THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 251051. September 29, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee, vs.JOVEN CABUCANA, JR. y BARIT, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 251051 (People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joven Cabucana, Jr. y Barit, Accused-Appellant). — This is an appeal seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 28 June 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 07678. The CA affirmed the Judgment 2 dated 18 May 2015 of Branch 1, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City, in Criminal Case No. 14752.
Antecedents
Accused-appellant Joven Cabucana, Jr. y Barit was indicted for violation of Section 5 3 of Republic Act No. (RA) 9165 4 as follows:
That around 1:00 o'clock in the afternoon of April 13, 2002, in the City of Tuguegarao, Province of Cagayan and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the accused JOVEN CABUCANA, JR. y BARIT alias "JUN," without authority of law and without any permit to sell, transport, deliver, and distribute dangerous drugs, did then and there, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously, sell and distribute two (2) pieces of heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a total weight of 0.12 gram of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE, commonly (sic) "shabu," a dangerous drug, to IO1 Denis B. Singson, Jr. who acted as poseur-buyer; that when the accused handed to the said poseur-buyer the plastic sachets containing the dangerous drug, the poseur-buyer in turn handed to the accused the agreed purchase price of the dangerous drug in the amount of P3,000.00 which were previously marked and used as buy-bust money, consisting of one (1) piece of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) peso-bill bearing Serial No. RF488110 and two (2) pieces One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) boodle money, and this led to the immediate apprehension and arrest of the accused and the recovery of the buy-bust money from his possession, control, and custody at Barangay Tanza, particularly beside Azurin Building along Don Domingo Road, this city, by members of the Philippine drug (sic) Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Regional Office No. 02, Camp Marcelo Adduru, this City who formed the buy-bust team, that the buy-bust operation led to the confiscation of the dangerous drug.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 5
When arraigned, Cabucana entered a plea of "not guilty" to the charge. 6 At the preliminary conference, the prosecution and defense agreed to the following stipulations of fact and admissions: (1) the identity of accused-appellant Cabucana; (2) that he was at Barangay Tanza, Tuguegarao City on 13 April 2012; (3) that he was arrested at Barangay Tanza, Tuguegarao City on 13 April 2012; and (4) that he was subjected to inquest proceeding. 7 CAIHTE
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution's version of the events are as follows: At around 10:00 A.M. of 13 April 2012, operatives of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA)-Regional Office No. 2 received a tip from a confidential informant about the drug-peddling activities of a certain "Jun" in Barangay Tanza, Tuguegarao City.
A team was thereafter formed for purposes of conducting a buy-bust operation against said "Jun." Intelligence Officer 1 Denis B. Singson, Jr. (IO1 Singson) was designated to act as poseur-buyer, with Intelligence Officer 1 Johnny Sumalag (IO1 Sumalag) serving as his immediate back-up. The confidential informant arranged to meet with Cabucana beside the Azurin Building along Don Domingo Road in Barangay Tanza.
At around 12:30 P.M. of the same day, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area. IO1 Singson and the confidential informant headed to the Azurin Building while the rest of the team positioned themselves in nearby strategic places. Not long after, Cabucana arrived and approached the confidential informant who introduced IO1 Singson to him as an interested buyer of shabu worth P3,000.00. Cabucana then brought out two (2) small, heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and handed them to IO1 Singson. In exchange, IO1 Singson gave him the marked bills worth P3,000.00.
With the sale consummated, IO1 Singson executed the pre-arranged signal, prompting IO1 Sumalag and the rest of the team to rush to scene to assist the former in apprehending Cabucana. IO1 Singson introduced himself as a PDEA Agent and seized Cabucana's cellular phone. IO1 Sumalag thereafter conducted a body search on Cabucana and recovered from him the P3,000.00 buy-bust money. SO2 Pagulayan apprised Cabucana of his constitutional rights as an accused, after which the team brought Cabucana and the seized items to the police station located along Don Domingo Road.
There, IO1 Singson conducted the physical inventory and marked the confiscated items with his initials ("DBS"). Photographs of Cabucana and the seized items were also taken. All these were witnessed by Department of Justice (DOJ) representative Ferdinand A. Gangan and Barangay Kagawad Antonio B. Paleg. Afterwards, the confiscated drugs were brought to the PDEA office and received by PO1 Jershon Bryan B. Gapay (PO1 Gapay) for turnover to PSI Glenn Ly Tuazon (PSI Tuazon) of the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Office No. 2 in Camp Adduru, Tuguegarao City, for conduct of qualitative and quantitative examination. After examination of the items, PSI Tuazon placed his markings on the plastic sachets and surrendered them to evidence custodian SPO2 Elison Talattad (SPO2 Talattad) for safekeeping.
