FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250933. December 2, 2021.]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,vs. ARNEL CANLAS y DELA CRUZ, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 2, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 250933 (People of the Philippines v. Arnel Canlas y Dela Cruz). — On May 28, 2016, the Anti-Illegal Drugs-Special Operation Task Unit of the Manila Police District, Raxabago-Tondo Police Station (PS-1) planned a buy-bust operation against Arnel Canlas (Canlas). After a series of surveillances, the authorities identified Canlas as one of the top ten drug personalities in the area. At the briefing, PO2 Carlo Anthony Casimiro (PO2 Casimiro) was designated as the poseur-buyer and was tasked to prepare the boodle money. 1 On even date, at around 3:00 p.m., the entrapment team went to Building 3, Permanent Housing, Barangay 128, Tondo, Manila. At the target area, PO2 Casimiro and the confidential informant proceeded to the second floor of the building to transact with Canlas, while the rest of the team positioned themselves at the ground floor. Thereafter, the informant approached Canlas and introduced PO2 Casimiro as a good buyer. PO2 Casimiro then uttered, "Kukuha ako limang daan, pa-score ng limang daan," to which Canlas replied "Meron." PO2 Casimiro gave the boodle money to Canlas, who, in turn, handed a coin pouch containing one (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. 2
PO2 Casimiro and the confidential informant went downstairs to inform the entrapment team that the sale had been consummated. The team rushed back to the second floor and arrested Canlas. They frisked Canlas and recovered from him six (6) more sachets containing a white crystalline substance. PO2 Casimiro placed the six sachets along with the boodle money in his right front pocket. At the crime scene, someone tried to grab Canlas away from the police officers. Thus, the operatives brought Canlas to the police station where they marked the evidence and conducted an inventory of the items in the presence of media representative Jon-Jon Reyes from People's Tonight. PO2 Casimiro turned over the confiscated items for the investigation to PO3 Jonathan Ubarre, who then handed it to PO1 Berly Apolonio (PO1 Apolonio) after the preparation of pertinent documents. 3 PO1 Apolonio brought the seven (7) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets to the laboratory for examination. Forensic Chemist PSI Jeffrey Reyes (PSI Reyes) personally received the evidence and performed a qualitative examination on the specimens, which yielded positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride known as shabu. 4 Accordingly, Canlas was charged with violation of Sections 5 and 11, Article II of Republic Act (RA) No. 9165 before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 16-325748 and 16-325749, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 16-325748
That on or about May 28, 2016, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not having been authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver, transport or distribute any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully[,] and knowingly sell or offer for sale to PO2 CARLO ANTHONY CASIMIRO, a police officer/poseur[-]buyer, Five Hundred Pesos (Php500.00) worth of ONE (1) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet with markings "ADCC" 5-28-16 containing ZERO POINT TWO HUNDRED FIFTY[-]THREE (0.253) gram of white crystalline substance which after qualitative examination gave positive result to the tests for methamphetamine hydrochloride, commonly known as "SHABU," a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law.
Criminal Case No. 16-325749
That on or about May 28, 2016, in the City of Manila, Philippines, the said accused, not being authorized by law to possess any dangerous drug, did then and there willfully, unlawfully[,] and knowingly have in his possession and under his custody and control six (6) heat-sealed transparent plastic sachets each containing [a] white crystalline substance with the following markings and recorded net weights:
"ACDCC-2" 5-28-16 = FIVE POINT SEVEN HUNDRED SIXTY[-]EIGHT (5.768) grams;
"ADCC-3" 5-28-16 = ZERO POINT ZERO EIGHTY[-]SIX (0.086) grams;
"ADCC-4" 5-28-16 = ZERO POINT ONE HUNDRED SEVEN (0.107) grams;
"ADCC-5" 5-28-16 = ZERO POINT ZERO NINETY (0.090) grams;
"ADCC-6" 5-28-16 = ZERO POINT ZERO FIFTY[-]ONE (0.051) grams;
"ADCC-7" 5-28-16 = ZERO POINT ZERO SIXTY[-]SIX (0.066) grams;
or with a total net weight of SIX POINT ONE HUNDRED SIXTY[-]EIGHT (6.168) grams, which after qualitative examination gave positive results to the tests for methamphetamine hydrochloride commonly known as "Shabu", a dangerous drug.
