FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252900. September 21, 2022.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JALSAM BAMBANG y CAMUEL A.K.A. "URAK", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 21, 2022, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252900 (People of the Philippines v. Jalsam Bambang y Camuel a.k.a. "Urak"). — Accused-appellant Jalsam Bambang y Camuel appeals the December 13, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 12325, which affirmed the May 28, 2018 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Olongapo City, Branch 75, finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, 3 otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as amended.
Factual Antecedents
The accusatory portions of the Informations 4 filed against accused-appellant alleged as follows:
Criminal Case No. 2017-259 (For violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165):
That on or about the 21st day of January 2017, at about 8:15 in the morning, at Barangay Calapacuan, in the Municipality of Subic, Province of Zambales, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell, trade and deliver to a poseur-buyer, without any lawful authority, one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet (with markings "OJS-B") containing 0.137 gram of Methamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as "Shabu," a dangerous drugs, for Five Hundred Pesos, Philippine currency (Php500.00), bearing Serial No. UR398785 (with markings "OJS") marked money.
Contrary to law. 5
Criminal Case No. 2017-260 (For violation of Sec. 11, Art. II of RA 9165):
That on or about the 21st day of January 2017, at about 8:15 in the morning, at Barangay Calapacuan, in the Municipality of Subic, 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 effective possession, custody and control, five (5) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, each containing Methamphetamine hydrochloride (otherwise known as "Shabu"), a dangerous drug, with the following markings and recorded weight, respectively:
|
"OJS-P1 |
= |
0.084 gram |
|
OJS-P2 |
= |
0.067 gram |
|
OJS-P3 |
= |
0.088 gram |
|
OJS-P4 |
= |
0.060 gram |
|
OJS-P5 |
= |
0.125 gram |
|
|
|
––––––––––– |
|
TOTAL |
= |
0.424 gram" |
and the total recorded weight of 0.424 gram, without any lawful authority, permit or prescription to possess the same from the appropriate agency.
CONTRARY TO LAW.6
Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the crimes charged. 7 Thereafter, trial on the merits ensued. CAIHTE
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution presented Police Officer 1 Orlando Sornet (PO1 Sornet) who testified that on January 21, 2017, at around 6:30 a.m., he was on duty at the police station, together with Police Officer 3 Jeony Esteban. Thereafter, their Chief of Police called them and introduced to them a confidential agent who reported that alias Urak, later identified as accused-appellant, was selling drugs at Bamboo Inn in Calapacuan, Subic, Zambales. 8
The Chief of Police organized a buy-bust operation with PO1 Sornet as the poseur-buyer. 9
At around 7:20 a.m., the team departed to the target area together with the informant. They parked their service vehicle near Bamboo Inn. Upon reaching the corner of the road, right outside Bamboo Inn, a person in a black sweat shirt whom the informant identified as accused-appellant approached them. Accused-appellant asked the informant, "O pre, ilan iiskorin mo?" to which the informant replied, "Si boss ko ang kukuha, sinamahan ko lang." Accused-appellant in turn asked PO1 Sornet how much he will buy, to which the latter replied worth P500.00. Accused-appellant then took out one plastic sachet containing a white substance suspected to be shabu from a brown leather wallet and handed it to PO1 Sornet, who, in turn, handed to accused-appellant the marked money. 10
Thereafter, PO1 Sornet grabbed the hand of accused-appellant and introduced himself as a police officer. The back-up team then rushed to the scene to help in the arrest. 11 PO1 Sornet confiscated accused-appellant's wallet and recovered the buy-bust money. 12 Upon checking accused-appellant's wallet, PO1 Sornet found five more plastic sachets of suspected shabu, and a P100.00 bill. 13
The buy-bust team then returned to the police station. While in transit, PO1 Sornet kept the brown leather wallet containing the five plastic sachets in his back pocket, and the sachet subject of the sale in his front right pocket. 14 According to PO1 Sornet, he only took out the items from his pocket and presented them to PO3 Victor Santos, the investigating police officer, the representatives from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the media, and the barangay kagawad during the inventory. 15
During the inventory, PO1 Sornet marked the sachet subject of the sale with "OJS-B," and the other five sachets found in the wallet with "OJS-P1 to P5." Further, PO1 Sornet marked the wallet and the P100.00 bill. In addition, photographs were taken. After the inventory was conducted, PO1 Sornet again took possession of the buy bust specimen and delivered them to the crime laboratory. PO1 Sornet turned the specimen over to Forensic Chemist Ma. Cecilia Tang, as shown in the Chain of Custody and Request for Laboratory Examination Forms. 16 The laboratory examination of the specimens yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 17
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellant and his sister Jamila Bambang (Jamila) as its witnesses.
