SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 247601. December 6, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs.ALFREDO CAMPOS, JR. y PANGANIBAN, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated06 December 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 247601 (People of the Philippines v. Alfredo Campos, Jr. y Panganiban). — This is an Appeal 1 assailing the Decision 2 dated June 27, 2018 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08734 which affirmed the Judgment 3 dated September 7, 2016 of Branch 31, Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Pedro City, Laguna in Criminal Case No. 12-8646-SPL. The RTC found Alfredo Campos, Jr. y Panganiban (accused-appellant) guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, 4 Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165, 5 otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," as amended.
The Antecedents
The instant case stemmed from an Information 6 charging accused-appellant with violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165, the accusatory portion of which states:
That on or about October 29, 2012 in the Municipality of San Pedro, Province of Laguna, Philippines and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court[,] accused ALFREDO CAMPOS JR. y PANGANIBAN @ JUN without any legal authority did then and there willfully, unlawfully and feloniously have in his possession control and custody Methamphetamine Hydrochloride (SHABU)[,] a dangerous drug, placed in three small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets, with a total weight of six point zero one (6.01) grams.
CONTRARY TO LAW. 7
When arraigned, accused-appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge. 8
Trial ensued.
Version of the Prosecution
The prosecution established that at midnight on October 29, 2012, members of the Intelligence Section of San Pedro Police Station went to the house of a certain Jun Campos (later identified as herein accused-appellant) to implement a search warrant for possession of illegal drugs. 9 During the search in the presence of accused-appellant, his wife, and barangay officials, the police officers saw a black leather case on top of the TV set. 10 When PO2 Mytor Narido Santos (PO2 Santos) opened the leather case, he found three small plastic sachets containing suspected shabu. Immediately, PO2 Santos marked the three small plastic sachets and the leather case with his initials. 11 At the second floor of the house, the police officers found a .38 caliber firearm with live ammunition. Thereafter, the police officers conducted an inventory and took photographs of the seized items in the presence of Barangay Kagawad Gerald Amion (Kagawad Amion). 12 Afterwards, the police officers arrested accused-appellant and brought him to the police station. CAIHTE
The police officers brought the three small plastic sachets containing a total of 6.01 grams 13 of suspected shabu to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory. After the laboratory examination, the forensic chemist found the contents of the seized plastic sachets positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a dangerous drug. 14
Version of the Defense
In defense, accused-appellant denied possession of the subject illegal drugs. According to him, on October 29, 2012, at around 11:00 p.m., the police officers arrived at their house with a search warrant. The police officers told him and his wife to go outside. 15 At that moment, his wife noticed one of the police officers holding an item before the start of the search. After a few minutes, the police officers announced that they recovered illegal items. The police officer then simultaneously placed three plastic sachets containing suspected shabu and a gun on the table inside the house. 16 Accused-appellant admitted owning the gun but denied possessing the three plastic sachets of suspected shabu. Afterwards, the police officers arrested and brought him to the police station. 17
The RTC Ruling
In the Judgment dated September 7, 2016, 18 the RTC found accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt for violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. It sentenced accused-appellant to suffer the penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day to life imprisonment, plus a fine in the amount of P400,000.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. 19
The RTC ruled that the prosecution proved all the elements of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. It gave weight and credence to the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.
Undaunted, accused-appellant filed an appeal.
The CA Ruling
In the assailed Decision, 20 the CA affirmed in toto the RTC Judgment. 21
Hence, the instant appeal.
Issue
Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's decision finding accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 (illegal possession of dangerous drugs).
The Court's Ruling
The appeal is meritorious.