Contrary to law. 5
Canlas denied the accusation and claimed that on May 26, 2016, he was alone in his house indulging in liquor to celebrate his birthday when he heard a loud banging outside. After checking, Canlas saw the police officers kicking the door of his brother-in-law's house. Canlas uttered unsavory words against the police officers who then brought him to the precinct for interrogation. At the police station, the policemen asked Canlas about the whereabouts of his brother-in-law and his cousin, who were purportedly involved in drug activities. Yet, Canlas could not provide any information. Hence, PO2 Casimiro and PO1 Apolonio demanded P50,000.00 from Canlas, otherwise, they will fabricate a charge against him. 6 On May 28, 2016, Canlas together with five other persons were brought to a building in Balut, Tondo, Manila. The police officers ordered them to create a commotion to make it appear that there was an ongoing buy-bust operation. The media representative arrived and took pictures of the commotion. After the incident, all of them were incarcerated. 7
On October 10, 2017, the RTC convicted Canlas of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs. The RTC ruled that the prosecution established all the elements of the offenses as well as an unbroken chain of custody of the seized items, 8 thus:
WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered as follows:
In Criminal Case No. 16-325748, the Court finds accused ARNEL DE LA CRUZ CANLAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 5, Art. II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php500,000.00).
In Criminal Case No. 16-325749, the Court likewise finds accused ARNEL DE LA CRUZ CANLAS guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of Sec. 11 (2), Article II of RA 9165 and is hereby sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twelve (12) years and one (1) month, as minimum, to fourteen (14) years and eight (8) months as maximum, and to pay a fine of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php300,000.00).
The drugs subject matter of these cases is confiscated in favor of the Government, the same to be turned over to the proper government authority for disposal in accordance with the law and the rules.
SO ORDERED. 9
Canlas elevated the case to the Court of Appeals docketed as CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09966. On April 30, 2019, the CA affirmed the RTC's findings with modification of the penalty imposed for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, 10 thus:
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DISMISSED. The Decision dated 10 October 2017 of the Regional Trial Court of Manila Branch 42 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the accused-appellant ARNEL DELA CRUZ CANLAS is SENTENCED to suffer an indeterminate penalty of imprisonment of twenty (20) years and one (1) day, as minimum, to life imprisonment, as maximum, and a fine of Four Hundred Thousand ([Php]400,000.00) Pesos in Criminal Case No. 16-325749 for Violation of Section 11 (2) of [RA] No. 9165. The rest of the ruling in the assailed Decision STANDS.
SO ORDERED.
Hence, this recourse. Canlas maintains that he must be acquitted for the failure of the prosecution to prove the elements of illegal sale and possession of dangerous drugs and the chain of custody of the confiscated items.
We acquit.
In actions involving illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the following elements must concur: (1) proof that the transaction or sale took place and (2) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti or the illicit drug as evidence. On the other hand, in the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous drugs, it must be proven that (1) the accused was in possession of an item or an object identified to be a prohibited or regulated drug, (2) such possession is not authorized by law, and (3) the accused was freely and consciously aware of being in possession of the drug. 11 In both instances, the contraband itself constitutes the very corpus delicti of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a judgment of conviction. Thus, it is essential to ensure that the substance recovered from the accused is the same substance offered in court. 12 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 turnover of the seized item by the apprehending officer to the investigating officer; (3) the investigating officer's turnover of the specimen to the forensic chemist for examination; and, (4) the submission of the item by the forensic chemist to the court. 13 Here, the records reveal a broken chain of custody.