Version of the Defense
Cabucana, for his part, denied the accusations against him and put up the defenses of denial and frameup. His version of the events are as follows: At the time and date in question, he was in Barangay Tanza to visit his friend Ambet. Around 11:00 A.M., after a drinking session with two (2) of Ambet's female friends, Cabucana fell asleep in one of the rooms in Ambet's house. He woke up when several men who identified themselves as PDEA agents forcibly barged into the room and arrested him. These men held him at gun point, subjected him to a body search without a warrant, and confiscated his money worth P800.00 and mobile phone. Thereafter, Cabucana was made to board a white vehicle and brought to the PDEA Office where he was shown a plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance and three (3) One Thousand Peso bills allegedly recovered from him. Photographs were also taken and he was detained at the PDEA office for twenty-seven (27) days.
The defense also presented the testimony of one Eriberto Gomez, Jr. (Gomez), an expert in the field of dactyloscopy, who testified that he works for the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and that his duties involve the gathering, examination and analysis of fingerprint evidence for purposes of identification and authentication, among others. Gomez recounted that their office received a Resolution dated 15 October 2012 from the court and a Letter-Request from the PDEA for dactyloscopy examination of the boodle money used in this case. After examination and comparison with the standard fingerprints of Cabucana, Gomez concluded that the identified latent prints appearing on the specimens he examined do not match those of Cabucana's.
Ruling of the RTC
On 18 May 2015, the RTC rendered its Judgment finding Cabucana guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and pay the fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
Undaunted, Cabucana interposed an appeal with the CA contending, inter alia, that the apprehending officers failed to comply with Section 21 of RA 9165 and establish an unbroken chain in the custody of the seized drug items.
Ruling of the CA
The CA denied his appeal in its assailed Decision dated 28 June 2018. It found that the trial court correctly convicted Cabucana for violation of Section 5, Article II of RA No. 9165. According to the CA, all the elements for the crime of sale of dangerous drugs were duly proven and the chain of custody over the seized items was not shown to have been broken. The dispositive portion of the CA's Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is DENIED. The assailed Judgment dated May 18, 2015 of the RTC, Branch 1, Tuguegarao City, Cagayan in Criminal Case No. 14752 is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 8 DETACa
Hence, the present recourse.
On 21 September 2020, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a Manifestation (In Lieu of Supplemental Brief) 9 on behalf of the People stating that it would no longer file a supplemental brief as there were no new or substantial matters raised by Cabucana to warrant a reversal of the challenged Decision and Judgment.
Issue
The Court now resolves whether the CA erred in affirming Cabucana's conviction.
Ruling of the Court
We GRANT the appeal. Cabucana is ACQUITTED based on reasonable doubt.
Cabucana is charged with the crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, defined and penalized under Section 5, Article II of RA 9165. To sustain a conviction in actions involving the illegal sale of dangerous drugs, two requisites must be met: (1) there must be proof that the transaction or sale took place; and (2) the corpus delicti must be presented in court as evidence. The confiscated drugs constitute the corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is essential to sustain a judgment of conviction. It is the prosecution's duty to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the substance seized from the accused is the exact and the same substance offered in court as proof of the crime. 10
Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, the law then in effect at the time of the alleged commission of the offense, outlines the procedure to be followed by police officers in the handling of seized drugs to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value. 11 This Section provides:
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;
xxx xxx xxx 12
Thus, under Section 21, the apprehending team is mandated, immediately after seizure and confiscation, to conduct a physical inventory of, and photograph, the seized items in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: a representative from the media and the DOJ and any elected public official. The requirement of the presence of these witnesses is intended to "remove any suspicion of switching, planting, or contamination of evidence." 13
We agree with Cabucana that the arresting officers did not strictly comply with the requirements of Section 21. First, the inventory and photography of the seized drugs were not conducted immediately upon arrest. It is not disputed that the inventory and photographing of the seized drugs were conducted at the police station along Don Domingo Road, and not at the Azurin Building where Cabucana was allegedly arrested. Furthermore, none of the witnesses required by law were alleged to be present at the place of arrest. Two (2) of the three (3) required witnesses, namely, DOJ representative Gangan and Barangay Kagawad Paleg, were merely called in to witness the inventory, not at the place of arrest and seizure, but at the police station. Worse, the third required witness, a media representative, was not even present. To be sure, the required witnesses should be present during the conduct of the inventory at the place of seizure and confiscation. 14
In Lescano v. People, 15 this Court stressed that compliance with the requirements of Section 21 is critical: "Even the doing of acts which ostensibly approximate compliance but do not actually comply with the requirements of Section 21 does not suffice." 16 The presence of the required witnesses at the time of arrest, in particular, are important as they would be able to attest that the buy-bust operation, seizure and inventory of the seized drugs were done accordingly. 17
While law and jurisprudence may allow for some deviation from established protocol, there must be a showing that justifiable grounds exist and that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were nevertheless properly preserved. 18 The justifiable ground for non-compliance must be proven as a fact, because the Court cannot presume what these grounds are or that they even exist. 19 In this case, no explanation was offered to sufficiently justify the absence of the media representative or the apprehending team's deviation from the procedure required under the law.
Even granting, for the sake of argument, that there was justifiable ground for the absence of the required witness or the deviation from protocol, there is still insufficient proof to support a view that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items were properly preserved.
