FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 252331. September 14, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. RICHIE BOY CABILTES y TOMADA, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 14, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 252331 (People of the Philippines, plaintiff-appellee v. Richie Boy Cabiltes y Tomada, accused-appellant).
This appeal seeks to reverse and set aside the June 27, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 10523, affirming the January 31, 2018 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4 of Pallocan West, Batangas City, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 17-22923 and 17-22924, which convicted Richie Boy Cabiltes y Tomada (accused-appellant) of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, punishable under Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as amended by R.A. No. 10640.
Antecedents
Two sets of Information were filed against accused-appellant for illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the accusatory portions of which read as follows:
Criminal Case No. 17-22923
That on or about the 2nd day of August 2017, at about 5:20 o'clock in the afternoon at Brgy. Poblacion, Municipality of Mabini, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there willfully and unlawfully sell, deliver and give-away one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, referred to as Specimen A ("JLV-1") in Chemistry Report No. BD-950-2017, weighing 0.02 gram, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 3
Criminal Case No. 17-22924
That on or about the 2nd day of August 2017, at about 5:20 o'clock in the afternoon at Brgy. Poblacion, Municipality of Mabini, Province of Batangas, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, without authority of law, did then and there have in his possession, custody and control five (5) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings ("JLV-2") to ("JLV-6") each containing methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, referred to as Specimens B to F in Chemistry Report No. BD-950-2017, having a total weight of 0.22 gram, a dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 4
The two cases were consolidated. Upon arraignment, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to both charges. 5 Trial on the merits ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
Pursuant to the surveillance conducted by police officers of the Mabini Municipal Police Station, Batangas, a buy-bust operation was planned to entrap accused-appellant.
On August 2, 2017, at around 5:10 p.m., Police Officer I Junelord Villanueva (PO1 Villanueva), the designated poseur-buyer, together with a civilian asset, met with accused-appellant near a cockpit in Barangay Poblacion, Mabini, Batangas. The civilian asset introduced PO1 Villanueva to accused-appellant as his cousin. PO1 Villanueva asked accused-appellant if he had any "pampagana," to which accused-appellant answered by inquiring how much PO1 Villanueva would buy. PO1 Villanueva replied that he needed P500.00 worth, then handed the P500.00 marked money to accused-appellant. Upon receipt, accused-appellant placed the marked money in his right pocket and took out from his left pocket a small plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance which he gave to PO1 Villanueva. Upon inspecting the contents, PO1 Villanueva grabbed accused-appellant's hand, alerting the rest of the buy-bust team to approach them. The buy-bust team introduced themselves as police officers, arrested accused-appellant, and informed him of his constitutional rights. 6
PO1 Villanueva frisked accused-appellant and recovered from the latter's right pocket the P500.00 marked money and five (5) more plastic sachets containing white crystalline substance from the latter's left pocket, which PO1 Villanueva immediately marked as "JLV-2," "JLV-3," "JLV-4," "JLV-5," and "JLV-6." The seized item subject of the sale was marked as "JLV-1." The inventory was conducted at the scene of the crime in the presence of accused-appellant, Barangay Councilor Wilson Arga, media representative Lito Rendora, and buy-bust team leader PO2 John Joseph Malabuyoc (PO2 Malabuyoc). After the inventory, PO1 Villanueva placed the confiscated items in an evidence bag and turned it over to the investigator, PO2 Leody Mercado Panganiban (PO2 Panganiban).
The arresting officers brought accused-appellant to the Zigzag Hospital for medical examination. Thereafter, they proceeded to the police station for documentation by PO2 Panganiban, who brought the seized items to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory Office. The said items were received by PO3 Joel Barcelona (PO3 Barcelona), 7 and thereafter turned over to Forensic Chemist PSI Camille Bandelaria Ocfemia (PSI Ocfemia) for examination. When tested, the specimens yielded positive results for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. 8
The prosecution presented PO1 Villanueva as witness and offered in evidence the one plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance subject of the sale, the five sachets recovered from accused-appellant's possession, and the P500.00 marked money. 9
Version of the Defense
The defense presented accused-appellant and his friend, Darwin Nicol, as witnesses. Accused-appellant recounted that at the time of his arrest, a man in civilian clothes approached him and told him to go with him to the police station. He boarded the man's vehicle and was brought to the Mabini Police Station, where he was frisked. Although nothing was found in his possession, his photographs were taken. Thereafter, he was brought to the roadside near the cockpit where they saw three (3) other men waiting, and who took out the marked money and sachets containing white crystalline substance. He was then taken back to the police station and later to the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory for drug testing, which yielded negative for traces of illegal drugs. To attest to his good moral character, he presented a handwritten letter containing seventy (70) signatures of the residents in his barangay. 10
Ruling of the RTC
The RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the two (2) charges. The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court hereby renders judgment as follows:
1. In Criminal Case No. 17-22923 for violation of Sec. 5, Article II of RA 9165, the court finds accused RICHIE BOY CABILTES y Tomada, GUILTY, and in the absence of any aggravating circumstance, hereby sentences him to LIFE IMPRISONMENT, and to pay a fine of five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
2. In Criminal Case No. 17-22924 for violation of Sec. 11, Article II of RA 9165, the court finds accused RICHIE BOY CABILTES y Tomada GUILTY, and hereby sentences him with imprisonment of twelve years (12) and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years, and to pay a fine of three hundred thousand pesos (P300,000.00), without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Let a Commitment Order [be] issue[d] for the accused's transfer from the Batangas Provincial Jail to the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa, Metro Manila for the service of his sentence.