In criminal cases, the Constitution 22 guarantees that an accused is presumed innocent until his guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt. 23 This guilt must be founded on the strength of the prosecution's evidence, not on the weakness of the defense. 24
To successfully prosecute a case of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs, the following elements must be established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or object which is identified to be a prohibited drug; (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed the drug. 25
In cases of Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs under RA 9165, it is essential that the identity of the dangerous drug be established with moral certainty, considering that the dangerous drug itself forms an integral part of the corpus delicti of the crime. 26 The failure of the prosecution to prove the integrity of the corpus delicti renders the evidence for the State insufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, warranting an acquittal. 27 Thus, the prosecution must be able to account for each link in the chain of custody over the dangerous drug/paraphernalia from the moment of seizure up to its presentation in court. 28
Section 21 of RA 9165 stresses the mandatory requirement of the chain of custody in handling the seized 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;
(2) Within twenty-four (24) hours upon confiscation/seizure of dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment, the same shall be submitted to the PDEA Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory examination results, which shall be done under oath by the forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued within twenty-four (24) hours after the receipt of the subject item/s: Provided, That when the volume of the dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the completion of testing within the time frame, a partial laboratory examination report shall be provisionally issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory: Provided, however, That a final certification shall be issued on the completed forensic laboratory examination on the same within the next twenty-four (24) hours;
xxx xxx xxx.
On August 7, 2014, RA 10640 29 became effective amending RA 9165 as follows: DETACa
Section 1. Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002," is hereby amended to read as follows:
"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 person/s 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.
"xxx xxx xxx
In Tumabini v. People, 30(Tumabini) the Court emphasized that Section 21 of RA 9165 is applicable whether the drugs were seized in a buy-bust operation or by virtue of a search warrant. It explained:
A plain reading of the law shows that it applies as long as there has been a seizure and confiscation of drugs. There is nothing in the statutory provision which states that it is only applicable when there is a warrantless seizure in a buy-bust operation. Thus, it should be applied in every situation when an apprehending team seizes and confiscates drugs from an accused, whether through a buy-bust operation or through a search warrant.
In order to secure a conviction in drug cases, the following links must be established to comply with the chain of custody rule: (1) the seizure and marking, if practicable, of the illegal drug recovered from the accused by the apprehending officers; (2) the turnover of the illegal drug seized 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 illegal drug from the forensic chemist to the court. 31
In the case, the prosecution failed to adduce evidence that the arresting officers properly marked and inventoried the seized items as required under Section 21 of RA 9165. Likewise, there is no evidence that the seized items were presented to the investigating officer for investigation and verification. From these missing links in the chain of custody alone, the accused-appellant's acquittal is in order.
The law further requires that the inventory and photographing be done in the presence of the accused or the person from whom the items were seized, or his/her representative or counsel, as well as certain required witnesses, namely: (a) if prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, 32 a representative each from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official; or (b) if after the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640, an elected public official and a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media. 33
In the instant case, the illegal drugs were allegedly found in accused-appellant's house in 2012, or prior to the amendment of RA 9165 by RA 10640 on August 7, 2014. Thus, the operation is covered by the three-witness rule under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. aDSIHc
Records show that the police officers failed to strictly comply with the three-witness rule. Specifically, no representatives from the media and DOJ were present during the alleged inventory and photographing of the seized items. From this fact alone, the police officers already deviated from the requirements outlined under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165, thereby rebutting the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties. There is already a significant break in the very first link in the chain of custody which exposed the seized drug/paraphernalia to the possibility of planting, switching, and tampering.
While as a rule, strict compliance with the foregoing requirements is mandatory, a deviation may be allowed only if the prosecution discharges its burden of justifying the police officers' non-compliance 34 based on the following requisites that must concur: (1) the existence of "justifiable grounds" allowing departure from the rule on strict compliance and (2) the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items being properly preserved by the apprehending team. 35 Moreover, the police officers must also convince the Court that they exerted earnest efforts to comply with the mandated procedure, and that under the given circumstance, their actions were reasonable. 36
In People v. Santos, 37 the Court held that mere statements of unavailability, absent actual serious attempts to contact the required witnesses, are unacceptable as "justifiable grounds" for non-compliance.
