FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251583. March 23, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ALFREDO APAL BALDO @ APEG, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 23, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251583(People of the Philippines v. Alfredo Apal Baldo @ Apeg). — Before the Court is an appeal 1 from the Decision 2 dated October 2, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01956-MIN which affirmed the Joint Judgment 3 dated April 18, 2018 of Branch 43, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Gingoog City. The RTC found Alfredo Apal Baldo @ Apeg (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended.
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under the following Informations:
Criminal Case No. 2017-6858
That on May 20, 2017 at more or less 6:40 o'clock in the evening at Mercado Avenue, Barangay 23, Gingoog City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, conspiring and confederating together, without lawful authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell, deliver and give away to a police poseur-buyer PO1 RIYNAND JAY L. LARENA in a buy-bust operation one (1) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings LIP-1-AAB having a total net weight of 0.0138 grams [sic] of white crystalline substance known as SHABU in exchange of one (1) piece P500.00 with serial number XF458385.
Contrary to law and in violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 [or the] Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 4
Criminal Case No. 2017-6859
That on May 20, 2017 at more or less 6:40 o'clock in the evening at Mercado Avenue, Barangay 23, Gingoog City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without lawful authority, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, possess and under his control:
a. Four (4) small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings LIP-3-AAB through LIP-6-AAB containing 0.0425 gram of white crystalline substance known as shabu; a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law and in Violation of Section 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165 [or the] Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002. 5
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. 6
Trial ensued. CAIHTE
Version of the Prosecution
On May 20, 2017, at the Gingoog City Police Station Intelligence Section, Police Chief Inspector Esperidion Biado of the Provincial Drug Enforcement Unit, Misamis Oriental, presided over a meeting regarding the buy-bust operation against accused-appellant. He designated Police Officer 1 Rinand Jay Larena (PO1 Larena) as the poseur-buyer. The team agreed that a confidential informant would arrange the sale with accused-appellant; that a marked P500.00 bill would be used as the buy-bust money; and that the transaction would be conducted at the vicinity of Economax Gas Station along Mercado Avenue, Brgy. 23, Gingoog City. PO1 Larena proceeded as planned to the designated place while the rest of the team parked their vehicle about 15 meters away from Economax Gas Station. 7
At the gasoline station, PO1 Larena received a text message from the confidential informant that he was waiting with accused-appellant at an acacia tree, some 25 meters away therefrom. 8 Upon reaching the place, PO1 Larena asked the confidential informant regarding the item; but the latter told him to ask accused-appellant instead. PO1 Larena then gave accused-appellant the P500.00 marked money in exchange for one sachet of shabu. Right after the exchange, PO1 Larena removed his ball cap, executed the prearranged signal that the sale was completed, and introduced himself as a police officer to accused-appellant. 9
When the other members of the buy-bust team saw PO1 Larena execute the prearranged signal, they rushed to the transaction scene and immediately assisted in the arrest of accused-appellant. PO1 Larena turned over the sachet containing drugs that he bought from accused-appellant to Senior Police Officer Leo Pontillas (SPO1 Pontillas). The latter then marked the sachet with "LIP-1-AAB." 10
The police officers contacted Barangay Kagawad Jovita Borromeo, Barangay Kagawad Teresa Madera, and media representative Rita Endrina of Monitor Today as witnesses and informed them of the buy-bust operation that was conducted against accused-appellant. At the place of arrest, the witnesses frisked SPO1 Pontillas to ensure that there would be no planting of evidence. 11
SPO1 Pontillas recovered from accused-appellant's left front pocket one plastic canister and the P500.00 buy-bust money. The plastic canister contained four sachets of suspected shabu. SPO1 Pontillas then prepared the certificate of inventory. After the marking and inventory at the place of arrest, the arresting officers brought accused-appellant and the seized items, placed inside the evidence box, to the police station. SPO1 Pontillas stored the evidence box in his locker upon arrival at the office. Immediately, he also prepared the request for laboratory examination of the seized items. Thereafter, he brought the seized items for examination to the crime laboratory. 12 After the laboratory examination, the seized items were found positive for shabu.
