FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250143. November 18, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. CHRISTINA CAGAS y GUMON A.K.A. "CHRISTY CAGAS", accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 18, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250143 (People of the Philippines v. Christina Cagas y Gumon a.k.a. "Christy Cagas''). — This is an appeal from the June 28, 2019 Decision 1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02548, which modified the March 22, 2017 Decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 30, Dumaguete City. The CA found Christina G. Cagas a.k.a. "Christy Cagas" (Cagas) guilty of violation of Section 26 in relation to Section 5 of Republic Act No. 9165 (R.A. No. 9165).
On June 18, 2015, Cagas was charged with selling methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as shabu, penalized under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165. The information was later on amended, the accusatory portion of which reads:
That on or about the 17th day of June 2015 in the City of Dumaguete, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the said accused, not being then authorized by law, did, then and there willfully, unlawfully and criminally sell and/or deliver to a poseur-buyer two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets containing 0.34 gram of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, commonly known as "shabu," a dangerous drug.
That accused had been found positive for the use of Methamphetamine, a dangerous drug, as reflected in Chemistry Report No. DT-168-15. 3
Facts
The CA synthesized the antecedents of the case, as follows:
PO3 Edilmar Manaban, PCI Josephine Llena, PO2 Placido Xandro Paclauna, PO2 Edwardo Marinduque, Jr., DOJ Representative Anthony Chilius Benlot, Barangay Kagawad Candido Kinikito, Sr., and Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) Agent IO1 Julieta Amatong testified for the prosecution.
Sometime on 17 June 2015, PO2 Edwardo Marinduque Jr. (PO2 Marinduque) was on duty at the Dumaguete City Police Station when he overheard a conversation between a Confidential Informant (CI) and their team leader P/Insp. Marvin Fegarido (P/Insp. Fegarido). The CI told P/Insp. Fegarido that a certain Christy Cagas was selling shabu at Purok Madasigon, Sitio Canday-ong, Barangay Calindagan, Dumaguete City. The CI described Christy Cagas as around thirty-five (35) years old, wearing red sando top and yellow short pants. Based on the said information P/Insp. Fegarido immediately conducted a briefing for a buy-bust operation against Cagas. Five (5) operatives and the CI were tasked to perform the operation. PO2 Marinduque was designated as poseur-buyer. P/Insp. Fegarido gave him two P100 bills with serial numbers NV116715 and NF879556 to be used as buy-bust money.
PO2 Marinduque then coordinated with the PDEA by sending them a text message regarding the planned operation and the serial number of the buy-bust money to be used. The PDEA replied with a coordination control number, among others. IO1 Julieta Amatong confirmed that she received the text message requesting for coordination from PO2 Marinduque. She recorded the request for coordination, the details of the buy-bust operation, and the serial numbers of the buy-bust money in the PDEA blotter. After the buy-bust operation and the inventory, she received copies of the pre-operation report, the booking details, inventory, and spot report regarding the arrest from PO2 Marinduque and recorded the fact in the PDEA blotter book. She also prepared the Certificate of Coordination, as requested.
Meanwhile, the buy-bust team proceeded to the target area on board four (4) motorcycles. PO2 Marinduque and the CI rode together on one motorcycle while the rest of the team followed them. The team arrived at the area at around 9:16 P.M. of the same day. PO2 Marinduque and the CI parked their motorcycle around ten (10) meters away from Cagas' location. Both the CI and PO2 Marinduque then approached Cagas. When they were five (5) meters away, the CI pointed out Cagas to PO2 Marinduque, who notably, was wearing a red sando top and yellow short pants, exactly as earlier described by the CI. Thereafter, PO2 Marinduque approached Cagas and conversed with her in the Visayan language. He told her that he would like to buy an "item" which meant shabu. Without hesitation, Cagas produced two (2) pieces of transparent plastic sachets containing a white crystalline substance from the right pocket of her yellow short pants and handed the same to PO2 Marinduque. He inspected the contents of the sachet by pinching them. The crystalline substance contained therein immediately cracked. From his knowledge and training, PO2 Marinduque believed in good faith that the same sachets contained shabu. PO2 Marinduque then handed Cagas the two (2) one hundred peso bills previously earmarked as the buy-bust money. PO2 Marinduque opted for a direct approach in buying from Cagas because there were several other persons buying from her in the same manner.