The starting point in the custodial link is the marking which is the placing by the arresting officer or the poseur-buyer of his/her initials and signature on the items after they have been seized. 14 The Court has held that the marking must be made immediately upon confiscation and in the presence of the apprehended violator, as succeeding handlers of the seized specimens will use such markings as reference. 15 Marking is the first in the chain of custody's interconnected links; hence, the failure of the authorities to immediately mark the seized drugs would cast reasonable doubt on the authenticity of the corpus delicti. 16 The Court emphasized the importance of the immediate marking upon confiscation of the seized items in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value, as well as the rationale therefor, thus:
The importance of the prompt marking cannot be denied, because succeeding handlers of dangerous drugs or related items will use the marking as reference. Also, the marking operates to set apart as evidence the dangerous drugs or related items from other material from the moment they are confiscated until they are disposed of at the close of the criminal proceedings, thereby forestalling switching, planting[,] or contamination of evidence. In short, the marking immediately upon confiscation or recovery of the dangerous drugs or related items is indispensable in the preservation of their integrity and evidentiary value.17 (Emphases supplied.)
In this case, the arresting team did not mark the sachets immediately after the seizure at the place of confiscation. Instead, the marking was deferred to a later time at the police station. The buy-bust team decided to undertake the marking, inventory, and photograph of the contrabands at the police station due to a person who allegedly tried to snatch Canlas away from the police officers. Nonetheless, it was not established that such circumstance posed a serious danger or made it impossible for the buy-bust team to mark the items at the crime scene. At most, the police officers within the perimeter could have easily subdued the person who tried to disrupt the operation. On this point, the Court reiterates that the procedures on the required marking can easily be complied with considering that a buy-bust operation is, by its nature, a planned activity. The police officers are ordinarily given sufficient time — beginning from the moment they have received the information about the activities of the accused until the time of his arrest — to make the necessary arrangements. 18
Moreover, the absence of the required witnesses during the physical inventory and photograph of the confiscated items puts serious doubt as to the integrity of the first link. 19 Notably, the offense was allegedly committed on May 28, 2016. Hence, the applicable law is RA No. 9165, as amended by RA No. 10640, which now mandated that the conduct of physical inventory and photograph of the seized item must be in the presence of (1) the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, (2) with an elected public official, and (3) a representative of the National Prosecution Service or the media who shall sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof. The Court had ruled that in case the presence of any or all the insulating witnesses was not obtained, the prosecution must allege and prove not only the reasons for their absence but also the fact that earnest efforts were made to secure their attendance. A sheer statement that representatives were unavailable without so much as an explanation on whether serious attempts were employed to look for other representatives, given the circumstances is to be regarded as a flimsy excuse. 20 Admittedly, only a media representative witnessed the inventory and photograph of the evidence. The police officers did not secure the presence of an elected public official without citing reasons or explaining that it exerted genuine efforts to secure the presence of such a witness.
It is equally important that officers who come into possession of seized drugs must show how they handled and preserved the integrity of the seized drugs while in their custody. 21 Quite the contrary, PO2 Casimiro failed to account for how the seized contrabands were safeguarded in his custody while in transit at the police station. PO2 Casimiro narrated in open court how he kept the six sachets of drugs along with the boodle money in his right front pocket. In People v. Dela Cruz, 22 the Court emphasized that an officer's act of personally and bodily keeping allegedly seized items, without any clear indication of safeguards other than his or her mere possession, has been viewed as prejudicial to the integrity of the items. The act of a police officer in keeping one of the seized items in his right pocket and the rest in his left pocket is a doubtful and suspicious way of ensuring the integrity of the items. As in this case, the bare assertion that PO2 Casimiro had possession of the items in his right front pocket, without describing the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity to commingle it with other evidence or for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same constitutes a broken and unreliable chain of custody.