Version of the Defense
Accused-appellant denied the charges against him. He averred that on May 20, 2017, at around 6:40 p.m., he was at home. He received a call from a friend who invited him to a birthday celebration of another friend. They agreed to meet at Economax Gas Station. While walking towards the gasoline station, a vehicle blocked his way. Two men in civilian clothes alighted and approached him. One of the men held his hand and warned him not to run. The man then kicked him on the knee that caused him to fall down to the ground. The men then searched him but they recovered nothing from him. However, accused-appellant saw one of the men hand something to his companion. They then asked him if it belonged to him; he answered in the negative. Later, more men arrived. They set up a table and poured the contents of the plastic container on top of it along with some money. Accused-appellant denied that the items on the table were recovered from him or that he sold shabu to PO1 Larena. 13
The Ruling of the RTC
On April 18, 2018, the RTC rendered a Joint Judgment 14 the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds ALFREDO APAL BALDO ALIAS APEG guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 2017-6858 for violation of Section 5, Article II, RA No. 9165 and sentences him to life imprisonment and a fine of Five hundred thousand pesos (Php500,000.00).
The court likewise finds ALFREDO APAL BALDO ALIAS APEG also guilty beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Case No. 2017-6859 for violation of Section 11, Article II, RA No. 9165 and sentences him to an indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and one (1) day to sixteen (16) years [imprisonment] and a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00).
The shabu consisting of five (5) sachets is confiscated in favor of the government to be disposed of in accordance with laws and regulations on the matter.
ALFREDO APAL BALDO ALIAS APEG shall serve his two (2) sentences at Davao Penal Colony, Dujali, Davao del Norte. His preventive detention at the BJMP-Gingoog City is fully credited in the service of his sentence.
SO ORDERED. 15
The RTC found that, in the absence of proof of motive on the part of the police officers to falsely impute such a serious crime against accused-appellant, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty of the police officers shall prevail over accused-appellant's self-serving and uncorroborated denial and assertion of planting of evidence. 16
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA.
The Ruling of the CA
In the Decision 17 dated October 2, 2019, the CA agreed with the findings of the RTC and affirmed accused-appellant's conviction of the offenses charged. 18
Hence, the present appeal. DETACa
The Issue
The issue before the Court is whether the CA erred in affirming accused-appellant's conviction for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
The Ruling of the Court
The Court grants the appeal.
The Informations for the offenses of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs alleged that accused-appellant committed the crimes charged on May 20, 2017. The governing law, therefore, is RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640. 19 Section 21 thereof provides for the procedure to ensure preservation of the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, thus:
SEC. 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the persons from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over said items.
xxx xxx xxx
Jurisprudence identified four critical links in the chain of custody of dangerous drugs, to wit: 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 from the forensic chemist to the court. 20 The purpose of the chain of custody requirement is to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, so much so that unnecessary doubts as to the identity of the evidence are removed. 21 To avoid any doubt, the prosecution must show the continuous whereabouts of the exhibit at least between the time it came into possession of the police officers and until it was tested in the laboratory to determine its composition up to the time it was offered in evidence. 22
In Mallillin v. People, 23 the Court explained the importance of the chain of custody, 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. 24
In the case, the Court notes that the necessary witnesses — an elected government official and a media representative — were present during the inventory, which was done immediately after seizure. Furthermore, photographs of accused-appellant with the seized items and the witnesses were taken in the process. However, records show that the police officers breached the chain of custody rule especially the fourth link. There was a break in the chain of custody from the time after testing until the seized items were brought to the RTC. aDSIHc
The testimony of PCI Joseph T. Esber (PCI Esber) was dispensed with after the parties agreed on her proposed testimony. Specifically, they stipulated that: (1) PCI Esber is a forensic chemist; (2) he received a letter-request marked as Exhibit "F" and the rubber stamp impression as Exhibit "F-1", together with the specimen with marking LIP-1-AAB and LIP-3-AAB to LIP 6-AAB as Exhibit "H" and Exhibit "I" to Exhibit "I-3", respectively; (3) he conducted a laboratory examination which was completed on May 21, 2017 at 8:15 o'clock in the morning; (4) during the conduct of the laboratory examination, he was in custody of the sachet of shabu; (5) thereafter, he sealed it with a cellophane containing sachets of shabu; (6) he reduced his findings in writings in Chemistry Report No. D-75-2017 and turned over the specimen to the evidence custodian; and (7) he has no knowledge from whom or from where the specimen was actually recovered. 25
Notably, PCI Esber did not discuss how he handled the dangerous drug from the time he received it, the description of the specimen, and the container where the item was placed; nor did he identify the name and method used in analyzing the chemical composition of the drug sample. 26 In People v. Villalon, Jr., 27 the Court emphasized on the paramount necessity of the forensic chemist's testimony on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination. It stated:
In this case, while the prosecution successfully established the first to the third links, it however failed to show compliance with the fourth link of the chain of custody. Records show that during the trial, the prosecution and the defense stipulated on the intended testimony of prosecution witness P/SInsp. Pascual, thus: (a) that he is an expert witness; (b) that pursuant to the Request for Laboratory Examination from the Escalante City Police Station, P/SInsp. Pascual conducted the qualitative examination on the specimens submitted to them; (c) that after conducting the required examination, he reduced his findings in Chemistry Report No. D-549-2015; and (d) that he can identify the specimens which he subjected to examination. However, in dispensing with his testimony, the prosecution failed to prove the manner by which the specimens were handled before P/SInsp. Pascual received them, how he examined the items, and how these were stored or kept in custody until they were brought and presented in court as evidence.