After the exchange and while Cagas was still holding the buy-bust money, PO2 Marinduque held her hand and immediately introduced himself as a police officer. Cagas made no resistance since PO2 Marinduque had already held her. He then informed her of her arrest, telling her that it was a buy-bust operation, and apprising her of her constitutional rights, all in the Visayan language which she understood. At this time, PO2 Marinduque had the initial custody of the two (2) sachets subject of the sale, keeping one in his right pocket and the other in his left pocket. As PO2 Marinduque felt that it was unsafe to conduct the inventory at the crime scene due to the presence of Cagas' friends and relatives, he decided to bring her and the seized dangerous drugs to the police station instead.
At the police station, particularly at the Dumaguete Intelligence Office, PO2 Marinduque immediately contacted the legally required witnesses, namely: Brandon Teves (Teves) for the media, Barangay Kagawad Candido Kinikito, Sr. (Kinikito) and DOJ representative Anthony Chilius Benlot (Benlot). PO2 Marinduque began the marking as soon as Teves arrived. He made the markings on the seized evidence when Cagas and Teves were right beside him. He marked the two (2) sachets as "CGC-BB1-06/17/15" and "CGC-BB2-06/17/15" and affixed his signature therein. "CGC" stood for Christine Gumon Cagas and "BB" meant "Buy-Bust." He then prepared the Receipt/Inventory of Property Seized and asked each of the witnesses to sign the same. He showed each of the witnesses the seized sachets and the buy-bust money. PO2 Placido Xandro Paclauna took pictures of the inventory and the signing. PO2 Marinduque and PO2 Paclauna, respectively, identified the inventory receipt and the pictures in court. Benlot and Kinikito corroborated PO2 Marinduque's testimony regarding the conduct of the inventory.
The prosecution was also supposed to present Teves and P/Insp. Fegarido as witnesses. The gist of their respective testimonies, however, were just stipulated on by the parties. They stipulated that Teves was a media practitioner, that he was present during the inventory, that he signed the inventory receipt and that he was one of the persons appearing on the photograph of the inventory. The fact that P/Insp. Fegarido was an Intelligence Office of the Dumaguete City Police and that he signed the Memorandum Request for Laboratory Examination was also stipulated upon.
After the inventory, PO2 Marinduque sealed the seized sachets inside a white envelope. He personally delivered the sealed white envelope and the person of Cagas to the crime laboratory office which was just at the back of the intelligence office. PO3 Edilmar Manaban (PO3 Manaban) of the crime laboratory office received the sealed white envelope at exactly 10:35 P.M. of 17 June 2015 PO2 Marinduque identified the sealed white envelope and the two (2) sachets contained therein based on the markings he had placed. He also brought to the court and identified the two (2) P100 bills with serial numbers NV116715 and NF879556 which were used as buy-bust money.
PO3 Manaban confirmed that he received the sealed white envelope containing the two (2) sachets of suspected shabu from PO2 Marinduque at exactly 10:35 P.M. of 17 June 2015. He also testified that he received a bottle full of urine sample from Cagas who urinated at the comfort room of the crime laboratory office. PO3 Manaban was the one who provided the marked urine sample bottle to Cagas and he was also the one who sealed and signed the seal of the same bottle after she filled it with her urine. After receipt, PO3 Manaban locked the white envelope containing the two (2) seized sachets inside a cabinet which only he has the key to it. He then placed the urine sample inside the freezer in the crime laboratory office which was intended for that purpose. On the next day, 18 June 2015, at around 11:30 AM., PO3 Manaban retrieved the urine sample and the seized sachets and endorsed them to Forensic Chemist PCI Josephine Llena (PCI Llena) for inspection. This endorsement was evidenced by PO3 Manaban's and PCI Llena's signatures at the Memorandum Request for Laboratory Examination and Drug Test.
PCI Llena identified her signature and her own handwritten time and date on the same Memorandum Request. After receiving the two (2) sachets and the urine sample from PO3 Manaban, PCI Llena physically examined them. She determined that the sachet marked "CGC-BB1" weighed 0.18 grams and the one marked "CGC-BB2" weighed 0.16 grams. After conducting a chemical examination, she prepared Chemistry Report No. D-216-15 where she indicated that both sachets were positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. Likewise, she conducted a chemical testing on the urine sample obtained from Cagas and determined that it also tested positive for Methamphetamine. She indicated this finding in Chemistry Report No. DT-168-15. After the examination, PCI Llena placed her own markings on the two (2) sachets and sealed them in a white envelope. PCI Llena then stored the same envelope inside the crime laboratory office's evidence room. She then retrieved the same on the day of the hearing, noted that her seals and markings were intact, and brought them to the trial court. Both PO3 Manahan and PCI Llena identified the same two (2) sachets of confirmed Methamphetamine Hydrochloride in open court.
