FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251565. June 16, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.ROSALINDA BRONCANO y BANAS AND ESMERALDA ALCANTARA y SAGNIP, accused-appellants.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251565 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rosalinda Broncano y Banas and Esmeralda Alcantara y Sagnip, Accused-Appellants.) — In this appeal, accused-appellants Rosalinda Broncano y Banas and Esmeralda Alcantara y Sagnip (accused-appellants) seek to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 28 March 2019 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09129 finding them guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Antecedents
Accused-appellants were charged with violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 in an Information dated 27 February 2012, which reads:
That on or about the 12th day of February, 2012 at Mabini, Santiago City, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the above-named accused, in consideration of One (1) pc. Five Hundred (Php500.00) pesos marked bill with Serial Number QV549738 conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another, did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously sell and deliver One (1) pc. heat-sealed plastic sachet to a PDEA-Poseur-buyer, 0.032 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride locally known as 'Shabu' a dangerous drug without any authority or license to do the same.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 2
The CA summarized the factual antecedents of the case in this wise:
During trial, the prosecution presented the testimonies of Forensic Chemist Police Chief Inspector Alfredo Magsino Quintero (PCI Quintero), Intelligence Officer 1 Mary Jane R. Gaayon (IO1 Gaayon), and Maria Cecilia Ladia. The testimony of IO1 Talek Corotan (IO1 Corotan) was dispensed with after the parties entered into a stipulation of facts. The prosecution also offered the following evidence: (1) Request for Laboratory Examination; (2) a heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet of shabu marked with "EXH. 'A' MRG 02-12-2012"; (3) Chemistry Report No. D-010-2012; (4) Mugshots of the accused-appellants; (5) Certification dated October 23, 2014; (6) Photographs taken during the inventory; (7) Affidavit of Poseur-Buyer executed by IO1 Gaayon; (8) Transparent plastic with cellphone; (9) Envelope with markings containing Php500.00 bill; and (10) the buy-bust money.
IO1 Gaayon testified that on February 12, 2012, she was at the office of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) at Camp Adduru, Tuguegarao City when IO2 Darryl Damazo (IO2 Damazo), the team Leader of the PDEA-Regional Office 2, relayed to her and to other PDEA members that a confidential informant (CI) called and informed him that the CI can make a drug deal with a certain "Linda," later identified to be the accused-appellant Broncano, who was engaged in illegal drug activities in Santiago City. A briefing was conducted and a buy-bust team composed of IO2 Damazo, IO1 Gaayon, IO1 Edna Bitamug (IO1 Bitamug), and IO1 Madriaga was formed. IO1 Gaayon was designated as the poseur-buyer while IO1 Bitamug was assigned as the immediate back-up. The other members of the team were tasked to secure the perimeter. IO2 Damazo gave IO1 Gaayon a Five Hundred Peso bill as buy-bust money, which was duly recorded in the PDEA blotter.
According to IO1 Gaayon, at around 12:00 noon of that day, the buy-bust team went to Santiago City and arrived there at 3:00 in the afternoon. The team fetched the CI along the National Highway of Santiago City and proceeded to the Santiago Police Station for coordination purposes. They conducted a final briefing with the CI and it was agreed that IO1 Gaayon would remove her hair's ponytail upon consummation of the sale transaction. The CI was instructed to contact Broncano to inform her that the former has a friend who wanted to buy shabu worth Php500.00. While the team was inside the service vehicle, the CI called Broncano through a cellular phone on loudspeaker. During the conversation, the CI and Broncano agreed that the sale transaction would be at the entrance of the Smiley Inn located in Mabini, Santiago City (area of operation). IO2 Damazo then instructed IO1 Gaayon and the CI to go ahead while the rest of the team followed them. Upon arrival at the area of operation, IO1 Gaayon and the CI waited at the entrance of the Smiley Inn. After a few minutes, Broncano and a woman, later identified to be the accused-appellant Alcantara, approached them. The CI introduced IO1 Gaayon to Broncano as a friend who wanted to buy shabu. Alcantara immediately demanded payment from IO1 Gaayon by saying, "Asan na ang bayad?" Thus, IO1 Gaayon handed to Alcantara the buy-bust money. Broncano then took from her right pocket the plastic sachet of shabu and gave it to IO1 Gaayon. After verifying the contents of the plastic sachet, IO1 Gaayon kept the same in the "secret pocket" of her pants and removed the ponytail of her hair. ETHIDa