According to accused-appellant, at around 6:00 a.m. of January 21, 2017, he was asleep at his house at No. 1585 Purok 6-A, Calapacuan, Subic, Zambales, with his siblings and niece when his sister woke him up because she heard a noise coming from the outside of their house. Accused-appellant and his sister were caught by surprise when they found the door of their house already destroyed. Thereafter, several individuals entered their house and forcibly instructed accused-appellant to lie down. The individuals then began searching his house. Thereafter, they handcuffed accused-appellant and brought him to the Subic Police Station. 18
Upon arriving at the police station, the police frisked accused-appellant but found nothing in his possession. The police asked regarding his identification, i.e., name and nature of work. According to the accused-appellant, the police officers did not know him at that time as they did not refer to him as Jalsam or Urak. 19
The accused-appellant's testimony was corroborated by his sister Jamila who narrated that in the morning of January 21, 2017, she was awoken by a noise coming from the outside of their house. She then woke her brother up, went out of their room, and saw their front door already destroyed. Several individuals entered and instructed accused-appellant to drop on the floor. The intruders searched their house then boarded accused-appellant in a vehicle. When Jamila went to the police station to report the incident, she was surprised to see accused-appellant thereat. The police told Jamila that her brother was arrested for selling shabu. 20
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
The trial court was convinced that accused-appellant committed the crimes. 21 It also found that the law enforcers complied with the chain of custody rule and that there were no gaps therein. 22
The dispositive portion of the trial court's Decision reads: DETACa
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 2017-259, the Court finds Jalsam Bambang y Camuel GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 5, R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of PhP500,000.00 plus cost, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency; and
2. In Criminal Case No. 2017-260, the Court finds Jalsam Bambang y Camuel GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of Violation of Section 11, R.A. 9165 and sentences him to suffer the penalty of imprisonment from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months and to pay a fine of PhP300,000.00 plus cost, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
The accused shall also suffer the accessory penalties under Section 35, R.A. 9165 and shall be credited in the service of his sentence with the full time during which he has undergone preventive imprisonment subject to the conditions imposed under Art. 29 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
The shabu sachets marked and offered in evidence are ordered confiscated in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
SO DECIDED. 23
Aggrieved, accused-appellant appealed to the CA arguing that the trial court gravely erred in not finding the accused-appellant's warrantless arrest and the subsequent search as illegal, and that the prosecution failed to establish and comply with the chain of custody rule and the procedural safeguards prescribed by RA 9165. 24
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
The appellate court found the appeal devoid of merit. It concurred in the findings of the trial court that accused-appellant was caught in flagrante delicto in a valid buy-bust operation conducted by the police officers. There were no gaps in the chain of custody thereby preserving the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
The fallo of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision dated May 28, 2018 of the RTC, Branch 75, Olongapo City in Criminal Case Nos. 2017-259 to 2017-260 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 25
Unrelenting, accused-appellant files this appeal. Accused-appellant argues that the prosecution did not prove with moral certainty the corpus delicti of the crimes charged. Moreover, the arresting officers failed to strictly comply with the chain of custody requirement under Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165.
Issue
For this Court's resolution is the issue of whether the CA correctly upheld the conviction of accused-appellant for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of RA 9165.
Our Ruling
The appeal has merit.
Sec. 21, Art. II of RA 9165, as amended by RA 10640 26 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 dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately alter 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. (Emphasis supplied.)
The testimony of PO1 Sornet clearly shows that the law enforcers utterly failed to comply with the chain of custody rule. They did not follow the above procedure necessary to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized illegal drugs. PO1 Sornet narrated as follows: 27
Q: And then what happened to that item [brown leather wallet], the wallet that he drew out?
A: He took from it one plastic sachet containing suspected shabu.
Q: And then, what happened to the sachet which he took from the wallet?
A: He handed it to me, [Ma'am].
Q: And what did you do with the item that he handed to you?
A: Immediately, I took it and I placed it in my right pocket.
Q: Then, what happened next, Sir, after you secured already the item?
A: Then I took out the buy-bust money, consisting of one piece of [PhP]500.00 bill.
Q: What happened to it when you took it out?
A: I handed it [to] him, [Ma'am].
Q: And what did he do to the money you gave him?
A: He took it, [Ma'am].
Q: And then, what happened next, Sir?
A: Then I held him in his arm.
Q: And what happened next, Sir?
A: I introduced myself as a police [officer].
Q: What happened next after that, Sir?
A: While I was holding him, my back-up rushed to out location.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And then, with that now, what happened next?
A: We also informed him of his constitutional rights.
Q: What happened next, Officer Sornet?
A: Then I recovered the buy bust money from him, [Ma'am].
Q: Where was it at that point?
A: From his hand, [Ma'am].
Q: And then, what else did you do?
A: I also confiscated the brown wallet, [Ma'am].
Q: Where was it when you confiscated it?
A: From his pocket, [Ma'am].
xxx xxx xxx
Q: When you were returning to the Station, who had in possession of the buy-bust specimen?
A: Me, [Ma'am].
Q: Where were the other five sachets originally found inside the brown leather wallet?
A: In my back pocket, [Ma'am]. And the buy-bust specimen was in my front right pocket.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: And then, what happened to those specimens that were in your possession and custody once you were already at the Police Station?
A: Still in my possession, [Ma'am].
Q: And then, what did you do with them, subsequently?