Only Cagas testified for her defense. Her theory was denial and frame-up.
On the evening of 17 June 2015, Cagas was allegedly at home sleeping in Purok Mutya, Canday-Ong, Barangay Calindagan, Dumaguete City. At around 8:00 p.m., her sister, Manang Lourdes, woke her up to tell her that a certain Larry Aquiatan (Aquiatan) was looking for her. Cagas went outside just behind her house to meet Aquiatan whom she previously knew being her former classmate and a neighbor. Aquiatan had about six (6) companions with him. He asked her if she knew any drug personalities in the area and he opined that it would be impossible for her not to know anything because she was the only one living there. When Cagas would not speak anymore, Aquiatan forced her to go with him aboard a white vehicle, bringing her to the police station. Cagas claimed that nobody informed her why she was brought to the station. She tried to complain but they told her to just follow whatever they told her.
At the station, the supposed police officers searched Cagas but found nothing. The officers then placed some items on a table beside her and called for witnesses. When the witnesses arrived, they signed something, with each of them asking her if the items on the table were hers. Cagas denied ownership over the said items. She denied that she sold any dangerous drugs at any time. She claimed that she was only informed that she was arrested for selling dangerous drugs at the police station. She remembered, however, that she gave a urine sample at the crime laboratory office. 4
On March 22, 2017, the RTC of Dumaguete City, Branch 30, rendered its decision convicting Cagas for violation of Section 5 of R.A. No. 9165, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court hereby finds the accused Christina Cagas y Gumon a.k.a. Christy Cagas GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of illegal sale and delivery of 0.34 gram of shabu in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
The two (2) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets with markings"CGC-BB1-06/17/15" and "CGC-BB2-06/17/15," respectively, each with signature containing a total of 0.34 gram of shabu are hereby confiscated and forfeited in favor of the government and to be disposed of in accordance with law.
In the service of sentence, the accused Christina Cagas y Gumon a.k.a. Christy Cagas shall be credited with the full time during which she has undergone preventive imprisonment, provided she agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners.
SO ORDERED. 5
In convicting Cagas, the RTC observed that the prosecution was able to establish with certainty that she indeed sold two sachets of shabu for P200.00 to the poseur-buyer, PO2 Marinduque. The testimony of PO2 Marinduque was able to describe the transaction complete from the time he contacted Cagas, to when he offered to buy shabu from her, and until the exchange of the dangerous drugs with the marked money. 6
The RTC was convinced that all the links of the chain of custody of the purchased dangerous drugs had been accounted for. The trial court noted that as PO2 Marinduque had the initial custody, he made the markings and prepared the necessary inventory with all of the required witnesses present. The inventory taking was documented by PO2 Paclauna when he took pictures. PO2 Marinduque then endorsed the seized dangerous drugs to PO3 Manaban of the crime laboratory office. PO3 Manaban locked the same drugs inside a cabinet accessible only to him and then, in turn, handed over the evidence to Forensic Chemist PCI Llena. After receiving the sachets, PCI Llena examined them and determined that they contained a total of 0.34 grams of confirmed methamphetamine hydrochloride. 7
All in all, the trial court found that the witnesses, members of the buy-bust team and the forensics team, who handled the evidence were able to state how they safeguarded the seized sachets of shabu in open court. Thus, the integrity and evidentiary value of the dangerous drugs subject of the sales transaction had been preserved. 8
Thereafter, Cagas filed an appeal with the CA, which rendered a Decision dated June 28, 2019, modifying the RTC Decision, thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Judgment dated 22 March 2017 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Dumaguete City in Criminal Case No. 2015-22999 is AFFIRMED as to the CONVICTION but MODIFIED as follows:
Accused-Appellant CHRISTINA CAGAS y GUMON A.K.A. CHRISTY CAGAS is found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the offense of ATTEMPTED ILLEGAL SALE AND DELIVERY of 0.34 grams of shabu in violation of Section 26, in relation to Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer a penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00).