According to IO1 Gaayon, when she saw IO1 Bitamug and the other members of the buy-bust team, she introduced herself to the accused-appellants as a PDEA agent and ordered them not to move. IO1 Bitamug conducted a body search on Alcantara and recovered from her the buy-bust money and a cellular phone. IO2 Damazo informed the accused-appellants of their constitutional rights and explained to them why they were arrested. Thereafter, the team proceeded to the Santiago Police Station where IO1 Gaayon marked the plastic sachet with "EXH. 'A' MRG 02-12-2012" and placed her signature at its back in the presence of the accused-appellants, Barangay Kagawad Jacinto Alindada (Barangay Kagawad Alindada), Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Jovy Blanza (Blanza), and media representative Ma. Cristina Carinugan (Carinugan). The arresting team conducted an inventory and took photographs. They also prepared the Request for Laboratory Examination on Seized Evidence and other documents necessary for the filing of a case against the accused-appellants. Afterwards, IO1 Gaayon submitted the Request and the plastic sachet to PO1 Boyet Santiago (PO1 Santiago), the duty officer of the PNP Crime Laboratory in Santiago City who then forwarded the same to Forensic Chemist PCI Quintero. Upon examination, the substance contained in the plastic sachet gave positive result for the presence of methamphetamine hydrochloride, a dangerous drug, as stated in Chemistry Report No. D-010-2012.
On the other hand, the defense presented the testimonies of the accused-appellants.
Alcantara testified that after lunch on February 12, 2012, she was at her house attending to her child when Broncano arrived and asked her if she was available because a customer was looking for a girl and was willing to pay. She had known Broncano since she was young and they became close friends because the latter got married to a man who was from her place. When she was fifteen (15) years old, she worked as an "entertainer" while Broncano looked for her customers. Despite having a live-in partner, she continued her work without the former's knowledge. According to Alcantara, she accepted the offer of Broncano because she was in dire need of money on that day. She agreed to receive Php1,000.00 for her services while Broncano would get Php200.00 as commission. When the customer called, she left her child to her mother and went with Broncano to Smiley Inn to meet the customer. When they arrived there, they requested the tricycle driver to wait for them. After waiting for five (5) minutes, Broncano became impatient and alighted from the tricycle to look for the customer while she remained inside. Afterwards, she followed Broncano. Upon seeing the customer arrived together with a man and a woman, Broncano waived at them, and [approached] them. However, after the customer pointed to Broncano, they were immediately restrained, forcibly boarded on a van and brought to the Santiago City Police Station.
For her part, Broncano testified that on February 12, 2012, she was at her house when she received a call from a certain Jose, a former customer in a videoke bar where she worked as a floor manager. Jose asked for a girl or an "entertainer" that he can "take out" and "use." She told Jose to call her again after thirty (30) minutes as he would look for a girl. She then sent messages to several ladies ("mga alaga") but no one replied, thus, she thought of Alcantara who still accepts the job as her sideline. When she went to Alcantara's house, the latter was attending to her child. She told Alcantara about Jose and she accepted the offer. Jose then called and they agreed to meet at Smiley Inn. 51 When she and Alcantara arrived at Smiley Inn, Jose was not yet there so they waited. After an hour, Jose called and asked them to wait but she told him that they could not wait for a long time. Thereafter, she told Alcantara to stay behind, alighted from the tricycle and started to walk. However, Alcantara followed her and they went to the highway. She then saw Jose, together with a man and a woman, so she waved at them. Jose and his companions proceeded to their direction. According to Broncano, the woman immediately held her hands and handcuffed her. She cried and urinated on her pants because of fear. She thought that she was arrested for acting as a pimp. She noticed that Jose was already handcuffed and saw that Alcantara was also handcuffed by the man. A van stopped and they were forcibly boarded on it and brought to the Santiago Police Station. 3
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC, in its Decision dated 01 February 2017, convicted accused-appellants of illegal sale of dangerous drugs under Section 5 of RA 9165, to wit:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds the accused Rosalinda Broncano y Banas and Esmeralda Alcantara y Sagnip GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165 and hereby sentences each of them to the penalty of Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand (P500,000.00) Pesos each.
The 0.032 gram of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu involved in this case is hereby declared confiscated in favor of the government and ordered to be turned over to the PDEA, Camp Adduru, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan, for custody and disposition.
