THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 233873. June 28, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JAIME BRIGINO y EBANTE @ "KABAYO", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 28, 2021, which reads as follows: CAIHTE
"G.R. No. 233873 (People of the Philippines v. Jaime Brigino y Ebante @ "Kabayo"). — On appeal 1 is the June 16, 2016 Decision 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06609 affirming the November 27, 2013 Judgment 3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Muntinlupa City, Branch 204, in Criminal Case No. 09-492 which found accused-appellant Jaime Brigino y Ebante (accused-appellant/Brigino) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
The Factual Antecedents:
The Information 4 filed against Brigino for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA 9165 alleges:
That on or about the 30th day of July 2009, in the City of Muntinlupa, Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, not being authorized by law, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell, deliver and give away to another a Methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, contained in one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet weighing 0.07 gram, in violation of the above-cited law.
Contrary to law. 5
Upon arraignment, Brigino pleaded not guilty to the charge. 6
Version of the Prosecution:
On July 30, 2009, at about 9:00 a.m., the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs Special Operations Task Group (SAID-SOTG) of Muntinlupa City designated Senior Police Officer (SPO) 2 Brigido Cardino (SPO2 Cardino) to conduct a possible surveillance and buy-bust operation against one Jimmy Brigino, later known as accused-appellant. This was done in response to reports of rampant selling of prohibited drugs among jeepney drivers in Upper Sucat, Muntinlupa City. 7 Upon verification of the reports, SPO2 Cardino formed a team to conduct a buy-bust operation with PO2 Salvador Genova (PO2 Genova) as the poseur-buyer and SPO1 Cirilo Zamora (SPO1 Zamora) as back-up. SPO2 Genova was given a P500.00 bill as marked money, with "SG" written on the bill. Thereafter, the team members prepared the Pre-operation Report 8 and coordinated 9 with PDEA through fax. 10
On the said date at around 6:20 p.m., the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area on board a Toyota Revo. Upon arrival thereat, PO2 Genova and the informant got off the vehicle and proceeded towards the jeepney terminal where Brigino was said to frequent. Nearing the terminal, the informant tipped PO2 Genova that the man walking towards them was the target of their operation. Accused-appellant greeted the informant and the latter told him that PO2 Genova wanted to buy P500.00 worth of shabu. Brigino gave him a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance, while PO2 Genova handed him the marked P500.00 bill. Immediately, PO2 Genova lit his cigarette which is the pre-arranged signal that the sale had been consummated. Accordingly, SPO1 Zamora and the rest of the buy-bust team rushed to the scene and introduced themselves as police officers. Upon arrest, SPO1 Zamora apprised Brigino of his constitutional rights while PO2 Genova recovered the marked money and the plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance. 11
After the arrest, the buy-bust team brought accused-appellant to the office of the SAID. PO2 Genova marked the plastic sachet purchased from Brigino with the initials "JB" and took photos 12 thereof, as well as of accused-appellant and the marked money. Subsequently, the team prepared the Spot Report, 13 Booking and Information Sheet, 14 Joint Affidavit of Arrest, 15 and Request for Laboratory Examination. 16 The Certificate of Inventory, 17 which was signed by two (2) representatives from the Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Office, was likewise prepared. Thereafter, PO2 Genova and a certain PO1 Pando brought the seized item to the Southern Police District Crime Laboratory for examination. Abraham Verde Tecson (FC Tecson), the forensic chemist in charge, received the request. Upon qualitative examination of the specimen, FC Tecson found it positive for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug. He reduced his findings in Physical Science Report No. D-373-09S. 18
Version of the Defense:
On July 29, 2009, Brigino was working as a jeepney barker at the terminal near the Sucat Precinct. At around 8:00 a.m., he saw the Toyota Revo roaming around the area. Eventually, the car stopped in front of Brigino and SPO1 Zamora asked him for P200.00. According to accused-appellant, SPO1 Zamora demands P200.00 from him thrice a week for gas money. At that time, Brigino said that he did not have money yet and asked SPO1 Zamora to return later in the day. 19
