THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 240693. September 23, 2020.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. REYNALDO BANSIL y REINAREZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated September 23, 2020, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 240693 (People of the Philippines v. Reynaldo Bansil y Reinarez). — This is an appeal from the March 8, 2018 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08834, which affirmed in toto the June 2, 2016 Joint Decision 2 and October 10, 2016 Joint Order 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Guagua, Pampanga, Branch 49 (RTC) which found Reynaldo Bansil y Reinarez (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, defined and penalized under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Antecedents
Accused-appellant was charged with illegal sale of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu) in Criminal Case No. G-07-7454 and illegal possession of the same substance in Criminal Case No. G-07-7455, under the following indictments, viz.:
Criminal Case No. G-07-7454:
That on or about the 4th day of January, 2007 at Brgy. San Isidro, [M]unicipality of Lubao, province of Pampanga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, REYNALDO R. BANSIL, not having been lawfully authorized and/or permitted, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell and deliver to a poseur buyer for and in consideration of the sum of P500.00 one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet cont[a]ining Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride (shabu) weighing ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (0.1150 g), a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 4
Criminal Case No. G-07-7455:
That on or about the 4th day of January, 2007 at Brgy. San Isidro, [M]unicipality of Lubao, province of Pampanga, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, REYNALDO R. BANSIL, without having been lawfully permitted and/or authorized, did then and there wil[l]fully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession, custody and control six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride weighing FOUR THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED THIRTY-ONE TEN THOUSANDTHS OF A GRAM (0.4631 g) a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 5
Accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the offenses charged. 6 A joint trial thereafter ensued.
To prove its case, the prosecution presented the testimonies of PO2 Dennis B. Duran (PO2 Duran), 7 the police officer who accompanied the Confidential Informant Benigno Aguilar (CI Aguilar); Police Inspector Bernalen Rago Agpalasin (P/Insp. Agpalasin), the forensic chemical officer; PO1 Felix R. Nabong (PO1 Nabong); and SPO1 Joey C. Sagun (SPO1 Sagun), the backup and arresting officers; and Barangay Captain Emmanuel S. Santos (Barangay Captain Santos). While the defense presented the testimony of accused-appellant. 8
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) summarized the version of the prosecution as follows:
On December 29, 2006, [at] Lubao Municipal Police Station, Lubao, Pampanga's Chief of Police P/Supt. Edwin Mangaliman (P/Supt. Mangaliman) received information that a certain Reynaldo Bansil, also known as "Patos"/"Bong"/"Batang," later identified as [accused-]appellant, was engaged in illegal selling of dangerous drugs, particularly shabu. After verifying that [accused-]appellant was among those listed in the "top fifteen drug personalities" in the municipality, P/Supt. Mangaliman ordered [PO2 Duran], [PO1 Nabong], and [SPO1 Sagun] of the Intelligence/Municipal Anti-Illegal Drug Special Operation Task Group (MAIDSOFTG) to conduct a series of surveillance in [accused-]appellant's residence at Purok 5, San Isidro, Lubao, Pampanga.
Thus, on the same day, the three police officers proceeded to the reported area where they observed different people coming in and out of [accused-]appellant's house. Thereafter, the police officers went to [Barangay Captain Santos] to gather more information about [accused-]appellant as he was suspected to be engaged in illegal drug activities, the police officers went back to the police station and reported the result of their surveillance to P/Supt. Mangaliman who ordered them to conduct continuous surveillance. In connection thereto, they employed a civilian asset to further verify the report.
On January 4, 2007, around 4:00 in the morning, P/Supt. Mangaliman received an information from [Barangay Captain Santos] that [accused-]appellant will be arriving from Bataan carrying shabu. Acting on the said report, P/Supt. Mangaliman immediately formed a team composed of eight (8) police officers, including PO2 Duran, SPO1 Sagun, and PO2 (sic) Nabong, and one (1) civilian asset to conduct a buy-bust operation against [accused-]appellant.
The team then proceeded to Brgy. San Isidro and arrived thereat at around 5:30 in the morning. The team met first with [Barangay Captain Santos] to inform him of the operation. Thereafter, SPO1 Sagun, PO1 Nabong, PO2 Duran and the civilian asset proceeded to the target area on board an unmarked service vehicle while the rest of the team members positioned themselves relatively far from the target area to avoid suspicion on the part of [accused-]appellant.
At around 11:00 in the morning, PO2 Duran and the civilian asset alighted from the service vehicle and walked towards a small street to meet [accused-]appellant, as agreed upon by the latter and the civilian asset through a telephone conversation. [Accused-]appellant was on board a motorcycle when he was met by PO2 Duran and the civilian asset.
