FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250301. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ARTHUR BARRION y DRAGON, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250301 — PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,versus ARTHUR BARRION y DRAGON, accused-appellant.
After a careful review of the records of the case, the Court REVERSES the Decision 1 dated December 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09334 which affirmed the Decision 2 dated March 5, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Regional, Branch 74, Olongapo City in Criminal Case Nos. 10-2013 and 11-2013 convicting accused-appellant Arthur Barrion y Dragon for violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002." The Court acquits accused-appellant for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
In cases involving dangerous drugs, the burden of the prosecution weighs heavily on the proof of the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti, which is the dangerous drugs itself. 3 To discharge this burden, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items and prove compliance with the requirements of Section 21, 4 Article II of RA 9165. 5 Strict compliance with these requirements is mandatory, and any deviation therefrom must be acknowledged and explained or justified by the prosecution; otherwise, the integrity and credibility of the corpus delicti are tarnished and the claim that a violation of RA 9165 was committed by the accused becomes questionable. 6
In the instant case, accused-appellant must be acquitted for the following reasons:
First, following a catena of cases, 7 where the Court acquitted the accused due to the police officers' unjustified failure to comply with Section 21, particularly on the presence of all the mandatory witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized items, accused-appellant should perforce be acquitted because only a representative from the barangay and a Department of Justice representative witnessed the conduct of the inventory. 8 They failed to secure the presence of a representative from the media. 9 Worse, the prosecution failed to prove any justifiable reason for the police officers' non-compliance with the three-witness rule. Neither was there any showing that earnest efforts were made to contact the other required witnesses. Indeed, the Court cannot emphasize enough that the presence of all the enumerated witnesses during the seizure and inventory of the seized items is mandatory to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 10
Second, the buy-bust team conducted the marking and inventory of the seized items at the police station. 11 Although Section 21 12 mentions that the marking and inventory of the seized items may be done at the nearest police station, this may only be done if the police officers offer a justifiable or practicable reason for resorting to this. In People v. Lim, 13 the Court held that the immediate physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items at the place of arrest may be excused in instances when the safety and security of the apprehending officers and the witnesses required by law or of the items seized are threatened by immediate or extreme danger such as retaliatory action of those who have the resources and capability to mount a counterassault. However, in the instant case, the exception does not apply as the police officers did not offer any justifiable or practicable reason for their decision to conduct the inventory at the police station, instead of the place of arrest.
Lastly, as correctly pointed out by the defense, a review of the records shows that the prosecution failed to establish the fourth link in the chain of custody — the submission of the illegal drugs from the forensic chemist to the trial court. While the parties stipulated on the genuineness and due execution of the chemistry reports in this case, there was no stipulation or evidence proffered on how the plastic sachets, purportedly containing shabu and allegedly bought and seized from accused-appellant, were brought to the court from the forensic laboratory. 14
All told, the prosecution in this case failed to discharge its burden of proving the corpus delicti of the offense. The presumption of accused-appellant's innocence must therefore be upheld.
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal 15 is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated December 13, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 09334 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant ARTHUR BARRION y DRAGON is hereby ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY 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 to 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 she has taken.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-16. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo B. Peralta, Jr. with Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Gabriel T. Robeniol, concurring.
2. CA rollo, pp. 58-67. Penned by Presiding Judge Roline M. Ginez-Jabalde.
3.People v. Labsan, G.R. No. 227184, February 6, 2019, 892 SCRA 112, 128.
4. The said section reads as follows:
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 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[.]
5.People v. Supat, G.R. No. 217027, June 6, 2018, 865 SCRA 45, 82.
6. See People v. Que, G.R. No. 212994, January 31, 2018, 853 SCRA 487.
7.People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 192432, June 23, 2014, 727 SCRA 113; People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 199271, October 19, 2016, 806 SCRA 513; People v. Sagana, G.R. No. 208471, August 2, 2017, 834 SCRA 225; People v. Guieb, G.R. No. 233100, February 14, 2018, 855 SCRA 620; People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, April 18, 2018, 862 SCRA 131; People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/64400>; People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 218126, July 10, 2019, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65602>; People v. Dayon, G.R. No. 229669, November 27, 2019, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/65994>; Tañamor v. People, G.R. No. 228132, March 11, 2020, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66109> People v. Arellaga, G.R. No. 231796, August 24, 2020, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66340>; and People v. Casilang, G.R. No. 242159, February 5, 2020, accessed at <https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/66075>.
8.Rollo, p. 5.
9. CA rollo, p. 54.
10.People v. Guieb, supra note 7, at 637.
11.Rollo, p. 5.
12. Section 21 (a) of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9165 provides:
SECTION 21. x x x
(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.
13.Supra note 7.
14. CA rollo, p. 51.
15.Rollo, p. 17-18.