A: I presented those items during the inventory, [Ma'am].
xxx xxx xxx
Q: So, after you presented each of those items, particularly, the drugs specimens that were also photographed, what happened to them, Sir, after the presentation and taking of the photographs and inventory?
A: Still, the items were in my possession, [Ma'am].
Q: And then, what did you do to them, Sir, especially the drugs specimen, thereafter?
A: We brought it to the Crime Lab, [Ma'am].
Q: Who had possession or custody of them?
A: Still with me, [Ma'am].
Q: Still with you. And then, what did you do to the items when they were already at the Crime Lab?
A: I turned it over to Inspector Tang, [Ma'am].
Q: Directly to her?
A: Yes, Ma'am.
Q: And what is your proof, Sir, that you turned over the same to Inspector Tang?
A: We have Chain of Custody, [Ma'am].
The testimony of PO1 Sornet revealed multiple fatal flaws in the handling by the law enforcers of the seized illegal drugs. First, they did not mark the seized items immediately upon apprehension. The prosecution did not even attempt to justify its failure to immediately mark the seized items. Instead, the prosecution would like to impress upon Us that the law enforcers did not compromise the integrity and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti by showing that PO1 Sornet had exclusive control over the seized drugs by keeping them inside his pockets. In particular, PO1 Sornet placed the sachets subject of the illegal sale inside his front right pocket while the five sachets and the wallet recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant incidental to his arrest were placed inside his back pockets. Surely, this kind of safekeeping is not acceptable. aDSIHc
The Court has categorically held in People v. Dela Cruz28 that keeping the seized item in one's pockets is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of seized items, to wit:
The circumstance of PO1 Bobon keeping narcotics in his own pockets precisely underscores the importance of strictly complying with Section 21. His subsequent identification in open court of the items coming out of his own pockets is self-serving.
The prosecution effectively admits that from the moment of the supposed buy-bust operation until the seized items' turnover for examination, these items had been in the sole possession of a police officer. In fact, not only had they been in his possession, they had been in such close proximity to him that they had been nowhere else but in his own pockets.
Keeping one of the seized items in his right pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of the items. Contrary to the Court of Appeals' finding that PO1 Bobon took the necessary precautions, we find his actions reckless, if not dubious.
Even without referring to the strict requirements of Section 21, common sense dictates that a single police officer's act of bodily-keeping the item(s) which is at the crux of offenses penalized under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, is fraught with dangers. One need not engage in a meticulous counter-checking with the requirements of Section 21 to view with distrust the items coming out of PO1 Bobon's pockets. That the Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals both failed to see through this and fell — hook, line, and sinker — for PO1 Bobon's avowals is mind-boggling. 29 (Emphasis supplied)
In another case, People v. Sultan, 30 We held that "an officer's act of personally and bodily keeping allegedly seized items, without any clear indication of safeguards other than his or her mere possession, [is] prejudicial to the integrity of such items." 31 In this case, not only did the prosecution proffer any justification as to why the police officers failed to immediately mark the items upon seizure, it also failed to show the precautions and safeguards they undertook to preserve the identity, integrity, and evidentiary value of the corpus delicti.
Given the foregoing, We hold that the prosecution failed to prove an unbroken chain of custody thus casting reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused-appellant. The failure to immediately mark the seized illegal drugs and the failure to justify such digression gave rise to the possibility of tampering, alteration, or substitution of the seized sachets. Starting from the top of the chain of custody, the corpus delicti has already been compromised. Perforce, accused-appellant's acquittal is warranted.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed December 13, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 12325 is REVERSED AND SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Jalsam Bambang y Camuel a.k.a. "Urak" is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered to be RELEASED from detention immediately, unless he is confined for other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. The Director General is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five days from receipt of this Resolution.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." Gesmundo, C.J., on official business.
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. 3-21. Penned by Acting Presiding Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando (now Presiding Justice) and concurred in by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and Louis P. Acosta.
2. CA rollo, pp. 53-60. Penned by Judge Raymond C. Viray.
3. Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING THE COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002, REPEALING REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6425, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED, PROVIDING FUNDS THEREFOR, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Approved: June 7, 2002.
4. Records (Crim. Case No. 2017-259), pp. 41-43; Records (Crim. Case No. 2017-260), pp. 1-3.
5. Records (Crim. Case No. 2017-259), p. 41.
6. Records (Crim. Case No. 2017-260), p. 1.
7. Records (Crim. Case No. 2017-259), p. 77.
8. Rollo, p. 6.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. TSN, August 2, 2017, pp. 12-13.
13. Rollo, pp. 6-7.
14. TSN, August 2, 2017, p. 13.
15. Id. at 14.
16. Rollo, p. 7.
17. Id.
18. TSN, January 17, 2018, pp. 6-7.
19. Id.
20. TSN, February 28, 2018, pp. 1-9.
21. Records, pp. 149-156.
22. CA rollo, pp. 57-60.
23. Id. at 60.
24. Rollo, p. 11.
25. Id. at 20.
26. 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 July 15, 2004.
27. TSN, August 2, 2017, pp. 10-17.
28. 744 Phil. 834 (2014).
29. Id. at 835.
30. G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019.
31. Id.