SO ORDERED. 9
The appellate court found that the prosecution was able to prove an intact and duly recorded chain of custody. The appellate court remarked that the testimony of every person who had custody of the seized sachets also relayed the details on how they safeguarded the integrity of the same. PO2 Marinduque testified that he kept the sachets separately in his pockets and immediately marked them at the police station. He sealed them after the inventory and brought them to the crime laboratory office. PO3 Manahan received the sachets and locked them inside a cabinet that only he has the key before endorsing them to the forensic chemist. After examination, PCI Llena sealed the sachets in a white envelope and stored the same in the office's evidence room. PCI Llena's seal and markings remained intact until she retrieved the evidence and opened them in open court.
Hence, Cagas filed a Notice of Appeal. 10 Accordingly, the CA gave due course to the appeal and elevated the case records to this Court. 11
The OSG submitted a manifestation to the effect that it is waiving the submission of a supplemental brief as it already discussed in its brief for the State the legal principles to support the prosecution's case. 12 Accused-appellant manifested that she is no longer submitting her supplemental brief instead she will be adopting the arguments she raised in her appellant's brief she submitted in the CA. 13 Thus, the case was deemed submitted for decision.
Issue
The sole issue for this Court's resolution is whether or not the appellate court erred in convicting accused-appellant for attempt to sell shabu.
Our Ruling
After a meticulous examination of the records, this Court finds that the acquittal of accused-appellant is warranted.
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640 provides the procedure to be followed in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs, to wit:
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.
The Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations (Guidelines on the IRR) 14 of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 as amended further clarify:
SECTION 1. Implementing Guidelines. — 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:
A. Marking, Inventory and Photograph; Chain of Custody Implementing Paragraph "a" of the IRR
A.1. The apprehending or seizing officer having initial custody and control of the seized or confiscated dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, mark, inventory and photograph the same in the following manner:
A.1.1. The marking, physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items shall be conducted where the search warrant is served.
A.1.2. The marking is the placing by the apprehending officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initial and signature on the item/s seized.
A.1.3. In warrantless seizures, the marking of the seized items in the presence of the violator shall be done immediately at the place where the drugs were seized or at the nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable. The physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted in the same nearest police station or nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable.
A.1.4. In cases when the execution of search warrant is preceded by warrantless seizures, the marking, inventory and photograph of the items recovered from the search warrant shall be performed separately from the marking, inventory and photograph of the items seized from warrantless seizures.
A.1.5. The physical inventory and photograph of the seized/confiscated items shall be done in the presence of the suspect or his representative or counsel, with elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media, who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory of the seized or confiscated items and be given copy thereof. In case of their refusal to sign, it shall be stated "refused to sign" above their names in the certificate of inventory of the apprehending or seizing officer.
A.1.6. A representative of the NPS is anyone from its employees, while the media representative is any media practitioner. The elected public official is any incumbent public official regardless of the place where he/she is elected.
A.1.7. To prevent switching or contamination, the seized items, which are fungible and indistinct in character, and which have been marked after the seizure, shall be sealed in a container or evidence bag and signed by the apprehending/seizing officer for submission to the forensic laboratory for examination.
A.1.8. In case of seizure of plant sources at the plantation site, where it is not physically possible to count or weigh the seizure as a complete entity, the seizing officer shall estimate its count or gross weight or net weight, as the case may be. If it is safe and practicable, marking, inventory and photograph of the seized plant sources may be performed at the plantation site. Representative samples of prescribed quantity pursuant to Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, as amended, and/or Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2007, as amended, shall be taken from the site after the seizure for laboratory examination, and retained for presentation as the corpus delicti of the seized/confiscated plant sources following the chain of custody of evidence.
A.1.9. Noncompliance, under justifiable grounds, with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165, as amended, shall not render void and invalid such seizures and custody over the items provided the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team.
A.1.10. Any justification or explanation in cases of noncompliance with the requirements of Section 21 (1) of RA No. 9165, as amended, shall be clearly stated in the sworn statements/affidavits of the apprehending/seizing officers, as well as the steps taken to preserve the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized/confiscated items. Certification or record of coordination for operating units other than the PDEA pursuant to Section 86 (a) and (b), Article IX of the IRR of RA No. 9165 shall be presented.