Thereafter, the civilian asset, using the previously marked money, bought from [accused-]appellant one (1) small plastic sachet of shabu. After they exchanged (sic) of shabu and money between [accused-]appellant and the civilian asset, PO2 Duran executed the pre-arranged signal of removing his cap to signify to SPO1 Sagun and PO1 Nabong that the transaction was already consummated.
As SPO1 Sagun and PO1 Nabong were approaching on board the unmarked service vehicle, [accused-]appellant sped off away which prompted them to give chase. After almost a kilometer, PO2 (sic) Nabong was able to get hold of [accused-]appellant. PO2 (sic) Nabong then turned over [accused-]appellant to PO2 Duran who immediately followed them together with the civilian asset. Thereafter, the civilian asset also turned over the one (1) sachet of shabu subject of the sale to PO2 Duran.
PO2 Duran then informed [accused-]appellant of his constitutional rights and placed him under arrest. Subsequently, PO2 Duran frisked [accused-]appellant and recovered from the latter the marked money used as payment during the buy-bust, a small black film container and six (6) sachets of suspected shabu.
PO2 Duran then marked the front portion of the suspected sachet of shabu subject of the sale with "P-DBD" which stands for his complete name, and the back thereof with "R.R.B" which represents the initials of [accused-]appellant. The 6 sachets of suspected shabu recovered from the possession of [accused-]appellant were also marked by PO2 Duran with "P-DBD-1" to "P-DBD-6." The seized items were then photographed and inventoried.
Thereafter, the team proceeded to the Police Station for further investigation where P/Supt. Mangaliman prepared requests for [accused-]appellant's drug test, test for the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder on the person [of] [accused-]appellant, as well as laboratory examination of the seized items.
Armed with the letter-request, PO2 Duran brought [accused-]appellant and the seized items to the Regional Crime Laboratory at Camp Olivas where they were received by PO1 Israel 9 Laugo (PO1 Laugo), the receiving officer thereof. PO1 Laugo immediately turned over the same to Forensic Chemist Bernalen Agpalasin (Forensic Chemist Agpalasin) who conducted the requested laboratory examination.
The results of the laboratory examination confirmed that the contents of the plastic sachet subject of the sale and the 6 plastic sachets seized from the possession of [accused-]appellant during the buy-bust operation, as well as his urine sample, were positive for the presence of dangerous drugs. [Meanwhile], both palms of [accused-]appellant tested positive for the presence of ultraviolet fluorescent powder.
The 7 plastic sachets of shabu were presented during trial and identified by the prosecution witnesses to be the same items seized from [accused-]appellant during the operation. 10
On the other hand, the defense put forth the following version of events:
[Accused-appellant] vehemently denied the charges against him. At around 9:30 in the morning of January 4, 2007, he left his house in Barangay Lourdes, Lubao, Pampanga to buy chicken feeds, but he did not reach the store because the passengers of a van flagged him down. One of the men, who [accused-appellant] later identified as a police officer, pointed a gun at him. He was handcuffed, pushed towards the floor of the van, and brought to the police station without any explanation. PO2 Duran told him that he would be freed if he could point or identify somebody else, but he did not understand what they meant. The police officers brought him to the kitchen where they put an empty film container in his back pocket before returning him to the table. The police officers took [a] picture of him even though he did not agree to point at the film container laying on the table, which allegedly contained shabu. Thereafter, he was brought to the Office of the Prosecutor and later on detained at Lubao Municipal Police Station. He claimed that the evidence presented against him was planted while the filing of the case was due to the advice of [Barangay Captain Santos], a political opponent of his sister Loreta Bansil Magat. He did not file any administrative case against the police officers because no one in his family is knowledgeable in filing cases. He told his former lawyer "Atty. Daag" about the same, but he merely looked at him so he did not pursue any action against the police officers. 11
In its June 2, 2016 Joint Decision, the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crimes charged. The dispositive portion of the Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, accused is hereby found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II, R.A. No. 9165 and is sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand (Php500,000.00) pesos in Crim. Case No. G-07-7454 and to suffer the indeterminate penalty of twelve (12) years and (1) one day as minimum to fourteen (14) years as maximum and to pay a fine of three hundred thousand (Php300,000.00) pesos in Crim. Case No. G-07-7455.
Accused is credited in full of the preventive imprisonment he has already served in confinement.
Let the physical evidence subject matter of these cases be confiscated and forfeited in favor of the State and referred to PDEA for proper disposition.