The plastic sachets (Exhibits "N" to "S") containing 0.24 gram of shabu, being illegal per se, are hereby ordered confiscated in favor of the government and turned over to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for destruction.
SO ORDERED. 11
Ruling of the CA
The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. It rejected accused-appellant's claim that there were lapses in the chain of custody of the seized items as the Chain of Custody Form did not reflect PO1 Villanueva's signature as the first person who had possession of the specimen. The CA explained that contrary to accused-appellant's contention, the Chain of Custody Form showed the transfer of the seized items from PO1 Villanueva to PO2 Panganiban and then to PO3 Barcelona, until the latter withdrew the specimens, together with results, and turned these over to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. 12
Anent accused-appellant's contention that there was a violation of Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 because no representative from the National Prosecution Service (NPS) was present during the inventory, the CA clarified that since the buy-bust operation was conducted on August 2, 2017, after the enactment of R.A. No. 10640 in 2014, the inventory and taking of photographs of the confiscated items must be witnessed by any elected public official and a representative from either the NPS or the media. Hence, since the inventory was conducted in the presence of an elected public official and a media representative, the requirements of Sec. 21, as amended, were complied with. 13
The CA rejected accused-appellant's argument that PO3 Barcelona was not presented in open court and that the prosecution failed to establish how the specimens were turned over to the forensic chemist. It took note that the parties had stipulated on the testimonies of PO3 Barcelona and PSI Ocfemia in the Joint Motion and Manifestation. 14
Issues
Accused-appellant filed a Notice of Appeal, 15 raising the following arguments:
I
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 5 AND 11, ARTICLE II OF R.A. NO. 9165 DESPITE THE FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO ESTABLISH THE CHAIN OF CUSTODY OF THE ALLEGEDLY CONFISCATED ITEMS.
II
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT OF THE CRIMES CHARGED DESPITE THE POLICE OFFICERS' NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS PRESCRIBED BY R.A. NO. 9165, AS AMENDED.
III
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE ACCUSED-APPELLANT'S DEFENSE OF DENIAL AND FRAME-UP. 16
Accused-appellant argues that the gap in the chain of custody casts doubt on the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti; that the first link was not established because PO1 Villanueva's signature was not reflected in the Chain of Custody Form; that the second link was also not established because it did not indicate that PO1 Villanueva turned over the confiscated items to the case investigator; that since PO3 Barcelona was not presented in open court, the third link was also not established; and that an elected public official and media representative were not present during the seizure and confiscation of the allegedly seized items.
The State, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) countered that the prosecution has established accused-appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt; that the trial court had correctly given credence to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses; that accused-appellant's denial cannot prevail over the testimony, stipulations, documentary, and object evidence submitted by the prosecution, as well as the positive identification by PO1 Villanueva that accused-appellant was the person who sold and possessed the plastic sachets containing shabu; that his guilt was based on the testimony of PO1 Villanueva and the joint stipulations of fact entered by the parties regarding the testimonies of PO2 Panganiban, PO2 Malabuyoc, PO2 Barcelona, PSI Ocfemia, Norilyn Manalo (employee of the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor), and the documentary and object evidence presented by the prosecution; that PO1 Villanueva attested that the marking and inventory of the items were done right where the buy-bust operation was conducted at Barangay Poblacion, Mabini, Batangas, in the presence of an elected barangay official and a media representative; that the defense admitted the existence, authenticity, due execution, and genuineness of the Certificate of Inventory; and that the prosecution was able to establish all the elements of illegal sale and illegal possession of dangerous drugs. 17
The Court's Ruling
The appeal has merit.
In order for the prosecution to successfully prosecute a case of illegal sale of drugs, the following elements should be established: (1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and payment therefor. 18 To prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution must present in evidence the corpus delicti or the seized illegal drugs.