In prosecutions for dangerous drugs, the seized dangerous drugs from a suspect comprise the corpus delicti of the charge. 15 In order to obviate any unnecessary doubt on its identity, the prosecution has to show an unbroken chain of custody over the same and account for each link in the chain of custody from the moment the drugs are seized up to their presentation in court as evidence of the crime. 16 Thus, the prosecution must satisfactorily establish the movement and custody of the seized drug through the following links: (1) the confiscation and marking of the specimen seized from the accused by the apprehending officer; (2) the turn over of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turn over of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 17 We find that the State failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody.
The first link speaks of seizure and marking, which should be immediately done at the place of arrest and seizure. 18 The phrase "immediately after seizure and confiscation" means that the physical inventory and photographing of the drugs were intended by the law to be made immediately after, or at the place of apprehension. 19 It is only when the same is not practicable that the law allows the inventory and photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust team reaches the nearest police station or the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team. 20 The immediate marking of the seized drugs operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs from other materials, and forestalls switching, planting, or contamination of evidence. 21 The marking is also crucial since the liability in prosecution of drugs cases depend on the weight of the seized dangerous drugs.
In People v. Tomawis, 22 this Court summarized the requirements in the manner of handling and inventory, time, witnesses, and of place after the arrest of the accused and seizure of the dangerous drugs:
1. The initial custody requirements must be done immediately after seizure or confiscation;
2. The physical inventory and photographing must be done in the presence of:
a. the accused or his representative or counsel;
b. a representative from the media;
c. a representative from the DOJ; and,
d. any elected public official.
3. The conduct of the physical inventory and photograph shall be done at the:
a. place where the search warrant is served; or
b. at the nearest police station; or
c. nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizure.
Upon review of the records of the case, this Court finds that the integrity of the seized two sachets of shabu were already compromised due to the procedural lapses committed by the buy-bust team during the transport and inventory taking of the seized drugs.
We find that the buy-bust team diminished the reliability of the seized drugs as there was a point in time in the handling of the seized drugs that was not explained or accounted for by the buy-bust team. PO2 Marinduque testified that that the markings placed in the two sachets of shabu were done when the buy-bust team and Cagas arrived at the Dumaguete Intelligence Office. He mentioned in his testimony that the buy-bust team decided to conduct the marking, inventory taking, and the photographing at the nearest police station due to safety concerns due to the presence of the relatives and friends of Cagas at the locus criminis. PO2 Marinduque also mentioned that upon seizure of the two sachets of shabu, he placed one sachet in each of his pockets. He did not however testify on how the integrity of the unmarked seized sachets of shabu were kept intact while on transit to the police station. The relevant portions of the testimony of PO2 Marinduque are quoted below:
Q: How many sachets did you receive?
A: Two (2) sachets ma'am.
Q: And then what happened after you informed her of her constitutional right?
A: We brought her to the police station ma'am.
Q: What did you do with the sachets at the crime scene?
A: I put in my pocket in my ma'am.
Q: You brought her to where?
A: Police station ma'am.
Q: For what purpose?
A: For documentation and booking ma'am.
Q: And then what else did you do at the police station?
A: I immediately contacted the witnesses ma'am.
Q: For what purpose did you contact the witness?
A: For marking of the recovered evidence ma'am.
Q: Do you mean to say that the markings were done at the police station already?
A: Yes ma'am.
Q: Why was it not done at the crime scene?
A: Because during that time ma'am it was nighttime and it was her area and we were likely to be threatened by her friends and relatives ma'am. 23
The absence of marking before PO2 Marinduque placed the plastic sachets in his pocket taints the integrity of these items. Marking serves to separate the marked evidence from other objects that may be recovered from the accused, more so in this case, to separate them from whatever items that PO2 Marinduque may be carrying in his pocket where he placed the items seized from Cagas. The time that elapsed from seizure to going to the police station presents a significant gap in the chain of custody, raising doubts as to whether the pieces of evidence presented in court the same as the pieces of sachet recovered from Cagas. The integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items thus becomes dubitable.
This Court also finds that the buy-bust team failed to follow the requirement on having the key witnesses present during the marking and inventory taking. The provision of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 as amended, is clear that the physical inventory of the seized items and the photographing of the same be done in the presence of the accused or his/her representative or counsel, with an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) or the media who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. It follows that the physical inventory must be witnessed by the individuals mentioned to comply with the requirement of the law. The logic for this is premised on the presumption that these witnesses are disinterested third parties insofar as the buy-bust operation is concerned. 24 Simply put, the law requires the presence of the witnesses primarily to obviate the claim of drug suspects that the law enforcers planted the evidence.