At around 11:00 a.m., Brigino returned home for lunch and slept afterwards. At about 2:00 p.m. of the same day, SPO1 Zamora arrived at Brigino's house and asked for the P200.00. Since he still did not have the amount, Brigino asked him to return the following day. Instead, SPO1 Zamora forced Brigino to go back to the terminal so that the latter could borrow money from jeepney drivers. However, none of the jeepney drivers were able to lend him money. 20
Afterwards, SPO1 Zamora brought Brigino to Alabang where the former met up with PO2 Genova. The latter boarded the Toyota Revo where Brigino was and proceeded to the City Hall. On their way there, they threatened Brigino that he would be charged with extortion for working as a barker without a permit. 21
Upon arrival at the police station in the City Hall, the police officers took Brigino's fingerprints and placed him in a detention cell. Brigino begged SPO1 Zamora for his release and promised to give him the P200.00 the next day. However, SPO1 Zamora asked for P5,000.00 for his release which Brigino could not afford to pay. Brigino only found out that he was being charged with the crime of illegal sale of shabu when he was brought to the Office of the Prosecutor the following day. 22
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its November 27, 2013 Judgment, 23 the RTC found Brigino guilty as charged. It gave more credence to the affirmative testimonies of the police officers rather than Brigino's defenses of denial and frame up. It found that the prosecution sufficiently proved the elements of illegal sale of dangerous drugs: 1) identity of the buyer and seller, the object and consideration of the sale; and 2) delivery of the thing sold and payment, coupled with the presentation in court of evidence of corpus delicti. It reasoned that Brigino was positively identified as the seller of the shabu which was received by PO2 Genova in exchange for P500.00. Consequently, the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs was consummated. Moreover, the integrity and purity of the seized drug was not compromised since the arresting officers properly handled them from the time of its seizure until its turnover to the laboratory for examination. Lastly, the trial court upheld the validity of Brigino's arrest for being caught in flagrante delicto selling dangerous drugs. 24
The dispositive portion of the Judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered and finding the accused GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime herein charged, JAIME BRIGINO y ABANTE is sentenced to LIFE IMPRISONMENT and to pay a FINE of Php500,000.00.
The preventive imprisonment undergone by the accused shall be credited in his favor.
The drug evidence is ordered transmitted to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) for proper disposition.
Issue a MITTIMUS committing accused JAIME BRIGINO y ABANTE to the New Bilibid Prisons [sic] (NBP) for the service of his sentence pending any appeal that he may file in this case.
SO ORDERED.25
Aggrieved, Brigino appealed 26 before the CA and raised the following issues:
1. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE PROSECUTION'S FAILURE TO PROVE THAT THE PURPORTED PLASTIC SACHET OF SHABU WAS THE VERY SAME ITEM CONFISCATED.
2. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT GUILTY OF THE CRIME CHARGED DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPLETE CHAIN OF CUSTODY.
3. THE COURT A QUO GRAVELY ERRED IN HEAVILY RELYING ON THE PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN THE POLICE OFFICERS' PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTY. 27
Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
The CA, in its June 16, 2016 Decision, 28 affirmed the RTC's ruling which found Brigino guilty of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. It agreed with the trial court's finding that the prosecution sufficiently established all the elements of the crime. It rejected Brigino's argument that the prosecution failed to establish the chain of custody due to the arresting officers' failure to immediately mark the seized item at the crime scene, and the absence of the required witnesses during accused-appellant's apprehension. It pointed out that non-compliance with Section 21 of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 does not invalidate the seizure and custody of the seized drugs. It explained that the testimonies of PO2 Genova and SPO1 Zamora sufficiently established the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs by narrating how the seized item was handled from the time of arrest up to its submission for examination in the laboratory. It also noted that Brigino failed to discharge the burden of proving that the evidence had been tampered with. Thus, the presumption of regularity in the performance of the police officers' duties stands. 29
Dissatisfied, Brigino elevated 30 the case before Us arguing the same issues 31 raised before the CA.