A judicious scrutiny of the instant case reveals that the police officers failed to exert earnest efforts to comply with the witness requirement under Section 21, Article II of RA 9165. To recall, the discovery of the alleged illegal drugs in accused-appellant's house was by virtue of a search warrant. Obviously, prior to the exact date of operation, the police officers underwent the process of applying for a search warrant before the issuing judge. Simply stated, the police officers had sufficient time from the application to the implementation of the search warrant to plan for the entire operation. Still, despite having considerable time to do so, the police officers failed to secure the attendance of representatives from the DOJ and the media to witness the inventory and photographing of the seized items as required by law. Moreover, the prosecution failed to make any justification for such failure.
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision dated June 27, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 08734 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Accused-appellant Alfredo Campos, Jr. y Panganiban is hereby ACQUITTED.
The Director of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City is ORDERED to: (a) immediately release accused-appellant Alfredo Campus, Jr. y Panganiban from custody unless he is being held for some other lawful cause; and (b) submit his report on the action taken within five (5) days from notice.
Copies of this Resolution must be furnished the Chief of the Philippine National Police and the Director General of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency for their information.
Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
SO ORDERED." (GAERLAN, J., and DIMAAMPAO, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. See Notice of Appeal dated July 17, 2018; CA rollo, pp. 121-122.
2.Rollo, pp. 3-16; penned by Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, with Associate Justices Priscilla J. Baltazar-Padilla and Germano Francisco D. Legaspi, concurring.
3.Id. at 49-55; penned by Judge Sonia T. Yu-Casano.
4. SEC. 11. Possession of Dangerous Drugs. — The penalty of life imprisonment to death and a fine ranging from Five hundred thousand pesos (P500,000.00) to Ten million pesos (P10,000,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall possess any dangerous drug in the following quantities, regardless of the degree of purity thereof:
xxx xxx xxx.
5. An Act Instituting the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, Repealing Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as Amended Providing Funds Therefor, and for other Purposes, approved on June 7, 2002.
6. As culled from the CA Decision, rollo, p. 4.
7. As culled from the CA Decision, id.
8.Id.
9.Id. at 4-5.
10.Id.
11.Id.
12.Id.
13. See Information, as culled from the CA Decision; id. at 4.
14.Id. at 5.
15.Id. at 6.
16.Id. at 6-7.
17.Id. at 7.
18. CA rollo, pp. 49-55.
19.Id. at 55.
20.Rollo, pp. 3-16.
21.Id. at 15.
22. Article III, Section 14 (2) of the 1987 Constitution.
23. See Constantino v. People, G.R. No. 225696, April 8, 2019.
24.Id.
25.People v. Punzalan, 773 Phil. 72 (2015), citing People v. Lagahit, 746 Phil. 896 (2014).
26.Duarte v. People, G.R. No. 238971, August 28, 2019.
27.Grefaldo v. People, G.R. No. 246362, November 11, 2019.
28.People v. Rivera, G.R. No. 252886, March 15, 2021.
29. An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,' approved: July 15, 2014.
30. G.R. 224495, February 19, 2020.
31.People v. Gayoso, 808 Phil. 19, 31 (2017); People v. Sipin, 833 Phil. 67, 81 (2018).
32. "An Act to Further Strengthen the Anti-Drug Campaign of the Government Amending for the Purpose Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165, Otherwise Known as the 'Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.'" Approved: July 15, 2014.
33.Sayson v. People, G.R. No. 249289 (Resolution), September 28, 2020. See also People v. Alconde, G.R. No. 238117, February 4, 2019.
34.People v. Addin, G.R. No. 223682, October 9, 2019.
35.Dizon v. People, G.R. No. 239399, March 25, 2019.
36.Ramos v. People, G.R. No. 233572, July 30, 2018.
37. G.R. No. 243627, November 27, 2019; cited in Sayson v. People, supra note 32.