SO ORDERED. 12
The RTC held that the prosecution proved the presence of all elements for the crimes of illegal possession of dangerous drugs under Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 9165 and of illegal sale under Sec. 5 of the same law. It noted that PO2 Duran, who was with the poseur-buyer CI Aguilar during the buy-bust operation against accused-appellant, testified as to his own personal knowledge of the sale that took place. He testified on how he and the other members of the buy-bust team conducted surveillance against accused-appellant at his house, the details on the actual buy-bust operation, the arrest of accused-appellant, and the recovery of the evidence from the person of accused-appellant. Further, PO2 Duran positively identified accused-appellant as the person from whom the poseur-buyer bought a small transparent sachet containing shabu. The RTC observed that the seized items from accused-appellant tested positive for the presence of shabu. Further, the test on accused-appellant's hands for the presence of ultraviolet powder yielded positive results. 13
The RTC also concluded that the chain of custody of the seized dangerous drugs was unbroken. After the civilian informant/poseur-buyer bought the sachet of shabu from accused-appellant, he immediately turned over the same to PO2 Duran. Likewise, after seizure of the six (6) small plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from accused-appellant's possession and marking thereof, accused-appellant was immediately brought to the police station with the seized items. The confiscated evidence was then brought to the Regional Crime Laboratory at Camp Olivas, City of San Fernando, Pampanga for examination. PO1 Laugo received the subject specimen and the marked money. He immediately turned over these items to P/Insp. Agpalasin who conducted the laboratory examination. PO2 Duran positively identified the specimens presented in court as those he marked at the scene of the incident. Thus, the RTC concluded that the prosecution established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized items from the time of their recovery to their examination until they were presented in court. 14
On the matter of the alleged noncompliance with Sec. 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165, the RTC set aside this objection on the ground that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were preserved. It found credible the testimonies of the police officers who conducted the buy-bust operation, especially because there was no showing that they were driven by any improper motive. 15
Accused-appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC in its October 10, 2016 Joint Order. 16 Thereafter, accused-appellant appealed the same before the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its March 8, 2018 Decision, the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Joint Decision and Joint Order. It held that accused-appellant's guilt for the crimes charged was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It found credible the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. The CA also held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were preserved due to the unbroken chain of custody of the subject specimens. It also declared that strict compliance with the letter of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 is not required in the instant case because there is a clear showing that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items had been preserved. 17
Hence, this recourse. The OSG manifested that it has exhaustively argued its case and prayed that its briefs filed before the appellate court be considered in resolving this appeal. 18 Meanwhile, accused-appellant submitted his Supplemental Brief 19 praying for the same and his Appellant's Brief be considered.
Inevitably, the sole issue raised by accused-appellant is:
WHETHER THE CA COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN AFFIRMING IN TOTO THE RTC JUDGMENT CONVICTING ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECS. 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF R.A. NO. 9165.
In maintaining his innocence, accused-appellant raises the following points: (1) the prosecution failed to establish the identity of the poseur-buyer; (2) the consideration for the alleged sale of shabu was not proven beyond reasonable doubt; (3) the delivery of the thing allegedly sold by accused-appellant was not proven beyond reasonable doubt; (4) accused-appellant was illegally arrested because no buy-bust operation ever took place; (5) due to the illegal arrest, the plastic sachets of shabu allegedly recovered from accused-appellant are inadmissible; and (6) the prosecution failed to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the allegedly seized dangerous drugs. The items seized from accused-appellant were also not inventoried and photographed in the presence of a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ) without any showing of a compelling and justifiable ground for excusing noncompliance with such requirement. 20
Accused-appellant further argues in his Supplemental Brief that the CA gravely erred when it failed to consider the evidence on record that the three (3) witnesses needed in Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 were not physically present at the time of the alleged seizure of the subject dangerous drugs, thereby facilitating the planting thereof right at the point of seizure. Noncompliance therewith engenders his acquittal. 21
The Court's Ruling
The appeal has merit.
On a procedural note, accused-appellant's claim that he was a victim of an illegal arrest must fall on deaf ears. It is doctrinal that objections regarding the validity of the arrest must be raised before arraignment, lest the same shall be considered waived. 22
Here, the records do not show that accused-appellant raised this issue before arraignment. Thus, he has effectively waived his right to question the validity of his arrest.