SO ORDERED. 4
The RTC found all the elements for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165 present in the case. Accused-appellants, acting in conspiracy with one another, illegally sold shabu to the poseur-buyer, Intelligence Officer 1 Mary Jane R. Gaayon (IO1 Gaayon). The testimony of IO1 Gaayon was given by the RTC credence as she enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of her official duty. Moreover, there was substantial compliance with the chain of custody rule. Accused-appellants, as well as the confiscated items, were brought to the PNP station where the officers conducted the marking, inventory, and photograph-taking of the seized items before the required witnesses. Hence, accused-appellants were found guilty of violation of Section 5 of RA 9165.
Decision of the CA
On 28 March 2019, the CA rendered the assailed decision affirming the guilt of accused-appellants, viz.:
WHEREFORE, the Appeal is DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated February 1, 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City, Branch 21 in Criminal Case No. 21-7161 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.5
According to the CA, the prosecution successfully proved that a buy-bust operation took place on February 12, 2012 with IO1 Gaayon as the poseur-buyer and accused-appellants as the sellers of the shabu worth Php500. The positive identification of the accused-appellants by IO1 Gaayon prevails over their defense of denial. Further, the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs were properly preserved through an unbroken chain of custody. 6 cSEDTC
Issue
The primordial issue for resolution of the Court is whether the CA correctly affirmed the conviction of accused-appellants for violation of Section 5 of RA 9165.
Ruling of the Court
We grant the appeal.
To eliminate doubt, and even abuse, in the handling of seized substances, Section 21 of RA 9165 established the procedural safeguards covering the seizure, custody, and disposition of confiscated dangerous drugs, to wit:
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; 7 (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of RA 9165 has reiterated the statutory safeguards, hence:
(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 thephysical 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; 8 (Emphasis supplied)
The State bears not only the burden of proving the elements of the crime charged, but also of proving the corpus delicti or the body of the crime. The illicit drugs confiscated from the accused comprise the corpus delicti of the charges. Hence, the State must present the seized drugs, together with proof that there were no substantial gaps in the chain of custody thereof, as to raise doubts about the legitimacy of the evidence presented in court. The State and its agents are therefore mandated to strictly comply with procedures laid down by the law even if they carry out a legally effective buy-bust operation 9 or implement a search warrant over the premises controlled by the accused.
The Court has enumerated the links that the prosecution must establish in the chain of custody of a buy-bust operation: (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 marked illegal drug seized by the forensic chemist to the court. 10
A perusal of the records reveals lapses in proving all the links in the chain of custody thereby compromising the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. The Court refers to the testimony of IO1 Gaayon describing the procedure followed by the police officers in conducting the buy-bust operation, viz.:
Q You said your team was called upon by your team leader and whocomposed that team to go after this person relayed through an information?
A Our team leader IO2 Damazo, IO1 Bitamug, IO1 Madriaga, IO1 Gaayon, I, myself, sir.
Q And what was that briefing all about?
A The briefing was all about the conduct of a possible buy-bust operation against a certain Linda. During the briefing I was designated to act as a poseur-buyer while IO1 Bitamug was also designated as an immediate back-up and so with the rest of the team, sir.
Q How about the rest? What were supposed to be their individual roles?
A Perimeter security, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And what time did you arrive at the target area which is Santiago?
A We arrived at Santiago at about 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, sir.
Q Arriving at Santiago, where did you go first?
A We fetched first our confidential informant along the National Highway then we proceeded to the Santiago Police Office for coordination, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q And after coordinating with the PNP, what happened next?
A We conducted final briefing together with the CI and it was also agreed upon that the pre-arranged signal which I will be giving to my immediate back up for the completion of the transaction is that, I will remove my pony tail once the transaction was consummated, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q So after unfurling your pony tail, you said: "Do not move because I am a PDEA Agent?"
A No sir, After unfurling my pony tail, when I can already see my immediate back-up coming towards us, that was the time I introduced myself and ordered them not to move, sir.
Q And what happened next after that?
A They were apprised of their constitutional rights by our team leader and explained why they are being arrested and after that, we proceeded to the Santiago Police Office for the inventory and photographs, sir.
Q After you received the sachet of shabu, what did you do with it immediately after the transaction was made, where did you place it?
A Immediately after the transaction was made, I placed it in the secret pocket of my pants, sir.
Q So it has a secret pocket?