Accused-appellant argues that the prosecution failed to establish the corpus delicti beyond reasonable doubt, casting serious doubt as to whether the seized item presented in court was the same one allegedly seized from him. He claims that the arresting officers failed to conduct the marking, photographing, and inventory of the seized items in accordance with RA 9165. He also avers that the marking was only done at the PNP office instead of the place of his arrest. He points out that the photographing and inventory of the seized items were done without the presence of a media representative, DOJ representative, and elected public official. In fact, the prosecution even failed to prove that it was done in the presence of accused-appellant. He also faults the arresting officers for their failure to justify non-compliance with the procedure mandated under RA 9165 and its implementing rules. 32
Brigino further argues that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary steps the arresting officers took in order to preserve the integrity of the seized item. He maintains that nothing in the prosecution's evidence show how the seized item was handled from the time it was received by the forensic chemist up until its presentation in court. He also claims that the non-presentation of the forensic chemist's testimony is detrimental to the prosecution's case. 33
Moreover, accused-appellant disputes the theory of the prosecution that they initiated a buy-bust operation only after receiving intel from an informant that he was engaged in selling dangerous drugs. He claims that the contents of the Pre-Operation Report and Certificate of Coordination are inconsistent with the police officers' allegation that they did not know Brigino prior to the operation. He claims that this irregularity disputes the conduct of a legitimate buy-bust operation. 34
In view of these fatal lapses and irregularities, he contends that his acquittal is warranted. 35
Contrariwise, the People, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), maintains that Brigino's guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt. It explains that the elements of the crime charged were sufficiently established. It argues that Brigino's defense of denial and frame up cannot outweigh the presumption of regularity in the police officers' performance of their duties, absent any clear and convincing evidence that they were impelled by improper motives. It reasons that if the allegation of frame up is true, Brigino should have filed criminal charges against the police officers. 36
As to the integrity of the seized drug, the OSG argues that its integrity and evidentiary value were properly preserved. Based on the testimonies of the police officers, the crucial links in the chain of custody were sufficiently established. It also points out that Brigino never raised the issue that the seized item presented during trial had been tampered with. Consequently, accused-appellant can no longer object as to its admissibility. 37
Our Ruling
We find the Petition impressed with merit.
To secure a conviction for the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the prosecution must establish the following essential elements: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object of the sale and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and its payment. 38 What is material is the proof that the transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as evidence. 39 In buy-bust operations, the delivery of the dangerous drug to the poseur-buyer and the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. 40 In the case at bar, the above-mentioned elements are present. The testimonies of the police officers sufficiently established that Brigino sold shabu to PO2 Genova during the buy-bust operation where the latter acted as a poseur-buyer. Brigino's simultaneous receipt of the P500.00 marked money consummated the crime as charged.
However, it is essential that the identity of the seized drugs from the accused be established beyond reasonable doubt, as the dangerous drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti of the offense. 41 On this point, We note that the police officers failed to observe the mandated procedure in relation to the chain of custody under Section 21 (a) of the IRR of RA 9165, which provides:
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 non-compliance 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[.] 42 (Emphases supplied)
Since the alleged crime took place in 2009 or prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 on July 15, 2014, the required witnesses are: (1) a representative from the media; (2) a representative from the Department of Justice (DOJ); and (3) any elected public official. 43 While the Court allows substantial compliance with the procedure, the prosecution must still prove: (1) a justifiable ground for non-compliance; and (2) the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. 44 Moreover, the prosecution must initiate acknowledging and justifying the deviations from Section 21. 45 In fact, the arresting officers must not simply mention a justifiable ground for its deviation but also clearly state this ground in their sworn affidavit, coupled with an explanation of the steps they took to preserve the integrity of the seized item. 46
In the present case, an examination of the Certificate of Inventory reveals that the conduct of photographing and inventory of the seized item was not done in the presence of the accused-appellant or his counsel/representative, DOJ representative, media representative, and an elected public official. The absence of accused-appellant's signature in the Certificate of Inventory suggests that the same was not done in his presence. Worse, the prosecution failed to justify the absence of the required witnesses and prove that earnest efforts were exerted to secure their presence. When asked for an explanation for the absence of the witnesses, PO2 Genova testified as follows:
Q: What about the document, in order to record the confiscation of the item identified as well as the recovered buy-bust money, what did you prepare?