The prosecution, therefore, is tasked to establish that the substance illegally possessed by accused-appellant is the same substance presented before the court. 19 It must be able to account for each link of the chain of custody from the moment the illegal drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 20
The chain of custody is divided into four (4) links: first, the seizure and marking, if practicable, 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. 21
After reviewing the records in this case, the Court finds that the prosecution failed to establish the integrity of the second and fourth links.
In People v. Villojan, Jr., 22 the Court explained how the second link in the chain of custody may be established, thus:
The second link involves the [turnover] of the confiscated drugs to the police station, the recording of the incident, and the preparation of the necessary documents such as the request for laboratory examination of the seized drugs. Since it is not remote that the handling police officer came in contact with the seized drugs during this procedure, it is, therefore, necessary that such officer/s be identified and accounted for and made to explain about the steps he/she/they had undertaken to ensure that the integrity and evidentiary value of the illegal drugs were not compromised while in his/her/their possession. ( emphasis supplied)
Notably, the parties herein stipulated on the testimony of PO2 Panganiban, the investigator assigned to the case. However, the Court perused the pertinent Joint Motion and Manifestation 23 submitted by the parties, but failed to find any stipulation on how PO2 Panganiban ensured the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items from the time he received the same from PO1 Villanueva until his endorsement to PO3 Barcelona of the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory. Interestingly, while both parties stipulated that PO2 Panganiban did not place his own markings on the turned-over items, 24 they also admitted that no pictures were taken when he received and turned over the confiscated items. 25 Indeed, there could be no other evidence to prove that the evidentiary value of the seized contraband had been preserved while in PO2 Panganiban's custody.
In People v. Ubungen, 26 this Court emphasized that while the identity of the investigating officer may have been established by the prosecution, it is still necessary to prove that every person who had custody of the exhibit took the necessary precaution to preserve the integrity of the said evidence, as well as to ensure that no opportunity would be afforded any other person to contaminate the same. Clearly, this requirement was not satisfied by the prosecution.
Similarly, the fourth link was also not established. There was nothing in the stipulations submitted by the parties which would prove how PO3 Barcelona, the evidence custodian, ensured that the confiscated items entrusted to him for safekeeping had been preserved from any possibility of exchange or adulteration. To recall, PO3 Barcelona received the subject items from PO2 Panganiban on August 2, 2017, and turned over the same to PSI Ocfemia for laboratory examination. After PSI Ocfemia completed her examination on August 3, 2017, she returned the same items inside a bigger plastic sachet, which was sealed and marked, to PO3 Barcelona. It was only on August 17, 2017 that PO3 Barcelona delivered the said items to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor. During such time that PO3 Barcelona was in custody of the subject evidence, especially from August 3 until August 17, 2017, the prosecution failed to prove how he successfully preserved the confiscated drugs from being contaminated, altered or exchanged. It is a settled rule that absent any testimony on the management, storage, and preservation of the seized illegal drug, the fourth link in the chain of custody could not be reasonably established. 27
Given the procedural lapses and the absence of any justification from the prosecution for the said breaches, the Court has serious doubts over the identity of the seized drugs. Consequently, accused-appellant must be acquitted based on reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed June 27, 2019 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR HC No. 10523 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accordingly, accused-appellant Richie Boy Cabiltes y Tomada is ACQUITTED for failure of the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention, unless he is detained for any other lawful cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
The Director General of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to IMPLEMENT this Resolution and to report to this Court the action taken hereon within five (5) days from receipt.
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. 3-26; penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta with Associate Justices Rodil V. Zalameda (now a Member of this Court) and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
2. CA rollo, pp. 58-62; penned by Presiding Judge Albert A. Kalalo.
3.Rollo, p. 6.
4.Id. at 7.
5.Id.
6.Id. at 4-5.
7. Addressed as PO2 in some portions of the records.
8.Id. at 5-6.
9.Id. at 8.
10. CA rollo, p. 60.
11.Id. at 61-62.
12.Rollo, pp. 10-11.
13.Id. at 21.
14.Id. at 21-22.
15.Id. at 27.
16. CA rollo, p. 40.
17.Id. at 85-98.
18.People v. Lorenzo, 633 Phil. 393, 402 (2010).
19.People v. Kasan, G.R. No. 238334, July 3, 2019.
20.Hedreyda v. People, G.R. No. 243313, November 27, 2019; People v. Marcelo, G.R. No. 228893, November 26, 2018.
21.People v. Villalon, Jr., G.R. No. 249412, March 15, 2021, citing Dela Riva v. People, 769 Phil. 872, 886-887 (2015).
22. G.R. No. 239635, July 22, 2019.
23. RTC Records, pp. 45-48.
24.Id. at 47.
25.Id.
26. 836 Phil. 888 (2018).
27.People v. Alon-Alon, G.R. No. 237803, November 27, 2019, People v. Ubungen, id. at 902.