of the drug after qualitative examination is a fatal defect in the chain of custody. Absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drugs allegedly seized after their qualitative examination, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established. 12
Failure to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody — indeed, failure to establish any link in the chain — is sufficient ground to acquit the accused. In People v. Plaza, 13 the Court emphasized:
However, even if the first three (3) links may have been substantially complied with, the fourth link is where the Court takes issue.
xxx xxx xxx
It has been held that there is a gap or break in the fourth link of the chain of custody where there is absence of evidence to show how the seized shabu was handled, stored, and safeguarded pending its presentation in court. 14
Similarly, in this case, the utter lack of details on the condition and handling of the seized drug from the period after examination until the same was brought to the trial court results in a gap in the chain of custody of the seized drug, casting serious doubt on the identity of the corpus delicti. DETACa
We emphasize that establishing every link in the chain of custody is crucial to the preservation of the integrity, identity, and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drug. Failure to demonstrate compliance with even just one of these links creates reasonable doubt that the substance confiscated from the accused is the same substance offered in evidence. 15
Accordingly, the failure of the prosecution to account for the fourth link in the chain of custody militates against the conviction of Bacala beyond reasonable doubt, as the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti were not preserved. Bacala must perforce be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated September 2, 2019 of the Court of Appeals Sixteenth Division in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10896 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Marvin Bacala y Diwa is ACQUITTED of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ORDEREDIMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The said Director General is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action taken.
The accused-appellant's manifestation (in lieu of supplemental brief), pursuant to the Resolution dated December 7, 2020, stating that he no longer intends to file a supplemental brief since the same would constitute a repetition of the arguments already raised in the appellant's brief filed before the Court of Appeals, is NOTED.
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. CA rollo, pp. 101-110. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred in by Associate Justices Pablito A. Perez and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon.
2.Id. at 58-70. Rendered by Presiding Judge Marion Jacqueline P. Poblete.
3.See People v. Barte, G.R. No. 179749, March 1, 2017, 819 SCRA 10, 20.
4.Jocson v. People, G.R. No. 199644, June 19, 2019, 904 SCRA 537, 548.
5.Malillin v. People, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008, 553 SCRA 619, 632.
6.Id. at 632-633.
7. G.R. No. 229037, July 29, 2019, 911 SCRA 199.
8. CA rollo, p. 59.
9.See People v. Omamos, G.R. No. 223036, July 10, 2019, 908 SCRA 367.
10. G.R. No. 226481, April 18, 2018, 862 SCRA 112.
11.Id. at 126-127. Citations omitted.
12.People of the Philippines v. Michael Andanar y Siendo alias "Kokak" and Mary Jane Garbo y Mariposque, G.R. No. 246284, June 16, 2021, p. 11; People v. De Vera, G.R. No. 229364, October 16, 2019, 925 SCRA 51, 75; and People v. Ubungen, G.R. No. 225497, July 23, 2018, 873 SCRA 172, 187.
13. G.R. No. 235467, August 20, 2018, 878 SCRA 231.
14.Id. at 250, 254-255.
15.People of the Philippines v. Gregorio Villalon, Jr. y Pabuaya alias "Jun-Jun," G.R. No. 249412, March 15, 2021, p. 7; and People v. Ubungen, supra note 12, at 187.