A: We made an inventory, sir.
Q: If shown to you again will you be able to identify it?
A: Yes, sir.
FISCAL BAYBAY:
Who are these two witnesses who witnessed the inventory?
A: The two (2) DAPCO representatives, sir.
Q: I am showing you now the Certificate of Inventory and tell us its relation to the one you mentioned?
A: This is the same Certificate of Inventory, sir.
Q: Why [were there] no barangay elected officers or media representatives or DOJ representatives invited to sign this Certificate of Inventory?
A: They just needed to comply, sir.
Q: What time was this inventory prepared by the way?
A: On or about 8:00 o'clock p.m., sir.
Q: So, there were no witnesses to the inventory, why did you do in order to preserve the integrity of the drug item you recovered during the buy-bust?
A: We invited DAPCO representatives, sir. 47 (Emphases supplied)
Clearly, the explanation offered by PO2 Genova cannot be considered as a valid justification for their non-compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165. On this point, we heed to People v. Umipang where it was pronounced that:
Indeed, the absence of these representatives during the physical inventory and the marking of the seized items does not per se render the confiscated items inadmissible in evidence. However, we take note that, in this case, the SAID-SOTF did not even attempt to contact the barangay chairperson or any member of the barangay council. There is no indication that they contacted other elected public officials. Neither do the records show whether the police officers tried to get in touch with any DOJ representative. Nor does the SAID-SOTF adduce any justifiable reason for failing to do so — especially considering that it had sufficient time from the moment it received information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest.
Thus, we find that there was no genuine and sufficient effort on the part of the apprehending police officers to look for the said representatives pursuant to Section 21 (1) of R.A. 9165. 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. We stress that it is the prosecution who has the positive duty to establish that earnest efforts were employed in contacting the representatives enumerated under Section 21 (1) of R.A. 9165, or that there was a justifiable ground for failing to do so. 48 (Citations omitted)
The importance of these insulating witnesses is more telling in that their presence negates any suspicion of the evils of switching, planting or contamination of the evidence. 49 Certainly, their absence during apprehension, marking, and inventory casts serious doubt as to the identity and integrity of the seized item.
This Court also finds that the prosecution failed to account for each link in the chain of custody: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the turnover by the investigating officer of the illegal drug to the forensic chemist for laboratory examination; and (4) the turnover and submission of the seized and marked illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 50
In PO2 Genova's testimony, he stated that he had custody of the seized item:
Q: Who went to the crime laboratory?
A: I together with PO1 Pando, sir.
Q: Who was in custody of the item that you brought to the crime laboratory from [the] Police Station until you reached the crime laboratory?
A: I, sir.
Q: What document did you bring to the crime laboratory for that purpose?
A: The request for laboratory examination, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q: I noticed that the name PO1 Pando appeared here as the one who delivered the item, what is the relation of this Pando to the one whom you [went] with [sic] to the crime laboratory?
A: They are the same, sir.
Q: Why is he the one reflected here as the one who delivered, not you?
A: My ID card, sir at that time had expired already and he was the one who had an ID, sir. 51
Based on testimonial evidence it was PO2 Genova who had custody of the seized item. However, based on documentary evidence, the officer who delivered and turned over the seized drug to the forensic chemist is PO1 Pando as shown by the Request for Laboratory Examination. 52 Yet, he was not presented as a witness. This conflicting milieu casts doubt as to who handled the seized drug and turned it over to the forensic chemist. Moreover, records are also bereft of any showing on how the seized items were stored in the crime laboratory prior to its delivery to the court for presentation as evidence. Absent any showing that the necessary steps were taken to ensure that there was no change in the condition of the specimen and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession thereof, the Court can only conclude that the integrity of the corpus delicti was not preserved. 53
Anent the presumption of regularity in the police officers' performance of their duty, We echo the pronouncement in People v. Mendoza54 in that the presumption of regularity in the performance of the arresting officers' duties cannot prevail over the constitutionally enshrined presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, viz.:
Even if the foregoing conclusion already renders any further discussion of the applicability of the presumption of regularity in favor of the members of the buy-bust team superfluous, we need to dwell a bit on the matter if only to remind the lower courts not to give too much primacy to the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty at the expense of the higher and stronger presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in a prosecution for violation of the Comprehensive Drugs Act of 2002.