For a successful prosecution of a case involving illegal drugs, it is required that there be testimony as to how the subject drug specimen was handled in every link of the chain of custody over the seized drugs. The prosecution must satisfy the court 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. 20 aDSIHc
In this case, there are substantial gaps in the testimony regarding the chain of custody over the specimen offered in evidence against Cabucana. While the prosecution claims that the seized items were received by a certain PO1 Gapay of the PNP Crime Laboratory from IO1 Singson, PO1 Gapay was not presented to testify prove that the shabu delivered to the crime laboratory was the same shabu confiscated from Cabucana. 21 Neither was there testimony as to the condition and handling of the items after forensic chemist PSI Tuazon turned them over to evidence custodian SPO2 Talattad for safekeeping until they were presented in court. These gaps militate against a finding that the sachets supposedly seized from Cabucana are the very same sachets turned over for laboratory testing and presentation in court.
While testimony about a perfect chain is not always the standard because it is almost always impossible to obtain, an unbroken chain of custody is indispensable when, as in this case, the evidence is not distinctive or readily identifiable. 22 A stricter adherence to the chain of custody rule is, in fact, required in cases involving miniscule quantities of illegal drugs. The 0.12 gram of shabu allegedly obtained from Cabucana during the buy-bust operation is an extremely small amount highly susceptible to planting, tampering or alteration of evidence. 23 This is crucial especially when considered in light of the defenses put up by Cabucana.
We also note that the CA refused to give weight to NBI expert witness Gomez' testimony regarding the mismatch between the latent prints found on the boodle money and Cabucana's standard prints. According to the appellate court, the long period of time between the actual seizure of the boodle money (13 April 2012) to the time it was subjected to dactyloscopy examination (sometime between 24 October to 20 November 2012) casts serious doubts on the results' accuracy. While this may be true, it must also be considered that (1) from the time of his arrest, Cabucana could not have had any control over the handling of said specimen; and (2) the Resolution from the trial court regarding the PDEA's request for dactyloscopy examination was only dated 15 October 2012. 24 In any case, we find that the foregoing serves to further highlight the importance of complying with established protocol. The apprehending team's less than exacting observance of the requirements of Section 21 in this case tends to raise, rather than remove, doubt regarding Cabucana's culpability for the crime charged.
In sum, this Court cannot but entertain doubt as to the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drugs presented to prove Cabucana's guilt. He must perforce be acquitted. 25
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby GRANTED. The Decision dated 28 June 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-H.C. No. 07678 finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 5, Article II of Republic Act No. 9165, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant JOVEN CABUCANA, JR. y BARIT is hereby ACQUITTED on the ground of reasonable doubt. He is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED unless he is being lawfully held in custody for any other reason. Let an entry of final judgment be issued immediately.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections is DIRECTED to implement the immediate release of Joven Cabucana, Jr. y Barit and to report compliance within five (5) days from receipt.
SO ORDERED." Leonen, J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-23; penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando with Associate Justices Jane Aurora C. Lantion and Zenaida T. Galapate-Laguilles, concurring.
2.CA rollo, pp. 80-91; penned by Presiding Judge Raymond Reynold R. Lauigan.
3. Section 5. Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation, Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals.
4. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
5.CA rollo, pp. 80-81.
6.Id. at 82.
7.Id. at 127.
8.Id. at 145.
9.Rollo, pp. 36-38.
10.People v. Paras, G.R. No. 233699 (Notice), 17 February 2020.
11.Ramos v. People, G.R. No. 233572, 30 July 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
12. Emphasis supplied.
13.People v. Alfredo Doctolero, Jr., G.R. No. 243940, 20 August 2019 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
14.See People v. Flores, G.R. No. 220464, 10 June 2019 [Per J. Caguioa].
15. 778 Phil. 460 (2016), G.R. No. 214490, 13 January 2016 [Per J. Leonen].
16.Lescano v. People, supra.
17.People v. Caranto, G.R. No. 217668, 20 February 2019 [Per J. Caguioa] citing People v. Tomawis, G.R. No. 228890, 18 April 2018 [Per J. Caguioa].
18.People v. Caringal, G.R. No. 236585 (Notice), 05 December 2019.
19.People v. Miranda, G.R. No. 229671, 31 January 2018 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe] citing People v. De Guzman, 630 Phil. 637 (2010), G.R. No. 186498, 26 March 2010 [Per J. Nachura].
20.People v. Ubungen, G.R. No. 225497, 23 July 2018 [Per Justice Martires]. See also People v. Alon-Alon, G.R. No. 237803, 27 November 2019 [Per J. Zalameda].
21.See People v. Myrna Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19 (2017), G.R. 206590, 27 March 2017 [Per J. Del Castillo].
22.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576 (2008), G.R. No. 172953, 30 April 2008, [Per J. Tinga].
23.People v. Oliva, G.R. No. 234156, 07 January 2019 [Per J. Peralta]; People v. Dela Torre, G.R. No. 238519, 16 June 2019 [Per J. Peralta].
24.Rollo, pp. 10, 21-22.
25.People v. Miranda, supra.