A Yes, sir, the smaller one at the side. SDAaTC
Q Now you said they were arrested and they were brought to the PNP Station. Along the way, who was in possession of that sachet.
A I, sir.
Q How about the marked money?
A IO1 Bitamug, sir.
xxx xxx xxx
Q So arriving at the PNP Station, what, if any, did you and Bitamug do?
A At the PNP Station, we conducted the markings of the confiscated pieces of evidence. It was also photographed and this was also witnessed by the representative of the DOJ, Media and Barangay Kagawad, sir. 11 (Emphasis supplied)
Focusing on the first link or the seizure and marking, the Court notes that, contrary to the rules, the marking, inventory, and photograph-taking of the seized evidence was not immediately done at the place of arrest.
Further, the prosecution also failed to show the presence, during the seizure and confiscation of the contraband, of the three (3) insulating witnesses. The presence of the witnesses was only mentioned during the marking, inventory, and photograph-taking at the police station. There were also no photographs taken during the arrest of accused-appellants to place the required witnesses at the time of seizure or confiscation of the contraband. The rule requiring the presence of the three (3) insulating witnesses is aimed to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drugs. Their presence must be secured not only during the inventory of the confiscated drugs but at the time of seizure and confiscation to belie any doubt as to the source, identity, and integrity of the seized drugs. It is at this time when they are most needed to insulate against the police practices of planting evidence. 12
Going now to the fourth link in the chain of custody, the Court finds the testimony of the forensic chemist, PCI Alfredo M. Quintero (PCI Quintero) lacking in detail as to show the proper preservation of the identity and integrity of the seized drugs. PCI Quintero merely testified on the condition of the seized contraband when it was received by PO1 Boyet Santiago. According to PCI Quintero, he made a qualitative examination on said item as reflected in Chemistry Report No. D-010-2012 but no further testimony was made on how, where, or by whom the seized items were kept after the examination and before it was presented in court. 13
Concededly, the IRR of RA 9165 offers a saving clause allowing leniency whenever justifiable grounds exist to warrant deviation from established protocol. 14 However, the saving clause is only triggered upon proof of justifiable grounds and as long as the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved. The prosecution must first recognize any lapses on the part of the apprehending officers and thereafter explain the cited justifiable grounds. The justifiable explanation must also be credible. Thereafter, the prosecution must show all the links in the chain of custody. 15
Yet, a perusal of the records shows no justifiable grounds given by the prosecution for the lapses committed by the officers. No reason was proffered for the decision to transfer to the Santiago Police Office even as there was, in fact, no showing of any danger of conducting the inventory at the place of arrest. The prosecution also did not offer any explanation why the presence of the insulating witnesses was not secured to observe the inventory and photograph-taking at the place of arrest immediately after confiscation of the seized evidence. The officers had every opportunity to secure the presence of the required witnesses owing to the nature of a buy-bust operation as a planned activity. Courts must employ heightened scrutiny, consistent with the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt, in evaluating cases involving minuscule amounts of drugs as they can be readily planted and tampered with, 16 as in this case where a meager 0.032 gram of shabu is involved.
In view of the foregoing lapses in the chain of custody and the lack of compliance with Section 21 of RA 9165, coupled with the lack of any justifiable grounds found in the records, the acquittal of accused-appellants is only proper.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated 28 March 2019 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09129 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellants Rosalinda Broncano y Banas and Esmeralda Alcantara y Sagnip are ACQUITTED of the crime charged and are ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED unless they are being lawfully held in custody for any other reason.
The Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women is ORDERED to REPORT to this Court within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution the action taken pursuant to this Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
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. 3-15; penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon A. Cruz and Ronaldo Roberto B. Martin of the Eighth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2.Records, p. 1.
3.Rollo, pp. 4-8.
4. CA rollo, p. 73.
5.Rollo, p. 14.
6.Id. at pp. 9-14.
7. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Republic Act No. 9165, 07 June 2002.
8. Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9165, IRR of RA 9165, 30 August 2002.
9.People v. Moreno, G.R. No. 234273, 18 September 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
10.People v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 235658, 22 June 2020 [Per J. Gesmundo].
11. TSN, 03 September 2014, pp. 5-15.
12.People v. Adobar, G.R. No. 222559, 06 June 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
13. TSN, 08 July 2014, pp. 3-8.
14.People v. Sanico, G.R. No. 240431, 07 July 2020 [Per CJ Peralta].
15.Supra at note 12.
16.Id.