On the substantive aspect, it must be remembered that for the successful prosecution for violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act, the State bears the burden of not only proving the elements of the offenses of sale of shabu, but also of proving the corpus delicti, the body of the crime. The elements for the violation of Section 5, of R.A. No. 9165 are: (a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the consideration; and (b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for the thing. What is material in the prosecutions for illegal sale of shabu is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. 23
Corpus delicti has been defined as the body or substance of the crime and, in its primary sense, refers to the fact that a crime has actually been committed. As applied to a particular offense, it means the actual commission by someone of the particular crime charged. The corpus delicti is a compound fact made up of two (2) things, viz.: the existence of a certain act or result forming the basis of the criminal charge, and the existence of a criminal agency as the cause of this act or result. The dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the violation of the law prohibiting the possession of the dangerous drug. Consequently, the State does not comply with the indispensable requirement of proving the corpus delicti when the drug is missing, and when substantial gaps occur in the chain of custody of the seized drugs as to raise doubts on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court. 24 As such, the duty to prove the corpus delicti of the crime is as important as proving the elements of the crime.
Here, while the elements of the crime were sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt, the identity of the corpus delicti was not.
R.A. No. 9165 provides for a special provision for the custody and disposition of confiscated drugs, thus:
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. (emphases supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
Meanwhile, its IRR 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:
(a) The apprehending officer/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, 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, further, that [noncompliance] 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 supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
The procedure laid down ensures the integrity of the confiscated drugs, i.e., that the drug confiscated from the accused is the same drug presented in court, as it provides for the chain of custody. Also, the law requires that three (3) witnesses be present during the physical inventory and photograph-taking of the seized items. These witnesses are a representative from the media, a representative from the DOJ, and any elected public official. Aside from being present during the physical inventory and photograph-taking of the seized items, they must also receive a copy of the inventory. Here, the Court notes several lapses in the handling of the confiscated drugs that create doubt as to the integrity of the confiscated drug.
Firstly, it must be noted that the recipient of the drug during the buy-bust operation was CI Aguilar and not PO2 Duran. It must also be noted that immediately after the transaction, accused-appellant was alleged to have fled and was caught by the police operatives only after a kilometer chase. After subduing accused-appellant, only then was the confiscated drug surrendered to PO2 Duran by CI Aguilar. The records did not disclose where the latter was during the time the police operatives were chasing accused-appellant. The prosecution did not disclose any precaution that it ensured the integrity of the confiscated drug. There was a lapse of time where CI Aguilar was during the entire time prior to the arrest of accused-appellant and this period remains to be unexplained.
As a mode 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. In context, this would ideally include testimony about every link in the chain, from the seizure of the prohibited drug up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that everyone 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. 25 Here, the start of the chain was defective as the civilian asset's handling of the drug as well as his whereabouts during the police chase was not testified on.
Second, and equally damaging, the prosecution did not testify on the circumstances surrounding the marking of the sachets subject of the sale and the ones confiscated from accused-appellant afterwards. The testimonies of prosecution witnesses did not show that the confiscated drugs were marked in the presence of the accused.
In People v. Gonzales, 26 the Court ruled that the marking of the confiscated drug should be made in the presence of the accused, thus:
The first stage in the chain of custody rule is the marking of the dangerous drugs or related items. Marking, which is the affixing on the dangerous drugs or related items by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his initials or signature or other identifying signs, should be made in the presence of the apprehended violator immediately upon arrest. The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of the dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value. 27 (emphases supplied)
Again, in People v. Ismael, 28 the Court ruled that although the absence of the accused during the marking is not a formal requirement, it becomes a fatal flaw to the prosecution's case. Thus:
Aside from the failure to mark the seized drugs immediately upon arrest, the arresting officers also failed to show that the marking of the seized drugs was done in the presence of the appellant. This requirement must not be brushed aside as a mere technicality. It must be shown that the marking was done in the presence of the accused to assure that the identity and integrity of the drugs were properly preserved. Failure to comply with this requirement is fatal to the prosecution's case. 29 (emphasis supplied)
Lastly, it is conceded that no media and DOJ representatives were present during the inventory and photograph-taking of the confiscated items. While Barangay Captain Santos was present, there is no evidence on record that he received a copy of the inventory.
Such failure may be excused provided that there are: (1) justifiable reasons; and (2) proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were maintained. 30 These requirements are cumulative, not alternative. Thus, in order to excuse failure to comply with the requirements of Sec. 21, there must be both justifiable reasons for such failure and proof that the integrity and evidentiary value of the evidence were maintained. It is not enough that only the second requisite is met.
The prosecution must allege and prove the presence of a justifiable ground.