In the instant case, Kagawad Candido Kinikito (Kagawad Kinikito) was not at the actual buy-bust operation nor at the start of the inventory. He together with the representatives of the media and the NPS were merely summoned when the buy-bust team and Cagas were already at the police station. In the case of Kagawad Kinikito, he did not witness the marking and the inventory and was merely made to sign the prepared inventory. Kagawad Kinikito's testimony while on cross-examination is enlightening on the crucial procedural lapse committed by the buy-bust team. The pertinent portions of his testimony are reproduced below:
Q: Mister Witness, you arrived to witness the inventory at the Dumaguete City Police Station.
A: Yes.
Q: That was after the accused, was arrested, Mr. Witness
A: Yes.
Q: When you arrived at the Dumaguete City Police Station, the items were already prepared.
A: Yes.
Q: The entries in this inventory were already filled up.
A: Yes.
Q: And as far as you can remember the items were already marked.
A: Yes.
Q: So all you have to do was just to compare the items written in the inventory of property seized and the items that were allegedly placed on top of the table.
A: Yes.
Q: And in this picture which you have identified earlier, Mr. Witness, you could not clearly see what are these items.
A: Yes.
Q: In fact, you cannot even read the markings, Mr. Witness.
A: Yes.
Q: You have no other participation, Mr. Witness, aside from being a witness to the inventory.
A: Yes.
Q: And of course, Mr. Witness, you have no personal knowledge as to the incident which led to the arrest of the accused.
A: Yes. 25
Glaring is the fact that the inventory was already prepared before Kagawad Kinikito arrived at the police station. As such, it cannot be said that he witnessed the inventory of the seized items from Cagas. The purpose of the law in safeguarding the integrity and evidentiary value of the drugs will not be attained if the witnesses will only arrive after the inventory has already been finished. Precisely, they are called to witness the manner by which the safeguards required by law, are being fulfilled by the police officers. Their presence in the conduct of the inventory thus assumes greater significance.
As a last note, this Court reminds that law enforcers involved in anti-drug operations, whether it is to enforce a search warrant or a buy-bust operation, should secure the presence of the insulating witnesses from the actual operations up to the marking, inventory taking, and photographing of the seized drugs and related items. As We had stated in the past, this requirement can easily be complied with by the buy-bust team considering that the buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. 26 This is equally true for anti-drug operations armed with search warrants.
In sum, this Court is compelled to rule that the integrity and evidentiary value of the two sachets of shabu allegedly seized from Cagas, have been compromised. This Court is left with no other recourse but to acquit Cagas for the failure of the State to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision dated June 28, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 02548 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Christina Cagas y Gumon is acquitted for failure of the prosecution to prove her guilt beyond reasonable doubt. She is ordered immediately RELEASED from detention, unless she is confined for any other lawful cause.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General, Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City and the Superintendent, Correctional Institution for Women, Mandaluyong City, for immediate implementation. Furthermore, the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections and the Superintendent of the Correctional Institution for Women are both DIRECTED to report to this Court the action they have taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Penned by Associate Justice Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, with Associate Justice Edgardo L. Delos Santos (retired member of this Court) and Associate Justice Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap concurring; rollo, pp. 5-24.
2. CA rollo, pp. 8-18; penned by Judge Rafael Crescencio C. Tan, Jr.
3.Id. at 8.
4.Rollo, pp. 8-12.
5. CA rollo, p. 18.
6.Id.
7.Id.
8.Id.
9.Rollo, p. 23.
10.Id. at 25.
11.Id.
12.Id. at 39-40.
13.Id. at 44-45.
14. The full title is Guidelines on the Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 as Amended by Republic Act No. 10640, May 28, 2015.
15.People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21 (2017).
16.People v. Viterbo, et al., 739 Phil. 593 (2014).
17.People v. Mazo, G.R. No. 242273, November 23, 2020.
18.People v. Leaño, G.R. No. 246461, July 28, 2020.
19.People v. Ramos, G.R. No. 225325, August 28, 2019.
20.People v. Deliña, G.R. No. 243578, June 30, 2020.
21.Supra note 17.
22. 830 Phil. 385 (2018).
23. TSN, January 9, 2017.
24.People v. Luna, 828 Phil. 671, 689 (2018).
25. TSN, January 11, 2017.
26.People v. Reyes, G.R. No. 225736, October 15, 2018.