SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252499. July 7, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.FLORDELIZA BASA y PINULLAR alias "NEGRA", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated07 July 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252499 (People of the Philippines v. Flordeliza Basa y Pinullar alias "Negra"). — We acquit.
In illegal drugs cases, the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. In order to sustain a verdict of conviction, it is imperative for the prosecution to establish that the identity and integrity of the dangerous drug were duly preserved. 1 It must prove that the dangerous drug seized from the accused is the same substance eventually offered in court. 2
Here, appellant Flordeliza Basa y Pinullar alias "Negra" was charged with illegal sale of 0.18 gram of shabu allegedly committed on December 16, 2014. The governing law is Republic Act No. 9165 (RA 9165), as amended by Republic Act No. 10640 (RA 10640). 3
Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, prescribes the standard in preserving the corpus delicti in illegal drug cases, viz.:
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. (Emphasis supplied)
To ensure the integrity of the seized drug item, the prosecution must account for each link in its chain of custody: 4first, 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. 5 SDAaTC
Here, the Court notes that the chain of custody rule was violated several times over.
First. The prosecution witnesses themselves admitted that the inventory was done in the absence of the insulating witnesses in the persons of an elected public official and a representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or a media representative, sans any valid justification.
Section 21 of RA 9165, as amended, clearly mandates that, after seizure and confiscation of the drugs, the apprehending team must immediately conduct the required physical inventory and photographing in the presence of: (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel; (2) an elected public official; and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media, who shall all be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The law requires the physical presence of these witnesses in order to ensure the establishment of the chain of custody and remove any doubt of switching, planting, or contamination of the seized drug. 6 The apprehending officers can easily comply with this requirement since a buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. 7 It is, therefore, incumbent upon the prosecution to account for the absence of a required witness by presenting a justifiable reason therefor or, at the very least, showing that the apprehending officers exerted genuine and sufficient efforts to secure the presence of such witness. 8
As stated, the apprehending officers here admitted that they failed to contact and secure the presence of a barangay official and a Department of Justice (DOJ) representative because there was already a commotion at the place of arrest and they were unavailable at that time. They further claimed that people in the area were afraid to testify due to the dominant population of Muslims who allegedly killed their informants.
These general and unsubstantiated statements, however, are insufficient to warrant a deviation from the established rules. People v. Gaitan9 is apropos:
Thus, mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as justified grounds for non-compliance. 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 fully well that they would have to strictly comply with the chain of custody rule.
More, there must be a clear showing that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under the law. Thus, a sheer statement that said representatives were unavailable without any explanation on whether serious attempts were made to look for and contact these representatives is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse. 10
Further, the bare allegation of a supposed commotion in the area does not at once warrant a deviation from the rules absent any explanation how the safety of the operatives and the witnesses or the seized items was threatened by the said commotion 11 or a clear showing that the apprehending officers exerted efforts to assist the witnesses in getting to the place of arrest or inventory. 12 Notably, the apprehending officers here utterly failed to show that an actual threat of immediate or extreme danger existed such as retaliatory action of those who have the resources and capability to mount a counter-assault. It simply inferred that the people were afraid to testify because of the dominant Muslim population in the area. 13
In any event, there seems to be a belated attempt on the part of the prosecution, through the testimony of PO3 Reynaldo del Mundo, Jr. (PO3 Del Mundo, Jr.) to show that at least a media representative was present at the crime scene to witness the inventory, albeit the same witness also later said that the media representative only arrived at the police station where he merely signed the inventory.
But the lie is simply too glaring to ignore. In any case, Section 21 speaks of actual physical presence during the inventory itself, not post facto. Nevertheless, the presence alone of a media representative during the inventory does not comply with the two-witness rule under the law. As it was, no elected public official was present during the inventory and there was no valid justification for the absence of this witness.
Second. Appellant did not sign the inventory receipt. As held in People v. Jatulan, 14 this is not a simple error, but a grievous omission for the law clearly requires that the accused, or her representative, sign the inventory receipt. This omission simply means that appellant was not even aware of the content or contents of the inventory receipt, much less, the fact that they were supposedly seized from her.
Third. There was no evidence on how the specimen was handled and stored upon its turn over to the crime laboratory up to the time it was presented in court.
True, the parties dispensed with the testimony of forensic chemist Police Senior Inspector Bernardo Roque (PSI Roque), and in lieu thereof, stipulated that: (1) he is a forensic chemist assigned at the Quezon City Police Department, Crime Laboratory Office, PS-10, Kamuning, Quezon City; (2) he personally received the request for laboratory examination together with the subject specimen; (3) he conducted a qualitative examination on the specimen which yielded a positive result for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu; (4) his findings are contained in his Chemistry Report; (5) he turned over the specimen to the evidence custodian, then later on retrieved and brought it to the court; and (6) he had no personal knowledge as to the facts and circumstances leading to appellant's arrest and the source of the specimen. 15
There was no stipulation, however, on the precautionary steps he took to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized item, viz., that he received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; he resealed it after examination of the content; and he placed his own marking on the same to ensure against tampering pending trial. 16 acEHCD
Verily, in the absence of any testimony or stipulation regarding the management, storage, and preservation of the illegal drug seized after its qualitative examination, it could not be reasonably established that the identity and integrity of the seized item or the corpus delicti was preserved. 17
In view, therefore, of the repeated breach of the chain of custody here, a verdict of acquittal is in order.
ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated September 12, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 10878 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Appellant FLORDELIZA BASA y PINULLAR ALIAS "NEGRA" is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case No. R-QZN-14-12442-CR. The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ordered to a) immediately release Flordeliza Basa y Pinullar alias "Negra" from custody unless she is being held for some other lawful cause; and b) submit his or her report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice.
Let entry of judgment immediately issue.
SO ORDERED." (J. Lopez, J., designated additional member per Special Order No. 2822 dated April 7, 2021)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Calahi v. People, 820 Phil. 886, 894 (2017) citing People v. Casacop, 778 Phil. 369 (2016) and Zafra v. People, 686 Phil. 1095, 1105-1106 (2012).
2.People v. Leaño, G.R. No. 246461, July 28, 2020.
3. 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."
4. As defined in Section 1 (b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002:
xxx xxx xxx
b. "Chain of Custody" means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition[.]
xxx xxx xxx
5.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 231 (2015).
6.People v. Gaitan, G.R. No. 247828, November 11, 2020; People v. Javier, G.R. No. 240543, September 16, 2020.
7.People v. Tanes, G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019.
8.People v. Gaitan, G.R. No. 247828, November 11, 2020.
9. G.R. No. 247828, November 11, 2020.
10.People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1053 (2012).
11.People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 236455, February 19, 2020.
12.Almoro v. People, G.R. No. 244749, December 11, 2019.
13.People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 236455, February 19, 2020.
14. G.R. No. 240754, January 12, 2021.
15. CA rollo, pp. 36-37.
16.People v. Javier, G.R. No. 240543, September 16, 2020.
17.Id.