The Court held in People v. Lim31 that:
It must be alleged and proved that the presence of the three witnesses to the physical inventory and photograph of the illegal drug seized was not obtained due to reason/s such as:
(1) their attendance was impossible because the place of arrest was a remote area; (2) their safety during the inventory and photograph of the seized drugs was threatened by an immediate retaliatory action of the accused or any person/s acting for and in his/her behalf; (3) the elected official themselves were involved in the punishable acts sought to be apprehended; (4) earnest efforts to secure the presence of a DOJ or media representative and an elected public official within the period required under Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code prove futile through no fault of the arresting officers, who face the threat of being charged with arbitrary detention; or (5) time constraints and urgency of the anti-drug operations, which often rely on tips of confidential assets, prevented the law enforcers from obtaining the presence of the required witnesses even before the offenders could escape.
Earnest effort to secure the attendance of the necessary witnesses must be proven. People v. Ramos requires:
It is well to note that the absence of these required witnesses does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible. However, a justifiable reason for such failure or a showing of any genuine and sufficient effort to secure the required witnesses under Section 21 of RA 9165 must be adduced. In People v. Umipang, the Court held that the prosecution must show that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law for "a sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse." Verily, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses are unacceptable as justified grounds for noncompliance. 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 full well that they would have to strictly comply with the set procedure prescribed in Section 21 of RA 9165. As such, police officers are compelled not only to state reasons for their [noncompliance], but must in fact, also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstances, their actions were reasonable. 32 (emphasis added)
Unfortunately, there is neither allegation nor proof of any of the justifiable grounds to excuse the failure of the police officers to secure the presence of a representative from the media and the DOJ. Further, there is no allegation that the police exerted earnest efforts to secure the presence of these representatives. Clearly, the police officers utterly failed to comply with the requirements of Sec. 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Such nonchalant attitude towards the rules can never be countenanced. It must be remembered that:
"The significance of complying with Section 21's requirements cannot be overemphasized. [Noncompliance] is tantamount to failure in establishing identity of corpus delicti, an essential element of the offenses of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. By failing to establish an element of these offenses, noncompliance will, thus, engender the acquittal of an accused." 33 (emphases supplied)
Here, there was failure to comply with the requirements of Sec. 21, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. Such failure cannot be excused in the absence of a justifiable ground and earnest efforts to strictly comply with its provisions. Also, there were lapses in the initial handling of the confiscated drug. Taking all these things in consideration, the Court is convinced that there is doubt as to the integrity of the confiscated drug. There is reasonable doubt whether the seized items presented in court were the ones actually seized from accused-appellant. The chain of custody was not preserved, hence, the corpus delicti in the crimes of Illegal Sale and Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs was not proven. Accused-appellant must be acquitted due to reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court GRANTS the appeal, REVERSES and SETS ASIDE the March 8, 2018 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08834, ACQUITS accused-appellant Reynaldo Bansil y Reinarez, and ORDERS his immediate release from detention, unless he is being lawfully held for another cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Superintendent of the New Bilibid Prison for immediate implementation and he is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Judgment the action he has taken.
SO ORDERED." (Lazaro-Javier, J., designated as additional member per Raffle dated September 16, 2020, vice Carandang, J.; Zalameda, J., on wellness leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-18; penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales with Associate Justice Rosmari D. Carandang (now a Member of this Court) and Associate Justice Elihu A. Ybañez, concurring.
2.CArollo, pp. 61-89; penned by Presiding Judge Jesusa Mylene C. Suba-Isip.
3.Id. at 90.
4.Rollo, p. 3.
5.Id.
6.Id.
7. Referred to as PO3 Dennis B. Duran in other parts of the CA rollo.
8.Rollo, p. 4.
9. "Ismael" in some parts of the CA rollo.
10.Rollo, pp. 4-6; CA rollo, pp. 114-117.
11.Id. at 6-7.
12. CA rollo, p. 89.
13.Id. at 82-84.
14.Id. at 87-88.
15.Id. at 81-82.
16.Id. at 90.
17.Rollo, pp. 11-18.
18.Id. at 30-33.
19.Id. at 43-51.
20. CA rollo, pp. 45-57.
21.Rollo, pp. 44-47.
22. See Lapi v. People, G.R. No. 210731, February 13, 2019.
23.People v. Bautista, 682 Phil. 487, 497-498 (2012).
24.Id. at 499-500; citations omitted.
25.People v. Adrid, 705 Phil. 654, 671-672 (2013), citing People v. Cervantes, 600 Phil. 819, 836 (2009).
26. 708 Phil. 121 (2013).
27.Id. at 130-131.
28. 806 Phil. 21 (2017).
29.Id. at 37.
30.People v. Asaytuno, Jr., G.R. No. 245972, December 2, 2019.
31. G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
32.Id.
33.People v. Dela Cruz, 744 Phil. 816, 827 (2014).