We have usually presumed the regularity of performance of their official duties in favor of the members of buy-bust teams enforcing our laws against the illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Such presumption is based on three fundamental reasons, namely: first, innocence, and not wrong-doing, is to be presumed; second, an official oath will not be violated; and, third, a republican form of government cannot survive long unless a limit is placed upon controversies and certain trust and confidence reposed in each governmental department or agent by every other such department or agent, at least to the extent of such presumption. But the presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence of irregularity or of any failure to perform a duty. Judicial reliance on the presumption despite any hint of irregularity in the procedures undertaken by the agents of the law will thus be fundamentally unsound because such hint is itself affirmative proof of irregularity.
The presumption of regularity of performance of official duty stands only when no reason exists in the records by which to doubt the regularity of the performance of official duty. And even in that instance the presumption of regularity will not be stronger than the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused. Otherwise, a mere rule of evidence will defeat the constitutionally enshrined right to be presumed innocent. 55 (Citations omitted)
In conclusion, We find that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody and prove accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. The assailed June 16, 2016 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06609, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Jaime Brigino y Ebante is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless he is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished the Director General, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to report to this Court the action he has taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
Copies shall also be furnished to the Police General of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED.
By authority of the Court:
MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) RUMAR D. PASIONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. CA rollo, pp. 92-93.
2.Rollo, pp. 2-14; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela and concurred in by Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Danton Q. Bueser.
3. CA rollo, pp. 39-48; penned by Presiding Judge Juanita T. Guerrero.
4. Records, pp. 1-2.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 25.
7.Rollo, p. 4.
8. Records, p. 117.
9.Id. at 119.
10. TSN, September 15, 2010, pp. 4-5.
11.Id. at 7-10.
12. Records, pp. 120-122.
13.Id. at 126.
14.Id. at 125.
15.Id. at 127-128.
16.Id. at 123.
17.Id. at 129.
18. Records, p. 124.
19. TSN, September 5, 2012, pp. 3-5.
20.Id. at 5-7.
21.Id. at 7-8.
22.Id. at 9-11.
23. CA rollo, pp. 39-48.
24. Records, pp. 167-170.
25. CA rollo, pp. 47-48.
26. Records, p. 173.
27. CA rollo, p. 28.
28.Rollo, pp. 2-14.
29.Id. at 8-13.
30. CA rollo, pp. 92-93.
31.Rollo, p. 29.
32. CA rollo, pp. 29-30.
33.Id. at 30-33.
34.Id. at 33-34.
35.Id. at 34-35.
36.Id. at 61-63.
37.Id. at 63-66.
38.People v. Dela Cruz, 794 Phil. 516, 519 (2016).
39.People v. Baticolon, 762 Phil. 468, 475 (2015).
40.Id. citing People v. Midenilla, et al., 645 Phil. 587, 601 (2010) citing People v. Guiara, 616 Phil. 290, 302 (2009).
41.Casona v. People, 818 Phil. 76, 85 (2017).
42. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, August 30, 2002."
43.People v. Sendad, G.R. No. 242025, November 20, 2019.
44.Id.
45.People v. Señeres, Jr., G.R. No. 231008, November 5, 2018.
46.People v. Saragena, 817 Phil. 117, 144 (2017).
47. TSN, February 24, 2011, pp. 17-18.
48.People v. Umipang, 686 Phil. 1024, 1052-1053 (2012).
49.People v. Mendoza, 736 Phil. 749, 764 (2014).
50.People v. Mammad, 769 Phil. 782, 790 (2015) citing People v. Salvador, 715 SCRA 617, 633 (2014).
51. TSN, February 24, 2011, pp. 19-21.
52. Records, p. 123.
53.People v. Siaton, 789 Phil. 87, 107 (2016).
54. 736 Phil. 749 (2014).
55.Id. at 769-770.