In drug related cases, "it is of paramount necessity that the forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination, i.e., when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in. Further, the forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen."
Should the parties opt to stipulate and dispense with the attendance of the forensic chemist, the Court clarified in People v. Ubungen that "it should be stipulated that the forensic chemist would have testified that he took the precautionary steps required in order to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, thus: (1) the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered pending trial." Here, the parties' stipulation did not mention that any one of these precautionary steps were in fact done by the forensic chemist, from the time he received the seized items for laboratory examination and before they were delivered to the trial court for identification, leaving a gap in the chain of custody of said seized items.
Clearly, absent any of the afore-mentioned conditions, the fourth link in the chain of custody of the said illegal drug could not be reasonably established. The lapses committed by the prosecution and the law enforcers herein could not be considered minor. Indeed, 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, as in this case. Accordingly, since the prosecution failed to account for the fourth link in the chain of custody of the items purportedly seized from accused-appellant, its integrity and evidentiary value were already compromised, thereby warranting accused-appellant's acquittal. 28 (Emphasis on the original, citations omitted).
Indeed, it is imperative in drug related cases that the forensic chemist testifies on the details pertaining to the handling and analysis of the dangerous drug submitted for examination. Specifically, the forensic chemist should narrate when and from whom the dangerous drug was received; what identifying labels or other things accompanied it; description of the specimen; and the container it was in. The forensic chemist must also identify the name and method of analysis used in determining the chemical composition of the subject specimen. 29
Here, while the parties stipulated as to the manner the seized drug was received by PCI Esber and as to the results of the examination thereof, stipulations as to the manner the seized drug was managed, stored, preserved or handled at the crime laboratory after it was examined by the forensic chemist and prior to its delivery to the trial court for identification, were clearly lacking. The stipulated testimony of PCI Esber, regrettably, did not touch upon the processes which were followed after he finished his examination. Worse, the evidence custodian, to whom the seized drugs was turned over, was neither presented as a witness nor was his/her testimony stipulated upon by the parties. Absent the required stipulations, the fourth link of the chain of custody could not be reasonably established.
In view of the breach in the fourth link of the chain of custody rule, the Court finds that the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti are deemed compromised. Consequently, accused-appellant should be acquitted.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated October 2, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 01956-MIN is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Alfredo Apal Baldo @ Apeg is ACQUITTED of violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended, for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent of the Davao Prison and Penal Farm, Dujali, Davao del Norte for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Superintendent is DIRECTED to report this Court the action he/she has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued. ETHIDa
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. 18-19.
2.Id. at 4-17; penned by Associate Justice Lily V. Biton with Associate Justices Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr. and Evalyn Arellano-Morales, concurring.
3. CA rollo, pp. 36-50; penned by Presiding Judge Mirabeaus A. Undalok.
4.Id. at 36-37.
5.Id. at 37.
6.Id.
7.Id. at 39.
8.Id.
9.Id.
10.Id. at 39-40.
11.Id. at 40.
12.Rollo, p. 7.
13.Id. at 8.
14. CA rollo, pp. 36-52; penned by Presiding Judge Mirabeaus A. Undalok.
15.Id. at 49-50.
16.Id. at 49.
17.Rollo, pp. 4-17; penned by Associate Justice Lily V. Biton with Associate Justices Florencio M. Mamauag, Jr. and Evalyn Arellano-Morales, concurring.
18.Id. at 16.
19. Entitled "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," approved on July 15, 2014.
20.People v. Belmonte, 875 Phil. 719, 737 (2018).
21.People v. Alboka, 826 Phil. 487, 502 (2018), citing People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 29 (2017). See also People v. Andrada, 833 Phil. 999, 1010 (2018).
22.People v. Belmonte, supra note 22, at 744.
23. 576 Phil. 576 (2008).
24.Id. at 587.
25. Records, pp. 55-56.
26.People v. Catipan, G.R. No. 252691 (Notice), June 14, 2021.
27. G.R. No. 249412, March 15, 2021.
28.Id.
29.People v. Garque, G.R. No. 247004 (Notice), September 8, 2020.