Worse, the defective stipulation with respect to the testimony of the forensic chemist contributed to the glaring gap in the chain of custody. In People v. Cabuhay, 23 the Court held that the parties' stipulation to dispense with the testimony of the forensic chemist should include the following: (1) that the forensic chemist received the seized article as marked, properly sealed, and intact; (2) that he resealed it after examination of the content; and (3) that he placed his own marking on the same to ensure that it could not be tampered with the pending trial. In this case, however, the prosecution and the defense merely stipulated on (a) the qualification and expertise of the forensic chemist; (b) that he was the one who personally received the request for laboratory examination and the seized evidence from PO1 Apolonio; (c) that he can identify the subject evidence; (d) he has no personal knowledge of the arrest or the circumstances that led to the arrest of Canlas; (e) he had no knowledge of the ultimate source of the specimen; and (f) he only conducted a qualitative examination on the specimen. 24 Evidently, the stipulation lacks vital pieces of information as to the condition of the seized items when PSI Reyes received the same from PO1 Apolonio, that he resealed the drug items after examination of the content, and placed his own marking on the sealed drug item to avoid tampering. Without testimonial evidence to account for the management, storage, and preservation of the seized drugs prior to and after the qualitative examination, the remaining link in the chain of custody is similarly broken.
Lastly, it must be stressed that while the law enforcers enjoy the presumption of regularity in the performance of their duties, this presumption cannot prevail over the constitutional right of the accused to be presumed innocent. The presumption of regularity is disputable and cannot be regarded as binding truth. 25 Indeed, when the performance of duty is tainted with irregularities, such presumption is effectively destroyed. 26 We reiterate that the provisions of Section 21 of RA No. 9165 embody the constitutional aim to prevent the imprisonment of an innocent man. The Court cannot tolerate the lax approach of law enforcers in handling the very corpus delicti of the crime. Hence, the accused-appellant must be acquitted of the charges against him given the prosecution's failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody.
FOR THESE REASONS, the appeal is GRANTED. The Court of Appeals' Decision dated April 30, 2019 in CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 09966 is REVERSED. Accused-appellant Arnel Canlas y Dela Cruz is ACQUITTED in Criminal Case Nos. 16-325748 and 16-325749, and is ORDERED IMMEDIATELY RELEASED from detention unless he is being lawfully held for another cause. Let entry of judgment be issued immediately.
Let a copy of this Resolution be furnished to the Director General of the Bureau of Corrections, Muntinlupa City for immediate implementation. The Director General is directed to report to this Court the action taken within five (5) days from receipt of this Resolution.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. The boodle money is a P500.00 bill with serial number "ZN189642." CA rollo, p. 62.
2.Id. at 42.
3.Id.
4. Chemistry Report No. D-485-16.
5. CA rollo, pp. 61-62.
6.Id. at 43-44.
7.Id. at 44.
8.Id. at 61-72. Penned by Presiding Judge Dinnah C. Aguila-Topacio.
9.Id. at 71.
10.Rollo, pp. 3-16. Penned by Associate Justice Jane Aurora C. Lantion, with the concurrence of Associate Justices Maria Elisa Sempio Diy and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon.
11.People v. Sultan, G.R. No. 225210, August 7, 2019; citing People v. Que, 824 Phil. 882, 893 (2018).
12.People v. Padua, G.R. No. 244287, June 15, 2020.
13.People v. Bugtong, 826 Phil. 628, 638-639 (2018).
14.People v. Paz, G.R. No. 233466, August 7, 2019.
15.People v. Sabdula, 733 Phil. 85, 96 (2014); People v. Lumaya, 827 Phil. 473, 491 (2018); People v. Ismael, 806 Phil. 21, 31 (2017).
16.People v. Dahil, 750 Phil. 212, 232 (2014).
17.People v. Lumaya, supra note 15 at 489-490.
18.People v. Manabat, G.R. No. 242947, July 17, 2019.
19.People v. Crisostomo, G.R. No. 252488, May 12, 2021; and People v. Escaran, G.R. No. 212170, June 19, 2019.
20.People v. Lim, G.R. No. 231989, September 4, 2018.
21.Mallillin v. People, 576 Phil. 576, 586-587 (2008).
22. 744 Phil. 816, 834-835 (2014).
23. 836 Phil. 903, 918 (2018).
24. CA rollo, p. 64.
25.People v. Cañete, 433 Phil. 781, 794 (2002); and Mallillin v. People, supra note 21 at 593.
26.People v. Dela Cruz, 589 Phil. 259, 272 (2008).